As I type this I'm working in the lab on a single-photon on-demand source:). Theoretical output is P(one photon)>80%, P(>=2 photons)2%, and we should be able to do better than this with better (more expensive) optics. The photons are created with a well-defined spatial mode, timing, wavelength, and polarization.
You are economically correct up to the point where you assume that the free market is controlling oil prices. It simply isn't so, and by artificially tampering with it we could seriously be screwing ourselves.
Note that I mentioned the US is artificially propping up the stable supply by leveraging OPEC. So you're saying that the US pressuring OPEC to be more like a free market is...making it less like a free market?
If you want an economical car, go ahead! I'm not trying to stop you. But don't tell me what car to drive when it's not hurting anyone. "No oil" will not happen, the price will just continue to increase until there is a natural (i.e. free market) transition to alternative energy sources. So the price of plastic will increase...big deal, it's super cheap anyway right now. I certainly won't be spending $6,500 more on plastics if the price of oil goes to $300/barrel.
The argument that people using a lot of gas and therefore driving up prices is at least a valid argument (unlike global warming concerns), though I don't think the effect is nearly big enough to get worried about.
My understanding was that OPEC limits the production of their member countries to keep the price of oil higher than the free market would if these countries were competing as opposed to colluding.
When it is cheaper to use alternative sources, we will move to alternative sources. Until then, efforts like this do nothing but hurt the overall economy.
Buy what you want! If you want to pay an extra $6,000+ dollars so you can save $100/year on gasoline, by all means feel free! But don't tell me that I must do the same, because you feel guilty about raping Gaea.
Anyone who believes something like that has no grasp whatsoever on fundamental economics, not to mention any sort of understanding of the global oil supply. For one thing, any sort of "abrupt peak" and resulting fuel shortages is ridiculous. As the supply decreases, the price will increase, lowering demand...not difficult to understand. Also, oil is not something sitting in a big bucket, and once we pump what's there, that's it. Oil is everywhere, and as the price increases, new sources are becoming economically viable all the time.
I remember about two years ago a bunch of people (on/. and elsewhere) were saying we were hitting peak oil. I think that was even the cover story on National Geographic or something. How shocked those people must be that global oil production has continued to increase! They must now have realized that they were wrong about peak oil. Oh wait, no, they just pretend like that never happened, and say that peak oil is just around the corner again.
Great to hear that $6,700 isn't worth that much to you! I'll expect a check in the mail.
That's more than I paid for my current gas-guzzling SUV. And why do you care what other people drive? I don't understand why people feel the need to tell other people what to do when it's not hurting anyone.
You can get mirrors with 99.99% reflectivity...they're expensive though. You need a very flat surface (near atomic level), and a very good coating. In fact the very very best mirrors can be as high as 99.9996% reflective (ref here). Now the problem is you need to coat a rocket surface with this...something that won't be damaged by the stresses and heat of the speeds.
Or maybe voting restrictions persist because people who go around committing felonies shouldn't be deciding who makes the laws, and the Democrats want said felons to be able to vote so they can pick up another voting block.
If you're going to say that nuclear energy relies on finite resources of naturally fissile material, then I'm going to say that geothermal energy relies on the finite naturally fissile material found in the mantle and core. They're both unlikely to run out in the next several millennia when you account for the uranium in the oceans.
There is a current advantage of quantum encryption. The information passed that is encrypted using a one-time pad (which is how QE works) can never be decrypted. If you listen in on a RSA encrypted communication, you can store that and then decrypt it in 50+ years, if the technology were available. Also, QE can be used with a sort of "repeater" (or a chain of such repeaters), with a third party operating said repeater, without compromising security.
Man in the middle attack is not possible in quantum encryption if you can verify that information is being passed without modification (but not necessarily privately) through a classical channel to/from the correct party. Not sure if that's what you were saying or not, but I just thought I'd clarify.
Err, it at least extends the protection of certain rights from the federal government to protection from the state government as well. Not all limitations on federal power are extended, as I implied.
You miss the point entirely. A Constitutionally protected right cannot be taken away by a law. The OP was implying that every right was Constitutionally protected.
That's simply not true. You do not have the right to commit suicide. You do not have the right to marry your sibling. You do not have the right to do insider trading. You do not have the right to have consensual sex with a 16 year old.
What can they do? It was a supreme court decision. Also, the justices that voted for it were the liberal ones. The originalists voted that this was unconstitutional.
It seems to me that that solution just pushes the problem of keeping the coils cold directly to keeping the outside container cold. Since there is no heat generation or dissipation (outside of radiation) inside this hypothetical vacuum-surrounded coil chamber, it will eventually reach thermal equilibrium with the nearest surface that is maintained at a constant temperature. So something still needs to be actively cooled. Of course good insulation will help, but without at least doing back-of-the-envelope sort of calculations, I can't guess how much that would cost. Of course, its still nonzero (which was my point).
Another thought that occurred to me is that if the track is relatively rarely used (i.e. for traveling between big cities as opposed to within them), you are using the same amount of energy to cool the coils, whereas for room-temperature coils you are only dissipating energy when a train is over the tracks.
Liquid helium is not cheap. Keeping helium liquid is not cheap. I have no idea how much it costs, but its not "free" to keep the coils that cold, as you imply.
Slashdot Mirror
As I type this I'm working in the lab on a single-photon on-demand source :). Theoretical output is P(one photon)>80%, P(>=2 photons)2%, and we should be able to do better than this with better (more expensive) optics. The photons are created with a well-defined spatial mode, timing, wavelength, and polarization.
If you want an economical car, go ahead! I'm not trying to stop you. But don't tell me what car to drive when it's not hurting anyone. "No oil" will not happen, the price will just continue to increase until there is a natural (i.e. free market) transition to alternative energy sources. So the price of plastic will increase...big deal, it's super cheap anyway right now. I certainly won't be spending $6,500 more on plastics if the price of oil goes to $300/barrel.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
The argument that people using a lot of gas and therefore driving up prices is at least a valid argument (unlike global warming concerns), though I don't think the effect is nearly big enough to get worried about.
My understanding was that OPEC limits the production of their member countries to keep the price of oil higher than the free market would if these countries were competing as opposed to colluding.
When it is cheaper to use alternative sources, we will move to alternative sources. Until then, efforts like this do nothing but hurt the overall economy.
This is not about limiting pollutants. CO2 is not a pollutant.
It's not a free market if the government tells you what to do. Which is exactly the end goal of legislation like this.
Buy what you want! If you want to pay an extra $6,000+ dollars so you can save $100/year on gasoline, by all means feel free! But don't tell me that I must do the same, because you feel guilty about raping Gaea.
Anyone who believes something like that has no grasp whatsoever on fundamental economics, not to mention any sort of understanding of the global oil supply. For one thing, any sort of "abrupt peak" and resulting fuel shortages is ridiculous. As the supply decreases, the price will increase, lowering demand...not difficult to understand. Also, oil is not something sitting in a big bucket, and once we pump what's there, that's it. Oil is everywhere, and as the price increases, new sources are becoming economically viable all the time.
/. and elsewhere) were saying we were hitting peak oil. I think that was even the cover story on National Geographic or something. How shocked those people must be that global oil production has continued to increase! They must now have realized that they were wrong about peak oil. Oh wait, no, they just pretend like that never happened, and say that peak oil is just around the corner again.
I remember about two years ago a bunch of people (on
Great to hear that $6,700 isn't worth that much to you! I'll expect a check in the mail.
That's more than I paid for my current gas-guzzling SUV. And why do you care what other people drive? I don't understand why people feel the need to tell other people what to do when it's not hurting anyone.
You can get mirrors with 99.99% reflectivity...they're expensive though. You need a very flat surface (near atomic level), and a very good coating. In fact the very very best mirrors can be as high as 99.9996% reflective (ref here). Now the problem is you need to coat a rocket surface with this...something that won't be damaged by the stresses and heat of the speeds.
Or maybe voting restrictions persist because people who go around committing felonies shouldn't be deciding who makes the laws, and the Democrats want said felons to be able to vote so they can pick up another voting block.
If you're going to say that nuclear energy relies on finite resources of naturally fissile material, then I'm going to say that geothermal energy relies on the finite naturally fissile material found in the mantle and core. They're both unlikely to run out in the next several millennia when you account for the uranium in the oceans.
The force of gravity is still about 90% at the ISS altitude compared to the surface.
There is a current advantage of quantum encryption. The information passed that is encrypted using a one-time pad (which is how QE works) can never be decrypted. If you listen in on a RSA encrypted communication, you can store that and then decrypt it in 50+ years, if the technology were available. Also, QE can be used with a sort of "repeater" (or a chain of such repeaters), with a third party operating said repeater, without compromising security.
Man in the middle attack is not possible in quantum encryption if you can verify that information is being passed without modification (but not necessarily privately) through a classical channel to/from the correct party. Not sure if that's what you were saying or not, but I just thought I'd clarify.
Err, it at least extends the protection of certain rights from the federal government to protection from the state government as well. Not all limitations on federal power are extended, as I implied.
According to the constitution, however, you should have those rights under federal law.
The 14th amendment, loosely speaking, extends the relevant limitations on federal power to state power as well.
You miss the point entirely. A Constitutionally protected right cannot be taken away by a law. The OP was implying that every right was Constitutionally protected.
That's simply not true. You do not have the right to commit suicide. You do not have the right to marry your sibling. You do not have the right to do insider trading. You do not have the right to have consensual sex with a 16 year old.
What can they do? It was a supreme court decision. Also, the justices that voted for it were the liberal ones. The originalists voted that this was unconstitutional.
It seems to me that that solution just pushes the problem of keeping the coils cold directly to keeping the outside container cold. Since there is no heat generation or dissipation (outside of radiation) inside this hypothetical vacuum-surrounded coil chamber, it will eventually reach thermal equilibrium with the nearest surface that is maintained at a constant temperature. So something still needs to be actively cooled. Of course good insulation will help, but without at least doing back-of-the-envelope sort of calculations, I can't guess how much that would cost. Of course, its still nonzero (which was my point).
Another thought that occurred to me is that if the track is relatively rarely used (i.e. for traveling between big cities as opposed to within them), you are using the same amount of energy to cool the coils, whereas for room-temperature coils you are only dissipating energy when a train is over the tracks.
Liquid helium is not cheap. Keeping helium liquid is not cheap. I have no idea how much it costs, but its not "free" to keep the coils that cold, as you imply.