The Soviets had "money". The problem was the whole nation was run by state monopolies. In the USA you have corporate monopolies like P&G. You have a lot of brands, sure, but most of them are part of only a few conglomerates. The more the conglomerates grow, the less real competition there is, prices go up, and salaries go down.
Yeah. I thought the scaremongers had told us that when global warming really took off only the cockroaches would be left. Turns out they are dying. So they did not even get that right.
Perhaps people should study the ecosystems more in depth instead of blaming everything on anthropomorphic global warming. Seriously.
What we had, before the site update at least, was that we could see who replied to our posts directly in the profile. Now it's zip. Nada. Unless I manually click on each post and check it myself. Progress? I don't think so.
Steve Jobs never admitted he was wrong either. At least while he still had product he had to move. But later it often got fixed and it would be claimed as a new feature.
Yeah no kidding. This from a company like Stardock, which basically made a Master of Orion clone without infringing on the basic IP. Could they have not created their own IP? No, instead they had to license a well known trademark.
Star Control 3 AFAIK does not use the same source code as either SC1 or 2. It is a wholly different game and much crappier too. It is loosely based on Star Control 2 plot elements and was made under license. The original authors own the copyrights to both the datafiles (story, art) and the source code of the games they made. They only sold the trademark to Accolade, which was later bought by Infogrames and later Hasbro. Or was it the other way around? Then sold the trademark to Stardock.
So no Stardock cannot use any copyrighted parts of the story much like you cannot legally copy the original DOOM wads even if you have a source code license. Except in this case Stardock doesn't even have that just the trademark. Which is basically a name.
Also the natural gas prices are higher in the Asian than European markets. Why do you think the US is mostly selling its LNG to China when the liquefaction facilities are in the Gulf of Mexico?
Irrelevant? The Netherlands produced over 73 bcm (that's billion cubic meter) of natural gas in the year of 2010. In 2017 their production was around 36 bcm. Their supply is going to zero in a decade. They used to export a lot of their output to Germany and the UK. They even have a pipeline to the UK to do this. Nord Stream 2 can supply 55 bcm in a year once it becomes operational at the end of next year. Nord Stream 1 is already being used at full capacity this year according to several reports.
The Eastern European countries already get a lot of EU funds to increase their economic convergence to the EU mean. https://assets.kpmg/content/da...
Even if Nord Stream 2 would not be built what will happen is the Russians will export more LNG from Yamal. They already have plans to double their production capacity. Another thing they might do is shift exports to China if Europe stops buying their gas. Then what would happen is Germany and most central europe would get more expensive natural gas only decreasing their own competitive advantage versus the Asian markets.
US gas would be competitive in places like Western Europe. In there it competes with both Nigerian and Algerian natural gas. But what has happened in practice is the US has sold most of its gas in Asian markets, namely China, which can pay more. Their LNG gasification capabilities are about the same as Russia. They might have a lot of gas but they neither have the gasification facilities nor the tankers to move the gas. Those would take a decade to build.
My understanding is that North Sea gas is fine for decades, which is about as much as anyone searches for today. Considering the need for alternative sources, Norway and Scotland will have plenty of resources for new wells even if they are uneconomical in the immediate pricing situation. EU grants will come very quickly should they be needed.
Norway is not in the EU and Scotland will soon not be in the EU either. The UK currently is dismantling most of its oil rigs. Also, one reason why Russia has been pulling ahead in the segment is because they have been willing to fund most of their projects on their own dime.
Natural gas production from the Groningen field has now roughly halved over the last three years, and will not return to previous levels. This latest decision, therefore, truly marks the end of an era for the Dutch and for Europe more broadly. (2016)
Production is set for 21.6 billion cubic meters (bcm) this year, already down from a peak of 53.8 bcm in 2013, following a series of cuts as decades of extraction have led to dozens of earthquakes each year, damaging thousands of homes and buildings.
“Our intention is (to cut production) to get towards 12 bcm in the coming four or five years, and to zero at the end of the coming decade,” Prime Minister Mark Rutte told a press conference. (2018)
Nord Stream 2 isn't needed in any meaningful way right now on merits of "today", as Nord Stream 1 is underutilized.
"In 2017, the Nord Stream Pipeline delivered 51 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas to consumers in the European Union. This means the pipeline system operated at 93 per cent of its annual design capacity of 55 bcm."
That's 93 per cent capacity last year. Plus given the ramp up trends it should have reached full capacity this year.
As for US supplying gas, most of the shale producers have wells for "30 years of production". Why not more? Because they would have to disclose this if it was so, which automatically makes them target for hostile takeover. Natgas is the by-product of shale, that is getting increasingly captured instead of flared. So US has supplies for at least 30 years, and realistically for far longer period of time. The problem here is costs, because energy expenditures to compress the gas into liquid and transport it are just too high compared to piped gas. You're looking at about 50% price increase for someone like Germany.
Exactly. It would be a lot more expensive. It would also require large liquefaction and regasification facilities to be build. There are plenty of port facilities in Europe but there is a severe shortage of liquefaction facilities in the USA and regasification facilities in Europe. In fact Europe has been investing in ports, storage, and regasification facilities for natural gas over the past decade. However the USA can neither supply that demand nor do it cheaply. In fact the USA has been bickering already that Russia is starting to carve a chunk of the LNG sector themselves via their Yamal LNG liquefaction facilities. https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Either the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is built or the German economy will tumble. As will the economy of the Netherlands. Even the UK will be impacted. You know why? Because the natural gas wells in the Netherlands are drying up. As is North Sea gas. There will be a capacity deficit in the near future, like the next 5 years unless Nord Stream 2 is built. The alternative for the Germans, I guess, is burning coal. Since Germany has been closing all their nuclear reactors.
If you think the Germans will take the hit and lose economic competitiveness to satisfy some nebulous USA natural gas interests they have another thing coming. Fact is the USA does not even have the capacity to supply that demand over the next 5 years. To build those facilities, even if they were financed, would take at least a decade and it would still be more expensive than Russian gas.
Slashdot Mirror
There are the Affero Public License and modified versions of the GPL for that.
Well sometimes you conduct an experiment and you find out that the results are totally different from what you would expect. The world isn't binary.
This reminds of that sci-fi book I read where a guy loses his smart glasses and becomes helpless in the middle of the street.
The Soviets had "money". The problem was the whole nation was run by state monopolies. In the USA you have corporate monopolies like P&G. You have a lot of brands, sure, but most of them are part of only a few conglomerates. The more the conglomerates grow, the less real competition there is, prices go up, and salaries go down.
Yeah I also think this is a lot more likely as an explanation.
Yeah. I thought the scaremongers had told us that when global warming really took off only the cockroaches would be left. Turns out they are dying. So they did not even get that right.
Perhaps people should study the ecosystems more in depth instead of blaming everything on anthropomorphic global warming. Seriously.
What we had, before the site update at least, was that we could see who replied to our posts directly in the profile. Now it's zip. Nada. Unless I manually click on each post and check it myself. Progress? I don't think so.
You can but it uses an anonymized search. It's similar to opening a browser tab in privacy mode and searching in Google.
It's because of import tariffs.
https://seekingalpha.com/artic...
Steve Jobs never admitted he was wrong either. At least while he still had product he had to move. But later it often got fixed and it would be claimed as a new feature.
http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Supox...
Yeah no kidding. This from a company like Stardock, which basically made a Master of Orion clone without infringing on the basic IP. Could they have not created their own IP? No, instead they had to license a well known trademark.
Star Control 3 AFAIK does not use the same source code as either SC1 or 2. It is a wholly different game and much crappier too. It is loosely based on Star Control 2 plot elements and was made under license. The original authors own the copyrights to both the datafiles (story, art) and the source code of the games they made. They only sold the trademark to Accolade, which was later bought by Infogrames and later Hasbro. Or was it the other way around? Then sold the trademark to Stardock.
So no Stardock cannot use any copyrighted parts of the story much like you cannot legally copy the original DOOM wads even if you have a source code license. Except in this case Stardock doesn't even have that just the trademark. Which is basically a name.
He was eaten by a GRUe.
...that the plants produce the toxin because it provides them with an evolutionary advantage against predators. Nope.
Huawei also designs their own chips like the Kirin processor line.
Had to insert this Judge Dredd clip here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Less than 2% if I read the article right. Which is almost 10x worse than other existing systems.
Sure it bends, but the efficiency is so crappy it's only useful for novelty applications.
It has never materialized huh? I guess you never heard of these.
http://www.gazprom.com/project...
http://www.gazprom.com/project...
Or more even more relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also the natural gas prices are higher in the Asian than European markets. Why do you think the US is mostly selling its LNG to China when the liquefaction facilities are in the Gulf of Mexico?
Irrelevant? The Netherlands produced over 73 bcm (that's billion cubic meter) of natural gas in the year of 2010. In 2017 their production was around 36 bcm. Their supply is going to zero in a decade. They used to export a lot of their output to Germany and the UK. They even have a pipeline to the UK to do this. Nord Stream 2 can supply 55 bcm in a year once it becomes operational at the end of next year. Nord Stream 1 is already being used at full capacity this year according to several reports.
The Eastern European countries already get a lot of EU funds to increase their economic convergence to the EU mean.
https://assets.kpmg/content/da...
Even if Nord Stream 2 would not be built what will happen is the Russians will export more LNG from Yamal. They already have plans to double their production capacity. Another thing they might do is shift exports to China if Europe stops buying their gas. Then what would happen is Germany and most central europe would get more expensive natural gas only decreasing their own competitive advantage versus the Asian markets.
US gas would be competitive in places like Western Europe. In there it competes with both Nigerian and Algerian natural gas. But what has happened in practice is the US has sold most of its gas in Asian markets, namely China, which can pay more. Their LNG gasification capabilities are about the same as Russia. They might have a lot of gas but they neither have the gasification facilities nor the tankers to move the gas. Those would take a decade to build.
Somehow I got the last link wrong. This should be the correct one.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
My understanding is that North Sea gas is fine for decades, which is about as much as anyone searches for today. Considering the need for alternative sources, Norway and Scotland will have plenty of resources for new wells even if they are uneconomical in the immediate pricing situation. EU grants will come very quickly should they be needed.
Norway is not in the EU and Scotland will soon not be in the EU either. The UK currently is dismantling most of its oil rigs. Also, one reason why Russia has been pulling ahead in the segment is because they have been willing to fund most of their projects on their own dime.
Also, with regards to the Netherlands.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog...
Natural gas production from the Groningen field has now roughly halved over the last three years, and will not return to previous levels. This latest decision, therefore, truly marks the end of an era for the Dutch and for Europe more broadly. (2016)
Netherlands natural gas production in Bcm.
https://ycharts.com/indicators...
Finally.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Production is set for 21.6 billion cubic meters (bcm) this year, already down from a peak of 53.8 bcm in 2013, following a series of cuts as decades of extraction have led to dozens of earthquakes each year, damaging thousands of homes and buildings.
“Our intention is (to cut production) to get towards 12 bcm in the coming four or five years, and to zero at the end of the coming decade,” Prime Minister Mark Rutte told a press conference. (2018)
Nord Stream 2 isn't needed in any meaningful way right now on merits of "today", as Nord Stream 1 is underutilized.
https://www.nord-stream.com/pr...
"In 2017, the Nord Stream Pipeline delivered 51 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas to consumers in the European Union. This means the pipeline system operated at 93 per cent of its annual design capacity of 55 bcm."
That's 93 per cent capacity last year. Plus given the ramp up trends it should have reached full capacity this year.
As for US supplying gas, most of the shale producers have wells for "30 years of production". Why not more? Because they would have to disclose this if it was so, which automatically makes them target for hostile takeover. Natgas is the by-product of shale, that is getting increasingly captured instead of flared. So US has supplies for at least 30 years, and realistically for far longer period of time. The problem here is costs, because energy expenditures to compress the gas into liquid and transport it are just too high compared to piped gas. You're looking at about 50% price increase for someone like Germany.
Exactly. It would be a lot more expensive. It would also require large liquefaction and regasification facilities to be build. There are plenty of port facilities in Europe but there is a severe shortage of liquefaction facilities in the USA and regasification facilities in Europe. In fact Europe has been investing in ports, storage, and regasification facilities for natural gas over the past decade. However the USA can neither supply that demand nor do it cheaply. In fact the USA has been bickering already that Russia is starting to carve a chunk of the LNG sector themselves via their Yamal LNG liquefaction facilities.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
France also used to harvest organs from convicts. Don't know if they still do it though.
Being neutral can be quite profitable. Just ask the Swiss.
Either the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is built or the German economy will tumble. As will the economy of the Netherlands. Even the UK will be impacted. You know why? Because the natural gas wells in the Netherlands are drying up. As is North Sea gas. There will be a capacity deficit in the near future, like the next 5 years unless Nord Stream 2 is built. The alternative for the Germans, I guess, is burning coal. Since Germany has been closing all their nuclear reactors.
If you think the Germans will take the hit and lose economic competitiveness to satisfy some nebulous USA natural gas interests they have another thing coming. Fact is the USA does not even have the capacity to supply that demand over the next 5 years. To build those facilities, even if they were financed, would take at least a decade and it would still be more expensive than Russian gas.