The NSA does not need a back door with 128 bit encryption they can attack it head on.
128 bit encryption = 2 x 64 bit key's - 2 bit's (first and last bit = 1) - 1 bit (On average you find the number after looking though 1/2 the search space.)
Using specialized CPU's with 8 data paths at 2ghz = 2^34 checks * 2 ^13 CPU's (~10k CPU cluster) * ~2^12 seconds in an hour = 2 ^59
2^61 / 2^59 = 2^2 hours or 4 hours to crack 128 bit inscription.
PS: Now this is a vary low ball estimate. I was just pointing out that they could crack 128 bit encryption. However, if you use 2 * 128 bit primes to make a 256 bit key your probably safe, unless they found new math to make cracking such key's easy.
Not everyone needs to buy on day 1 for the PS3 to be successful. Chances are over the first 6 months they are going to sell less than 1/3 of total PS3 sales as people wait for a good game library and price drops. As soon as they have excess inventory they drop the price and get a new wave of people to buy. Think of it this way you can sell:
10 million PS3's at 500$ = 5 bill
VS.
2 million PS3's at 600$ and 8 million PS3's at 500 = 5.2 bill
Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's some nice fuzzy logic.
If 1$ into NASA = 9$ back from R&D and only.1$ was spent on R&D then for each 1$ of NASA R&D you get 90$.
However, this tells you nothing of what the other.9$ ends up doing, and it says nothing about what else you could have spent the money on. I don't think that spending such money on new cars would create 90$ in economic benefit.
PS: Most government waste = someone's profit which is why most people want to privatize government so they can profit from such waste. It costs the economy just about nothing to have the government give Bowing 1 million dollars. The only time you have economic loss is when some resource is consumed without benefit. AKA: A house burning down, someone getting sick, or an auto accident. The only things which create long term economic gain are that which increase economic efficiency such as R&D, Education or Infrastructure because they prevent waste.
Sorry, it was 2.1k vs. 3.78k = 1680$ after taxes. I don't want to nitpick but I was trying to make those numbers clear so I should have done the math.
IMO: 401k's are a great path to savings but they are not always the best way to keep your money.
Note: These numbers are picked out of thin air but and I am compounding yearly...
EX: You have 20k in a 401k making 10%/year. You owe 10k in credit card debt at 15% and are saving 5k/year into a 401k/year and you're in the 30% tax bracket. So it takes 13k of income to pay off the debt. It also takes 1.5 /.7 = 2.14k in pre tax money to keep up with the debt.
Option 1: You keep things as they are. Year 1: 27k in 401k and 10k in debt. Year 10: 131.65k in 401k and 10k in debt.
Option 2: Stop paying into 401k for 2 years and then dump that savings into a 401k. Year 1: 22k in 401k and (10 - 5 *.7) = 6.5k in debt. Year 2: 24.2k in 401k and (6.5 - 5 *.7 - ((10-6.5)*.15)) = 2.48k in debt. You now get to save 5k + (10-2.48)/.7 = 6.61k / year into a 401k. Year 10: 141.64k in 401k and 2.14k in savings.
Option 3: Take out 15.87k from your 401k and start saving 7.14k from year one. Year 10: 124.51k in savings and 0$ in debt.
Looks like Option 2 is the winner with 10k more in savings and 7.5k less in debt over option 1.
Granted in the real world most people would probably get back into debt, but on a pure numbers game it's hard to beat paying off high interest debt. Unless you're giving up some type of matching in which case it's not a bad idea to take that money out to get rid of insane debt if it will let you save more pre tax money over time.
PS: Paying down debt can lower your interest rate when buying a new home so there are other compensations to options 2 and 3. Anyway, I would suggest running the numbers with all options on the table and seeking some real tax advice vs. listing to an unemployed coder on/.
It's 3% of your INCOME that's matched not 3% of your savings.
Note: I am using 100k to make math a little clearer.
Option A: 1: You get paid 100% and pay ~30% in income taxes on the last 3k: (3k *.7) 2: Giving you: 97% of 100k - taxes + 2.1k
Option B: 1: you get paid 97% and pay 0% income tax on the last 3k. 2: The Company matches that giving you 3k. 3: You then take 6k out and pay ~30% in income taxes + 10% in Penalties: (6k *.7 *.9) 4: Giving you: 97% of 100k - taxes + 3.78k
I think you can avoid the penalty if you where laid off giving you 97% of 100k - taxes + 4.2k. I think you can also barrow some of the money to pay of some debt's to reduce your interest payments.
PS: Once someone has maxed there credit cards for a while and is paying 300$ a month in interest they are used to living with less money. As long as they burn the cards and don't create new debt it can be a good idea. Going debt free is often a major deal to some people but it only works if they decide to *never* barrow money again.
This is the first thing I've heard contrary to the "fact" that DDT causes thin shells.
It's not a question of ALL birds it about a small number of sensitive species.
"Anderson notes that DDT and DDE levels in nature have been falling for decades. Populations of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys, and brown pelicans have all bounced back. In 1969, researchers reported finding total DDT accumulations ranging from 5,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm in the fat of North American peregrine falcons. Today, one would typically find 50 ppm in raptors, according to Anderson. Such body burdens would yield only about 2.5 ppm in eggs. Anderson notes that there appears to be a threshold of one to three ppm for DDE in eggs below which there is no eggshell thinning in even sensitive bird species. Dusting DDT on the walls of houses in developing countries to control for mosquitoes seems unlikely to cross that threshold for birds.
Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision."
Thousands of raptors should read 100's of thousands perhaps millions vs "Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT) but I still agree with his conclusion. We should limit DDT's use and avoid wide spread spraying but it's fine in limited areas.
The point is there comparing a 500$ system with a 1000$ CPU. Now the system and CPU or worthless by them selves so they give the system a game and a TV and give the CPU a MB, Graphics card, Case, Monitor, Power Supply, RAM, Network Card, HDD etc...
1 Vs. 1 the PS2's cell will CRUSH this Intel chip in raw FLOPS. But they can't run the same games etc... So they compare the graphics subsystem on the two systems. Now if you're Intel you're not going to build the rest of the system for 500$ your going to buy the best parts out there AND over clock them so they can say they won. However they could win that benchmark with a normal P4.
Basically, spending more than 300$ on a gaming system's CPU is stupid unless your spending more than 3x that on the graphics card(s), 2x that on the RAM, 2x that on the RAID array of HDD etc. I know gamers who spend over a grand a year on graphics cards and use 200$ CPU's which they upgrade every 18 month's or so.
FYI: The cost of manufacturing old electronics might go down but the cost to produce the latest generation of HW keeps going up.
Think of it this way while your basically working with sand and a few trace minerals you need to refine them more. Where a old CPU plant might have cost 100 mill next gen plants are well into the BILLIONS. If nothing else the interest will drive up costs.
You can easily produce software that does not cause security vulnerabilities. Just run the software in a VM and keep it the hell away from the host system.
Granted there will always be software bugs, but there is no reason why running software should introduce security holes into the host system.
FYI: Roche limit does not apply for three reasons first the fragment is probably held together by chemical bonds not gravity and second on a near miss there is little time for such effects to take place. (Yes over time a glass of water will evaporate in a low humidity room but it take more than a few min for that to be significant.) And finally even where the fragment to break apart each fragment would continue more or less on the same path which would cause it to miss the earth.
As to why you ignore the earth's gravity in all but the closest near miss: With a V relative of 15km(km/s) and a distance of 15,360 KM the object is being accelerated by a force of (12,756.3/(12,756.3+15,360)) *.0098km/s/s = 0.00445km/s/s and that's tangential to it's path but it's passing the earth at that point so it makes little difference. Steeping back to 30,000 KM the object is accelerating at.00111km/s but most of that vector is not pulling the asteroid into a collision course. You can think of it as a large vector along it's path and a much smaller vector pulling it into a collision course. The further out you go the smaller the net force and the smaller the fraction that's pulling the object into a collision course.
Earth's gravity is important when you want to know how the object is being deflected but it does little to alter the probability of impact for objects with a high relative velocity.
PS: Feel free to calculate the two vectors at 30,000KM and 60,000KM on a near miss. (Now with line breaks...)
FYI: Roche limit does not apply for three reasons first the fragment is probably held together by chemical bonds not gravity and second on a near miss there is little time for such effects to take place. (Yes over time a glass of water will evaporate in a low humidity room but it take more than a few min for that to be significant.) And finally even where the fragment to break apart each fragment would continue more or less on the same path which would cause it to miss the earth.
As to why you ignore the earth's gravity in all but the closest near miss: With a V relative of 15km(km/s) and a distance of 15,360 KM the object is being accelerated by a force of (12,756.3/(12,756.3+15,360)) *.0098km/s/s = 0.00445km/s/s and that's tangential to it's path but it's passing the earth at that point so it makes little difference. Steeping back to 30,000 KM the object is accelerating at.00111km/s but most of that vector is not pulling the asteroid into a collision course. You can think of it as a large vector along it's path and a much smaller vector pulling it into a collision course. The further out you go the smaller the net force and the smaller the fraction that's pulling the object into a collision course.
Earth's gravity is important when you want to know how the object is being deflected but it does little to alter the probability of impact for objects with a high relative velocity.
PS: Feel free to calculate the two vectors at 30,000KM and 60,000KM on a near miss.
Interesting premise but wrong. The boom-bust cycle discourages excessive speculation which is the root cause of the great depression.
Basic fact: only a small percentage of our economy is used to provide for basic needs. Result an "idea/service economy" which is unstable as people quickly stop paying for idea's and or services when things get bad. So by ramping up and down the cost of speculation though monetary policy you can get people to do small bust cycles which tends to balance speculation in the economy with peoples desires by getting people to jump into the market when things are looking bad by convincing them that the best time to invest is now when things are cheep and avoid investing in the economy when interest rates get to high.
"It's incredible that a company like Google that's got market capitalization bigger than the combined value of the cable business....these guys just started five, 10 years ago, and they're asking for special favors already," Commisso said.
IMO Google should get a discount as they are one of the reasons why people are paying for Internet access in the first place.
If they piss off google to much then I can see google setting up their own network. The already own a lot of dark fiber and they could easily start working on a FIOS style network.
You can build the "one time pad" over a few hours and then use it over a few seconds. Basicly, the key needs to be sent fast enough to meet the average demand but the link needs to handle the spikes.
There are other constrants; such as if you send both links though the same line then you can suffer a man in the middle attack but if they are on seperate networks then it's much harder.
The direction of slant is not nearly as important as the degree of slant. NPR and the BBC are not dead center on all things all the time, but they are close enough to piss people off on both sides of an issue. However, when was the last time someone on the far right got pissed off at FOX?
This is why people make fun of fox we know all news has some bias but FOX is so far from center it's basically propaganda.
They lost ~1-4 billion on the X-Box they need to get that AND get more profit than they would have with a diversified investment in the stock market before I would call it a success. Don't think they need to just get their money back even if the X-Box brings in 100 million every year till the end of time it would not be a "success" at this point.
Re:$20,000 per patient! - more like $500 per unit
on
Bloodless Surgery
·
· Score: 1
The 20k number does not seem that off to me. The 90% that don't need a transfusion don't count. It depends on the product etc but if a unit of blood costs a hospital ~500$ and on average you use 3 - 4 then you start at 1.5-2k but you need to add in all the other costs.
EX: If treating HIV cost's 2mill then your adding 1$ per unit of blood as a hidden cost. Even if only 2 people get AIDS from blood per year the cost of treating them must be added into the mix. Let alone the cost of being sued over such an infection.
Now you need to add up all the other ailments you can get from blood and average in those costs.
You need to add the cost of storing blood at hospitals.
You need to add in the cost of using the blood. Aka someone needs to get it from storage, setup the transfusion, make sure the blood type matches etc.
You need to inflate these costs with the insurance premium due to the risks of being sued.
Now add in any profit the hospital tries to make. (If only to cover for other losses.)
A 2005 Dodge Caravan SWB SXT EPA highway (mpg) 26 EPA city (mpg) 19 rated: 3800 could easily move a 24' boat at 55MPH. It would need to slow down on large hills but saying it's not "rated" to handle that load not the same thing as being unable to do so. Now for long trips it's cheaper to rent an SUV and use the Caravan the other 95% of the time than it is to use the SUV 100% of the time.
Note: Going from 10MPG to 20MPG over 100k miles is worth ~15,000$ which easily covers renting an SUV for several long trips. Now if your saying you take your boat on 5-hour trips 30 times a year then it's probably a good idea to buy one, but in that case you could still buy a car with the amount of money you save on gas. It's still really hard to justify using an SUV to buy milk.
PS: It's a bad idea to go significant distances with significant amount of gas in a boat.
There are three problems with using nuclear power as anything other than base load power. Note France over comes these issues but the are not 100% nuclear and they have energy storage mechanisms.
Changing the reactor heat output is a non-linear function involving several unknowns. Going from 40 - 70% power output is fairly safe but operating outside that range can become vary dangerous vary quickly. This becomes vary extreme when working at the extremes aka 0-10% and 90+%. There is also another significant delay between heat generation and power on the grid aka the two stage heat exchange between reactor and the turbines. AKA reactor > water > heat exchanger > water / steam > turbines.
There is little cost benefit of operating at reduced power. The reactor is an extremely corrosive environment that requires regular maintenance with little to be gained from operating at reduced power levels. Thus operating at 50% power output is more costly than operating at 75%.
Starting a reactor requires significant amounts of power so that attempting to rapidly bring reactors online increases the grid's power load.
"Ah yes. these wonderful batteries that can store the energy demands of an entire city yet can't drive an electric car father than 100 miles. There has to be a lot more advancement in battery technology before storage to the scale like you are suggesting becomes viable."
Cars need portable energy storage the grid needs massive energy storage these are vary different needs.
"Emissions from coal plants kill 22000 people each year in the U.S. alone, and costs society billions in health care dollars."
Coal has become safer over time. If the 22k yearly deaths have not stopped coal in the last 50 years it's not going to stop coal for the next 50 years. Global worming is a significant issue, but from an action standpoint it's basically been ignored by most of the world.
You can get ~1000w/m^2 of light for about 8 hours a day with a good tracking system on a good day in the right area, dropping down to next to 0 at night. In space it's ~1200w/m^2 24/7. So on average you can only get ~1/5th or 200w/m^2 but that's an average over the total day not the max net power per given area which is what the grandparent was talking about.
~pi * (32/2)^2 ft^2 in m^2 = ~74 m^2 = 25-kilowatt giving you ~338w/m^2 of electricity.
Note: The system is about 40% efficient per area of the mirrors, but there is a shadow of the sterling engine in the middle, which reduces the efficiency per unit area.
Anyway, while the average output is important the fact that the max power output follows max power demand is vary useful. A 1000MW power plant does not average 1000MW over a year it's simply the maximum power output, which you try and map to max demand. There is a large gap in AC usage in the summer between 2PM and 2AM. So while the average power output is important if you want to go 100% solar and ignore things like wind it's not really all that important from an adoption standpoint because 2AM electricity is worth much less than 2PM electricity due to supply and demand.
With that argument you can't replace fossil fuel with nuclear as it can't adapt to rapidly changing energy demand's, however as I said in the later part of my post you can STORE ENERGY. I don't think solar is a great fit for all our energy needs but we could use it. Coal is only 50% of our power right now and it's a long way from running out so it's not really an issue.
SS is still an "income tax." If you want to look at an issue it's stupid to try and use word games to blur the issue.
I would gladly dropout of the retirement aspects of SS/Medicare system if I could keep the cash. As I said the US Tax code approximates a flat tax for middle and upper incomes. My point is they are not paying more in taxes even though people like to say that they are. Now the question of should they pay more is a separate issue but I just want to get the fact's strait.
PS: People love to call SS a retirement benefit but it also helps blind people and others who are unable to work. My point is it's just another government program like any other and as such SS is just another tax like any other.
"In fact, a solar farm 100 miles by 100 miles could satisfy 100% of the America's annual electrical needs."
"Based on a power plant producing 1,000 MW, the cost per kWh would be less than ten cents."
Long term we could build a redundant super conducting power grid to major usage areas and have large scale energy storage systems to smooth out differences between production and demand.
In the real world we are probably always going to use a mix of power generation facilities but saying solar can't be a Major player in energy generation is silly.
"They also pay 35% of the total federal tax revenue."
Wrong.
FYI: SS/Medicare is ~1/2 the federal budget and it cap's out so that people making 100k/year and 2000k/year pay the same amount into SS.
Self employed people making 0-80k / year pay ~15% in SS / Medicare + normal FEDERAL TAXES! People making 80k/ year pay a higher % of their income in taxes than bill gates does. People making 1million a year pay less than 1.5% of their income into SS / Medicare. Worse you don't get any tax breaks on SS/Medicare payments so while things tend to look balanced a few charitable giving can really fuck with the numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA does not need a back door with 128 bit encryption they can attack it head on.
128 bit encryption = 2 x 64 bit key's
- 2 bit's (first and last bit = 1)
- 1 bit (On average you find the number after looking though 1/2 the search space.)
Using specialized CPU's with 8 data paths at 2ghz = 2^34 checks * 2 ^13 CPU's (~10k CPU cluster) * ~2^12 seconds in an hour = 2 ^59
2^61 / 2^59 = 2^2 hours or 4 hours to crack 128 bit inscription.
PS: Now this is a vary low ball estimate. I was just pointing out that they could crack 128 bit encryption. However, if you use 2 * 128 bit primes to make a 256 bit key your probably safe, unless they found new math to make cracking such key's easy.
Not everyone needs to buy on day 1 for the PS3 to be successful. Chances are over the first 6 months they are going to sell less than 1/3 of total PS3 sales as people wait for a good game library and price drops. As soon as they have excess inventory they drop the price and get a new wave of people to buy. Think of it this way you can sell:
10 million PS3's at 500$ = 5 bill
VS.
2 million PS3's at 600$ and 8 million PS3's at 500 = 5.2 bill
That's some nice fuzzy logic.
.1$ was spent on R&D then for each 1$ of NASA R&D you get 90$.
.9$ ends up doing, and it says nothing about what else you could have spent the money on. I don't think that spending such money on new cars would create 90$ in economic benefit.
If 1$ into NASA = 9$ back from R&D and only
However, this tells you nothing of what the other
PS: Most government waste = someone's profit which is why most people want to privatize government so they can profit from such waste. It costs the economy just about nothing to have the government give Bowing 1 million dollars. The only time you have economic loss is when some resource is consumed without benefit. AKA: A house burning down, someone getting sick, or an auto accident. The only things which create long term economic gain are that which increase economic efficiency such as R&D, Education or Infrastructure because they prevent waste.
Sorry, it was 2.1k vs. 3.78k = 1680$ after taxes. I don't want to nitpick but I was trying to make those numbers clear so I should have done the math.
.7 = 2.14k in pre tax money to keep up with the debt.
/.
IMO: 401k's are a great path to savings but they are not always the best way to keep your money.
Note: These numbers are picked out of thin air but and I am compounding yearly...
EX: You have 20k in a 401k making 10%/year. You owe 10k in credit card debt at 15% and are saving 5k/year into a 401k/year and you're in the 30% tax bracket. So it takes 13k of income to pay off the debt. It also takes 1.5 /
Option 1: You keep things as they are.
Year 1: 27k in 401k and 10k in debt.
Year 10: 131.65k in 401k and 10k in debt.
Option 2: Stop paying into 401k for 2 years and then dump that savings into a 401k.
Year 1: 22k in 401k and (10 - 5 *.7) = 6.5k in debt.
Year 2: 24.2k in 401k and (6.5 - 5 *.7 - ((10-6.5)*.15)) = 2.48k in debt.
You now get to save 5k + (10-2.48)/.7 = 6.61k / year into a 401k.
Year 10: 141.64k in 401k and 2.14k in savings.
Option 3: Take out 15.87k from your 401k and start saving 7.14k from year one.
Year 10: 124.51k in savings and 0$ in debt.
Looks like Option 2 is the winner with 10k more in savings and 7.5k less in debt over option 1.
Granted in the real world most people would probably get back into debt, but on a pure numbers game it's hard to beat paying off high interest debt. Unless you're giving up some type of matching in which case it's not a bad idea to take that money out to get rid of insane debt if it will let you save more pre tax money over time.
PS: Paying down debt can lower your interest rate when buying a new home so there are other compensations to options 2 and 3. Anyway, I would suggest running the numbers with all options on the table and seeking some real tax advice vs. listing to an unemployed coder on
It's 3% of your INCOME that's matched not 3% of your savings.
Note: I am using 100k to make math a little clearer.
Option A:
1: You get paid 100% and pay ~30% in income taxes on the last 3k: (3k *.7)
2: Giving you: 97% of 100k - taxes + 2.1k
Option B:
1: you get paid 97% and pay 0% income tax on the last 3k.
2: The Company matches that giving you 3k.
3: You then take 6k out and pay ~30% in income taxes + 10% in Penalties: (6k *.7 *.9)
4: Giving you: 97% of 100k - taxes + 3.78k
I think you can avoid the penalty if you where laid off giving you 97% of 100k - taxes + 4.2k. I think you can also barrow some of the money to pay of some debt's to reduce your interest payments.
PS: Once someone has maxed there credit cards for a while and is paying 300$ a month in interest they are used to living with less money. As long as they burn the cards and don't create new debt it can be a good idea. Going debt free is often a major deal to some people but it only works if they decide to *never* barrow money again.
Read: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb010704.shtml for a simplified history on the subject.
This is the first thing I've heard contrary to the "fact" that DDT causes thin shells.
It's not a question of ALL birds it about a small number of sensitive species.
"Anderson notes that DDT and DDE levels in nature have been falling for decades. Populations of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys, and brown pelicans have all bounced back. In 1969, researchers reported finding total DDT accumulations ranging from 5,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm in the fat of North American peregrine falcons. Today, one would typically find 50 ppm in raptors, according to Anderson. Such body burdens would yield only about 2.5 ppm in eggs. Anderson notes that there appears to be a threshold of one to three ppm for DDE in eggs below which there is no eggshell thinning in even sensitive bird species. Dusting DDT on the walls of houses in developing countries to control for mosquitoes seems unlikely to cross that threshold for birds.
Banning DDT saved thousands of raptors over the past 30 years, but outright bans and misguided fears about the pesticide cost the lives of millions of people who died of insect-borne diseases like malaria. The 500 million people who come down with malaria every year might well wonder what authoritarian made that decision."
Thousands of raptors should read 100's of thousands perhaps millions vs "Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT) but I still agree with his conclusion. We should limit DDT's use and avoid wide spread spraying but it's fine in limited areas.
The point is there comparing a 500$ system with a 1000$ CPU. Now the system and CPU or worthless by them selves so they give the system a game and a TV and give the CPU a MB, Graphics card, Case, Monitor, Power Supply, RAM, Network Card, HDD etc...
1 Vs. 1 the PS2's cell will CRUSH this Intel chip in raw FLOPS. But they can't run the same games etc... So they compare the graphics subsystem on the two systems. Now if you're Intel you're not going to build the rest of the system for 500$ your going to buy the best parts out there AND over clock them so they can say they won. However they could win that benchmark with a normal P4.
Basically, spending more than 300$ on a gaming system's CPU is stupid unless your spending more than 3x that on the graphics card(s), 2x that on the RAM, 2x that on the RAID array of HDD etc. I know gamers who spend over a grand a year on graphics cards and use 200$ CPU's which they upgrade every 18 month's or so.
FYI: The cost of manufacturing old electronics might go down but the cost to produce the latest generation of HW keeps going up.
Think of it this way while your basically working with sand and a few trace minerals you need to refine them more. Where a old CPU plant might have cost 100 mill next gen plants are well into the BILLIONS. If nothing else the interest will drive up costs.
You can easily produce software that does not cause security vulnerabilities. Just run the software in a VM and keep it the hell away from the host system.
Granted there will always be software bugs, but there is no reason why running software should introduce security holes into the host system.
FYI: Roche limit does not apply for three reasons first the fragment is probably held together by chemical bonds not gravity and second on a near miss there is little time for such effects to take place. (Yes over time a glass of water will evaporate in a low humidity room but it take more than a few min for that to be significant.) And finally even where the fragment to break apart each fragment would continue more or less on the same path which would cause it to miss the earth.
.0098km/s/s = 0.00445km/s/s and that's tangential to it's path but it's passing the earth at that point so it makes little difference. Steeping back to 30,000 KM the object is accelerating at .00111km/s but most of that vector is not pulling the asteroid into a collision course. You can think of it as a large vector along it's path and a much smaller vector pulling it into a collision course. The further out you go the smaller the net force and the smaller the fraction that's pulling the object into a collision course.
As to why you ignore the earth's gravity in all but the closest near miss: With a V relative of 15km(km/s) and a distance of 15,360 KM the object is being accelerated by a force of (12,756.3/(12,756.3+15,360)) *
Earth's gravity is important when you want to know how the object is being deflected but it does little to alter the probability of impact for objects with a high relative velocity.
PS: Feel free to calculate the two vectors at 30,000KM and 60,000KM on a near miss.
(Now with line breaks...)
FYI: Roche limit does not apply for three reasons first the fragment is probably held together by chemical bonds not gravity and second on a near miss there is little time for such effects to take place. (Yes over time a glass of water will evaporate in a low humidity room but it take more than a few min for that to be significant.) And finally even where the fragment to break apart each fragment would continue more or less on the same path which would cause it to miss the earth. As to why you ignore the earth's gravity in all but the closest near miss: With a V relative of 15km(km/s) and a distance of 15,360 KM the object is being accelerated by a force of (12,756.3/(12,756.3+15,360)) * .0098km/s/s = 0.00445km/s/s and that's tangential to it's path but it's passing the earth at that point so it makes little difference. Steeping back to 30,000 KM the object is accelerating at .00111km/s but most of that vector is not pulling the asteroid into a collision course. You can think of it as a large vector along it's path and a much smaller vector pulling it into a collision course. The further out you go the smaller the net force and the smaller the fraction that's pulling the object into a collision course.
Earth's gravity is important when you want to know how the object is being deflected but it does little to alter the probability of impact for objects with a high relative velocity.
PS: Feel free to calculate the two vectors at 30,000KM and 60,000KM on a near miss.
Interesting premise but wrong. The boom-bust cycle discourages excessive speculation which is the root cause of the great depression.
Basic fact: only a small percentage of our economy is used to provide for basic needs. Result an "idea/service economy" which is unstable as people quickly stop paying for idea's and or services when things get bad. So by ramping up and down the cost of speculation though monetary policy you can get people to do small bust cycles which tends to balance speculation in the economy with peoples desires by getting people to jump into the market when things are looking bad by convincing them that the best time to invest is now when things are cheep and avoid investing in the economy when interest rates get to high.
"can I get a transplant donor soul?"
Yes.
--Prince of Lies.
"It's incredible that a company like Google that's got market capitalization bigger than the combined value of the cable business....these guys just started five, 10 years ago, and they're asking for special favors already," Commisso said.
IMO Google should get a discount as they are one of the reasons why people are paying for Internet access in the first place.
If they piss off google to much then I can see google setting up their own network. The already own a lot of dark fiber and they could easily start working on a FIOS style network.
You can build the "one time pad" over a few hours and then use it over a few seconds. Basicly, the key needs to be sent fast enough to meet the average demand but the link needs to handle the spikes. There are other constrants; such as if you send both links though the same line then you can suffer a man in the middle attack but if they are on seperate networks then it's much harder.
The direction of slant is not nearly as important as the degree of slant. NPR and the BBC are not dead center on all things all the time, but they are close enough to piss people off on both sides of an issue. However, when was the last time someone on the far right got pissed off at FOX?
This is why people make fun of fox we know all news has some bias but FOX is so far from center it's basically propaganda.
They lost ~1-4 billion on the X-Box they need to get that AND get more profit than they would have with a diversified investment in the stock market before I would call it a success. Don't think they need to just get their money back even if the X-Box brings in 100 million every year till the end of time it would not be a "success" at this point.
The 20k number does not seem that off to me. The 90% that don't need a transfusion don't count. It depends on the product etc but if a unit of blood costs a hospital ~500$ and on average you use 3 - 4 then you start at 1.5-2k but you need to add in all the other costs.
EX: If treating HIV cost's 2mill then your adding 1$ per unit of blood as a hidden cost. Even if only 2 people get AIDS from blood per year the cost of treating them must be added into the mix. Let alone the cost of being sued over such an infection.
Now you need to add up all the other ailments you can get from blood and average in those costs.
You need to add the cost of storing blood at hospitals.
You need to add in the cost of using the blood. Aka someone needs to get it from storage, setup the transfusion, make sure the blood type matches etc.
You need to inflate these costs with the insurance premium due to the risks of being sued.
Now add in any profit the hospital tries to make. (If only to cover for other losses.)
ETC.
A 2005 Dodge Caravan SWB SXT EPA highway (mpg) 26 EPA city (mpg) 19 rated: 3800 could easily move a 24' boat at 55MPH. It would need to slow down on large hills but saying it's not "rated" to handle that load not the same thing as being unable to do so. Now for long trips it's cheaper to rent an SUV and use the Caravan the other 95% of the time than it is to use the SUV 100% of the time.
Note: Going from 10MPG to 20MPG over 100k miles is worth ~15,000$ which easily covers renting an SUV for several long trips. Now if your saying you take your boat on 5-hour trips 30 times a year then it's probably a good idea to buy one, but in that case you could still buy a car with the amount of money you save on gas. It's still really hard to justify using an SUV to buy milk.
PS: It's a bad idea to go significant distances with significant amount of gas in a boat.
There are three problems with using nuclear power as anything other than base load power. Note France over comes these issues but the are not 100% nuclear and they have energy storage mechanisms.
e lectricity
Changing the reactor heat output is a non-linear function involving several unknowns. Going from 40 - 70% power output is fairly safe but operating outside that range can become vary dangerous vary quickly. This becomes vary extreme when working at the extremes aka 0-10% and 90+%. There is also another significant delay between heat generation and power on the grid aka the two stage heat exchange between reactor and the turbines. AKA reactor > water > heat exchanger > water / steam > turbines.
There is little cost benefit of operating at reduced power. The reactor is an extremely corrosive environment that requires regular maintenance with little to be gained from operating at reduced power levels. Thus operating at 50% power output is more costly than operating at 75%.
Starting a reactor requires significant amounts of power so that attempting to rapidly bring reactors online increases the grid's power load.
"Ah yes. these wonderful batteries that can store the energy demands of an entire city yet can't drive an electric car father than 100 miles. There has to be a lot more advancement in battery technology before storage to the scale like you are suggesting becomes viable."
Cars need portable energy storage the grid needs massive energy storage these are vary different needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydro
"Emissions from coal plants kill 22000 people each year in the U.S. alone, and costs society billions in health care dollars."
Coal has become safer over time. If the 22k yearly deaths have not stopped coal in the last 50 years it's not going to stop coal for the next 50 years. Global worming is a significant issue, but from an action standpoint it's basically been ignored by most of the world.
You can get ~1000w/m^2 of light for about 8 hours a day with a good tracking system on a good day in the right area, dropping down to next to 0 at night. In space it's ~1200w/m^2 24/7. So on average you can only get ~1/5th or 200w/m^2 but that's an average over the total day not the max net power per given area which is what the grandparent was talking about.
3 0b4511b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
EX: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/energyefficiency/7c5
~pi * (32/2)^2 ft^2 in m^2 = ~74 m^2 = 25-kilowatt giving you ~338w/m^2 of electricity.
Note: The system is about 40% efficient per area of the mirrors, but there is a shadow of the sterling engine in the middle, which reduces the efficiency per unit area.
Anyway, while the average output is important the fact that the max power output follows max power demand is vary useful. A 1000MW power plant does not average 1000MW over a year it's simply the maximum power output, which you try and map to max demand. There is a large gap in AC usage in the summer between 2PM and 2AM. So while the average power output is important if you want to go 100% solar and ignore things like wind it's not really all that important from an adoption standpoint because 2AM electricity is worth much less than 2PM electricity due to supply and demand.
With that argument you can't replace fossil fuel with nuclear as it can't adapt to rapidly changing energy demand's, however as I said in the later part of my post you can STORE ENERGY. I don't think solar is a great fit for all our energy needs but we could use it. Coal is only 50% of our power right now and it's a long way from running out so it's not really an issue.
SS is still an "income tax." If you want to look at an issue it's stupid to try and use word games to blur the issue.
I would gladly dropout of the retirement aspects of SS/Medicare system if I could keep the cash. As I said the US Tax code approximates a flat tax for middle and upper incomes. My point is they are not paying more in taxes even though people like to say that they are. Now the question of should they pay more is a separate issue but I just want to get the fact's strait.
PS: People love to call SS a retirement benefit but it also helps blind people and others who are unable to work. My point is it's just another government program like any other and as such SS is just another tax like any other.
Solar is fine, but again only suitable for augmentation, not as a primary energy source.
Why the fuck not? http://stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all
"In fact, a solar farm 100 miles by 100 miles could satisfy 100% of the America's annual electrical needs."
"Based on a power plant producing 1,000 MW, the cost per kWh would be less than ten cents."
Long term we could build a redundant super conducting power grid to major usage areas and have large scale energy storage systems to smooth out differences between production and demand.
In the real world we are probably always going to use a mix of power generation facilities but saying solar can't be a Major player in energy generation is silly.
"They also pay 35% of the total federal tax revenue."
Wrong.
FYI: SS/Medicare is ~1/2 the federal budget and it cap's out so that people making 100k/year and 2000k/year pay the same amount into SS.
Self employed people making 0-80k / year pay ~15% in SS / Medicare + normal FEDERAL TAXES! People making 80k/ year pay a higher % of their income in taxes than bill gates does. People making 1million a year pay less than 1.5% of their income into SS / Medicare. Worse you don't get any tax breaks on SS/Medicare payments so while things tend to look balanced a few charitable giving can really fuck with the numbers.