How much energy will be required for the taxpayers to earn the money necessary to pay for it?
Excellent point. Energy accounting is tricky business. Just adding up the energy saved in the government datacenters doesn't account for the energy *used* by all the contractors and employees brought in to realize those savings.
It's too bad that the federal government has abandoned the dollar as a universal measure of scarcity, otherwise we could simply say that cheaper == more efficient.
You want the real answer? Because you are worth more to the banks as an energy consumer than as an energy producer. So the Federal Reserve will print dollars and give them to the banks in order to invest in energy technologies until they are too expensive for you to afford.
'We have shown the optical absorption efficiency and charge carrier collection efficiency of a silicon wire array cell is comparable to a conventional silicon cell, but a wire array cell uses up to 100 times less silicon due to enhanced light-trapping effects,' says Atwater. Significantly, the wire arrays absorb infrared light more efficiently that conventional silicon surfaces, further improving the performance of the new device.
So the gist is that it's more efficient because it converts infrared, uses some type of clear polymer with alumina "reflector particles" in place of 99% of the expensive (doped) silicon, and is flexible and therefore easier to manufacture.
If you (or an authority) are able to decide what resource usage is appropriate and acceptable, then you have brought coercion, force and of course the police into the fray.
It's not police or coercion. It's simple physics.
1) Recycle every bit of matter on Earth 2) Consume energy at a rate not greater than the rate at which it falls from the skies 3) Have no more children than are necessary for replacement.
It doesn't matter whether you want to talk about "on average" or "per capita". But that's the limit.
Do anything more (or less) than that, and you are the one who has brought force into the fray, by loading a giant death-trap for future generations.
If future generations run out of energy because you wanted to drive a Hummer, people will die. If future generations run out of cement because you wanted to dump it into the ocean, people will die. If future generations run out of copper because you wanted to throw it into landfills, people will die. If future generations run out of arable land because you wanted to have six children, people will die. If future living standards plunge because you wanted to consume resources irresponsibly, people will die.
The vast majority of people in the West believe in population reduction. They use condoms and birth control and have two or fewer kids each. There is nothing inconsistent about their position. Stop propagating ignorant slander.
Platinum is already extremely expensive. The technology to mine it in space mostly already exists, at least on the large scale. I'm not of the opinion that space will be an economical venture any time soon. Not before we have a real revolution in energy production, or it becomes really feasible for a small group of entrepreneurs to send some really damn good robots off-planet.
reading a tech manual is equivalent to reading Latin.
Tech manuals are frequently wrong. Believe me, I've written tech manuals and read Latin. Latin is nothing compared to some tech manuals.
I ran across one just a few weeks ago. The latest Panasonic televisions run embedded Linux, and connect to the internet to download programming information. They have an ethernet jack. The tech manual calls this a "PC Connection". It says that, in order to use a wireless network, you need a "Wireless Repeater".
The logistics involve identifying capable leaders and promising future rewards, the same way it has been done since ancient times. This is made immensely easier when a ready group of uneducated, untrained, resource-poor citizens have already been created specifically for the task.(1)
It used some special Union Carbide pellets, pressure and high heat to chemically strip the water from the alcohol molecules
Google seems to indicate that the "special pellets" you refer to were probably silicalite. This is not a "chemical" process per se, since an ethanol mash is a solution of mostly ethanol in water. The molecules are not chemically bound. The pellets undergo a physical process to selectively adsorb ethanol within their molecular structure, leaving the water behind. When the water is drained, the ethanol can be evaporated out of the pellets at very high concentrations. This process would be more efficient than a typical distillation plant, since only the ethanol would need to be heated, and could be accomplished with fewer stages.
No, it doesn't, otherwise every single state on the planet is totalitarian (hint: eminent domain).
Ostensibly the United States, and any republican government, is restricted from exercising eminent domain without providing "just compensation". In practice of course this is not always the case.
supermajority overruling minority exists in every democratic state, no exceptions
You fail to distinguish between democratic control over public assets, as in any democratic republic, and democratic seizure of private property or democratic enslavement of minorities, both legitimately forms of tyranny.
in democratic socialism, everyone has equal amount of shares. I hope it's obvious how it makes all the difference...
Yeah, the difference is that one is voluntary and the other is not. One enables individuals to expropriate the wealth and labor of others through reproduction and government force, while the other does not. Capitalism promotes responsible resource consumption, while socialism promotes overpopulation, resource exhaustion and societal collapse.
The only other option is when minority dictates to the majority
There are lots of options. Just because you can't fathom the option wherein no one dictates to anyone else doesn't mean it's "utopian".
Right, so the solution is not to have a billion-dollar asset, but to have ten thousand $100,000 assets. Then the 'terrorist' will be more likely to simply spend his $100,000 purchasing one of your assets for himself rather than attacking it.
Modern 'terrorism' is simply the application of technology as a response to economic disparity and abuse of the worse-off. The way to end it is to apply technology that ends that disparity and ends that abuse.
Investing in technology that maintains and amplifies disparity and abuse will simply prolong terrorism without addressing the root cause.
If you think those claims aren't credible, you have no idea how the US works.
Any functional state basically comprises two things: regulation of natural resource extraction, and regulation of reproduction. This is the definition of a 'state': it's a static arrangement of successive generations of people living their lives and making technological improvements that lead to progress, without runaway overpopulation or resource consumption that would lead to collapse. The 'governor' is the person responsible for governing the rate of resource consumption.
The United States, however, is not a state. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be a limited federation of other, sustainable states.
Unfortunately, the US tries very hard to act like a state. It grants citizenship widely, expropriates natural resources on a global scale, distributes entitlements, and claims jurisdiction over citizens regardless of locale. The few, convoluted methods of regulation that it enacts are so hopelessly ineffectual that we would be better off without them. It has no real way of regulating resource extraction, save a few environmental measures. Consequently, it doesn't. Most of it's 'citizens' don't even live in cities, let alone D.C. Population growth is not really regulated at all, rather encouraged.
Why is this? Well, in a resourceless 'state' like the US, the most effective way to gain the resources necessary to maintain the population is by force. This requires a large army of excess population in order to send adventuring. This arrangement is actually an aftershock of the Civil War, when excess populations in the North found themselves without the means to support their needs with the secession of Southern states. After the war, these were added to freed slave populations in order to constitute the current group of people dependent on US government force for their livelihoods: nearly half of the US population. These generations come in regular waves, maintained and accentuated by regular resource wars planned well ahead of time. During wartime, there is a paucity of reproduction, followed by a 'boom' after the war, planting the seed for the next generation's war.
This is the basic method of regulating population: endless war. It can't really be called 'regulation', though, since it requires a generation with excess population to begin with, in order to secure the resources necessary to maintain the current generation. And this process creates a new generation of excess population as a result. It's more of an 'investment' in the future: investing in a new generation able to execute the future wars necessary to expropriate resources for maintenance of the society, the resourceless 'state'. Successful wars bring a reduction of population, an increase in resources, and prosperity. Failed wars waste resources with no return, save injured soldiers in need of support who are stiffed their bonuses and greeted with homelessness.
Of course, the future generation doesn't tend to like this arrangement. So it necessitates some nasty undemocratic things like drafts and false-flag operations and oppressive taxes in order to perpetrate.
The one thing the US has gained a very tight grip over, is the money economy. Drafts are no longer necessary if a young person's options are to either fight or starve. Population can be regulated this way as well, though it is extremely crude. US 'bonds' are sold as the vehicle of investment in the next generation of war. Bondage of the excess population of the next generation is a direct investment in government force. This is the primary means of regulation for the US, given it's inherent limitations.
Now, how does this lead to a fascist coup? What was it that Roosevelt did to upset this arrangement, and cause him to be targeted? He campaigned on promises not to engage in needless warfare (as most politicians do). He inflated the currency, destroying the value of government 'bonds'. He redistributed wealth from the older genera
Fractional property ownership is not equivalent to shares of public companies
Socialism and fractional property ownership is exactly like one big public company that everyone is forced to buy into. The only practical difference is that it's slightly more difficult to destroy real property than it is a public company.
They would, of course, but only when supermajority agrees to do so.
A "supermajority" that expropriates the property of the minority qualifies as totalitarianism, you know.
Yeah, I've heard of shares. Have you heard of Lehman Brothers, Worldcom, GM, or any dozens of other examples of fractional property ownership that ended in failure? You want to do that to the entire economy? Or would you rather posit the quaint notion that, in your ideal socialist economy, no one would have the right to destroy the means of production?
Ownership of a thing includes the right to destroy that thing. Eliminating private property and collectivizing the means of production makes everyone dependent upon those means for survival. Destroying the means of production would destroy the lives of everyone in the society. Collectivizing ownership of the means of production, and the right to destroy those means, gives each individual the right to destroy the entire society.
This guy is completely worthless. The caller mostly understood what she was doing. It's not "illegal" as he claims. It's not really even as "risky" as he claims. She even mentions firewalling her systems after he claimed that evil hackers had access to all of her files.
He's pushing DSL service from one of his sponsors. He accuses the caller of "stealing" and "wire fraud" and then admits to doing the exact same thing. Personally I think he should be prosecuted, if he really believes that he's committed such a serious crime.
the more 'professional' a service is, in general the more controlled it is.
Once again you blather about something of which you have no clue.
The other 'professions' that are regulated are done so solely due to their impact on public health: plumbers, doctors, electricians, even hairdressers. If you install a septic tank that's too small, people can get sick. If you incorrectly ground an appliance, people can die. If you cut hair without cleaning your equipment, diseases can spread. (I'm not kidding, this is the reason)
If you work as a plumber for industry, you aren't regulated. If you work as an electrician in industry, you aren't regulated. In most states, if you do plumbing or electrical work on your own house, you aren't regulated. Only when you offer services to the public that potentially could cause them harm are you required to be licensed and regulated.
So, no, regulation has nothing to do with how 'professional' you are but with your ability to directly impact human health. The most 'professional' profession of all, college professors, are completely unregulated.
No. It will come from the same place the last Microsoft came from: Harvard. Because only the already-wealthy have the means to jump through the ridiculous hoops set up by the American Corporatocracy in order to destroy the last shreds of merit-based social mobility in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
enterprise equipment in large data centers
Large datacenters don't use "enterprise" equipment. That bullshit is only sold to small datacenters that don't know what they're doing.
How much energy will be required for the taxpayers to earn the money necessary to pay for it?
Excellent point. Energy accounting is tricky business. Just adding up the energy saved in the government datacenters doesn't account for the energy *used* by all the contractors and employees brought in to realize those savings.
It's too bad that the federal government has abandoned the dollar as a universal measure of scarcity, otherwise we could simply say that cheaper == more efficient.
Why can't solar power be the same way?
You want the real answer? Because you are worth more to the banks as an energy consumer than as an energy producer. So the Federal Reserve will print dollars and give them to the banks in order to invest in energy technologies until they are too expensive for you to afford.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2010/February/14021001.asp
'We have shown the optical absorption efficiency and charge carrier collection efficiency of a silicon wire array cell is comparable to a conventional silicon cell, but a wire array cell uses up to 100 times less silicon due to enhanced light-trapping effects,' says Atwater. Significantly, the wire arrays absorb infrared light more efficiently that conventional silicon surfaces, further improving the performance of the new device.
So the gist is that it's more efficient because it converts infrared, uses some type of clear polymer with alumina "reflector particles" in place of 99% of the expensive (doped) silicon, and is flexible and therefore easier to manufacture.
If you (or an authority) are able to decide what resource usage is appropriate and acceptable, then you have brought coercion, force and of course the police into the fray.
It's not police or coercion. It's simple physics.
1) Recycle every bit of matter on Earth
2) Consume energy at a rate not greater than the rate at which it falls from the skies
3) Have no more children than are necessary for replacement.
It doesn't matter whether you want to talk about "on average" or "per capita". But that's the limit.
Do anything more (or less) than that, and you are the one who has brought force into the fray, by loading a giant death-trap for future generations.
If future generations run out of energy because you wanted to drive a Hummer, people will die. If future generations run out of cement because you wanted to dump it into the ocean, people will die. If future generations run out of copper because you wanted to throw it into landfills, people will die. If future generations run out of arable land because you wanted to have six children, people will die. If future living standards plunge because you wanted to consume resources irresponsibly, people will die.
Those are simple facts. Deal with them.
The vast majority of people in the West believe in population reduction. They use condoms and birth control and have two or fewer kids each. There is nothing inconsistent about their position. Stop propagating ignorant slander.
Platinum is already extremely expensive. The technology to mine it in space mostly already exists, at least on the large scale. I'm not of the opinion that space will be an economical venture any time soon. Not before we have a real revolution in energy production, or it becomes really feasible for a small group of entrepreneurs to send some really damn good robots off-planet.
reading a tech manual is equivalent to reading Latin.
Tech manuals are frequently wrong. Believe me, I've written tech manuals and read Latin. Latin is nothing compared to some tech manuals.
I ran across one just a few weeks ago. The latest Panasonic televisions run embedded Linux, and connect to the internet to download programming information. They have an ethernet jack. The tech manual calls this a "PC Connection". It says that, in order to use a wireless network, you need a "Wireless Repeater".
The logistics involve identifying capable leaders and promising future rewards, the same way it has been done since ancient times. This is made immensely easier when a ready group of uneducated, untrained, resource-poor citizens have already been created specifically for the task.(1)
(1) See diatribe above.
It used some special Union Carbide pellets, pressure and high heat to chemically strip the water from the alcohol molecules
Google seems to indicate that the "special pellets" you refer to were probably silicalite. This is not a "chemical" process per se, since an ethanol mash is a solution of mostly ethanol in water. The molecules are not chemically bound. The pellets undergo a physical process to selectively adsorb ethanol within their molecular structure, leaving the water behind. When the water is drained, the ethanol can be evaporated out of the pellets at very high concentrations. This process would be more efficient than a typical distillation plant, since only the ethanol would need to be heated, and could be accomplished with fewer stages.
No, it doesn't, otherwise every single state on the planet is totalitarian (hint: eminent domain).
Ostensibly the United States, and any republican government, is restricted from exercising eminent domain without providing "just compensation". In practice of course this is not always the case.
supermajority overruling minority exists in every democratic state, no exceptions
You fail to distinguish between democratic control over public assets, as in any democratic republic, and democratic seizure of private property or democratic enslavement of minorities, both legitimately forms of tyranny.
in democratic socialism, everyone has equal amount of shares. I hope it's obvious how it makes all the difference...
Yeah, the difference is that one is voluntary and the other is not. One enables individuals to expropriate the wealth and labor of others through reproduction and government force, while the other does not. Capitalism promotes responsible resource consumption, while socialism promotes overpopulation, resource exhaustion and societal collapse.
The only other option is when minority dictates to the majority
There are lots of options. Just because you can't fathom the option wherein no one dictates to anyone else doesn't mean it's "utopian".
Right, so the solution is not to have a billion-dollar asset, but to have ten thousand $100,000 assets. Then the 'terrorist' will be more likely to simply spend his $100,000 purchasing one of your assets for himself rather than attacking it.
Modern 'terrorism' is simply the application of technology as a response to economic disparity and abuse of the worse-off. The way to end it is to apply technology that ends that disparity and ends that abuse.
Investing in technology that maintains and amplifies disparity and abuse will simply prolong terrorism without addressing the root cause.
If you think those claims aren't credible, you have no idea how the US works.
Any functional state basically comprises two things: regulation of natural resource extraction, and regulation of reproduction. This is the definition of a 'state': it's a static arrangement of successive generations of people living their lives and making technological improvements that lead to progress, without runaway overpopulation or resource consumption that would lead to collapse. The 'governor' is the person responsible for governing the rate of resource consumption.
The United States, however, is not a state. It was never intended to be. It was intended to be a limited federation of other, sustainable states.
Unfortunately, the US tries very hard to act like a state. It grants citizenship widely, expropriates natural resources on a global scale, distributes entitlements, and claims jurisdiction over citizens regardless of locale. The few, convoluted methods of regulation that it enacts are so hopelessly ineffectual that we would be better off without them. It has no real way of regulating resource extraction, save a few environmental measures. Consequently, it doesn't. Most of it's 'citizens' don't even live in cities, let alone D.C. Population growth is not really regulated at all, rather encouraged.
Why is this? Well, in a resourceless 'state' like the US, the most effective way to gain the resources necessary to maintain the population is by force. This requires a large army of excess population in order to send adventuring. This arrangement is actually an aftershock of the Civil War, when excess populations in the North found themselves without the means to support their needs with the secession of Southern states. After the war, these were added to freed slave populations in order to constitute the current group of people dependent on US government force for their livelihoods: nearly half of the US population. These generations come in regular waves, maintained and accentuated by regular resource wars planned well ahead of time. During wartime, there is a paucity of reproduction, followed by a 'boom' after the war, planting the seed for the next generation's war.
This is the basic method of regulating population: endless war. It can't really be called 'regulation', though, since it requires a generation with excess population to begin with, in order to secure the resources necessary to maintain the current generation. And this process creates a new generation of excess population as a result. It's more of an 'investment' in the future: investing in a new generation able to execute the future wars necessary to expropriate resources for maintenance of the society, the resourceless 'state'. Successful wars bring a reduction of population, an increase in resources, and prosperity. Failed wars waste resources with no return, save injured soldiers in need of support who are stiffed their bonuses and greeted with homelessness.
Of course, the future generation doesn't tend to like this arrangement. So it necessitates some nasty undemocratic things like drafts and false-flag operations and oppressive taxes in order to perpetrate.
The one thing the US has gained a very tight grip over, is the money economy. Drafts are no longer necessary if a young person's options are to either fight or starve. Population can be regulated this way as well, though it is extremely crude. US 'bonds' are sold as the vehicle of investment in the next generation of war. Bondage of the excess population of the next generation is a direct investment in government force. This is the primary means of regulation for the US, given it's inherent limitations.
Now, how does this lead to a fascist coup? What was it that Roosevelt did to upset this arrangement, and cause him to be targeted? He campaigned on promises not to engage in needless warfare (as most politicians do). He inflated the currency, destroying the value of government 'bonds'. He redistributed wealth from the older genera
Fractional property ownership is not equivalent to shares of public companies
Socialism and fractional property ownership is exactly like one big public company that everyone is forced to buy into. The only practical difference is that it's slightly more difficult to destroy real property than it is a public company.
They would, of course, but only when supermajority agrees to do so.
A "supermajority" that expropriates the property of the minority qualifies as totalitarianism, you know.
Everyone knows time is a cube. What are you all, educated stupid or what?
I think you should test your theory by jumping off a cliff and experiencing the ever-present "now" without being affected by any of your past actions.
Yeah, I've heard of shares. Have you heard of Lehman Brothers, Worldcom, GM, or any dozens of other examples of fractional property ownership that ended in failure? You want to do that to the entire economy? Or would you rather posit the quaint notion that, in your ideal socialist economy, no one would have the right to destroy the means of production?
The President, by himself, completely controls at least 3/5 in that list. And he can strongly influence the other two.
Instead of "changing" any of the failed policies of his predecessor, Mr. Obama has spent nearly all of his time adding to them.
You really haven't thought any of that through.
Ownership of a thing includes the right to destroy that thing. Eliminating private property and collectivizing the means of production makes everyone dependent upon those means for survival. Destroying the means of production would destroy the lives of everyone in the society. Collectivizing ownership of the means of production, and the right to destroy those means, gives each individual the right to destroy the entire society.
Suffice it to say, it's not a very good idea.
This guy is completely worthless. The caller mostly understood what she was doing. It's not "illegal" as he claims. It's not really even as "risky" as he claims. She even mentions firewalling her systems after he claimed that evil hackers had access to all of her files.
He's pushing DSL service from one of his sponsors. He accuses the caller of "stealing" and "wire fraud" and then admits to doing the exact same thing. Personally I think he should be prosecuted, if he really believes that he's committed such a serious crime.
You have it completely backwards. I award you no points. We are all dumber for having listened to it. And may god have mercy on your soul.
the more 'professional' a service is, in general the more controlled it is.
Once again you blather about something of which you have no clue.
The other 'professions' that are regulated are done so solely due to their impact on public health: plumbers, doctors, electricians, even hairdressers. If you install a septic tank that's too small, people can get sick. If you incorrectly ground an appliance, people can die. If you cut hair without cleaning your equipment, diseases can spread. (I'm not kidding, this is the reason)
If you work as a plumber for industry, you aren't regulated. If you work as an electrician in industry, you aren't regulated. In most states, if you do plumbing or electrical work on your own house, you aren't regulated. Only when you offer services to the public that potentially could cause them harm are you required to be licensed and regulated.
So, no, regulation has nothing to do with how 'professional' you are but with your ability to directly impact human health. The most 'professional' profession of all, college professors, are completely unregulated.
No. It will come from the same place the last Microsoft came from: Harvard. Because only the already-wealthy have the means to jump through the ridiculous hoops set up by the American Corporatocracy in order to destroy the last shreds of merit-based social mobility in the US.
Heh, stupid "main stream" media. Heh. People who use that are idiots.
Slashdot delivers once again!