People still use Pascal? LOL. I'm surprised they don't insist on PDP-11 and RPG II and have a punch-card section on the exam. Surely this is merely because Pascal would be easier to grade, being the inflexible piece of crap it is, rather than actually teaching the students useful skills with a flexible (yet highly dangerous - because it's so flexible) language like C/C++/C#
Either the hallucinations can be transmitted via video too, or a piece of this airplane caught fire and fell off.... Looks like "ball lightning" anyway - whether it is or not I leave to the physicists.
I think I have been ripped off in several games last year. Hearts of Iron III was released completely unfinished. Deadspace refused to run on my machine. Empire Total War was a joke. There's a couple other games I could mention. Yes a figure on theft of around $51 billion sounds about right.
If it were that simple, climatologists would be moving on to other problems. It's not. Get over yourself, you're really not as smart as you think.
Yes, er, other "problems". Like, er, let's stop the weather. Seriously. Climatology is OBSERVATION and INTERPRETATION. What the fuck do you think it is, precision science? Satellites all over the world and they still don't know with certainty which direction the hurricane will move in the next 24 hours. Give me a fucking break. Next you're going to convince me that a doctorate in philosophy has practical use in the world.
As far as I am concerned this whole "global warming" concept is about two things. Job creation for climatologists following this business model 1. Create awareness of a problem 2. Pretend to be able to solve said problem. Since climate change happens over GEOLOGICAL TIME, well the "problem" is only going to get worse, isn't it? This means permanent funding for governments willing to pay anyone who gives them an excuse to REGULATE and TAX people even more.
If you had any real scientific background you would be able to see the gaping holes in any anthropogenic global warming argument starting with mis-representation of data and continuing with failure to understand basic science concepts. As an example - a PULITZER PRIZE winning author - Thomas Friedman wrote a bock called "Hot, Flat and Crowded". Since he's won a pulitzer and I've enjoyed his previous works, I started reading - up until the point 1/3 of the way through when he tries to explain global warming with Carbon dating. The only problem is that the man has NO FUCKING CLUE as to how carbon dating actually works.
"This extra CO2 is not coming from the oceans. It's coming from the burning of fossil fuels. We know this because carbon can be dated, and the carbon dioxide that is produced from burning fossil fuels is of a different age than the CO2 contained in the oceans. And the measurements definitively show that the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere in the last fifty years is coming from fossil fuel combustion" - PAGE 119
Bzzzt - disqualified. Carbon dating absolutely does NOT work that way. A CO2 molecule's age can ABSOLUTELY NOT be determined. The "age" of CO2 in the atmosphere can ABSOLUTELY NOT be determined. But go ahead, follow the bleating sheep into a future of further taxation and regulation and lies. Me, I will stick to REAL SCIENCE and not believe bullshit because politicians, "climate scientists" and "Pulitzer prize" winners say it's so.
Solar has a SERIOUS problem that makes it completely resistant to corporate investment... It's that it is virtually impossible to monopolize the market.
I don't understand. Money can be made without monopolies. How many clothing stores are in your shopping mall? How many restaurants sell hamburgers and fries? Or Chinese food. Or fried chicken. Take your pick. The patents on acetaminophen/paracetamol expired a long, long time ago. Yet how many different companies sell this type of pain reliever? I don't buy your argument. You CAN make money without monopolies you know.
I think the problem with solar is still one of price and efficiency, not monopoly. We have gotten used to consuming vast amounts of power in our day to day lives. Right now I am typing on a desktop computer with a 750W power supply. I have 2 monitors, at 60 W each. My hot water tank is turning on and off every hour or so, drawing another 750-1000 W. My fridge kicks on every once in a while, for another 500W. And this is just "overhead". I'm not cooking, I'm not ironing, I'm not running air conditioning. Therefore I would need around 7000W to run my house. At current prices, I am looking at at least $20k for just the solar panels. Then I need batteries, because solar only works during the day. Then I need to install and maintain the system.
I really would love to do it. I have a roof, so surface area shouldn't be too much trouble. But price is a HUGE barrier to entry. Yes it pays for itself over time, but it's a steep up front cost. The price needs to come down for people to jump into solar, but people won't jump into solar until the price comes down. That's the "catch-22" that solar finds itself in.
Yes, by all means, let's punish the people who were *right*.
Right about what?
You are typing on a computer to tell me that I need to consume less energy? I bet you use electricity and drive to work, too. That resources need to be managed more carefully because of our overpopulation? Agreed. That people should be attacked/bombed/killed for it? Nope. That the Earth is warming and sea levels are rising? Agreed. Lying to people and ignoring this trend that has been going on for the past 100,000 years since the last ICE AGE - hmmm, nope.
Douchebag.
Well, I have planted over 500,000 trees. I own a managed forest that used to be scrub-land. Well I didn't physically plant them, I paid 175 people to do it for me. What have YOU done apart from re-cycle your tin cans? Stop being a hypocrite and start using your brain. It doesn't matter HOW MUCH we "conserve" if we don't stop breeding like rabbits, the J curve is going to happen. But in the mean-time I have a lot of hardwood to sell to humanity.
... that someone has suggested setting off an underground nuke to close an oil well?
So you are going to trigger a device that will reproduce the heat found inside the sun, and are worried about oil "catching fire"? That's like worrying about dropping a 2000lb bomb on the gas tank of a lawnmower. Please.
Secondly oil does not "explode", it burns. Gasoline vapor explodes, but only in the presence of air because the reaction needs oxygen. Explosives explode because they contain the oxygen they need in their molecules. Nuclear weapons explode differently, they get incredibly hot and this heat causes a tremendous overpressure wave, as well as setting nearby things on fire. However nothing is oxidized in the bomb itself. Therefore it can happen in the absence of oxygen. The oil immediately around the blast would vaporize and burn - but then again so would some of the water and some of the nitrogen in the atmosphere. However the oil/water mix further out would not burn. I invite you to watch the Baker shot and try to see anything on the ship(s) burning. The water absorbs all the heat.
Hell if you're worried about "fire" - remember that the damned oil rig was on fire in the FIRST PLACE. Where's the fire now?
The water would be an excellent transmitter of the pressure wave, enough to shift the rocks and seal the well.
I have a special request, however. All global warming and card-carrying Greenpeace members should be placed on a boat immediately above the device if this is going to happen.
I have no idea where you came up with this "10 tons per ship per second"
From something called THE ARTICLE. Specifically the part where it says "Silver Lining's floating machines can suck up ten tons of water per second." I know, I know, they wrote it in WORDS instead of using NUMBERS. Perhaps this makes your brain hurt, but it's right there.
Just FYI, the article also mentioned one thousand nine hundred ships would be needed. Only that they wrote in numbers.
Of course since I actually bother reading and THINKING about what I write, I am entitled to be more arrogant than an ignorant prick like yourself. It's not my fault if you can't think critically. I'm only disgusted by the fact I share the same planet as you.
Wondering about the time to market in the solar industry, because for the past 2 years I have been reading all about revolutionary new solar cell techniques, from baking your own solar cells in the oven for well under $1/Watt, to solar cells stacked in 3D that increase efficiency to 80%, to dies that help normal solar cells absorb light better, to flexible solar cells that could cover any surface, to special plastics that concentrate light onto solar cells. But you know what? Not a single solar cell on the market today includes these concepts.
IMO the "cheap, efficient solar cell" will arrive just after the flying car. And the market is certainly resisting current $4-$5/watt retail prices.
I'm only a mathematician, not an expert to anything but figments of the imagination
OK, let's talk about the work-energy theorem and the amount of energy involved in lifting 1900 ships x 10 tons per second = 19,000 tonnes = (excuse me while I slip into scientific notation) 1.9 x 10^7 kg of water 1000 meters into the air every second. PE = mgh. So PE (using g as 10 instead of 9.8)= 1.9x10^7 x 10 x 1000 = 1.9 x 10^11 Joules per second, or 1.9 x 10^11 Watts. That's 190 GIGAWATTS. At 100% efficiency. However 100% efficiency does not exist. So let's be VERY generous and assume that the process (the pumps, etc) are 40% efficient. Therefore what you'd really need, at 40% efficiency, is 475 GW. 12 hours per day (assuming we're not going to run these suckers at night). So 365 x 12 hours = 4380 hours x 475 GW = 2080500 GW hours/year.
Please note that the US energy consumption in 2008 was 3872598 GW hours per year. Therefore this concept (working at 40% efficiency remember) would consume more than HALF AGAIN AS MUCH POWER AS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
If you're a mathematician feel free to check my work. My source for us power consumption is Wikipedia. The rest is physics.
Now I know I have been modded troll and flamebait - because the green crowd can't stand having anything said against their ideas. The problem is that any sane person is able to see through these crackpot ideas in under 30 seconds. Global warming cultists however (just like any other fanatic) have lost the ability to think rationally. Yes, I know about the albedo effect you mentioned. But run the numbers and you will realize that this is 1) impossible 2) impractical and 3, it will add heat to the system (all those non-frictionless pumps and energy sources you see) which means that I'm not sure the "benefit" from increased albedo effect would be offset from having an additional "United States" added to the world if the system was run 24/7.
Because last time I checked, when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all, and I am 99.9% sure that the rainwater I drank used to be in the salty seas not too long before. Just because it seems to fulfil symbolic logic doesn't mean it's true.
You obviously have never lived near the ocean. The rain isn't "salty" enough to be tasted, but there is salt in the air. Anything that can be corroded will be corroded faster near a body of salt water.
Besides that, 76% + 1/3 > 1, so you should go over your numbers again...
I guess you don't understand what "UP TO" means.
They talk about producing clouds, not water vapor. Clouds are made of liquid water in tiny drops
I guess you don't understand what SURFACE AREA means, and how having (up to) billions upon billions of tiny drops of water increases the surface area for evaporation therefore increases the total evaporation (I suggest you read up on partial pressure, vapor pressure, and dalton's law) and increases the WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere.
In fact if you fail to grasp even such basic concepts, what the hell are you doing here? You're no nerd.
OK, let's ignore for a moment the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas responsible for up to 76% of the greenhouse effect (as opposed to CO2 which is responsible for 1/3) of that. Let's also ignore the magical energy source required to pump all this water into the air. What could possibly go wrong? Where can I buy stock?/sarcasm
One day you'll wake up and see how different the real world is from this fantasy world you live in. Business owns your ass, and government owns your ass. In exchange you are allowed a mediocre existence and a placebo called a "vote".
The job of traders is to make sure you don't get the price you want and to take it for themselves.
Which is exactly why I only trade very high volume stocks. It's not my 1000 shares that will get noticed in a stock that trades 50 million shares per day.
Traders do skim profits. All middlemen do -- it's the definition of the term.
No. Traders are price takers, not price makers. A trader cannot create more profit out of thin air. A real middle-man like say, the guy at the record store, takes a $10 CD and sells it to you for $15, pocketing $5. He inflated the price. A trader on the other hand buys CD's when they are in plentiful supply (because some factory went crazy and dumped a billion CD's on the market). Because the supply increased, he scooped up the CD's cheap, for say $6. Then he waits until the supply excess is gone (everyone else jumps in and buys the CD's while they were cheap). Then you come along and you were too late to the party. You missed the $6 price. But I'm willing to sell you mine for $10. I make $4. You get a CD for $10. Market conditions change,and now there's a shortage of CD's, so suddenly they're worth $20. You sell your CD for $20 and make $10. So, have we been MAKING the price? No. We TAKE the price. The MARKET makes the price. But you can still make money.
People don't understand this, they think that traders inflate the price. Not true. You can buy a block of AMR (American Airlines) right now for $6.83 per share. You can turn around and try to sell it right away for $50. It won't sell. The market makes the price not you. Your purchase of 100 shares of AMR did not budge the price one bit - in fact the way most trading algorithms are set up, the price probably DROPPED. Now it's trading for $6.82 after your purchase (supply and demand would have it go the other way, no? But you're dealing with brokers who are out to screw you). American airlines today has traded (as of right now) 20 million shares. Your purchase of 100, or even 10000 shares is a DROP IN THE BUCKET. It doesn't affect the price. Again, you are a price TAKER not a price MAKER. Now, when Fidelity Capital Appreciation Fund, who owns (today) 6.2% of America Airlines decides to dump 40 million shares on the market over the next 2 hours, well that DOES affect the price. Or when a stop loss is triggered for Goldman Sachs to sell $500 million worth of American Airlines when it hits a certain price, that DOES affect the price. But a little trader with $25k or $100k or even a million dollars - that's small fry. Not even a hiccup in the market.
You are obviously talking about a subject which you know nothing about.
First of all a steel mill is not "willing to accept" a low price. They are the manufacturer. They produce a product - steel. And like everyone else, they want to get as high a price as possible for their product.
Secondly, it's the manufacturer that sets the price. The factory in your example wants to pay as little as possible. Hell if they could get it for free, they would. The mill wants to charge as much as possible. Therefore your example is completely backwards.
As for the world working together - well yes, wouldn't it be nice. Now wake up. Here's the real world.
The last paragraph of your example is complete drivel. I suggest you read up on a topic before sounding totally ignorant. I guess you're following the recent general trend of bashing speculators but think of this: Where does the money come from for IPO's? Hell, where does the money come from to build the road you use to go to work, and the sidewalks you walk on? "The government", right? And they get their money from "taxes" right? WRONG. The taxes the government takes in are not enough to cover the spending. That's what deficit means. So the REAL money comes from government debt. Bonds, and treasury bills. Who buys government debt? Me, and people like me, with those profits we "line our pockets" with. If no one was buying government debt, the government would either be out of money (and you would not have a sidewalk, bridge, road, fire department, etc), or you would be paying much more tax.
Oh, I don't expect a "you're welcome". To you I am just a "greedy SOB". But you see, the world works, economics works, and you need me just as much as I need you. It's not a perfect system, but (in theory) it rewards those willing to put the work in, innovate, and take risks. And it doesn't reward people who do nothing, or people who do the minimum.
This link is to a quick-time file of audio from the S&P trading pits. The "fat finger" hypothesis is a product of the american propaganda machine. The market REALLY dove yesterday.
This "skimming" doesn't cost anyone anything. Say you want to sell a stock at $25.50 (random number). The bid is at $24.94 (typical spread). You can't sell your stock at $25.50. Until a trader comes along and buys it for $25.50. You have your money. You are happy. YOU ARE OUT. Now if the stock goes up or down from there - YOU ARE OUT. Sure, you will whine if the stock goes up and scream about "lost profits" like a little girl, but it doesn't have to go up. If you were so sure it was going up - why did you sell it at $25.50 in the first place?
The trader provided you with a service - he bought your stock from you at the price YOU wanted. But when you walked away, you walked away. You have no right to complain much less BLAME the trader for anything. The trader now holds all of the risk, and you hold the money you wanted. In fact, you should be happy that there are thousands of traders in thousands of stocks. Otherwise, well, wait for $25.50. You might never get it.
FYI, I traded through 2007/2008 and I traded today. And I survived all of them.
Short sellers are the only persons in a market that HAVE TO BUY STOCK at some point in the future. Therefore they drive the price UP, not down. If you look at any stock, short interest rarely represents more that 3% of the shares of the company. It's not 3% that affects the long term trend.
Secondly, the SEC banned short selling during the recent financial crisis. Did it help? No it did not.
Thirdly, short selling is forbidden in asian markets, and yet this didn't prevent Shanghai from losing 50% in a SINGLE DAY.
You are obsessed with the academic notion of an orderly decline. This shows that you have never traded stocks - or at least you have never traded in a crisis. WHEN NO ONE WANTS TO BUY YOUR STOCK WHO WILL YOU SELL TO? The price essentially falls to zero, or at least the lowest bidder. No short sellers need to be involved. There is no such thing as an "orderly decline". There is only panic, because all humans are (reasonably) intelligent, and when everyone wants to get out at the same time, well too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
People still use Pascal? LOL. I'm surprised they don't insist on PDP-11 and RPG II and have a punch-card section on the exam. Surely this is merely because Pascal would be easier to grade, being the inflexible piece of crap it is, rather than actually teaching the students useful skills with a flexible (yet highly dangerous - because it's so flexible) language like C/C++/C#
Either the hallucinations can be transmitted via video too, or a piece of this airplane caught fire and fell off.... Looks like "ball lightning" anyway - whether it is or not I leave to the physicists.
I think I have been ripped off in several games last year. Hearts of Iron III was released completely unfinished. Deadspace refused to run on my machine. Empire Total War was a joke. There's a couple other games I could mention. Yes a figure on theft of around $51 billion sounds about right.
Wait, that's not what they meant?
(hint: short term variance != long term trend)
Hahaha oh wow, and yet it doesn't apply to climate change apparently.
If it were that simple, climatologists would be moving on to other problems. It's not. Get over yourself, you're really not as smart as you think.
Yes, er, other "problems". Like, er, let's stop the weather. Seriously. Climatology is OBSERVATION and INTERPRETATION. What the fuck do you think it is, precision science? Satellites all over the world and they still don't know with certainty which direction the hurricane will move in the next 24 hours. Give me a fucking break. Next you're going to convince me that a doctorate in philosophy has practical use in the world.
As far as I am concerned this whole "global warming" concept is about two things. Job creation for climatologists following this business model 1. Create awareness of a problem 2. Pretend to be able to solve said problem. Since climate change happens over GEOLOGICAL TIME, well the "problem" is only going to get worse, isn't it? This means permanent funding for governments willing to pay anyone who gives them an excuse to REGULATE and TAX people even more.
If you had any real scientific background you would be able to see the gaping holes in any anthropogenic global warming argument starting with mis-representation of data and continuing with failure to understand basic science concepts. As an example - a PULITZER PRIZE winning author - Thomas Friedman wrote a bock called "Hot, Flat and Crowded". Since he's won a pulitzer and I've enjoyed his previous works, I started reading - up until the point 1/3 of the way through when he tries to explain global warming with Carbon dating. The only problem is that the man has NO FUCKING CLUE as to how carbon dating actually works.
"This extra CO2 is not coming from the oceans. It's coming from the burning of fossil fuels. We know this because carbon can be dated, and the carbon dioxide that is produced from burning fossil fuels is of a different age than the CO2 contained in the oceans. And the measurements definitively show that the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere in the last fifty years is coming from fossil fuel combustion" - PAGE 119
Bzzzt - disqualified. Carbon dating absolutely does NOT work that way. A CO2 molecule's age can ABSOLUTELY NOT be determined. The "age" of CO2 in the atmosphere can ABSOLUTELY NOT be determined. But go ahead, follow the bleating sheep into a future of further taxation and regulation and lies. Me, I will stick to REAL SCIENCE and not believe bullshit because politicians, "climate scientists" and "Pulitzer prize" winners say it's so.
Solar has a SERIOUS problem that makes it completely resistant to corporate investment... It's that it is virtually impossible to monopolize the market.
I don't understand. Money can be made without monopolies. How many clothing stores are in your shopping mall? How many restaurants sell hamburgers and fries? Or Chinese food. Or fried chicken. Take your pick. The patents on acetaminophen/paracetamol expired a long, long time ago. Yet how many different companies sell this type of pain reliever? I don't buy your argument. You CAN make money without monopolies you know.
I think the problem with solar is still one of price and efficiency, not monopoly. We have gotten used to consuming vast amounts of power in our day to day lives. Right now I am typing on a desktop computer with a 750W power supply. I have 2 monitors, at 60 W each. My hot water tank is turning on and off every hour or so, drawing another 750-1000 W. My fridge kicks on every once in a while, for another 500W. And this is just "overhead". I'm not cooking, I'm not ironing, I'm not running air conditioning. Therefore I would need around 7000W to run my house. At current prices, I am looking at at least $20k for just the solar panels. Then I need batteries, because solar only works during the day. Then I need to install and maintain the system.
I really would love to do it. I have a roof, so surface area shouldn't be too much trouble. But price is a HUGE barrier to entry. Yes it pays for itself over time, but it's a steep up front cost. The price needs to come down for people to jump into solar, but people won't jump into solar until the price comes down. That's the "catch-22" that solar finds itself in.
Yes, by all means, let's punish the people who were *right*.
Right about what?
You are typing on a computer to tell me that I need to consume less energy? I bet you use electricity and drive to work, too. That resources need to be managed more carefully because of our overpopulation? Agreed. That people should be attacked/bombed/killed for it? Nope. That the Earth is warming and sea levels are rising? Agreed. Lying to people and ignoring this trend that has been going on for the past 100,000 years since the last ICE AGE - hmmm, nope.
Douchebag.
Well, I have planted over 500,000 trees. I own a managed forest that used to be scrub-land. Well I didn't physically plant them, I paid 175 people to do it for me. What have YOU done apart from re-cycle your tin cans? Stop being a hypocrite and start using your brain. It doesn't matter HOW MUCH we "conserve" if we don't stop breeding like rabbits, the J curve is going to happen. But in the mean-time I have a lot of hardwood to sell to humanity.
... that someone has suggested setting off an underground nuke to close an oil well?
So you are going to trigger a device that will reproduce the heat found inside the sun, and are worried about oil "catching fire"? That's like worrying about dropping a 2000lb bomb on the gas tank of a lawnmower. Please.
Secondly oil does not "explode", it burns. Gasoline vapor explodes, but only in the presence of air because the reaction needs oxygen. Explosives explode because they contain the oxygen they need in their molecules. Nuclear weapons explode differently, they get incredibly hot and this heat causes a tremendous overpressure wave, as well as setting nearby things on fire. However nothing is oxidized in the bomb itself. Therefore it can happen in the absence of oxygen. The oil immediately around the blast would vaporize and burn - but then again so would some of the water and some of the nitrogen in the atmosphere. However the oil/water mix further out would not burn. I invite you to watch the Baker shot and try to see anything on the ship(s) burning. The water absorbs all the heat.
Hell if you're worried about "fire" - remember that the damned oil rig was on fire in the FIRST PLACE. Where's the fire now?
The water would be an excellent transmitter of the pressure wave, enough to shift the rocks and seal the well.
I have a special request, however. All global warming and card-carrying Greenpeace members should be placed on a boat immediately above the device if this is going to happen.
I have no idea where you came up with this "10 tons per ship per second"
From something called THE ARTICLE. Specifically the part where it says "Silver Lining's floating machines can suck up ten tons of water per second." I know, I know, they wrote it in WORDS instead of using NUMBERS. Perhaps this makes your brain hurt, but it's right there.
Just FYI, the article also mentioned one thousand nine hundred ships would be needed. Only that they wrote in numbers.
Of course since I actually bother reading and THINKING about what I write, I am entitled to be more arrogant than an ignorant prick like yourself. It's not my fault if you can't think critically. I'm only disgusted by the fact I share the same planet as you.
Wondering about the time to market in the solar industry, because for the past 2 years I have been reading all about revolutionary new solar cell techniques, from baking your own solar cells in the oven for well under $1/Watt, to solar cells stacked in 3D that increase efficiency to 80%, to dies that help normal solar cells absorb light better, to flexible solar cells that could cover any surface, to special plastics that concentrate light onto solar cells. But you know what? Not a single solar cell on the market today includes these concepts.
IMO the "cheap, efficient solar cell" will arrive just after the flying car. And the market is certainly resisting current $4-$5/watt retail prices.
I'm only a mathematician, not an expert to anything but figments of the imagination
OK, let's talk about the work-energy theorem and the amount of energy involved in lifting 1900 ships x 10 tons per second = 19,000 tonnes = (excuse me while I slip into scientific notation) 1.9 x 10^7 kg of water 1000 meters into the air every second. PE = mgh. So PE (using g as 10 instead of 9.8)= 1.9x10^7 x 10 x 1000 = 1.9 x 10^11 Joules per second, or 1.9 x 10^11 Watts. That's 190 GIGAWATTS. At 100% efficiency. However 100% efficiency does not exist. So let's be VERY generous and assume that the process (the pumps, etc) are 40% efficient. Therefore what you'd really need, at 40% efficiency, is 475 GW. 12 hours per day (assuming we're not going to run these suckers at night). So 365 x 12 hours = 4380 hours x 475 GW = 2080500 GW hours/year.
Please note that the US energy consumption in 2008 was 3872598 GW hours per year. Therefore this concept (working at 40% efficiency remember) would consume more than HALF AGAIN AS MUCH POWER AS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES.
If you're a mathematician feel free to check my work. My source for us power consumption is Wikipedia. The rest is physics.
Now I know I have been modded troll and flamebait - because the green crowd can't stand having anything said against their ideas. The problem is that any sane person is able to see through these crackpot ideas in under 30 seconds. Global warming cultists however (just like any other fanatic) have lost the ability to think rationally. Yes, I know about the albedo effect you mentioned. But run the numbers and you will realize that this is 1) impossible 2) impractical and 3, it will add heat to the system (all those non-frictionless pumps and energy sources you see) which means that I'm not sure the "benefit" from increased albedo effect would be offset from having an additional "United States" added to the world if the system was run 24/7.
Because last time I checked, when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all, and I am 99.9% sure that the rainwater I drank used to be in the salty seas not too long before. Just because it seems to fulfil symbolic logic doesn't mean it's true.
You obviously have never lived near the ocean. The rain isn't "salty" enough to be tasted, but there is salt in the air. Anything that can be corroded will be corroded faster near a body of salt water.
Besides that, 76% + 1/3 > 1, so you should go over your numbers again...
I guess you don't understand what "UP TO" means.
They talk about producing clouds, not water vapor. Clouds are made of liquid water in tiny drops
I guess you don't understand what SURFACE AREA means, and how having (up to) billions upon billions of tiny drops of water increases the surface area for evaporation therefore increases the total evaporation (I suggest you read up on partial pressure, vapor pressure, and dalton's law) and increases the WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere.
In fact if you fail to grasp even such basic concepts, what the hell are you doing here? You're no nerd.
OK, let's ignore for a moment the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas responsible for up to 76% of the greenhouse effect (as opposed to CO2 which is responsible for 1/3) of that. Let's also ignore the magical energy source required to pump all this water into the air. What could possibly go wrong? Where can I buy stock? /sarcasm
People have often risked life and limb for lies. Read history?
You poor, deluded fool.
One day you'll wake up and see how different the real world is from this fantasy world you live in. Business owns your ass, and government owns your ass. In exchange you are allowed a mediocre existence and a placebo called a "vote".
The job of traders is to make sure you don't get the price you want and to take it for themselves.
Which is exactly why I only trade very high volume stocks. It's not my 1000 shares that will get noticed in a stock that trades 50 million shares per day.
Do they get detention for eating the "food" from the school cafeteria?
Nah, eating the food from the cafeteria is punishment enough.
Traders do skim profits. All middlemen do -- it's the definition of the term.
No. Traders are price takers, not price makers. A trader cannot create more profit out of thin air. A real middle-man like say, the guy at the record store, takes a $10 CD and sells it to you for $15, pocketing $5. He inflated the price. A trader on the other hand buys CD's when they are in plentiful supply (because some factory went crazy and dumped a billion CD's on the market). Because the supply increased, he scooped up the CD's cheap, for say $6. Then he waits until the supply excess is gone (everyone else jumps in and buys the CD's while they were cheap). Then you come along and you were too late to the party. You missed the $6 price. But I'm willing to sell you mine for $10. I make $4. You get a CD for $10. Market conditions change,and now there's a shortage of CD's, so suddenly they're worth $20. You sell your CD for $20 and make $10. So, have we been MAKING the price? No. We TAKE the price. The MARKET makes the price. But you can still make money.
People don't understand this, they think that traders inflate the price. Not true. You can buy a block of AMR (American Airlines) right now for $6.83 per share. You can turn around and try to sell it right away for $50. It won't sell. The market makes the price not you. Your purchase of 100 shares of AMR did not budge the price one bit - in fact the way most trading algorithms are set up, the price probably DROPPED. Now it's trading for $6.82 after your purchase (supply and demand would have it go the other way, no? But you're dealing with brokers who are out to screw you). American airlines today has traded (as of right now) 20 million shares. Your purchase of 100, or even 10000 shares is a DROP IN THE BUCKET. It doesn't affect the price. Again, you are a price TAKER not a price MAKER. Now, when Fidelity Capital Appreciation Fund, who owns (today) 6.2% of America Airlines decides to dump 40 million shares on the market over the next 2 hours, well that DOES affect the price. Or when a stop loss is triggered for Goldman Sachs to sell $500 million worth of American Airlines when it hits a certain price, that DOES affect the price. But a little trader with $25k or $100k or even a million dollars - that's small fry. Not even a hiccup in the market.
You are obviously talking about a subject which you know nothing about.
First of all a steel mill is not "willing to accept" a low price. They are the manufacturer. They produce a product - steel. And like everyone else, they want to get as high a price as possible for their product.
Secondly, it's the manufacturer that sets the price. The factory in your example wants to pay as little as possible. Hell if they could get it for free, they would. The mill wants to charge as much as possible. Therefore your example is completely backwards.
As for the world working together - well yes, wouldn't it be nice. Now wake up. Here's the real world.
The last paragraph of your example is complete drivel. I suggest you read up on a topic before sounding totally ignorant. I guess you're following the recent general trend of bashing speculators but think of this: Where does the money come from for IPO's? Hell, where does the money come from to build the road you use to go to work, and the sidewalks you walk on? "The government", right? And they get their money from "taxes" right? WRONG. The taxes the government takes in are not enough to cover the spending. That's what deficit means. So the REAL money comes from government debt. Bonds, and treasury bills. Who buys government debt? Me, and people like me, with those profits we "line our pockets" with. If no one was buying government debt, the government would either be out of money (and you would not have a sidewalk, bridge, road, fire department, etc), or you would be paying much more tax.
Oh, I don't expect a "you're welcome". To you I am just a "greedy SOB". But you see, the world works, economics works, and you need me just as much as I need you. It's not a perfect system, but (in theory) it rewards those willing to put the work in, innovate, and take risks. And it doesn't reward people who do nothing, or people who do the minimum.
I'm not advocating banning short-selling,
Understandably, since if you remember short selling WAS banned during the last crash, at least on 60 or so financial stocks. Fat lot of good it did...
This link is to a quick-time file of audio from the S&P trading pits. The "fat finger" hypothesis is a product of the american propaganda machine. The market REALLY dove yesterday.
But I didn't need a middleman, and I saved 100% on commission.
So you never tip the dealer, you cheap bastard? :)
skimming profits off of your transactions,
This "skimming" doesn't cost anyone anything. Say you want to sell a stock at $25.50 (random number). The bid is at $24.94 (typical spread). You can't sell your stock at $25.50. Until a trader comes along and buys it for $25.50. You have your money. You are happy. YOU ARE OUT. Now if the stock goes up or down from there - YOU ARE OUT. Sure, you will whine if the stock goes up and scream about "lost profits" like a little girl, but it doesn't have to go up. If you were so sure it was going up - why did you sell it at $25.50 in the first place?
The trader provided you with a service - he bought your stock from you at the price YOU wanted. But when you walked away, you walked away. You have no right to complain much less BLAME the trader for anything. The trader now holds all of the risk, and you hold the money you wanted. In fact, you should be happy that there are thousands of traders in thousands of stocks. Otherwise, well, wait for $25.50. You might never get it.
FYI, I traded through 2007/2008 and I traded today. And I survived all of them.
Short sellers are the only persons in a market that HAVE TO BUY STOCK at some point in the future. Therefore they drive the price UP, not down. If you look at any stock, short interest rarely represents more that 3% of the shares of the company. It's not 3% that affects the long term trend.
Secondly, the SEC banned short selling during the recent financial crisis. Did it help? No it did not.
Thirdly, short selling is forbidden in asian markets, and yet this didn't prevent Shanghai from losing 50% in a SINGLE DAY.
You are obsessed with the academic notion of an orderly decline. This shows that you have never traded stocks - or at least you have never traded in a crisis. WHEN NO ONE WANTS TO BUY YOUR STOCK WHO WILL YOU SELL TO? The price essentially falls to zero, or at least the lowest bidder. No short sellers need to be involved. There is no such thing as an "orderly decline". There is only panic, because all humans are (reasonably) intelligent, and when everyone wants to get out at the same time, well too bad.