Let's not forget - that many owners of ipod's are children; more sensitive to ear damage, and far less likely to understand the risks. Good software can limit the damage even with the volume way up by preventing spikes even if recorded. radio broadcasters use such limiters.
The effect of failing to pay the piper, is that the piper could go out of business and not be available for the next disease.
Taiwan should pay Roche what it can and tend to its probalem at the same time.
In addition, to what extent does the use of an anti-viral _in situ_ lead to the development of an even worse and immune form of the same flu?
If the use of anti-virals by poor people, meaning people who walk daily in bird dung, places the rest of the world in more danger then an argument could be made to provide anti-viral only on condition that people move away from bird populations.
Capitalism reduces the free-loader effect at the cost of the monopoly-oligarchy effect.
Socialism reduces the monopoly-oligarchy effect as the cost of the freeloader effect.
To argue that one is moral and good and christian and western and the product of the enlightenment is - well unenlightened.
Ironically, Free Market Capitalism, because it tends to "socialize" market externalities by imposing the costs of pollution on the entire population, can similarly suffer from the free-loader effect with respect to non-financial metrics such as health.
In the end - the question is which system works best under the demographic realities of the country. If the demographics are patriotic (measured by their willingness to contribute to national goals) then socialism can be productive - however, in an immigrant (and we are all immigrants) society, self-interst exceeds national interest, and so the problem of free-loading exceeds the problem of monopolies and oligarchs. This in time will change, and the stasis of wealth will become evident and loom larger in people's minds than the generations of welfare abuse. I doubt this line has been crossed in the US.
As much as I distrust subsidies - the truth of the prior statement stands. Ethonol may require less energy to produce than hydrogen - hell - it _might_ even take zero energy, and it is more portable than hydrogen - while burning cleaner than petrol. It is safer than gasoline, and handles much the same so the infrastructure replacement cost is removed.
Yes - perhaps during the ramp-up phase, the production energy will substantially depend on fossil fuels - (including natural gas - which likewise doesn't travel well). Because tractors are industrial machines with the potential for high utilization, creating fuel-cell tractors, or even liquid natural gas / - or as is done in some areas, substitute fixed spinning machines which can be line-powered. - In short, it is trivial to imagine cost-effective ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels in large scale farming. - it is nealy impossible to solve the same problem for individual transit. AIK
I think the author was referring to the great degree to which voters in the US are swayed by such intellectual arguments as illegal billboards (First expense in most campaigns), by their church leaders threatening to excommunicate them if they don't vote the "right" way, and in general not being able to recognize so much as the names of the candidate in any race less than the president, but responsible nonetheless for choosing the better of several choices.
I suggest that ballots ought to be blank and require the vote to write in the name of the candidate - until then its really just a monkey random typewriter contest.
As long as the requests come from identifyable email addresses, and as long as there is no coordination between nodes to synchronize, the mere crap-flooding of spammers ought to be supportable. If for example, corporation were established with n number of departments, each with their own name - ie BasketGrapeKnittingDepartment@weluvspam.com - each of which choose to express thier desire not to be spammed by means of a shared "DoNotSpam" registry - which happened to be occassionally sorted with the worst spammers first - the operation could be entirely above board - what makes spammers illegal is that they hide their identity - as long as a registered business unit were offering the service - it would be legal - if a spammer didn't like it they could show up in court and er. get their ass arrested for spamming.
but I would suggest there exists a continuim of responsibility which correlates to success.
It may be more the case that individuals or small companies cut their teeth on "borrowed" software, but when they go to market or become successful, they would necessarily be in a position to purchase the software.
So "leaking" is a bit like investing in the future success of people who use your software - but it has to be deniable to work so there you have it.
we're talking about an electric motor which is connected without gears to the crankshaft.
Neither horsepower nor torque alone can determine "how fast you can go" - nor how fast you will reach terminal velocity.
The pertainent question - aside from arguing that nearly equivelent terms and or are not equivelent - is whether or not directly coupling the motor yields the highest _possible_ acceleration from 0.
I would suggest that whatever the torque of the motor - gearing it down by 50% will roughly double the power (footpounds of torque * degress rotation / seconds) available at startup before the windings melt.
That's a rough estimate, but a motor at stall draws more wattage and creats more heat than a motor doing equivelent work at the optimum rpm.
All things being equal, a motocycle might be more prone to understating speed - in particular while turning as a leaned over tire has a mean contact point which is well inside the outer diameter. This would cause the tire to turn faster for a similar distance. Depending on the driver i'm sure, but motorcycles, as a class, have a deign tendency to underreport - assuming a device calibrated falt a straight in both cases.
I think you could relax your concerns that a better energy source will wipe out any existing jobs. First - existing plants will run out their useful life - since most are designed for 40 years or so about half will be replaced in the next 20 years anyway - if those happen to be based on cleaner fuels - well good for them.
nobody's arguing the puritans left england as the persecuted - what it objectionable is the way they so quickly became the persecutors.
Having Killed the Indians, they used the Bible to justify slavery, and continue in that vien to seek out and destroy weak and underrepresented populations.
The Baptist are now telling people how to vote - or be ex-communicated.
so their point in coming here wasn't to "Avoid" persecution. It was to re-establish persecution on their own terms - and this is what is objectionable.
I. Quite Possibly - but anyone who says it is right here right now is simply lying.
II It is impossible to underestimate people's morality. - It's not about stealing power - it's about proliferation of fissionable material.
IV Nuclear runs about 8c per Kilowatt PLUS the value of catastrophic risk - which we pay with increased military expenditures, operations, espionage, and unfavorable trade agreements for stategic purposes. (Blackmail)
V I think it is pretty clear there is a black market for fissionable material. We don't know where a lot of soviet uranium is, Both Russia and France have demonstrated a willingness to cheat on their international obligations when it comes to trading weapons with states with ties to terrorists. Anyone who could PROVE the thefy of fissionables would have solved a crime. What we know is that it is probable, based on the facts in evidence.
I. In the United States, Nuclear energy is not clean. Every year, tons of pollution from coal-fired plants is produced to power the processing of fissionable material.
II. From Edison to Einstien, history informs us that energy policy starts in the United States and spreads to the rest of the world. If the US decides the final solution is nuclear, so will every third-world tin pot dictator, and the prospect of preventing an army of underpaid nuclear technicians in corrupt regimes from being tempted by terrorists to trade a few morsels of uranium for a bribe equivelent to the salary of several lifetimes is preposturous. What father, when confronted with the medical necessity of his child, would concern himself with the morality of which despot should and should not have the bomb?
III. Nuclear waste storage is a misnomer. No one can garentee the geologic stability of a site over the period of time in which fissionable material is dangerous. If a volcano should decide to push through and bring the material up and into the air, the devastation would be incalculable.
IV. Nuclear is higher cost and much higher risk than renewables.
V. If someone had said in 2000 that terrorist would hijack four airplanes and use them as bombs, almost everyone would say they were imagining things. In fact, we know terrorists want to gain access to fissionables, we know that border security is a fiction and airport security a farce; the belief therefore that nuclear plants are somehow secure is a nothing short of a self-induced cognitave coma - an irrational supposition held only because it is calming
If we fail to proviide a viable alternative to nuclear energy, we will have admitted that every nation, region, tribe and village is entitled to nuclear power and conceded the moral authority to insist otherwise.
We owe it to our future to spend at least as much studing renewable energy as we have invested in poisonous alternatives.
Pretending that every culture has the same general view of privacy rights is high ignorance.
Pakistan is a country in which "honor killings" are socially acceptable.
It's not a question of "bad people" being everywhere - it's a question of the definition of "good."
In most countries - feeding your family by any available means is a moral trait - The means are irrelevent so long as you stand a better than average chance of remaining free to feed them next week.
That calculation varies from country to country and it has little to do with "bad" and "good".
We live in a country in which the quality of life has benefitted from the slavery and exploitation of people in the rest of the world.
Having killed the Indians for their Land, we enslaved the africans for their muscles, now we corrupt the arab world for their oil, bankrupted eastern europe by sabatoging their oil pipeline, and exploited children in china to make Nike shoes to say nothing of the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget - that many owners of ipod's are children; more sensitive to ear damage, and far less likely to understand the risks. Good software can limit the damage even with the volume way up by preventing spikes even if recorded. radio broadcasters use such limiters.
AIK
Looks like an idea that been around the block for a while.
1994
First, the danger is not limited to Taiwan.
The effect of failing to pay the piper, is that the piper could go out of business and not be available for the next disease.
Taiwan should pay Roche what it can and tend to its probalem at the same time.
In addition, to what extent does the use of an anti-viral _in situ_ lead to the development of an even worse and immune form of the same flu?
If the use of anti-virals by poor people, meaning people who walk daily in bird dung, places the rest of the world in more danger then an argument could be made to provide anti-viral only on condition that people move away from bird populations.
AIK
This is a submarine patent and as has been pointed out, uses an obscure bit of nonsense to lay claim to something obvious.
AIK
Capitalism reduces the free-loader effect at the cost of the monopoly-oligarchy effect.
Socialism reduces the monopoly-oligarchy effect as the cost of the freeloader effect.
To argue that one is moral and good and christian and western and the product of the enlightenment is - well unenlightened.
Ironically, Free Market Capitalism, because it tends to "socialize" market externalities by imposing the costs of pollution on the entire population, can similarly suffer from the free-loader effect with respect to non-financial metrics such as health.
In the end - the question is which system works best under the demographic realities of the country. If the demographics are patriotic (measured by their willingness to contribute to national goals) then socialism can be productive - however, in an immigrant (and we are all immigrants) society, self-interst exceeds national interest, and so the problem of free-loading exceeds the problem of monopolies and oligarchs. This in time will change, and the stasis of wealth will become evident and loom larger in people's minds than the generations of welfare abuse. I doubt this line has been crossed in the US.
AIK
As much as I distrust subsidies - the truth of the prior statement stands. Ethonol may require less energy to produce than hydrogen - hell - it _might_ even take zero energy, and it is more portable than hydrogen - while burning cleaner than petrol. It is safer than gasoline, and handles much the same so the infrastructure replacement cost is removed.
Yes - perhaps during the ramp-up phase, the production energy will substantially depend on fossil fuels - (including natural gas - which likewise doesn't travel well). Because tractors are industrial machines with the potential for high utilization, creating fuel-cell tractors, or even liquid natural gas / - or as is done in some areas, substitute fixed spinning machines which can be line-powered. - In short, it is trivial to imagine cost-effective ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels in large scale farming. - it is nealy impossible to solve the same problem for individual transit.
AIK
I think the author was referring to the great degree to which voters in the US are swayed by such intellectual arguments as illegal billboards (First expense in most campaigns), by their church leaders threatening to excommunicate them if they don't vote the "right" way, and in general not being able to recognize so much as the names of the candidate in any race less than the president, but responsible nonetheless for choosing the better of several choices.
I suggest that ballots ought to be blank and require the vote to write in the name of the candidate - until then its really just a monkey random typewriter contest.
AIK
As long as the requests come from identifyable email addresses, and as long as there is no coordination between nodes to synchronize, the mere crap-flooding of spammers ought to be supportable. If for example, corporation were established with n number of departments, each with their own name - ie BasketGrapeKnittingDepartment@weluvspam.com - each of which choose to express thier desire not to be spammed by means of a shared "DoNotSpam" registry - which happened to be occassionally sorted with the worst spammers first - the operation could be entirely above board - what makes spammers illegal is that they hide their identity - as long as a registered business unit were offering the service - it would be legal - if a spammer didn't like it they could show up in court and er. get their ass arrested for spamming.
AIK
Yeah - spent seven days in jail for picking up litter - apparently violates a law written in 1885 - mostly by the KKK.
The first reply is generally right,
but I would suggest there exists a continuim of responsibility which correlates to success.
It may be more the case that individuals or small companies cut their teeth on "borrowed" software, but when they go to market or become successful, they would necessarily be in a position to purchase the software.
So "leaking" is a bit like investing in the future success of people who use your software - but it has to be deniable to work so there you have it.
AIK
hmm,
trying to avoid cross purposes here.
we're talking about an electric motor which is connected without gears to the crankshaft.
Neither horsepower nor torque alone can determine "how fast you can go" - nor how fast you will reach terminal velocity.
The pertainent question - aside from arguing that nearly equivelent terms and or are not equivelent - is whether or not directly coupling the motor yields the highest _possible_ acceleration from 0.
I would suggest that whatever the torque of the motor - gearing it down by 50% will roughly double the power (footpounds of torque * degress rotation / seconds) available at startup before the windings melt.
That's a rough estimate, but a motor at stall draws more wattage and creats more heat than a motor doing equivelent work at the optimum rpm.
AIK
All things being equal, a motocycle might be more prone to understating speed - in particular while turning as a leaned over tire has a mean contact point which is well inside the outer diameter. This would cause the tire to turn faster for a similar distance. Depending on the driver i'm sure, but motorcycles, as a class, have a deign tendency to underreport - assuming a device calibrated falt a straight in both cases.
AIK
Just because it delievers equal torque at zero RPM doesn't mean it's delivering maximum power to the wheels at low rpm.
torque != power. Power = acceleration.
AIK
Very Good!! 5 Funny from me!!
Can i just pause and appreciate this - touche!!!
I think you could relax your concerns that a better energy source will wipe out any existing jobs.
First - existing plants will run out their useful life - since most are designed for 40 years or so about half will be replaced in the next 20 years anyway - if those happen to be based on cleaner fuels - well good for them.
nobody's arguing the puritans left england as the persecuted - what it objectionable is the way they so quickly became the persecutors.
Having Killed the Indians, they used the Bible to justify slavery, and continue in that vien to seek out and destroy weak and underrepresented populations.
The Baptist are now telling people how to vote - or be ex-communicated.
so their point in coming here wasn't to "Avoid" persecution. It was to re-establish persecution on their own terms - and this is what is objectionable.
AIK
I. Quite Possibly - but anyone who says it is right here right now is simply lying.
II It is impossible to underestimate people's morality. - It's not about stealing power - it's about proliferation of fissionable material.
IV Nuclear runs about 8c per Kilowatt PLUS the value of catastrophic risk - which we pay with increased military expenditures, operations, espionage, and unfavorable trade agreements for stategic purposes. (Blackmail)
V I think it is pretty clear there is a black market for fissionable material. We don't know where a lot of soviet uranium is, Both Russia and France have demonstrated a willingness to cheat on their international obligations when it comes to trading weapons with states with ties to terrorists. Anyone who could PROVE the thefy of fissionables would have solved a crime. What we know is that it is probable, based on the facts in evidence.
VI Wave energy is abundant
AIK
I notice your "Cost Analysis" link is stil dead.
Give Me a Coastal State, Territory, Nation, or Island and I'll tailer the estimate.
I have run estimates for North Carolina, Hawaii, and Block Island. The Web Site is pretty new.
AIK
Nuclear Power is simply the best option for expanding the appetite for fissionable materials throughout the world.
2% of Ocean waves could power the entire world - safely.
AIK
Wave Energy
Since Nuclear Stations in the US use some of the dirties coal powered plants, Nuclear Energy involves high amounts of pollution.
AIK
Why the nuclear solution isn't.
I. In the United States, Nuclear energy is not clean. Every year, tons of pollution from coal-fired plants is produced to power the processing of fissionable material.
II. From Edison to Einstien, history informs us that energy policy starts in the United States and spreads to the rest of the world. If the US decides the final solution is nuclear, so will every third-world tin pot dictator, and the prospect of preventing an army of underpaid nuclear technicians in corrupt regimes from being tempted by terrorists to trade a few morsels of uranium for a bribe equivelent to the salary of several lifetimes is preposturous. What father, when confronted with the medical necessity of his child, would concern himself with the morality of which despot should and should not have the bomb?
III. Nuclear waste storage is a misnomer. No one can garentee the geologic stability of a site over the period of time in which fissionable material is dangerous. If a volcano should decide to push through and bring the material up and into the air, the devastation would be incalculable.
IV. Nuclear is higher cost and much higher risk than renewables.
V. If someone had said in 2000 that terrorist would hijack four airplanes and use them as bombs, almost everyone would say they were imagining things. In fact, we know terrorists want to gain access to fissionables, we know that border security is a fiction and airport security a farce; the belief therefore that nuclear plants are somehow secure is a nothing short of a self-induced cognitave coma - an irrational supposition held only because it is calming
If we fail to proviide a viable alternative to nuclear energy, we will have admitted that every nation, region, tribe and village is entitled to nuclear power and conceded the moral authority to insist otherwise.
We owe it to our future to spend at least as much studing renewable energy as we have invested in poisonous alternatives.
AIK
Hard to imagine that needed saying - all this morality gobblidy gook - of course its about relative risk/reward.
AIK
Pretending that every culture has the same general view of privacy rights is high ignorance.
Pakistan is a country in which "honor killings" are socially acceptable.
It's not a question of "bad people" being everywhere - it's a question of the definition of "good."
In most countries - feeding your family by any available means is a moral trait - The means are irrelevent so long as you stand a better than average chance of remaining free to feed them next week.
That calculation varies from country to country and it has little to do with "bad" and "good".
We live in a country in which the quality of life has benefitted from the slavery and exploitation of people in the rest of the world.
Having killed the Indians for their Land, we enslaved the africans for their muscles, now we corrupt the arab world for their oil, bankrupted eastern europe by sabatoging their oil pipeline, and exploited children in china to make Nike shoes to say nothing of the environment.
At some point the chickens come home to roost.
AIK
or when it significatly shortens the word.