Yes, that's the problem; these spheres by nature must hold less energy per unit volume than hydrogen gas itself, which is already pretty poor on a volume basis. It also reduces the energy per unit mass, because the spheres do not contain any useful energy themselves. While hydrogen is quite phenomeonal on an energy per mass basis, taking up volume with massive (relative to hydrogen) glass particles will take away this advantage.
Thanks for the link; that would, indeed, meet my 350 mile/ 5 minute critera. Now I wonder when we'll be able to buy one, for the equivalent of $20k year-2000 dollars (that's my benchmark for vehicle prices), and when there will be enough H2 fuel stations to make this useful? (I fear the latter is the biggest problem).
(And, to boot, I happen to like the styling of that much more than the current most popular hybrid.)
Bumping the time up to 5 minutes drops down to 3810 kJ/s (my current vehicle is 10 gallons/fill, and it takes about 3 minutes).
It gets worse if you use 43 or 43.5 MJ/kg for gasoline content instead of 42.
Note: if you typed in what you said, Google was correct: you put 29000 *cal* in your formula, then reported in kcal...what's a few orders of magnitude among friends?
Sure, an electric motor can beat out a gasoline due to torque like we all know. However, I will not use any alternative system until:
The solution allows at least 350 highway miles per charge and can be fully recharged in 5 minutes or less.
As far as I know, no current or on the horizon electric-only system can do this. Hydrogen / fuel cell are close, but that is something that just cannot be done with chemical batteries in the mass market (I have heard of research into areas of fast charging, but I know I don't want to have to stand near an electric supply that is transferring at over 6 MW (10 gallons in 3 minutes of gasoline is just over 6.3 MW equivalent energy transfer).
Uhh...can you rephrase the statment? WoW and other MMORPGs are *part of* the gaming market, so they can't siphon money out of it.
If you mean, how much market share did they take from console game producers due to a market advantange, then your statement makes sense. Or, if you asked how much higher energy prices took out of the gaming market, that would make sense.
Therefore to sell at a higher price, demand must be higher now than it used to be... Demand goes up and so do ticket prices.
Not necessarily. In fact, if demand drops, prices can rise if the supplier is only willing to produce a minimum quantity of items. It's mass production in reverse:
Let's say I want to make $50k per year. If I sell 100 widgets, each one has to sell for $500 over cost to make that $50k per year. If I can sell 100 at $500+cost, I'm good. Now, if I only sell 50, that means I have to charge $1000 + cost for each item. Selling 50 instead of 100 means demand dropped, not increased. Now, the only way price can increase if demand increases if supply does not increase as well. The only way prices increase if demand increases is if supplied volume cannot increase as well (for instance, oil). Let's take my example: If I can only make 100 widgets per year, and I get orders for 200, I can increase my price from $500+cost to something higher, say, $750 plus cost, to keep my order count down to 100 per year. That is a price increase due to demand increase. If, however, I can produce more, say the full 200 units, I could theoretically decrease my price to $250+cost per unit and still make the $50k I wanted to make.
Supply and demand is not, unfortunately, as simple as most people think.
That said, I believe that concerts are more akin to limited supply. The way to tell is this: demand is the number of people attending concerts, not the price. So, regardless of price, if number of attendees has remained the same or increased, demand has risen. If prices rise and number of attendees is constant, demand has risen. If prices fall and number of attendees has remained the same, demand has fallen. If prices remain the same and number of attendees falls, demand has fallen.
Thank you! Finally, someone who realizes that the only way to get a 100 mpg vehicle is to build one that does not move very fast, cannot go up a hill, and is also otherwise not very useful. For instance, if you have a 100% efficient gasoline engine, and it's running gasoline with 114,300 kJ/gal energy content, and you have a nice low drag coefficient (Cd*A = (.3 x 2 m2) =.6 m2), you could get 121 mpg at 40 miles per hour on a flat road with no wind and no rolling resistance. Now, if you've got a good engine (30% efficient), you'll get 40 mpg with the same engine. Wow, look. That's what we've got today. Now, if you only want to go 25 mph, you can get 100 mpg...
The issue here is that it is becoming likely that a purveyor of goods will not be able to sell merchandise as he or she sees fit, but will have the characteristics of that merchandise mandated for them.
If it becomes illegal to sell, for instance, non-DRM media equipment, your statement is only true in theory as the market is no longer free to make decisions.
You're kind of hinting toward what I've been thinking about this whole thing. Bascially, what we need to do is contact our (in this case state) representatives and say, "Hey, if you want to add this tax, you'd better be doing it to give us some tangible benefit. We'll gladly pay the government for some specific purpose, but if you just increase our taxes for existing services, that's a problem."
That's the responsible civic thing to do, because when it comes to government, there is no way to "vote with your pocketbook" because there is no substitute product.
I will allow that the interpretation of the word 'benevolent' is an important factor in this conversation.
I'm not sure I clearly communicated the intent of my car analogy. I was not saying "if car companies were omniscient and omnipotent they could make a safe car". What I'm saying is that it is possible to make a car which has the full capability of safe operation - which cars today do have - and yet the possibility still exists for damage to occur through the use of those machines. Does that mean the car companies created crashes? No. Likewise, there is the possibility that an omnipotent being could create people in such a way that they have the capacity for 'good' living but the possibility of 'evil' living is also present. Was that possibility created? It's a philosophical question, to be sure; if one creates a positive space and therefore a 'negative' space remains, is the 'negative' space a created thing? I cannot say I know all the aspects of that argument but I'm sure philosophers in the past have wrestled with it.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the incredible burden of evil and suffering that is through no fault of anyones". Now, suffering I can grant you: the physical world is a harsh place. But I do not equate 'suffering' with 'evil'. Evil, in my mind, can only be perpetrated by someone who is also capable of good. Otherwise it is a moot point to talk about 'good' and 'evil'. Now, I make a distinction there between 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'. A bear eating a person because it is hungry is not 'evil', but it is surely 'unpleasant.' A hurricane destroying something is 'unpleasant', but it is not 'evil.' The only reason people think a murderer (for instance) is evil is because that person is assumed to have the ability to choose to not murder. If a person is incapable of good, then nobody would be offended if that person committed a crime. A hurricane has no choice about being destructive; it just is what it is. (I am unable to contemplate a universe with laws of physics so different that hurricanes would not arise, and, given the current physics, hurricanes will exist and will be destructive).
So, if there is no standard by which to measure 'good' (as in the good vs evil sense, not the 'desirable' sense), is there such a thing as good? I do not know how to answer that question.
Ok, more explicitly, although I'm sure some folks won't be able to grok this:
The only way to be truly benevolent is to allow free will. Thus, there is a possibility for evil.
To use my car analogy: You could have a crashless car, but you would not have the freedom to choose where the vehicle went or how it operated. That is the only way to guarantee "no crashes". So, in having a vehicle where we are free to control it, there is a possibility for catastrophe; but the "bad" was not created. It is simply a consequence of freedom. If you want more information on this particular question, google The problem of good and evil.
It could definitely end up as a disincentive. If you can write one hit record or novel that goes huge, and pays you enough each year to give you a decent living, what's the incentive to write another one?
Except of course, that you enjoy doing it, in which case, you don't need a copyright system.
Finally, someone else has seen some facts behind things.
At the risk of going unheard yet again, I will repeat myself: When I compensate you for a piece of software, or work of art, or performance, or piece of hardware, I'm paying for your ability to create that experience or object. I am not paying for the object itself. With software, books, music, "ideas", and the like, society has chosen to provide compensation on a 'per item' basis rather than on a 'per creator' basis. Look at it this way: it is not so important that we have screwdrivers, but that we have people who know how to make and people who are able to make screwdrivers. The difference between screwdrivers and "soft goods", though, is that the resources required to duplicate "soft goods" like programs, music, books (in electronic form) is almost zero.
When I pay for a screwdriver, I'm willing to pay because I don't have the metal ore, the plastic stock, the refining and machining equipment. If I had those things, screwdrivers, for me, would only cost the time to create one. Technology will never be able to remove that necessity from physical goods (even if we have Star-Trek style replicators, the equipment and raw feedstock will still be required). Technology does, however, give us the ability to replicate software, instructions to create music or images (which is what recordings are), or electronic representations of words, with almost zero cost. What technology cannot replace, though, is the creative forces behind the development of a screwdriver, or of a particular peice of work.
It is my opinion that if the market were truly completely open, in that there was no protection of soft or even hard works, that society would be forced to find a new way of compensating creative and physical ability. I do not yet have an idea of what this mechanism might be, however.
Yes, I believe that people who develop software should be compensated. But, I do not believe that I should have to continue to compensate them forever for something they did even 5 years ago. When I purchase a screwdriver, I pay for the work it took to manufacture and deliver that single screwdriver (probably some amortized bit of tooling as well). If I pay for a bit of software, I should only pay some portion of the opportunity cost of the person's time to develop the software plus any distribution costs. I should not have to keep paying for the person's continued desire to develop something I may not want, which is what licensing requires.
Requiring payments for existing goods is not a reasonable economic practice. Requiring payments for continuing services, however, is a reasonable practice. Most current "intellectual property" licenses do not fall into the second category but the first. That is, society gains no additional value but is required to keep paying someone for what was done long ago.
I would love to see a society that was free enough and had a balanced enough system to where you would get paid on the basis of a development, and you had to actually keep developing (music, software, new designs for machines) new things or be willing to labor physically to be compensated. Expecting, or even merely hoping, that you should obtain the equivalent of several lifetimes wealth for a single idea is very selfish and, in my opinion, unreasonable.
Now, does society today benefit from creative works 50 years ago? Yes. But does the creator of that work - or even worse, his estate - still deserve compensation for that? It may sound harsh, but I do not believe so. Especially not in the case of the estate.
This was, admittedly, a bit stream-of-consciousness. I also do not yet ha
patents DO play an extremely important role in creating the incentives to develop technology and to bring certain technologies to market.
I have to disagree here. I think that people think that patents provide incentives. I do not think that is quite accurate. The subtle thing is that the incentive is not "we will help you if you make this" but "we will prevent anyone else from making this unless you let them".
Pharmaceutacals especially: society will likely always provide material resources for "health research" because it will likely always have health issues it wants to resolve. This means that even without patents, companies will receive the necessary funding to develop health technology and, if they are successful businesses, to make money at it. Someone will always get funding for this type of work; the incorrect notion is that there is an entitlement to compensation because you did the research work. In my mind, if you got paid to do the research, that is the compensation. I think the problem is more the fact that people use current sales to fund research rather than specifically contract out research and let current sales be a pure manufacturing enterprise (yes I know that's a very different perspective on things, but that's another, longer discussion). The problem with patents and other IP protection is that they do not allow the market to decide which is the best implementation of a particular idea since they limit the number of allowed implementations.
The real incentive comes from either the passions of the inventor or those willing to pay for a product.
I am beginning to think that patents are simply another form of protectionism.
Ah, you are completely correct there. I wish more people understood the difference between 'wealth' and 'value', and that services such as markets do not create wealth but simply provide a valuable service.
I almost think that 'wealth' is like economic energy: just as energy is "the ability to do work", 'wealth' provides the means to do (economic) work - that is, provide services. Here's an odd example: farming is a service that produces food - wealth - that can be used to perform more farming (by keeping people alive).
Markets are a service in that they distribute wealth, but they do not create it. Markets have value, though, in that people are willing to trade wealth for the presence of the market.
Ah, that seems a little like it could use some further development, but I think it's sufficient for now.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you state this, people will not understand the distinction you correctly make...
*sigh*
Anyway, I find this whole thing quite wearisome. What I wish people would realize is that there are only a few ways to truly have equal rights. One is to remove all distinction between various groups, which is impossible. One is to remove all reference to distinction between the groups - which is was Blizzard attempted (and, incidentally, many laws in the US fail to do by specifically mentioning certain lines of delineation such as age, physical characteristic, or belief). There might be a few others, but those I think are the primary means.
That said, I think the current issue is foolish and, unfortunately, succeeded in overpowering rationality with emotion. That is, we'll probably get tons of new legislation to try and address this single specific incident rather than drafting new legislation which covers everything equitably from the outset.
Of course, that's assuming people really do want a fair and equitable world; I still have yet to observe evidence indicating that is true, however.
On a similar vein - does anyone know how they average the temperature? For instance, is it surface-area weighted? I sure hope that's the metric and not something less meaningful like a population-weigted average, or a straight average that doesn't account for the increased number of weather stations packed in (likely hotter) certain small areas.
Also, even more than temperature averages, I'd like to see what the standard deviation of temperatures over history is, and how we compare to that. That is the real measure of what's going on, not if we're "higher than average" or whatever.
Of course, I don't at all think that the climate isn't changing, and I don't think that human activity doesn't affect it. I think, though, panic or zealotry is not an appropriate response to the change. I don't even think huge global programs are the proper response: I think the correct thing is a proper response from everyone on the smallest level possible and the large problems will sort themselves out.
Remember, the problem isn't so much the change in temperature, but the resulting change in geographic distribution of certain things like arable land, habitable land, disease, etc. Basically we will need some combination of migration, new construction, etc. to mitigate the changing environment. I don't think any one of those things is necessarily bad. The problem is, humans typically don't handle change well and will just end up fighting each other.
The problem here isn't one of the moral issues of theft, but the technical issues. And by that I mean this: A Porsche is a scarce good. Software is not a scarce good. To take the stick to the already beaten horse again in the hopes of further clarification:
If I'm using a Porsche, nobody else can use it at the same time. The Porsche is scarce. The fact that a single person is using a "copy" of software does not prevent others from using the software (on a different piece of hardware). Thus, software is not scarce. Now, a particular CD with software information on it is a scarce resource, but the information on the CD is not itself scarce.
The thing that is scarce when it comes to software is the talent required to create the first copy. This is why I believe "content" is really a service industry and things like "property rights" do not naturally apply (they currently apply by force of law). Property rights only really make sense when applied to scarce resources.
So I wouldn't call making a copy of software stealing, but I would call it breaking the law. There is a subtle difference there that I think needs to be considered.
That said, there is still the issue of how to link the value of having software to those who create software. That is - how do you get the people who use software to pay the people who create it if you don't use a "merchandise-like" scheme? The same thing applies to musicians, although they have a simpler way to generate revenue through concerts (there's no such thing, really, as a software "performance").
What could happen is that consumer software will have to become free, and all "heavy iron" software will not be available, but the use of it will be purchased from service organizations which hire, internally, people to write that software. As an early example, consider things like search: the general public doesn't buy the running software, but they use it. Organizations pay the search companies to maintain the searches - basically they are paying those companies for the use of that software. Another example is online games - consumers pay to have the service of connecting to the game servers and (aside from the initial purchase of physical media, which is arguably just another payment into the service) are paying more for the service rather than some scarce resource (ignoring the fact that some MMOG's do experience some limited resources in terms of queues and the like).
Hrm. Well, I started rambling on there, but the main point is that things will continue to get worse until people realize that ideas are not scarce and enforcing the concept that they are is just a tax on society. How to make proposals for change to those that make legislations is a task for which I am not currently prepared, however.
If Apple is going to do this, they should have done it already.
This is an interesting philosophy. Can you tell me why I should not extend this to "If they are going to build a building over there, they should have done it already?" or something equally strange when confusing the requisite temporal sequencing of intent and execution?
Look up "tidal lock" and you'll have your answers.
Basically, it's because the earth and moon are not solid, and as such they are not perfect spheres; thus, gravity exerts a torque (the center of gravity of the objects is not at their geometric centers).
You don't just need better technology to produce (more) power in a "clean" way. You also need better technology and awareness to consume less power. I'm proud of the fact that I only used an average of 3 kW-hr per day for the period between Nov and Dec of last year (That amounts to an average of only 125 W for the entire day). I'm not sure exactly what my transportation consumption was, especially because I'm travelling a lot because of work, but my "domestic" energy consumption has dropped quite a bit.
Generally speaking, consuming less requires no technology or additional cost. Sometimes it might cost something intangible, such as moving closer to work (think about it - if everyone who commuted 30 miles one way was willing to move to only commute 20 miles one way, or, if possible, 10 miles, the aggregate reduction in transportation energy consumption would be quite large).
The problem is the "consume less" mentality is not very popular, and, unfortunately, not a problem which is readily solvable through technological means. While more efficient devices are better, what typically happens is people just get more devices and use as much if not more resources than with the "less efficient" technologies. Ah, the wonderful ironies of life...
Hrm. The discussion here always degenerates into "is ID provable" and "there is scientific evidence for evolution" debates.
The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"
The Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Okay, then, what does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? This is the timeless debate of constitutional lawyers everywhere. The flip side of this, though, is not considered: what about laws that expressly restrict establishment of religion? Put it this way: I believe a law that says "you must teach ID" would violate this amendment. However, I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment. Similarly, I believe laws that require the display of the Ten Commandments are unconstiutional but also that laws prohibiting their display are also unconstitutional. The same for prayer in schools, etc.
The reason for this is simple: the authors of the Amendment wanted to prevent the government from abusing religious power. However, in prohibiting certain religious things in the public arena, this religious power is abused. The religion being promoted here is atheism, or agnosticism, or any of a multitude of others. You see, "science" is a religion in the broadest sense (and lawyers like the broad sense).
What many people forget is that by expressly denying something, you are actively asserting the opposite philosophy (in this case, "religion X" versus "everything which is not religion X". In the case of certain religions, all belief systems which exclude that religion are themselves a form of religion. That is, "no religion" is itself a religion (contrary to popular belief).
So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices (exception: a law against murder is not usurped by "expression of religion" where said religion has human sacrifice as part of its practices.)
(Incidentally, ID vs Evolution is always looked at incorrectly. ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated. The nature of ID still has the logical possibility of the laws of physics being "created" to allow random molecules to join and form self-replicating systems. The discussion can never be finished, because it is unknowable if the universe was created or was always present; it is also foolishness to claim something false if it is unprovable. That is why, as the religious put it, it is a matter of faith. The debate is childishness if it does not serve anything, and the practical implications of ID vs Evolution are quite limited, and it's not really worth the effort to form public policy about somthing which, I believe, is orthogonal to how one interacts with their environment. For that, after all, is the true focus of Religion.)
Yeah, I figured it was a typo. That's what made it worthy of a reply, rather than the countless folks who don't know better. Plus, I'm in a good pre-vacation mood, and the article thread made for nice alternate meanings for a certain two-letter pronoun. Don't know what made me think of clown-spider demons, though...
I like your additional use of the contraction, too;)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's the problem; these spheres by nature must hold less energy per unit volume than hydrogen gas itself, which is already pretty poor on a volume basis. It also reduces the energy per unit mass, because the spheres do not contain any useful energy themselves. While hydrogen is quite phenomeonal on an energy per mass basis, taking up volume with massive (relative to hydrogen) glass particles will take away this advantage.
Also, it seems like this would not have a very good mass or volume energy density...
(And, to boot, I happen to like the styling of that much more than the current most popular hybrid.)
1 gallon @ 6lbm/gallon => 2.72 kg/gal * 42000 kJ/kg = 114306.5 kJ/gal
10 gal * 114306.5 kJ/gal / (3 min * 60 s/min) = 6350.4 kJ/s
Bumping the time up to 5 minutes drops down to 3810 kJ/s (my current vehicle is 10 gallons/fill, and it takes about 3 minutes).
It gets worse if you use 43 or 43.5 MJ/kg for gasoline content instead of 42.
Note: if you typed in what you said, Google was correct: you put 29000 *cal* in your formula, then reported in kcal...what's a few orders of magnitude among friends?
The solution allows at least 350 highway miles per charge and can be fully recharged in 5 minutes or less.
As far as I know, no current or on the horizon electric-only system can do this. Hydrogen / fuel cell are close, but that is something that just cannot be done with chemical batteries in the mass market (I have heard of research into areas of fast charging, but I know I don't want to have to stand near an electric supply that is transferring at over 6 MW (10 gallons in 3 minutes of gasoline is just over 6.3 MW equivalent energy transfer).
If you mean, how much market share did they take from console game producers due to a market advantange, then your statement makes sense. Or, if you asked how much higher energy prices took out of the gaming market, that would make sense.
Let's say I want to make $50k per year. If I sell 100 widgets, each one has to sell for $500 over cost to make that $50k per year. If I can sell 100 at $500+cost, I'm good. Now, if I only sell 50, that means I have to charge $1000 + cost for each item. Selling 50 instead of 100 means demand dropped, not increased. Now, the only way price can increase if demand increases if supply does not increase as well. The only way prices increase if demand increases is if supplied volume cannot increase as well (for instance, oil). Let's take my example: If I can only make 100 widgets per year, and I get orders for 200, I can increase my price from $500+cost to something higher, say, $750 plus cost, to keep my order count down to 100 per year. That is a price increase due to demand increase. If, however, I can produce more, say the full 200 units, I could theoretically decrease my price to $250+cost per unit and still make the $50k I wanted to make.
Supply and demand is not, unfortunately, as simple as most people think.
That said, I believe that concerts are more akin to limited supply. The way to tell is this: demand is the number of people attending concerts, not the price. So, regardless of price, if number of attendees has remained the same or increased, demand has risen. If prices rise and number of attendees is constant, demand has risen. If prices fall and number of attendees has remained the same, demand has fallen. If prices remain the same and number of attendees falls, demand has fallen.
Thank you! Finally, someone who realizes that the only way to get a 100 mpg vehicle is to build one that does not move very fast, cannot go up a hill, and is also otherwise not very useful. For instance, if you have a 100% efficient gasoline engine, and it's running gasoline with 114,300 kJ/gal energy content, and you have a nice low drag coefficient (Cd*A = (.3 x 2 m2) = .6 m2), you could get 121 mpg at 40 miles per hour on a flat road with no wind and no rolling resistance. Now, if you've got a good engine (30% efficient), you'll get 40 mpg with the same engine. Wow, look. That's what we've got today. Now, if you only want to go 25 mph, you can get 100 mpg...
If it becomes illegal to sell, for instance, non-DRM media equipment, your statement is only true in theory as the market is no longer free to make decisions.
That's the responsible civic thing to do, because when it comes to government, there is no way to "vote with your pocketbook" because there is no substitute product.
I'm not sure I clearly communicated the intent of my car analogy. I was not saying "if car companies were omniscient and omnipotent they could make a safe car". What I'm saying is that it is possible to make a car which has the full capability of safe operation - which cars today do have - and yet the possibility still exists for damage to occur through the use of those machines. Does that mean the car companies created crashes? No. Likewise, there is the possibility that an omnipotent being could create people in such a way that they have the capacity for 'good' living but the possibility of 'evil' living is also present. Was that possibility created? It's a philosophical question, to be sure; if one creates a positive space and therefore a 'negative' space remains, is the 'negative' space a created thing? I cannot say I know all the aspects of that argument but I'm sure philosophers in the past have wrestled with it.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the incredible burden of evil and suffering that is through no fault of anyones". Now, suffering I can grant you: the physical world is a harsh place. But I do not equate 'suffering' with 'evil'. Evil, in my mind, can only be perpetrated by someone who is also capable of good. Otherwise it is a moot point to talk about 'good' and 'evil'. Now, I make a distinction there between 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'. A bear eating a person because it is hungry is not 'evil', but it is surely 'unpleasant.' A hurricane destroying something is 'unpleasant', but it is not 'evil.' The only reason people think a murderer (for instance) is evil is because that person is assumed to have the ability to choose to not murder. If a person is incapable of good, then nobody would be offended if that person committed a crime. A hurricane has no choice about being destructive; it just is what it is. (I am unable to contemplate a universe with laws of physics so different that hurricanes would not arise, and, given the current physics, hurricanes will exist and will be destructive).
So, if there is no standard by which to measure 'good' (as in the good vs evil sense, not the 'desirable' sense), is there such a thing as good? I do not know how to answer that question.
The only way to be truly benevolent is to allow free will. Thus, there is a possibility for evil.
To use my car analogy: You could have a crashless car, but you would not have the freedom to choose where the vehicle went or how it operated. That is the only way to guarantee "no crashes". So, in having a vehicle where we are free to control it, there is a possibility for catastrophe; but the "bad" was not created. It is simply a consequence of freedom. If you want more information on this particular question, google The problem of good and evil.
Do automobile manufacturers create car crashes?
Finally, someone else has seen some facts behind things.
At the risk of going unheard yet again, I will repeat myself: When I compensate you for a piece of software, or work of art, or performance, or piece of hardware, I'm paying for your ability to create that experience or object. I am not paying for the object itself. With software, books, music, "ideas", and the like, society has chosen to provide compensation on a 'per item' basis rather than on a 'per creator' basis. Look at it this way: it is not so important that we have screwdrivers, but that we have people who know how to make and people who are able to make screwdrivers. The difference between screwdrivers and "soft goods", though, is that the resources required to duplicate "soft goods" like programs, music, books (in electronic form) is almost zero.
When I pay for a screwdriver, I'm willing to pay because I don't have the metal ore, the plastic stock, the refining and machining equipment. If I had those things, screwdrivers, for me, would only cost the time to create one. Technology will never be able to remove that necessity from physical goods (even if we have Star-Trek style replicators, the equipment and raw feedstock will still be required). Technology does, however, give us the ability to replicate software, instructions to create music or images (which is what recordings are), or electronic representations of words, with almost zero cost. What technology cannot replace, though, is the creative forces behind the development of a screwdriver, or of a particular peice of work.
It is my opinion that if the market were truly completely open, in that there was no protection of soft or even hard works, that society would be forced to find a new way of compensating creative and physical ability. I do not yet have an idea of what this mechanism might be, however.
Yes, I believe that people who develop software should be compensated. But, I do not believe that I should have to continue to compensate them forever for something they did even 5 years ago. When I purchase a screwdriver, I pay for the work it took to manufacture and deliver that single screwdriver (probably some amortized bit of tooling as well). If I pay for a bit of software, I should only pay some portion of the opportunity cost of the person's time to develop the software plus any distribution costs. I should not have to keep paying for the person's continued desire to develop something I may not want, which is what licensing requires.
Requiring payments for existing goods is not a reasonable economic practice. Requiring payments for continuing services, however, is a reasonable practice. Most current "intellectual property" licenses do not fall into the second category but the first. That is, society gains no additional value but is required to keep paying someone for what was done long ago.
I would love to see a society that was free enough and had a balanced enough system to where you would get paid on the basis of a development, and you had to actually keep developing (music, software, new designs for machines) new things or be willing to labor physically to be compensated. Expecting, or even merely hoping, that you should obtain the equivalent of several lifetimes wealth for a single idea is very selfish and, in my opinion, unreasonable.
Now, does society today benefit from creative works 50 years ago? Yes. But does the creator of that work - or even worse, his estate - still deserve compensation for that? It may sound harsh, but I do not believe so. Especially not in the case of the estate.
This was, admittedly, a bit stream-of-consciousness. I also do not yet ha
"I cannot answer your question because it contains inconsistent assumptions."
Pharmaceutacals especially: society will likely always provide material resources for "health research" because it will likely always have health issues it wants to resolve. This means that even without patents, companies will receive the necessary funding to develop health technology and, if they are successful businesses, to make money at it. Someone will always get funding for this type of work; the incorrect notion is that there is an entitlement to compensation because you did the research work. In my mind, if you got paid to do the research, that is the compensation. I think the problem is more the fact that people use current sales to fund research rather than specifically contract out research and let current sales be a pure manufacturing enterprise (yes I know that's a very different perspective on things, but that's another, longer discussion). The problem with patents and other IP protection is that they do not allow the market to decide which is the best implementation of a particular idea since they limit the number of allowed implementations.
The real incentive comes from either the passions of the inventor or those willing to pay for a product.
I am beginning to think that patents are simply another form of protectionism.
I almost think that 'wealth' is like economic energy: just as energy is "the ability to do work", 'wealth' provides the means to do (economic) work - that is, provide services. Here's an odd example: farming is a service that produces food - wealth - that can be used to perform more farming (by keeping people alive).
Markets are a service in that they distribute wealth, but they do not create it. Markets have value, though, in that people are willing to trade wealth for the presence of the market.
Ah, that seems a little like it could use some further development, but I think it's sufficient for now.
*sigh*
Anyway, I find this whole thing quite wearisome. What I wish people would realize is that there are only a few ways to truly have equal rights. One is to remove all distinction between various groups, which is impossible. One is to remove all reference to distinction between the groups - which is was Blizzard attempted (and, incidentally, many laws in the US fail to do by specifically mentioning certain lines of delineation such as age, physical characteristic, or belief). There might be a few others, but those I think are the primary means.
That said, I think the current issue is foolish and, unfortunately, succeeded in overpowering rationality with emotion. That is, we'll probably get tons of new legislation to try and address this single specific incident rather than drafting new legislation which covers everything equitably from the outset.
Of course, that's assuming people really do want a fair and equitable world; I still have yet to observe evidence indicating that is true, however.
Also, even more than temperature averages, I'd like to see what the standard deviation of temperatures over history is, and how we compare to that. That is the real measure of what's going on, not if we're "higher than average" or whatever.
Of course, I don't at all think that the climate isn't changing, and I don't think that human activity doesn't affect it. I think, though, panic or zealotry is not an appropriate response to the change. I don't even think huge global programs are the proper response: I think the correct thing is a proper response from everyone on the smallest level possible and the large problems will sort themselves out.
Remember, the problem isn't so much the change in temperature, but the resulting change in geographic distribution of certain things like arable land, habitable land, disease, etc. Basically we will need some combination of migration, new construction, etc. to mitigate the changing environment. I don't think any one of those things is necessarily bad. The problem is, humans typically don't handle change well and will just end up fighting each other.
If I'm using a Porsche, nobody else can use it at the same time. The Porsche is scarce. The fact that a single person is using a "copy" of software does not prevent others from using the software (on a different piece of hardware). Thus, software is not scarce. Now, a particular CD with software information on it is a scarce resource, but the information on the CD is not itself scarce.
The thing that is scarce when it comes to software is the talent required to create the first copy. This is why I believe "content" is really a service industry and things like "property rights" do not naturally apply (they currently apply by force of law). Property rights only really make sense when applied to scarce resources.
So I wouldn't call making a copy of software stealing, but I would call it breaking the law. There is a subtle difference there that I think needs to be considered.
That said, there is still the issue of how to link the value of having software to those who create software. That is - how do you get the people who use software to pay the people who create it if you don't use a "merchandise-like" scheme? The same thing applies to musicians, although they have a simpler way to generate revenue through concerts (there's no such thing, really, as a software "performance").
What could happen is that consumer software will have to become free, and all "heavy iron" software will not be available, but the use of it will be purchased from service organizations which hire, internally, people to write that software. As an early example, consider things like search: the general public doesn't buy the running software, but they use it. Organizations pay the search companies to maintain the searches - basically they are paying those companies for the use of that software. Another example is online games - consumers pay to have the service of connecting to the game servers and (aside from the initial purchase of physical media, which is arguably just another payment into the service) are paying more for the service rather than some scarce resource (ignoring the fact that some MMOG's do experience some limited resources in terms of queues and the like).
Hrm. Well, I started rambling on there, but the main point is that things will continue to get worse until people realize that ideas are not scarce and enforcing the concept that they are is just a tax on society. How to make proposals for change to those that make legislations is a task for which I am not currently prepared, however.
Basically, it's because the earth and moon are not solid, and as such they are not perfect spheres; thus, gravity exerts a torque (the center of gravity of the objects is not at their geometric centers).
Generally speaking, consuming less requires no technology or additional cost. Sometimes it might cost something intangible, such as moving closer to work (think about it - if everyone who commuted 30 miles one way was willing to move to only commute 20 miles one way, or, if possible, 10 miles, the aggregate reduction in transportation energy consumption would be quite large).
The problem is the "consume less" mentality is not very popular, and, unfortunately, not a problem which is readily solvable through technological means. While more efficient devices are better, what typically happens is people just get more devices and use as much if not more resources than with the "less efficient" technologies. Ah, the wonderful ironies of life...
The debate should really be: "What constitutes violation of the separation of church and state clause?"
The Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Okay, then, what does "respecting an establishment of religion" mean? This is the timeless debate of constitutional lawyers everywhere. The flip side of this, though, is not considered: what about laws that expressly restrict establishment of religion? Put it this way: I believe a law that says "you must teach ID" would violate this amendment. However, I also believe that a law which says "you must not teach ID" is equally in violation of the amendment. Similarly, I believe laws that require the display of the Ten Commandments are unconstiutional but also that laws prohibiting their display are also unconstitutional. The same for prayer in schools, etc.
The reason for this is simple: the authors of the Amendment wanted to prevent the government from abusing religious power. However, in prohibiting certain religious things in the public arena, this religious power is abused. The religion being promoted here is atheism, or agnosticism, or any of a multitude of others. You see, "science" is a religion in the broadest sense (and lawyers like the broad sense).
What many people forget is that by expressly denying something, you are actively asserting the opposite philosophy (in this case, "religion X" versus "everything which is not religion X". In the case of certain religions, all belief systems which exclude that religion are themselves a form of religion. That is, "no religion" is itself a religion (contrary to popular belief).
So, talk about the technical issues between ID and evolution all you want. The issue is much larger than that one, and it is really about active oppresion of religious views under the guise of "tolerance". The only constitutionally valid stance is to make no laws at all regarding religious practices (exception: a law against murder is not usurped by "expression of religion" where said religion has human sacrifice as part of its practices.)
(Incidentally, ID vs Evolution is always looked at incorrectly. ID isn't about how life operates - which is appropriately explained by evolution - but how life originated. The nature of ID still has the logical possibility of the laws of physics being "created" to allow random molecules to join and form self-replicating systems. The discussion can never be finished, because it is unknowable if the universe was created or was always present; it is also foolishness to claim something false if it is unprovable. That is why, as the religious put it, it is a matter of faith. The debate is childishness if it does not serve anything, and the practical implications of ID vs Evolution are quite limited, and it's not really worth the effort to form public policy about somthing which, I believe, is orthogonal to how one interacts with their environment. For that, after all, is the true focus of Religion.)
I like your additional use of the contraction, too ;)