"Nobody is any worse off 1 second -after- you email that mp3 to your girlfriend than they where 1 second -before- you did it."
Isnt that the definition of a "Pareto Improvement"? You have made one person better off without harming anyone else ( assuming you are correct in this ).
So, if everyone emailed or otherwise distributed all their mp3's to everyone, would that not be "Pareto Efficient"?
But if such a duplicator existed, there would be far fewer people making a living assembling a car from a design. Most of them would still have to find another job.
The designers would probably move upscale, providing more unique cars, creating one real model, then duplicating a small ( or large, depending on his/her/its tastes, etc ) number of duplicates, selling them relatively cheaply, depending on the requirements of the duplicator.
It's when you and that cute blonde from homeroom build castles together, but secretly on the side you like to populate moonbases with that sassy redhead from PE.
Corporate contributions to political campaigns has to stop. Politicians have a hard enough time doing anything remotely resembling "right" without the temptation of money for voting for the protectionist legislation.
Except that most of that 150 years was not spent advancing the state of the art. Think of where we might have been if the age of computing had started back then.
Mostly, I was poking fun at the "judicial activism" sort.
And in that vein, what is the definition of "bearing arms"? Is a soldier in a tank bearing arms? I think an argument could be made that he/she/it is. Certainly, many anti tank guns are man portable, so if "bearing arms" means carrying them, then everything up to that point is fair game. And what happens when we get into the era of powered armour suits.
But it's always your problem, garbage collecting or not. I found that out the hard way with the first generation C# stuff. The garbage collection was not well refined, lets say. One service that I wrote in C#, all those years ago, would balloon up like nobodies business. Objects not referenced and all. Little I could do about it. Invoking the garbage collector "by hand" was not satisfactory.
"Well, you seem to be assuming that they'd be writing this linked-list class in C++"
They might and they might not. If they learn in Java, and things are cleaned up for the, they will not learn ( except on the job ) about how to do that clean up. If they end up in a C++ type environment, they will do poorly, at least for a while. If they learn in C++, they will learn to clean up, continuing in C++ will not be a difficulty, transitioning to Java will not be as traumatic as the other transition.
Yes, use fission, and reprocess the fuel to the extent possible, and work to increase reactor efficiency, but once that fuel is out of the reactor, why not *add* this new technique and continue to generate lower levels of electricity from that. Assuming it works, of course.
During that same 60 year cycle, you will have, each year, one more core set to do something with. You are not going to get that 200 MeV from it, it is not in a reactor, why not go ahead and get that ( 5 * number of cores * n years ) MeV from that, rather than just storing it.
One thing to factor into your thinking is that there is probably a lot more waste material sitting around than is active in cores of reactors. Also, I would think that that waste material would be producing at the lower figure, but for a much longer period of time.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nobody is any worse off 1 second -after- you email that mp3 to your girlfriend than they where 1 second -before- you did it."
Isnt that the definition of a "Pareto Improvement"?
You have made one person better off without harming anyone else ( assuming you are correct in this ).
So, if everyone emailed or otherwise distributed all their mp3's to everyone, would that not be "Pareto Efficient"?
But if such a duplicator existed, there would be far fewer people making a living assembling a car from a design. Most of them would still have to find another job.
The designers would probably move upscale, providing more unique cars, creating one real model, then duplicating a small ( or large, depending on his/her/its tastes, etc ) number of duplicates, selling them relatively cheaply, depending on the requirements of the duplicator.
Good points, though.
I would add to that,
Why was it a one time "purchase" and not a long term, cancellable-if-we-get-a-higher-bid ( restrictions on that would be reasonable ) "lease"?
It's when you and that cute blonde from homeroom build castles together, but secretly on the side you like to populate moonbases with that sassy redhead from PE.
There, fixed that for you.
Corporate contributions to political campaigns has to stop. Politicians have a hard enough time doing anything remotely resembling "right" without the temptation of money for voting for the protectionist legislation.
It's all clear!
Nano technology.
Halt!
Any algorithm you can come up with ( in the mathematical sense ), a Turing machine can compute it, unless it runs forever ( the halting problem ).
Except that most of that 150 years was not spent advancing the state of the art. Think of where we might have been if the age of computing had started back then.
Is this proof that n / 0 = infinity?
What difference can it make?
Perhaps I added to much "sardonic" to my post, that was the point I was going for.
So, let me make sure I have this straight....
The Imperial Stormtrooper armour is *not* suing the designer of George Lucas?
"The law can easily be interpreted in it's original context without getting absurd"
But isn't this judicial activism?
I quite agree with you.
Mostly, I was poking fun at the "judicial activism" sort.
And in that vein, what is the definition of "bearing arms"? Is a soldier in a tank bearing arms? I think an argument could be made that he/she/it is. Certainly, many anti tank guns are man portable, so if "bearing arms" means carrying them, then everything up to that point is fair game. And what happens when we get into the era of powered armour suits.
Now, now, you are getting into interpreting the constitution there. Guns was all they had back then, so that is all you can have now.
But it's always your problem, garbage collecting or not. I found that out the hard way with the first generation C# stuff. The garbage collection was not well refined, lets say. One service that I wrote in C#, all those years ago, would balloon up like nobodies business. Objects not referenced and all. Little I could do about it. Invoking the garbage collector "by hand" was not satisfactory.
"Well, you seem to be assuming that they'd be writing this linked-list class in C++"
They might and they might not. If they learn in Java, and things are cleaned up for the, they will not learn ( except on the job ) about how to do that clean up. If they end up in a C++ type environment, they will do poorly, at least for a while. If they learn in C++, they will learn to clean up, continuing in C++ will not be a difficulty, transitioning to Java will not be as traumatic as the other transition.
Let us know how that works out for you. :-)
I don't see it as either / or.
Yes, use fission, and reprocess the fuel to the extent possible, and work to
increase reactor efficiency, but once that fuel is out of the reactor, why not
*add* this new technique and continue to generate lower levels of electricity
from that. Assuming it works, of course.
During that same 60 year cycle, you will have, each year, one more core set
to do something with. You are not going to get that 200 MeV from it, it is not
in a reactor, why not go ahead and get that ( 5 * number of cores * n years ) MeV
from that, rather than just storing it.
One thing to factor into your thinking is that there is probably a lot more
waste material sitting around than is active in cores of reactors. Also, I
would think that that waste material would be producing at the lower figure,
but for a much longer period of time.
Thanks, I should have RTFA. I asked as I have seen a number of attempts to mislead with "statistics".
"...consumption by the top fifth of the population by income is only twice that of the bottom fifth."
How many people are in the top fifth of the population by income, and how many in the bottom fifth by income?
"but then wouldn't my laptop cost more?"
It might cost exactly the same, but with the money paid
to the PC Mfgr going straight to it's "bottom line".
Heck, they might charge you more with the crud on there,
because the "value has been enhanced", right?
What happened to prices before and after the crudware
installs started?