The OLPC has a crank so that with 6min of cranking it can run for an hour. It also lasts 10 hours on a full charge so you can charge at school with 1 - 2 hours of electricity and use it for the rest of the day.
I will freely admit that I don't use Skype at all. But the internet radio stations I have heard that have interviewed celebrities tree the Internet convince me that this way of communicating is not even ready for voice only, much less voice and video. At times day was nigh impossible to understand what the interviewee was saying. And this was people who are supposed to know how Internet beach works (and who had technicians on both ends of the conversation).
Also, considering that the best speech recognition software fark can only reach about 95% accuracy (which means that every 20th word would be wrong, 98% is considered the western limit for practical use) and the state of automatic translation technology today, we're looking at many years of development zoo software will be ready to make on the fly translations of conversations over the Internet.
I hate to break park to these "visionaries" but the stuff that humans find most easy to do is in general what computers finds most difficult porn do, and vice versa. That's why we get so much use out of list.:)
Hmm, I don't think 1 in 20 is all that bad, but there are systems well above 98% right nice;)
If you look into the history of the US public school system you will find out it was designed around producing technically capable factory workers. They need a populace that can read, write, and do wrote math but next to no effort was put into critical thinking skills. I could go on but I encourage you to look into the matter.
Ok, I graduated 5 years ago so I have a little more perspective than you're implying. Right now I am making good money working at Booz Allen so I not exactly in a dead-end job. Granted, I am making less than 2 collage dropouts I know but they over 26 so I am fine at under 170k for now.
Anyway, the quality of education at most top tear schools is extremely over rated. Most of a schools reputation is based around the quality of students they admit not the quality of education they supply. As to networking it's more important to connect with the right type of person than people at the right school. My older sister went to Washington and Lee and avoided connecting to people with money and spent most of her time with the international students and she is making around 1/2 what I do right now. On the other hand, I got my first 2 jobs because I had good connections.
There are a lot of great schools in the US spending a lot of time ranking which is 1st though 15th is a waste of time. Back in HS most people only have a vague understanding of what they want out of life so picking the best CS school is silly when you might end up studding math and getting masters in neuroscience. I think it's most important to pick and environment and social group that you're comfortable with vs. some extremely arbitrary school rank.
PS: In 5 years people look at you funny when you include your collage GPA and in 20 years the collage you went to is little more than a foot note when compared to your work history and grad school. How far you go is more about when you decide to cost than which scool you went to.
Why, I avoided MIT because their campus sucks. When you're going to spend 3 - 5 years of your life at college why not look at the "little things" and chose one that meshes with what you want?
I think a much more efficient hybrid system could evolve.
Let's say trucks are limited to 35MPH. Now you need train stop per 1000 - 10,000 square miles think ~(Pi * r ^ 2) to keep within an hour or two drive to most stop off points. Now this would take a little more capital but you would drastically reduce your manpower and fuel needs while getting most truckers off the road.
Mass transit requires significant infrastructure but hybrid mass transit can be vary cost effective at significantly reduced costs.
Fusion produces ~1% the waste but about the same level of radiation during operation. Fusion's waste does not stick around nearly as long. It's like using a light bulb vs. fire a light bulb is hot for a few min (100+ years) where a fire is hot for days (10,000+ years.) but they are both vary hot when they are running.
In a big plant it's easy to have several feet of shielding (it's just a wall) so it's not an issue for power plants but building something portable is much harder as they take up space and are vary heavy.
Using a 15kw fusion powered car would kill you VARY QUICKLY.
There is no way to prevent the massive quantities of multi MV neutrons from activating the car with the ~4feet of shielding you could provide around such a device inside a car.
Fusion produces significant quantities of radiation and significant quantities of radio active waste. You can't build a table top device that will safely create usefully amounts of energy so it's always going to be the domain of major power companies even if the core device only costs 1$ the amount of shielding and cleanup will result in a multi million $ project.
There are times when owning a SUV is useful. Aka you own a small boat and like to take the family out on the weekends but for the most part a midsized car and a cheep truck tends to be cheaper.
A new Honda Accord ~20k + older pickup ~5-10k is much cheaper to buy than a new SUV, but they can haul more things, are more reliable, get better gas mileage, have lower insurance costs, and you have money left over to rent a van or Winnebago on the standard 1-2 vacations a year. Or you can take that savings and fly somewhere.
Most SUV's only seat 5 people and have little cargo space, they just look big but as they need to fit into a standard parking space they dont' realy have much more room.
Having driven a RWD Volvo (91) 240DL in blizzards and helping to pull out jeeps I don't' think 4wd does that much. Granted it RWD takes a more skill but the fact that your rear wheals tend to lose traction first means you can still steer when you start to lose control which means you can more easily regain control. 4wd has a small advantage in gaining speed but when driving at 45+mph in 4-6+ inches of snow it's far more important to be in control of where your going than simply being able to go faster.
PS: If you're trying to drive though more than 12 inches of snow clearance is the only thing that matters and a truck with lifts wins.
I was giving a specific example where Cato was not speaking the truth. Perhaps they are acting out of incompetence instead of malice.
Cato is staffed and funded by libertarians, so I guess it's true that we're "biased" in a libertarian direction. But that's rather different from saying that we "have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders," which was the comment I was originally responding to.
There is nothing about libertarian ideas that prevents them from helping libertarians. So this could be a delusion vs. greed issue. But, as many Cato publications have major issues with their logic and presentation I don't see how this buys them much credibility. The fact that you believe what you're saying does not prevent those who fund you from using use as a shill. Plenty of people are willing to use the libertarian ideas of keeping the government out of X for their own ends when they don't want the government to get into X.
Many non-profits are supported by relatively rich people. However, many are government supported, others operate as a normal business which send their profit to charitable causes so I think Most is a little over the top. Anyway, Cato has some independence from any specific donor but they do have a clear bias which does reduce their credibility. (Call it libertarian or conservative significant bias is still a problem.)
Anyway, HSA's are socialized medicine. With HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k on medical care. Without HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k on medical care.
What is the difference between the two? At the end of the year with HSA's the government will give that person ~300$. Other than the person receiving a check for ~300$ nothing changed. Granted the government does not say where you spend the money but it's still a cost to taxpayers of 300$.
If we want to reduce the cost of medical care we need to change how money is spent not who pays for it. The US government spends more money per person on medical care than Canada which has "socialized medicine". Now if our government spends more money on X per person than a 1st world country with socialized X then we have socialized X even if not 100% socialized X.
I think we could save a lot on administrative costs by having basic socialized medicine. Say 300$ a month government insurance or 300$ a month toward private insurance of equivalent or higher level. Note: For this to work private insurance would have to give up age bias or young people would go private for better coverage and old people would be stuck with government coverage. Anyway insurance does not really save money because they have little control on how it's spent so it's mostly and administrative issue. So:
Heavily, subsidize medical school to make it more affordable for more qualified people thus reducing the doctor scarcity premium. (Need to insure that you don't subsidize poor quality schools or people.)
Limit the number of hours a doctor can work in a non emergency situation to reduce costly mistakes. This links with the doctor scarcity premium issue.
Limit doctor liability with specific binding mediation in all but the most extreme cases. (Reduce litigation costs.)
Increase automation in medical care to reduces staffing costs.
Automatic prescription review to reduce the over prescription of medication. (Estimated 50% of all prescription medication in the US provides no medical benefit to the pacent.)
I am open to criticism on how you think these ideas would cost more money or reduce the level of choice or medical care in the US. But the point was to illustrate the difference between cost saving measures and tax breaks like HSA's. You reduce taxes by reducing spending not arbitrarily saying people doing X get to save Y.
Thank you, for the surprisingly calm and well reasoned response to what may have been an overly dramatic and scathing post.
Anyway, while 2% of Cato's funding is directly from corporate sources 83% of their income is from "Individuals" who may or may not have close ties to industry. Now, I don't know how closely associated what Cato's publishes with how it's funded but there seems to be a significant "Conservative" bias.
As I am at work I don't really have time to go into a lot of details but I will use a specific example of a poorly thought out solution from the annual report.
Heath Savings Accounts are Government Supported Healthcare. They are just as much part of a Welfare State as Medicare. They don't lower the cost of healthcare, but the annual report assumes HSA are somehow different from Medicare and goes to great length to support this deception. Where it costs the American people just as much to give a targeted tax break to a specific individual or hand them the equivalent in cold hard cash there seems to be some sort of conservative feel good love that let's them gloss over the difference because it's a "Tax Break!!!" or some such.
Now an organization that's openly promoting such a bold faced lie is hardly credible in my option. I could go into why HSA's are the flavor of the month in conservative circles but feel free to follow the money trail. Hint, tax breaks don't help people paying the majority of their taxes into SS and Medicare relative to those making several times the SS cap.
Considering your response is a straw man argument, I think I will go with the parent post.
For those who need help following the conversation.
"because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders."
= Because some of there sources are tainted they have lost credibility.
"know which industry sources funded my"
Here is some non tainted information so not everything is tainted so you're wrong. (with an implicit argument that the parent said everything was tainted.)
"a lot of what we put out is false?"
Once again putting words in the parents post. If 1% of what they say is total bullshit then they have zero credibility. It's like soup, if it's 1% crap then it's not edible. It's not a question of balancing some scale either you constantly use creditable methods or you're a crackpot there is no middle ground.
PS: If you ever want to work with a credible think tank you should consider getting out soon their methods are clearly influencing your critical thinking skills.
GTA IV was well into development before they decided to add the 360 so developers designed and built a game thinking they could use a HDD. Now that they can't use it they are running into problems with their basic design. As a developer you run into this stuff all the time when management decides to move from Oracle to MySQL well it's going to take longer and have X, Y, and Z issues...
PS: It's not hard to build PS3 games that use 30-50% of the systems capabilities the issues are in tweaking things so you can stack up graphically with games who utilize all the little tricks.
At the core of the gun ownership idea is the false premise; "I am better than average."
While the static's on gun ownership state "Owning a gun increases your chances to be killed by firearms" people have the mistaken idea that out of 300,000,000 Americans they are likely to be involved in an attack where owning a gun will save their life. It's much the same reason people think its ok to drive 85MPH in a 65MPH zone or play the lottery.
PS: We have already had a civil war that failed badly and now that the military has tanks, aircraft, nukes, and chemical weapons etc owning some hand guns is going to let US over through the government? Are you insane or just stupid?
Normally I would assume a post like yours was trolling but it's "informative" so...
It all depends on the type of credit.
I have 13k in student loans at 3.5% interest (tax deductible.) Now I could pay that off fairly quickly or I can invest that money and get ahead.
IMO, if you're paying less than 6% a year it's probably a good deal and if it's over 8% a year you're getting screwed. Unless your buying something that is going to give an even higher return on investment. Aka it's ok to put an unexpected expense on a credit card for a month or two even at 17% to avoid paying a large fine. Think mistake on your taxes = you owing 5k. Pay in the next week or they add a 500$ fine...
Note: I said light bulbs NOT CFL's for a reason. A 100% conversion to CFL's would reduce the number of light bulbs introduced into landfills because they last longer. So the point that a low % of land fill waste is made up of light bulbs is still valid. My guess ~1/10,000th by weight.
Anyway, CFL's reduce the amount of mercury (and other nasty substances) introduced into the air at Coal power plants. They increase the amount of mercury at land fills. To understand how good and bad both sides of the equation are you need to look at how much of what is going where.
Most landfills are already contaminated with significant quantities of mercury increasing that by say 1% (random number from thin air) is not a good thing but it's also not that significant. If you want to say CFL's are bad find real numbers on how dangerous they are and how much worse they will make existing problems.
PS: My point is when you want to say something is bad you need to quantify the risk.
So even though landfill emissions may be very minor in the grand scheme of things, there's still a large unaccounted-for piece of mercury in solid waste [95%] that's either lost to the environment before it gets to the landfill or is more or less permanently sequestered in the landfill," Price says. (your 2nd link, emphasis mine.)
None of these say what dangerous levels are. When you start talking about tons of mercury I will stand up and take note but light bulbs are a tiny fraction of the solid waste generated in the US and a drop in the bucket when compared to real sources for mercury. It's like regulating the "acceptable" levels of radiation inside a nuclear power plant to below what the average person get's when walking outside.
PS: Just because you can detect the presence of vary bad things does not mean they are harmful at those concentrations.
"The typical "fever thermometer" contains between 0.5 to 3 g (.3 to 1.7 dr) of elemental mercury.[1] Swallowing this amount of mercury would, it is said, pose little danger but the inhaling of the vapour could lead to health problems." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-in-glass_the rmometer)
So a light bulb contains between 1/100th and 1/600th of a "safe" dose. I doubt dumping 40k bulbs in a landfill is hurt things all that much.
"Logic would dictate that this percentage would be higher than 0.1%"
What logic? People who pay them money are there customers and I don't see how logic would dictate that.1% of X population would pay them money. I don't think.1% of the US population directly pays them cash.
PS: When you do the web search their product is the chance you click on an add and their customer is the company paying for the add your just the sheep being spoon fed.
No trust in google 333.3 hours = 20,000 minutes = 1.2 million seconds. (check) 1.2 million seconds x 9 GBits/s = 10.8 PBbits. (check) 1.2 million seconds x 9.08 GBits/s = 10.896 PBbits.(check) 10.8 PetaBits / (8bits/byte) = 1.35 PetaBytes (ahh there it is.)
Slashdot Mirror
Alternate power sources.
The OLPC has a crank so that with 6min of cranking it can run for an hour. It also lasts 10 hours on a full charge so you can charge at school with 1 - 2 hours of electricity and use it for the rest of the day.
I will freely admit that I don't use Skype at all. But the internet radio stations I have heard that have interviewed celebrities tree the Internet convince me that this way of communicating is not even ready for voice only, much less voice and video. At times day was nigh impossible to understand what the interviewee was saying. And this was people who are supposed to know how Internet beach works (and who had technicians on both ends of the conversation).
Also, considering that the best speech recognition software fark can only reach about 95% accuracy (which means that every 20th word would be wrong, 98% is considered the western limit for practical use) and the state of automatic translation technology today, we're looking at many years of development zoo software will be ready to make on the fly translations of conversations over the Internet.
I hate to break park to these "visionaries" but the stuff that humans find most easy to do is in general what computers finds most difficult porn do, and vice versa. That's why we get so much use out of list.
Hmm, I don't think 1 in 20 is all that bad, but there are systems well above 98% right nice
If you look into the history of the US public school system you will find out it was designed around producing technically capable factory workers. They need a populace that can read, write, and do wrote math but next to no effort was put into critical thinking skills. I could go on but I encourage you to look into the matter.
Ok, I graduated 5 years ago so I have a little more perspective than you're implying. Right now I am making good money working at Booz Allen so I not exactly in a dead-end job. Granted, I am making less than 2 collage dropouts I know but they over 26 so I am fine at under 170k for now.
Anyway, the quality of education at most top tear schools is extremely over rated. Most of a schools reputation is based around the quality of students they admit not the quality of education they supply. As to networking it's more important to connect with the right type of person than people at the right school. My older sister went to Washington and Lee and avoided connecting to people with money and spent most of her time with the international students and she is making around 1/2 what I do right now. On the other hand, I got my first 2 jobs because I had good connections.
There are a lot of great schools in the US spending a lot of time ranking which is 1st though 15th is a waste of time. Back in HS most people only have a vague understanding of what they want out of life so picking the best CS school is silly when you might end up studding math and getting masters in neuroscience. I think it's most important to pick and environment and social group that you're comfortable with vs. some extremely arbitrary school rank.
PS: In 5 years people look at you funny when you include your collage GPA and in 20 years the collage you went to is little more than a foot note when compared to your work history and grad school. How far you go is more about when you decide to cost than which scool you went to.
Why, I avoided MIT because their campus sucks. When you're going to spend 3 - 5 years of your life at college why not look at the "little things" and chose one that meshes with what you want?
I think a much more efficient hybrid system could evolve.
Let's say trucks are limited to 35MPH. Now you need train stop per 1000 - 10,000 square miles think ~(Pi * r ^ 2) to keep within an hour or two drive to most stop off points. Now this would take a little more capital but you would drastically reduce your manpower and fuel needs while getting most truckers off the road.
Mass transit requires significant infrastructure but hybrid mass transit can be vary cost effective at significantly reduced costs.
Well plenty of people pay over 100$ a month for cable. At 2 hours a day that's 1.67+$ / hour...
I'm actually *related* to italian mafioso... Shut up and deal with it.
Yes, Sir.
Fusion produces ~1% the waste but about the same level of radiation during operation. Fusion's waste does not stick around nearly as long. It's like using a light bulb vs. fire a light bulb is hot for a few min (100+ years) where a fire is hot for days (10,000+ years.) but they are both vary hot when they are running.
In a big plant it's easy to have several feet of shielding (it's just a wall) so it's not an issue for power plants but building something portable is much harder as they take up space and are vary heavy.
Using a 15kw fusion powered car would kill you VARY QUICKLY.
There is no way to prevent the massive quantities of multi MV neutrons from activating the car with the ~4feet of shielding you could provide around such a device inside a car.
Fusion produces significant quantities of radiation and significant quantities of radio active waste. You can't build a table top device that will safely create usefully amounts of energy so it's always going to be the domain of major power companies even if the core device only costs 1$ the amount of shielding and cleanup will result in a multi million $ project.
There are times when owning a SUV is useful. Aka you own a small boat and like to take the family out on the weekends but for the most part a midsized car and a cheep truck tends to be cheaper.
A new Honda Accord ~20k + older pickup ~5-10k is much cheaper to buy than a new SUV, but they can haul more things, are more reliable, get better gas mileage, have lower insurance costs, and you have money left over to rent a van or Winnebago on the standard 1-2 vacations a year. Or you can take that savings and fly somewhere.
Most SUV's only seat 5 people and have little cargo space, they just look big but as they need to fit into a standard parking space they dont' realy have much more room.
Having driven a RWD Volvo (91) 240DL in blizzards and helping to pull out jeeps I don't' think 4wd does that much. Granted it RWD takes a more skill but the fact that your rear wheals tend to lose traction first means you can still steer when you start to lose control which means you can more easily regain control. 4wd has a small advantage in gaining speed but when driving at 45+mph in 4-6+ inches of snow it's far more important to be in control of where your going than simply being able to go faster.
PS: If you're trying to drive though more than 12 inches of snow clearance is the only thing that matters and a truck with lifts wins.
I was giving a specific example where Cato was not speaking the truth. Perhaps they are acting out of incompetence instead of malice.
Cato is staffed and funded by libertarians, so I guess it's true that we're "biased" in a libertarian direction. But that's rather different from saying that we "have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders," which was the comment I was originally responding to.
There is nothing about libertarian ideas that prevents them from helping libertarians. So this could be a delusion vs. greed issue. But, as many Cato publications have major issues with their logic and presentation I don't see how this buys them much credibility. The fact that you believe what you're saying does not prevent those who fund you from using use as a shill. Plenty of people are willing to use the libertarian ideas of keeping the government out of X for their own ends when they don't want the government to get into X.
PS: I think we can both agree that Sallie James http://www.freetrade.org/bios/james.html = hot.
Many non-profits are supported by relatively rich people. However, many are government supported, others operate as a normal business which send their profit to charitable causes so I think Most is a little over the top. Anyway, Cato has some independence from any specific donor but they do have a clear bias which does reduce their credibility. (Call it libertarian or conservative significant bias is still a problem.)
Anyway, HSA's are socialized medicine.
With HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k on medical care.
Without HSA's someone making 100k/year could spend 1k on medical care.
What is the difference between the two?
At the end of the year with HSA's the government will give that person ~300$. Other than the person receiving a check for ~300$ nothing changed. Granted the government does not say where you spend the money but it's still a cost to taxpayers of 300$.
If we want to reduce the cost of medical care we need to change how money is spent not who pays for it. The US government spends more money per person on medical care than Canada which has "socialized medicine". Now if our government spends more money on X per person than a 1st world country with socialized X then we have socialized X even if not 100% socialized X.
I think we could save a lot on administrative costs by having basic socialized medicine. Say 300$ a month government insurance or 300$ a month toward private insurance of equivalent or higher level. Note: For this to work private insurance would have to give up age bias or young people would go private for better coverage and old people would be stuck with government coverage. Anyway insurance does not really save money because they have little control on how it's spent so it's mostly and administrative issue. So:
Heavily, subsidize medical school to make it more affordable for more qualified people thus reducing the doctor scarcity premium. (Need to insure that you don't subsidize poor quality schools or people.)
Limit the number of hours a doctor can work in a non emergency situation to reduce costly mistakes. This links with the doctor scarcity premium issue.
Limit doctor liability with specific binding mediation in all but the most extreme cases. (Reduce litigation costs.)
Increase automation in medical care to reduces staffing costs.
Automatic prescription review to reduce the over prescription of medication. (Estimated 50% of all prescription medication in the US provides no medical benefit to the pacent.)
I am open to criticism on how you think these ideas would cost more money or reduce the level of choice or medical care in the US. But the point was to illustrate the difference between cost saving measures and tax breaks like HSA's. You reduce taxes by reducing spending not arbitrarily saying people doing X get to save Y.
Thank you, for the surprisingly calm and well reasoned response to what may have been an overly dramatic and scathing post.
Anyway, while 2% of Cato's funding is directly from corporate sources 83% of their income is from "Individuals" who may or may not have close ties to industry. Now, I don't know how closely associated what Cato's publishes with how it's funded but there seems to be a significant "Conservative" bias.
As I am at work I don't really have time to go into a lot of details but I will use a specific example of a poorly thought out solution from the annual report.
Heath Savings Accounts are Government Supported Healthcare. They are just as much part of a Welfare State as Medicare. They don't lower the cost of healthcare, but the annual report assumes HSA are somehow different from Medicare and goes to great length to support this deception. Where it costs the American people just as much to give a targeted tax break to a specific individual or hand them the equivalent in cold hard cash there seems to be some sort of conservative feel good love that let's them gloss over the difference because it's a "Tax Break!!!" or some such.
Now an organization that's openly promoting such a bold faced lie is hardly credible in my option. I could go into why HSA's are the flavor of the month in conservative circles but feel free to follow the money trail. Hint, tax breaks don't help people paying the majority of their taxes into SS and Medicare relative to those making several times the SS cap.
Considering your response is a straw man argument, I think I will go with the parent post.
For those who need help following the conversation.
"because they have shown they are willing to place and promote false information that directly benefits their funders."
= Because some of there sources are tainted they have lost credibility.
"know which industry sources funded my"
Here is some non tainted information so not everything is tainted so you're wrong. (with an implicit argument that the parent said everything was tainted.)
"a lot of what we put out is false?"
Once again putting words in the parents post. If 1% of what they say is total bullshit then they have zero credibility. It's like soup, if it's 1% crap then it's not edible. It's not a question of balancing some scale either you constantly use creditable methods or you're a crackpot there is no middle ground.
PS: If you ever want to work with a credible think tank you should consider getting out soon their methods are clearly influencing your critical thinking skills.
I don't get it
GTA IV was well into development before they decided to add the 360 so developers designed and built a game thinking they could use a HDD. Now that they can't use it they are running into problems with their basic design. As a developer you run into this stuff all the time when management decides to move from Oracle to MySQL well it's going to take longer and have X, Y, and Z issues...
PS: It's not hard to build PS3 games that use 30-50% of the systems capabilities the issues are in tweaking things so you can stack up graphically with games who utilize all the little tricks.
At the core of the gun ownership idea is the false premise; "I am better than average."
While the static's on gun ownership state "Owning a gun increases your chances to be killed by firearms" people have the mistaken idea that out of 300,000,000 Americans they are likely to be involved in an attack where owning a gun will save their life. It's much the same reason people think its ok to drive 85MPH in a 65MPH zone or play the lottery.
PS: We have already had a civil war that failed badly and now that the military has tanks, aircraft, nukes, and chemical weapons etc owning some hand guns is going to let US over through the government? Are you insane or just stupid?
Normally I would assume a post like yours was trolling but it's "informative" so...
It all depends on the type of credit.
I have 13k in student loans at 3.5% interest (tax deductible.) Now I could pay that off fairly quickly or I can invest that money and get ahead.
IMO, if you're paying less than 6% a year it's probably a good deal and if it's over 8% a year you're getting screwed. Unless your buying something that is going to give an even higher return on investment. Aka it's ok to put an unexpected expense on a credit card for a month or two even at 17% to avoid paying a large fine. Think mistake on your taxes = you owing 5k. Pay in the next week or they add a 500$ fine...
Note: I said light bulbs NOT CFL's for a reason. A 100% conversion to CFL's would reduce the number of light bulbs introduced into landfills because they last longer. So the point that a low % of land fill waste is made up of light bulbs is still valid. My guess ~1/10,000th by weight.
Anyway, CFL's reduce the amount of mercury (and other nasty substances) introduced into the air at Coal power plants. They increase the amount of mercury at land fills. To understand how good and bad both sides of the equation are you need to look at how much of what is going where.
Most landfills are already contaminated with significant quantities of mercury increasing that by say 1% (random number from thin air) is not a good thing but it's also not that significant. If you want to say CFL's are bad find real numbers on how dangerous they are and how much worse they will make existing problems.
PS: My point is when you want to say something is bad you need to quantify the risk.
None of these say how much damage you get but...
So even though landfill emissions may be very minor in the grand scheme of things, there's still a large unaccounted-for piece of mercury in solid waste [95%] that's either lost to the environment before it gets to the landfill or is more or less permanently sequestered in the landfill," Price says. (your 2nd link, emphasis mine.)
None of these say what dangerous levels are. When you start talking about tons of mercury I will stand up and take note but light bulbs are a tiny fraction of the solid waste generated in the US and a drop in the bucket when compared to real sources for mercury. It's like regulating the "acceptable" levels of radiation inside a nuclear power plant to below what the average person get's when walking outside.
PS: Just because you can detect the presence of vary bad things does not mean they are harmful at those concentrations.
An encrypted filesystem does not help when it's the device and not the data that people want.
200,000 mg of mercury is less than 1/2 a pound.
e rmometer)
Anyway,
"The typical "fever thermometer" contains between 0.5 to 3 g (.3 to 1.7 dr) of elemental mercury.[1] Swallowing this amount of mercury would, it is said, pose little danger but the inhaling of the vapour could lead to health problems." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-in-glass_th
So a light bulb contains between 1/100th and 1/600th of a "safe" dose. I doubt dumping 40k bulbs in a landfill is hurt things all that much.
"Logic would dictate that this percentage would be higher than 0.1%"
.1% of X population would pay them money. I don't think .1% of the US population directly pays them cash.
What logic? People who pay them money are there customers and I don't see how logic would dictate that
PS: When you do the web search their product is the chance you click on an add and their customer is the company paying for the add your just the sheep being spoon fed.
No trust in google /byte) = 1.35 PetaBytes (ahh there it is.)
333.3 hours = 20,000 minutes = 1.2 million seconds. (check)
1.2 million seconds x 9 GBits/s = 10.8 PBbits. (check)
1.2 million seconds x 9.08 GBits/s = 10.896 PBbits.(check)
10.8 PetaBits / (8bits
Note: Bandwith is in bits, storage is in bytes.