I do not say that their free trade should be restricted. I say that as long as they are not obeying the treaties/laws that they agreed to, THEN there is no reason for us to honor our side. Free trade is about TWO WAY TRADING.
CHina is not about 2 way trade. It is about gaining it quickly and with interest in the real issues. They are in a cold war with us and using the economy against the west. It is time for us to stop this.
One way to pull our electronics out of CHina is to get western companies to move it back. However, QE2 is designed to do that for us. It will shake China lose, or they will suffer massive inflation.
And that is what has been going on in America. Part of several bill by W allowed companies to hide their investors. If the rest of the west does not want wholesale destruction of their nations like has happened to America, then they need to require all investment companies to disclose who the investors in them are.
So, perhaps the west should consider giving up everything to North Korea, Somilia, Al Qaeda, and Venezuela as well. After all, they all have a lots of improvised individuals in these places as well.
China has been printing Yuans like they are going out of style. QE2 is designed to shake China off of America's coat tail. The longer that they tie their Yuan to the dollar, the worst that things will get for them. Shortly, they will see massive inflation. And if they do NOT untie the Yuan from the dollar, then I expect that QE3 will be done. THAT will run China's inflation up to MINIMUM of 40% with ZERO chance of slowing that puppy down.
Personally, I do not mind if they become #1. I object because they are cheating the whole way and it is obvious that top pols are in a cold war with the west. And yet, of the flower childs running around the west scream give China a chance. I say, let those flower childs (and the GD CEOs that move the jobs there) to MOVE TO CHINA AND STAY THERE.
to the dollar, I say block it. The fact is, that while China belongs to WTO and IMF, they obey NONE of it. It is time for the west to say enough, is enough. China needs to obey the treaties and other legal obligations that they have signed. That includes:
allowing their money to float freely(WTO, IMF, and Clinton accord).
Quit dumping (WTO, and Clinton Accord).
Quit subsidizing all of their state businesses (WTO, IMF, and Clinton Accord).
drop trade barriers(WTO, and Clinton Accord).
Turn on their pollution control mechanisms (Japanese treaty).
Allow rare earth exports (WTO).
quit buying up companies and the telling them to either move the company to China or directing that 100% of the goods be transfered to China (WTO).
And that is just for starters.
The fact is, that the west needs to say enough is enough. I support free trade, but not when it is one sided.
How much money in lithium batteries are required to run 50 miles AND have HVAC vs. how much money in ultra-caps to run typically less than several miles and run HVAC? And there is NO reason to have ultra-caps at the site. Generally any place that runs a bus only 52 miles a day will have loads of stops along the way and it will certainly have loads of high wattage lines.
On a side note, Drinky, there was a time that you used to put in responses with some intelligence behind it rather than just being a sarcastic asshole. You need to go back to that time.
Instead, these should be loaded with ultracaps that can go about 10 miles (or at least 2x the longest distance between 2 stops) or so AND handle the HVAC. Then at each stop, there is a charging station that quickly fills the bus. With an ultra-cap, you have the ability to charge as quickly as you want (as in seconds, not minutes).
W/neo-cons pushed this to help them at the polls. The reason is because it supported oil rather than hindered it. This same garbage will keep going on when politicians can be bought.
What needs to happen is that we instead say what the subsidy is intended to do. For example, we should have said that we will subsidize an energy source that is none polluting AND not imported. Had we done that, then it would work for Nukes, Solar Thermal, Geo-thermal, Solar PV, bio-ethanol, bio-deseal, etc. But what is important is to change it to start HIGH and then go down over time. In doing that, it rewards those up front that take the most chances, and establishes the markets.
Likewise, we should have offered a 2'nd subsidy of saying any of the above that was also 24x7. The reason is that becomes base load power. That means that items like nukes, geo-thermal would qualify for extra subsidies.
And then finally, once last subsidy of STORAGE. Again start high, and end over a period of time. That would get companies started with creating new energy storage ideas.
Until we change how things are done, we will continue to see nightmares like ethanol occurring.
This is about STARTING something. It is not about subsidizing something for a long period of time. Right now, we have SUBSIDIZE nukes for its entire lifetime (60 years). We have also subsidized Coal for almost 100 years. Likewise, we have subsidized Oil for its entire time.
If you look at the history of ALL OF OUR ENERGY as well as massive projects, ALL WERE SUBSIDIZED TO GET THEM STARTED.
Railroads were given right of ways, and 100's of millions of acres of land to fund them.
USAF and US Postal bought loads of aircrafts, as well as US Feds built the vast majority of the airports.
We built roads to subsidize our trucks and car industry.
We have bought loads of power from coal company to get them started in various place. The feds put the national grid together to assure that energy would be everywhere as a way to start power companies. The feds put up telephone poles everywhere to fund the telephone companies. And W and the neo-cons push a subsidy for ethanol which was the most INEFFICIENT SUBSIDY OF ALL.
And you think that by offering a TIME-LIMITED Tax break/SUBSIDY OF ENERGY STORAGE is inefficient?
You have to be kidding. It is actually cheaper to store energy than to produce it in varying amounts. As such, storage allows for large electrical production that runs at a single speed.
That allows for building more nukes and even more efficient natural gas facilities. Finally, storage has the advantage that if done in smaller size, it allows ultimately for a 2 level grid, instead of the current single level fits all.
The problem is that the grid COMBINED with electrical generation is a regulated monopoly.
There is a simple way to lower the costs of energy while assuring us decent cheaper power.
Have the grid to be under a separate company. It is regulated.
Allow any company to generator electricity. The consumer can then pick who they want.
Have a tax break or temp subsidy for energy STORAGE. This group of ppl will buy excess electricity and sell it at a higher rate and provider the electricity that is needed.
Basically, the storage not only smooths out the energy curve (handles the varying demands), but also, allows AE to generate power and have it stored. That encourages home owners to get Wind, Solar PV, Solar thermal, tide, etc.
The CRITICAL part is that any tax breaks/subsidies should start HIGH and over a period of time DROP. That encourages ppl to jump into the game early.
In addition, it encourages loads of start-ups. For example, companies doing molten salt style solar thermal, might be tempted to create a molten salt version that uses electricity to heat. In doing that, they can get their manufacturing costs down quickly for that portion which helps on their core idea of Solar Thermal.
In addition, the HIGH tax break/subsidy encourages its growth NOW. That means lots of jobs quickly.
One key to that, is to require that it be either local to the USA or from nations that do not manipulate their money vs. the dollar. Far too many nations either have their money fixed against the dollar (China being the best example), or manipulate (I will exclude for the time, but easy enough to show and prove).
The reality is that in multiple lines, in a medium load, it is not uncommon to see cashier's lines empty and a cashier WAITING for a customer. Normally, it is less than 1 minute, BUT, they could have checked out somebody during that time.
under heavy loads, you WILL have the same efficiency, BUT, ALL of the lines will be going slower as well due to hitting issues (long queue means higher chance of hitting issues which slows it down).
A single queue is easy to optimize, and keep it optimized, as well as fair under ALL CONDITIONS. A multiple queue will be optimized BUT considered unfair by most customers, under a heavy load. At all other times, it would actually be under optimized. The fact that you spoke of getting into short lines says that. And as to flirting with a cashier, you can still do that with a single line. Heck, you can allow others to go in front so that you get a particular register.
Finally, disregarding your being incorrect about efficiencies on this, if a word is used incorrectly, it does NOT make it junk science. It means that an article was poorly written.
But hey, that means that you love Faux News and Al Gore, right?
Wrong.
The que is not the wait. It is the resource of cashier. The issue is that the deeper the queue, the higher the chance that there will be an issue.
So lets play with some numbers.
Assume that you have 3 queues. Further assume that checkout takes 1 minute. Further assume that problems take 5 minutes. I think that the previous numbers are close to accurate for an average amount of goods. And assume that 1 in every 8 ppl has an issue, which is really arbitrary.
That means:
A light time of say 1 sale / minute, then your time is 1 minute since you can see what cashier is open.
A medium time of when you have say 4 ppl in a queue, which is 12 sales/minute. That means that there is 50% chance of hitting a line that is going to have an issue. The reason is that the queue is NOT dependent on which line you choose by the DEPTH of the queue. You have limited capabilities to decide just by looking at others if they will have issues. In addition, the time will take between 4-20 minutes to get to the cashier, with an average of over 10.
Finally, when the queue hits 8, then it is 100% certain that you will have a slow down of some type. In addition, the time will take between
13 to 40 minutes to get to the cashier with an average of close to 20.
The customers WILL be grouchy esp. with the last one. Why? Because at some point they will STAND THERE AND WAIT.
Now, if you have a single queue with 3 cashiers, that means that best case is 1/3 minute per sale and worst case is 5 minute per sale.
Then with 1 sale / minute, you will get through instantly like above.
Assume that it is the medium load, which is 12 sales. There will be 1.5 issues during that time, but at least 1 cashier will run full out.
As such, the time will be between 5-10 minutes, with an average of about 6. In addition, you will be moving through the line QUICKLY.
With the heavy load, that is a total of 24 sales. That means that there will be 3 issues.
That means that you have a time of between 8-12 minutes, with an average of 10 minutes.
What that showed is that:
The multiple queues will have a similar performance to single queue during light loads. During medium loads, the multiple queues CAN have a slightly better speed, but the worst case is MUCH WORSE, with the average being slight worse.
During heavy loads, then the single queue is guaranteed to outperform the multiples in every instance (best, average and worst).
This occurred because of the shift from resource choosing based on a guess of which LINE to the OPEN CASHIER. More importantly, THIS OPTIMIZES THE WAIT TIME. Heck, with the multiple queues, it not uncommon for ppl to have to shift from one cashier to another which killed the time. And it is possible (though rarely) for an individual to jump to the front of a queue while a shopper hates their line due to the unfairness of it.
When I saw it at MicroCenter, I hated the long line, but it moved so fast, that I have quit carping about it. Basically, it is parallelism the way that it should be done: not at the time of choosing which line, but of choosing which cashier. There is a difference.
We have playoffs here as well.
The problem is that this is a method patent that was granted by either some Indian or Chinese inspector, since W's admin outsourced all of that. Between the fact that CONgress supported the concept of method patents and then W outsourced to ppl who are NOT experts in any field here in America (physics does not prepare one for knowing prior art in America), they have allowed millions of patents that should not have been allowed.
As it is, I will probably have to fight against one which had prior art in the 70's. Had it been done by a person in America, they would likely have recalled it. Sad.
The more that W outsourced to his buddies, the more that it has costs America. This is no different than when reagan killed the move to metric. Had we done that back in 1981, then we could have competed better. Now, everything is more expensive coming in here, because of lack of thought for the nation, only for a few friends in large business.
Now, what is needed is to push this in the face of all of these congressmen that supported method patents. It was an evil that MUST BE DESTROYED. It is destructive in the software industry most of all, but all businesses will suffer due to it. Then we can get ppl back to focusing on building things rather than gov. protected services.
Personally, I am not wild about laws esp. when Driving. The facts are, that if a car and a pedestrian collide, almost always, the pedestrian is MUCH worst off. They have the ability to hear, so why not give them an opportunity to get out of the way, rather than having lawyers argue about we are dead.
That is exactly why whoever wins the contract NEEDS to bring back the manufacturing to America. Considering that Apple has not done manufacturing in decades and never on this scale, then it would make sense for Motorola win.
Slashdot Mirror
oops. Sorry. I misread it. Makes sense.
I do not say that their free trade should be restricted. I say that as long as they are not obeying the treaties/laws that they agreed to, THEN there is no reason for us to honor our side. Free trade is about TWO WAY TRADING. CHina is not about 2 way trade. It is about gaining it quickly and with interest in the real issues. They are in a cold war with us and using the economy against the west. It is time for us to stop this.
One way to pull our electronics out of CHina is to get western companies to move it back. However, QE2 is designed to do that for us. It will shake China lose, or they will suffer massive inflation.
And that is what has been going on in America. Part of several bill by W allowed companies to hide their investors. If the rest of the west does not want wholesale destruction of their nations like has happened to America, then they need to require all investment companies to disclose who the investors in them are.
So, perhaps the west should consider giving up everything to North Korea, Somilia, Al Qaeda, and Venezuela as well. After all, they all have a lots of improvised individuals in these places as well.
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-10/politics/clinton.pntr_1_wto-membership-china-global-trade-regime?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
China has been printing Yuans like they are going out of style. QE2 is designed to shake China off of America's coat tail. The longer that they tie their Yuan to the dollar, the worst that things will get for them. Shortly, they will see massive inflation. And if they do NOT untie the Yuan from the dollar, then I expect that QE3 will be done. THAT will run China's inflation up to MINIMUM of 40% with ZERO chance of slowing that puppy down.
Actually, they are starting to. And I think that we will see more coming from them. Having cheap manufacturing available helps ppl
Personally, I do not mind if they become #1. I object because they are cheating the whole way and it is obvious that top pols are in a cold war with the west. And yet, of the flower childs running around the west scream give China a chance. I say, let those flower childs (and the GD CEOs that move the jobs there) to MOVE TO CHINA AND STAY THERE.
And that is just for starters.
The fact is, that the west needs to say enough is enough. I support free trade, but not when it is one sided.
Then your gov. already has your money and knows everything about you already.
I am not downloading ANY apps from CHina. You have to be an idiot to grab them.
How much money in lithium batteries are required to run 50 miles AND have HVAC vs. how much money in ultra-caps to run typically less than several miles and run HVAC? And there is NO reason to have ultra-caps at the site. Generally any place that runs a bus only 52 miles a day will have loads of stops along the way and it will certainly have loads of high wattage lines.
And I just googled for this. Lo and behold it is already being done. In China. For the last several year (along with li-ion battery buses). It turns out to be MUCH cheaper to do vs. Chinese built li-ion.
On a side note, Drinky, there was a time that you used to put in responses with some intelligence behind it rather than just being a sarcastic asshole. You need to go back to that time.
Instead, these should be loaded with ultracaps that can go about 10 miles (or at least 2x the longest distance between 2 stops) or so AND handle the HVAC. Then at each stop, there is a charging station that quickly fills the bus. With an ultra-cap, you have the ability to charge as quickly as you want (as in seconds, not minutes).
W/neo-cons pushed this to help them at the polls. The reason is because it supported oil rather than hindered it. This same garbage will keep going on when politicians can be bought.
What needs to happen is that we instead say what the subsidy is intended to do. For example, we should have said that we will subsidize an energy source that is none polluting AND not imported. Had we done that, then it would work for Nukes, Solar Thermal, Geo-thermal, Solar PV, bio-ethanol, bio-deseal, etc. But what is important is to change it to start HIGH and then go down over time. In doing that, it rewards those up front that take the most chances, and establishes the markets.
Likewise, we should have offered a 2'nd subsidy of saying any of the above that was also 24x7. The reason is that becomes base load power. That means that items like nukes, geo-thermal would qualify for extra subsidies.
And then finally, once last subsidy of STORAGE. Again start high, and end over a period of time. That would get companies started with creating new energy storage ideas.
Until we change how things are done, we will continue to see nightmares like ethanol occurring.
This is about STARTING something. It is not about subsidizing something for a long period of time. Right now, we have SUBSIDIZE nukes for its entire lifetime (60 years). We have also subsidized Coal for almost 100 years. Likewise, we have subsidized Oil for its entire time.
If you look at the history of ALL OF OUR ENERGY as well as massive projects, ALL WERE SUBSIDIZED TO GET THEM STARTED.
Railroads were given right of ways, and 100's of millions of acres of land to fund them.
USAF and US Postal bought loads of aircrafts, as well as US Feds built the vast majority of the airports.
We built roads to subsidize our trucks and car industry.
We have bought loads of power from coal company to get them started in various place. The feds put the national grid together to assure that energy would be everywhere as a way to start power companies. The feds put up telephone poles everywhere to fund the telephone companies. And W and the neo-cons push a subsidy for ethanol which was the most INEFFICIENT SUBSIDY OF ALL.
And you think that by offering a TIME-LIMITED Tax break/SUBSIDY OF ENERGY STORAGE is inefficient? You have to be kidding. It is actually cheaper to store energy than to produce it in varying amounts. As such, storage allows for large electrical production that runs at a single speed. That allows for building more nukes and even more efficient natural gas facilities. Finally, storage has the advantage that if done in smaller size, it allows ultimately for a 2 level grid, instead of the current single level fits all.
There is a simple way to lower the costs of energy while assuring us decent cheaper power.
Basically, the storage not only smooths out the energy curve (handles the varying demands), but also, allows AE to generate power and have it stored. That encourages home owners to get Wind, Solar PV, Solar thermal, tide, etc.
The CRITICAL part is that any tax breaks/subsidies should start HIGH and over a period of time DROP. That encourages ppl to jump into the game early. In addition, it encourages loads of start-ups. For example, companies doing molten salt style solar thermal, might be tempted to create a molten salt version that uses electricity to heat. In doing that, they can get their manufacturing costs down quickly for that portion which helps on their core idea of Solar Thermal.
In addition, the HIGH tax break/subsidy encourages its growth NOW. That means lots of jobs quickly. One key to that, is to require that it be either local to the USA or from nations that do not manipulate their money vs. the dollar. Far too many nations either have their money fixed against the dollar (China being the best example), or manipulate (I will exclude for the time, but easy enough to show and prove).
The reality is that in multiple lines, in a medium load, it is not uncommon to see cashier's lines empty and a cashier WAITING for a customer. Normally, it is less than 1 minute, BUT, they could have checked out somebody during that time.
under heavy loads, you WILL have the same efficiency, BUT, ALL of the lines will be going slower as well due to hitting issues (long queue means higher chance of hitting issues which slows it down).
A single queue is easy to optimize, and keep it optimized, as well as fair under ALL CONDITIONS. A multiple queue will be optimized BUT considered unfair by most customers, under a heavy load. At all other times, it would actually be under optimized. The fact that you spoke of getting into short lines says that. And as to flirting with a cashier, you can still do that with a single line. Heck, you can allow others to go in front so that you get a particular register.
Finally, disregarding your being incorrect about efficiencies on this, if a word is used incorrectly, it does NOT make it junk science. It means that an article was poorly written. But hey, that means that you love Faux News and Al Gore, right?
And yet, you MBAs continue to set up multiple queues until just recently. Any reason why you guys are SO SLOOOOOWWW on the uptake?
The que is not the wait. It is the resource of cashier. The issue is that the deeper the queue, the higher the chance that there will be an issue.
So lets play with some numbers.
Assume that you have 3 queues. Further assume that checkout takes 1 minute. Further assume that problems take 5 minutes. I think that the previous numbers are close to accurate for an average amount of goods. And assume that 1 in every 8 ppl has an issue, which is really arbitrary.
That means:
The customers WILL be grouchy esp. with the last one. Why? Because at some point they will STAND THERE AND WAIT.
Now, if you have a single queue with 3 cashiers, that means that best case is 1/3 minute per sale and worst case is 5 minute per sale.
What that showed is that:
The multiple queues will have a similar performance to single queue during light loads.
During medium loads, the multiple queues CAN have a slightly better speed, but the worst case is MUCH WORSE, with the average being slight worse.
During heavy loads, then the single queue is guaranteed to outperform the multiples in every instance (best, average and worst).
This occurred because of the shift from resource choosing based on a guess of which LINE to the OPEN CASHIER. More importantly, THIS OPTIMIZES THE WAIT TIME. Heck, with the multiple queues, it not uncommon for ppl to have to shift from one cashier to another which killed the time. And it is possible (though rarely) for an individual to jump to the front of a queue while a shopper hates their line due to the unfairness of it.
When I saw it at MicroCenter, I hated the long line, but it moved so fast, that I have quit carping about it. Basically, it is parallelism the way that it should be done: not at the time of choosing which line, but of choosing which cashier. There is a difference.
We have playoffs here as well. The problem is that this is a method patent that was granted by either some Indian or Chinese inspector, since W's admin outsourced all of that. Between the fact that CONgress supported the concept of method patents and then W outsourced to ppl who are NOT experts in any field here in America (physics does not prepare one for knowing prior art in America), they have allowed millions of patents that should not have been allowed. As it is, I will probably have to fight against one which had prior art in the 70's. Had it been done by a person in America, they would likely have recalled it. Sad.
The more that W outsourced to his buddies, the more that it has costs America. This is no different than when reagan killed the move to metric. Had we done that back in 1981, then we could have competed better. Now, everything is more expensive coming in here, because of lack of thought for the nation, only for a few friends in large business.
Now, what is needed is to push this in the face of all of these congressmen that supported method patents. It was an evil that MUST BE DESTROYED. It is destructive in the software industry most of all, but all businesses will suffer due to it. Then we can get ppl back to focusing on building things rather than gov. protected services.
Personally, I am not wild about laws esp. when Driving. The facts are, that if a car and a pedestrian collide, almost always, the pedestrian is MUCH worst off. They have the ability to hear, so why not give them an opportunity to get out of the way, rather than having lawyers argue about we are dead.
Drivers ARE responsible for avoid pedestrians. However, if are hit by a car, who will come out better?
That is exactly why whoever wins the contract NEEDS to bring back the manufacturing to America. Considering that Apple has not done manufacturing in decades and never on this scale, then it would make sense for Motorola win.