I don't think I've ever heard a Canadian refer to a provincial government that way. It's always Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan etc. government. Then Canadian government.
Alberta shares tar sands (and conventional oil) revenue already. The federal government doesn't really have a good system of saving and reinvesting windfall revenue, they mostly just give it back to provinces in equalization payments.
Alberta itself used to have something called the Heritage Trust Fund where oil revenues were saved and some was used to fund things like technology sector development, scholarships, etc. (my PhD was partly paid for by heritage funds). After forty years of power the conservative government apparently got cocky and raided the fund. That's part of what got them kicked out and the NDP elected.
The EU is similar in scale (both geographically and in population) to the US. Similarly to the US (although the details differ), member states exercise independence in some areas and collective action in others. Unlike the US, things like socialized health care are the norm in the EU while they are rare (but exist, sort of) in the US.
Some historians/demographers/economists have suggested that the differences in the US might be due to the youth of the country, and the proximity of it's pioneering colonial history. My own favourite hypothesis is that it's the US's status as one of the very few successful states created as a result of violent revolution. You naturally distrust government when your country is the result of rebelling against one, and that theme is woven throughout your constitution and cherished founding documents.
You are, and have been for a long time. Which makes it very strange that you fight so hard against more universal socialization (45% -> ~100%) in areas like health care that have proven so successful in other places.
In the US social democracy seems to have been successfully conflated with Soviet-style totalitarian communism.
The nordic states (and most of the nations in the western world) aren't properly called socialist. They're social democracies:
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)
None of the other real social democracies are planned economies either. They're all mixed, combining generally free market economies with strategic regulation. Just like the US. Where they differ from the US is in supporting more extensive universal social programs, especially in healthcare. Denmark does too.
And at the same time, Google and Facebook have pushed hard to be at the end of that encrypted pipe. Now it's hard to spy as the middleman, so you have to buy your intel from Bob.
There's a possibility metallic hydrogen will remain solid at room temperature and pressure. Like diamond. Metallic hydrogen is also predicted to be a superconductor, so that would be rather important for several industries.
You as an individual have to, yes. Antitrust law doesn't care about you.
You as a company do not. If you build a phone you actually can use Darwin, but you can't use any of Apple's apps, their GUI, or their store. They won't force you to use any of them either.
Google is in trouble because their policies interfere with competition. You wanna use our app store, you gotta use our search. They leverage one product to force third parties to include their other products.
Apple doesn't do that. You buy a phone from apple. Apple provides a service where you can download apps for that phone.
Apple could get in trouble for anti-competitive practices, but since they're a minority player, that would be tough to sell. Google isn't a monopoly, but they are engaging in the types of business practices that have historically been used to stifle competitors.
Because Apple isn't using their app store to force anyone (corporate) to do anything. They sell a phone, that allows you to download apps from their store.
Google is in trouble because they leverage one product to force other businesses to use their other products.
The ledger isn't tamper proof. You can do whatever you want, so long as you can meet the requirements to validate it.
For bitcoin that means you need to convince half the computational power to agree with you. For a proof of stake system it means you need to convince half the (weighted) shareholders. For a private system, guess who's probably got override and veto powers to do whatever they want?
Sure, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wasn't a thing, and the young United States of America didn't pursue westward expansion, manifest destiny, continentalism, or any of those other nasty bits. Jefferson himself didn't preside over the Louisiana purchase, opening up quite a bit of territory west of the Mississippi. Jefferson was extremely anti-slavery, not being himself a prominent slave owner, and he immediately freed all his slaves as soon as the declaration was signed.
The British weren't saints. Neither were the American colonists, nor the native Americans.
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Turbofans are not propellers. Turbofans work fine on supersonic aircraft, and are installed on many military jets. You generally wouldn't use a high bypass tubofan, and might even go with a turbojet for a plane that flies mostly supersonic because low-bypass and turbojets get more efficient at high speed. There has also been a lot of development in turbojets and low bypass turbofans since the 1970s. This is demonstrated by the super cruise capabilities of fifth generation fighters.
Concorde could only fly two or three routes because of the ban on flying supersonic over land, and even then it generally had to do some combination of flying a longer route that was more over water and flying subsonic at the beginning and end of the route. Flying subsonic in a supersonic aircraft drinks fuel and takes longer.
Longer flights mean less efficient utilization of the aircraft, more fuel is more fuel, and limited routes means the research and manufacturing costs are spread over fewer aircraft.
That's not exactly a fair comparison. A 1970's era subsonic airliner would use a lot more fuel than the 787 as well.
This report puts Concorde per passenger fuel consumption at about twice a 707, four times a contemporary 747, essentially the same as a business jet and a lot better than a train.
One of the reasons why Concorde was so expensive was that there were only a few built, to fly very specific routes that were mostly over water, and even so, there were generally fairly long subsonic legs at the beginning and end. Those are expensive because supersonic aircraft tend to drink fuel when flying subsonic, and if you have to do it at the end of your flight you have to carry all that extra fuel all the way.
Opening up more routes to supersonic aircraft would make them a LOT more economical. Barring some groundbreaking innovation, supersonic would still be more expensive than subsonic, but not by nearly as much as the Concorde was.
They probably mean 12% lower risk of death during the study period (I believe this was a big cohort study, which usually follow their cohort for a set period of time, like 20 years).
Most risks are really rates, e.g. risk of dying per year. -12% per year would be a lot, so I assume it's actually -12% / decade, or 20 years or something similar.
You know, you might want to take a break from Slashdot. It can turn you into a bitter old man.
Putting a nuke on a plane isn't nonsense. The Russians have put small reactors on airplanes, and the Americans planned to. It's probably not economically viable for commercial transport ("not economical for commercial transport" and "nonsense" are two different things), but could potentially be made so. Politically, it's probably nonviable though. Anyway, you wouldn't actually put a nuke on a plane; you'd use a big nuke to make synthetic fuel and put that on the plane.
Yes (and it's already been done). There is a middle ground though (also already done). The nuclear thermal turbojet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
You can make them open cycle, which can be pretty fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. In the US a college would never reject a student because their parents had bad credit.
I don't think I've ever heard a Canadian refer to a provincial government that way. It's always Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan etc. government. Then Canadian government.
Alberta shares tar sands (and conventional oil) revenue already. The federal government doesn't really have a good system of saving and reinvesting windfall revenue, they mostly just give it back to provinces in equalization payments.
Alberta itself used to have something called the Heritage Trust Fund where oil revenues were saved and some was used to fund things like technology sector development, scholarships, etc. (my PhD was partly paid for by heritage funds). After forty years of power the conservative government apparently got cocky and raided the fund. That's part of what got them kicked out and the NDP elected.
The EU is similar in scale (both geographically and in population) to the US. Similarly to the US (although the details differ), member states exercise independence in some areas and collective action in others. Unlike the US, things like socialized health care are the norm in the EU while they are rare (but exist, sort of) in the US.
Some historians/demographers/economists have suggested that the differences in the US might be due to the youth of the country, and the proximity of it's pioneering colonial history. My own favourite hypothesis is that it's the US's status as one of the very few successful states created as a result of violent revolution. You naturally distrust government when your country is the result of rebelling against one, and that theme is woven throughout your constitution and cherished founding documents.
You are, and have been for a long time. Which makes it very strange that you fight so hard against more universal socialization (45% -> ~100%) in areas like health care that have proven so successful in other places.
In the US social democracy seems to have been successfully conflated with Soviet-style totalitarian communism.
The nordic states (and most of the nations in the western world) aren't properly called socialist. They're social democracies:
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)
None of the other real social democracies are planned economies either. They're all mixed, combining generally free market economies with strategic regulation. Just like the US. Where they differ from the US is in supporting more extensive universal social programs, especially in healthcare. Denmark does too.
And at the same time, Google and Facebook have pushed hard to be at the end of that encrypted pipe. Now it's hard to spy as the middleman, so you have to buy your intel from Bob.
There's a possibility metallic hydrogen will remain solid at room temperature and pressure. Like diamond. Metallic hydrogen is also predicted to be a superconductor, so that would be rather important for several industries.
You as an individual have to, yes. Antitrust law doesn't care about you.
You as a company do not. If you build a phone you actually can use Darwin, but you can't use any of Apple's apps, their GUI, or their store. They won't force you to use any of them either.
Same difference, as far as the law is concerned.
Google is in trouble because their policies interfere with competition. You wanna use our app store, you gotta use our search. They leverage one product to force third parties to include their other products.
Apple doesn't do that. You buy a phone from apple. Apple provides a service where you can download apps for that phone.
Apple could get in trouble for anti-competitive practices, but since they're a minority player, that would be tough to sell. Google isn't a monopoly, but they are engaging in the types of business practices that have historically been used to stifle competitors.
Because Apple isn't using their app store to force anyone (corporate) to do anything. They sell a phone, that allows you to download apps from their store.
Google is in trouble because they leverage one product to force other businesses to use their other products.
The ledger isn't tamper proof. You can do whatever you want, so long as you can meet the requirements to validate it.
For bitcoin that means you need to convince half the computational power to agree with you. For a proof of stake system it means you need to convince half the (weighted) shareholders. For a private system, guess who's probably got override and veto powers to do whatever they want?
Sure, because the Royal Proclamation of 1763 wasn't a thing, and the young United States of America didn't pursue westward expansion, manifest destiny, continentalism, or any of those other nasty bits. Jefferson himself didn't preside over the Louisiana purchase, opening up quite a bit of territory west of the Mississippi. Jefferson was extremely anti-slavery, not being himself a prominent slave owner, and he immediately freed all his slaves as soon as the declaration was signed.
The British weren't saints. Neither were the American colonists, nor the native Americans.
Wasn't it? That particular part of the US declaration of independence relates to the settler's desire not to be restricted in waging war with native Americans. Something that is today widely regarded as something between a mistake and genocide.
Historical documents, no matter how lofty and idealistic, are often filled with nasty little details that reflect more of the realities of the day than we'd like to remember.
Turbofans are not propellers. Turbofans work fine on supersonic aircraft, and are installed on many military jets. You generally wouldn't use a high bypass tubofan, and might even go with a turbojet for a plane that flies mostly supersonic because low-bypass and turbojets get more efficient at high speed. There has also been a lot of development in turbojets and low bypass turbofans since the 1970s. This is demonstrated by the super cruise capabilities of fifth generation fighters.
Concorde could only fly two or three routes because of the ban on flying supersonic over land, and even then it generally had to do some combination of flying a longer route that was more over water and flying subsonic at the beginning and end of the route. Flying subsonic in a supersonic aircraft drinks fuel and takes longer.
Longer flights mean less efficient utilization of the aircraft, more fuel is more fuel, and limited routes means the research and manufacturing costs are spread over fewer aircraft.
Edit #2: a lot *worse* than a train.
Apologies, American-style MPG fuel economy is the reciprocal of the L/km we use.
Report: https://www.flightglobal.com/F...
That's not exactly a fair comparison. A 1970's era subsonic airliner would use a lot more fuel than the 787 as well.
This report puts Concorde per passenger fuel consumption at about twice a 707, four times a contemporary 747, essentially the same as a business jet and a lot better than a train.
One of the reasons why Concorde was so expensive was that there were only a few built, to fly very specific routes that were mostly over water, and even so, there were generally fairly long subsonic legs at the beginning and end. Those are expensive because supersonic aircraft tend to drink fuel when flying subsonic, and if you have to do it at the end of your flight you have to carry all that extra fuel all the way.
Opening up more routes to supersonic aircraft would make them a LOT more economical. Barring some groundbreaking innovation, supersonic would still be more expensive than subsonic, but not by nearly as much as the Concorde was.
They probably mean 12% lower risk of death during the study period (I believe this was a big cohort study, which usually follow their cohort for a set period of time, like 20 years).
Most risks are really rates, e.g. risk of dying per year. -12% per year would be a lot, so I assume it's actually -12% / decade, or 20 years or something similar.
You know, you might want to take a break from Slashdot. It can turn you into a bitter old man.
Putting a nuke on a plane isn't nonsense. The Russians have put small reactors on airplanes, and the Americans planned to. It's probably not economically viable for commercial transport ("not economical for commercial transport" and "nonsense" are two different things), but could potentially be made so. Politically, it's probably nonviable though. Anyway, you wouldn't actually put a nuke on a plane; you'd use a big nuke to make synthetic fuel and put that on the plane.
Yes (and it's already been done). There is a middle ground though (also already done). The nuclear thermal turbojet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
You can make them open cycle, which can be pretty fun.
"Although, putting a fission reactor on a plane is also a bunch of nonsense."
Why?