Heinlein makes an interesting point, though I don't like the suicide aspect. The reason we have plea-by-insanity is it's "inhumane" to punish people for being crazy.
Here's my thing: It's eugenics. It's all eugenics. Criminals? We jail criminals to keep them out of society, not to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they die in there without breeding. Murderers, we execute--remove from society, remove their social influence and hopefully they don't breed either. The insane? Why would we not execute an insane murderer? Do you want to treat him so he can be "normal" and make more genetically brain damaged little children who can murder more normal, sane people and then get treatment too, until they've slowly eroded our society and replaced it with a bunch of insane people?!
Justifiable homicides: Self defense, defense of others, severe coercion (someone is going to murder you/your family--yeah, sucks, we have all kinds of funny ideals about how you should go to the police, but what then? Your 10 year old daughter gets murdered by having her vagina pulled inside out slowly with fishhooks, while you're duct taped to a chair to watch... no, people fall to psychological pressure; go find the real criminal).
Unjustifiable homicides: Vengeance, thrill, insurance money (greed), etc.
I don't care if you're nuts. If you are prone to kill people, we need to get rid of you.
More like doing a backtrace. The indulgences could be considered shoving enough money to buy a camel through the eye of a needle. Also there is a pattern of people amending metaphor when someone does something--in this case it is said that a rich person making it to heaven is as a camel through a needle's eye, and so a rich man entering heaven has put his camel through the needle's eye. Or, has put himself through the needle's eye. Or, as I said, the money for the camel. The money or the camel itself could be considered "paid the camel" (as in the invoice was for one (1) camel and he has paid one (1) camel).
The cable guy came, got the serial # off my modem, went outside, climbed the pole, and switched the feed on. The cable was there, but physically off. This is how cable works.
Does it matter? Once you scale up past a few dozen people, the point becomes moot. You're on Feudalism or regulated Enterprise. Feudalism works where open markets won't, sometimes--if resources are too scarce for anything but socialism, but the whole thing is too big for socialism to work, you get feudalism. Feudalism has advantages: it has incentive, it has structured management (i.e. the landlord wants a tithe; he doesn't care who produces what or how much or how, as long as the tithe is paid), hell the landlord even protects the land and the serfs from invaders (because he has incentive--that's his wealth).
In other words: the scope is so small as to be uninteresting. Like a full review on when chewing gum solves engine problems.
It's usually moot. If your size-of-area is so small that pure socialism or pure capitalism works, there's no room for error and nothing else probably has come to mind. I mean, do you think they could be anything but socialists on Gilligan's Island? Capitalism between the six of them won't work.
I was referencing the biblical simile between a rich person getting into heaven and a camel passing through a needle's eye to the Catholic Church's short-lived program of paying the Catholic Church money to ensure your place in heaven (you know, the whole affair that forked the Lutheran Church). The implication is they've paid their tithe, and therefor they can consume as much as they want without paying for anything again--they've paid once so it's okay to take things without paying for them.
The constitution is and always has been a flawed legal document. It was amended before it even took effect to fix some of the flaws; it has been repeatedly amended since. It has too much bolt-on shit that's ineffective and poorly works around the framework it provides, and needs to be torn down and rewritten.
Gun crimes are committed by both legal and illegal gun owners--legal gun owners with your psychological profile are the likely to commit gun crimes, while those with more reservation and less paranoia are less likely. Legal gun owners with your mentality also commit more "justifiable homicide" because of a pattern of zero tolerance--of immediately and fatally employing a firearm where it would be legally and even barely justifiable, more concerned with "he had it coming, I was protecting myself" than trying to stay human. The strict, mechanical decision process of "there is a threat, I must eliminate it by any force" is inhuman.
Socialism is a good thing... in moderation. Socialist programs support and balance an economy, whereas pure socialism and pure capitalism both concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few.
Further, context is important: Extremely small economies--for example, colonies of less than 100 people--benefit from full scale socialism because any other economy is infeasible; but as the colony grows, these economies quickly fail. This is because a family unit is inherently socialistic, and a small community must be socially tight-knit to survive. Larger, socially disconnected communities (nations of hundreds, thousands, millions) quickly lose such motivation because they lose sight of the need, and then lose the need outright; thus capitalism comes into play. As nations get quite large, capitalism fails; thus regulations must come into play to retain the benefits offered by capitalism.
Political parties promise the world, while economic theorists are used to back up assertions about capitalism and socialism and how we'd be much better off in a feel-good socialist utopia or a freedom-driven capitalist free market. The truth is all systems can be exploited; on a small scale exploitation is impossible because the risk is unmanageable (exploit your power in a colony of 50 people barely trying to survive as is and you'll probably collapse the economy, then you die with everyone else--if they don't hang you first and get on with their lives), but on a large scale it's too easy.
Micro-managing an economy is simply impossible on a large scale: socialism works, but only when you absolutely understand the needs and constraints of the entire economic system on all levels; you can't, and so capitalism allows for these details to work themselves out (i.e. delegation).
Capitalism is ripe for exploit and stagnation, however, and so minor socialist practices--regulations, tax incentives, etc--are put in place to guide the system. Excessive or improper use of these practices is destructive to the economy, but so is not employing them at all.
There is a balance. Nobody seeks it. Those in power seek more power, or seek to push ideals they believe will universally solve all problems; they won't.
People want to pay for the privilege to not face retribution. They're taught that certain things are illegal, immoral, or somehow wrong; and that being a bad boy will get you in trouble. Thus they pay the camel through the needle's eye to stay out of hell.
The USD isn't cyclical, except versus world currency. However, when you borrow money with interest, you need to pay back the interest. There simply isn't money to pay back the interest; we must issue new money, or more debt. Businesses borrow money, so the theory of "more labor to move money faster to pay off the debt" doesn't work--the creditors are concentrating ownership of the money, the businesses are raising prices and/or selling more product to obtain money to pay their debt, etc. Salaries increase to afford these new products and greater prices.
The value of what a $currency buys you goes down over time. Absolutely.
A fizzle? *I* could collect, refine, and detonate nuclear material in a gun-type fission bomb. Do you remember the boyscout that built a nuclear reactor? High-speed high-temperature centrifuge isn't the only way to refine nuclear material; it's the most efficient way to scale, but there are cheaper ways to start up and get material that can go super-critical.
There's no uranium in my back yard (I know this for a fact: there's no radon gas entering my basement) and I don't have connections to get any (UnitedNuclear will sell civilians non-useful low-REM ore, but nothing with high concentrations and high radioactivity); however I know of PLENTY of private land that has viable uranium ore on it (which is sold to research labs and the Government only). Trespassing aside, I could easily acquire some such land, if I had more money than I have now--if I could afford, say, a half a million dollar house, I could afford some land in a prime area to get some uranium. Uranium prospecting is similar to gold prospecting (but requires different technique; the base skill is the same, and you can even pan rivers and look for evidence of uranium), and involves figuring out where uranium is (i.e. certain parts of California have gold) and then figuring out where specifically in that area you can actually find uranium (i.e. a particular plot of land); so you find the land and you obtain a deed.
So, if I were slightly rich, like "District Manager" rich, not like "Oil Tycoon" rich, I could get my hands on uranium and go through an expensive-per-gram-on-scale but cheap-for-a-one-off refinement process, probably involving acids and lots of fire to separate uranium isotopes by density. Then some high explosives and a gun-type fission device and it's go time.
Now consider: North Korea is run by a guy who can afford a military and has diplomatic relationships.
If I started trying to get nuclear material, I'd probably set off flags, and somebody would come to talk to me about all this stuff about uranium that's been coming up. If Kim Jeong-Un tries to get nuclear material... someone might whine, but uh. He has his own military force.
I'd wager on missiles able to reach South Korea. ICBM to America not so much. I'd believe North Korea has successfully produced nuclear fission bombs. I'd believe they've produced dirty fusion-pumped fission bombs, which are trivially easy once you have nukes.
No, think like when Bill Gates asked: "Can we do something specific to break ACPI in Linux? I don't want Linux to be able to use ACPI." That's the details. They want software to become popular on Ubuntu, they want Steam to run under Mir but not X or Wayland, to cripple everything else and become the Linux, and make the Money.
the merits or lack thereof in choosing the Mir project over Weyland
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
One day Git will be Bzr. One day Gnome will be Unity. One day X will be Mir. One day Linus Torvalds will be a gray-haired beggar on the street, still acting like an immature teenager, implying that people on the LKML would do better spending more of their time sucking cocks; and Canonical will be running the new, improved, coded-from-scratch, Linux-compatible Ubrik kernel.
I wasn't being entirely serious, just pointing out your ridiculous argument with the assumption that you're either an atheist or a member of the Church of the Great Meatball. Science has placed a purported 'fact' in front of us, with so-called evidence. The dispute isn't over whether or not we can negotiate with the facts; it's over whether or not the science is correct.
In the 70s we had issues with the scientific-consensus-driven fact of Global Cooling. Skeptics held out for better research, and in turn were granted that the world is actually warming--not only is science wrong, it's completely backwards.
Nowadays, we're confronted with science that's federally funded. Science that's funded federally requires federal money to stay funded. Federal money is great because it's a one-stop-shop: You can research 30 different things on federal money. If you have oil money, they pay you to research oil things; researching medicine things is out of the question, that's not what oil money is for.
If you offend the federal money stream, you lose all your money. Publish a paper about how global warming is bullshit and the federal government stops funding all your HIV research; use non-sanctioned embryonic stem cell strains and the same thing happens. So you can now only study things funded by interested parties, which is very complex--you are limited to what you can get various parties interested in, and you have to find and convince those various parties.
There are also ridiculous logical disconnects in the science itself, rather than just the politics. For example: Stop driving cars? We want cars that eat less fuel? Are you kidding? LAWN MOWERS belch out more garbage and burn more fuel per year than ALL CARS ON THE PLANET. Lawn tools are poorly tuned and badly filtered, using two-stroke engines that burn oil by design. GreenWorks, Worx, Black and Decker, etc. produce good electric lawn care tools, which can use coal/oil burned much more efficiently and with less pollution output, or even solar (my power is 9.2c/kWh solar-wind-geo-hydro, rather than 8.7c/kWh coal).
Replacing all the lawn tools with 40V Lithium Ion tools would give a huge boost to clean air. At 1.73x10^9 gal/year (assumes 300 million population divided by 3 per household, 20 min per week lawn care, including snow blowers which are similar to lawnmowers), as much HC and NOx as driving a car 445 billion miles, and as much CO as driving 695 billion miles. The same 100 million people drive 12,000 miles annually, or 1200 billion miles. 445 billion is 1/2.7 of that, 695 billion is 1/1.7 (58%) of that. Moving to electric lawn care could cut roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of our total consumer-end-generated emissions (not so much total emissions, since coal power plants are more efficient than cars and lawnmowers, but not 100% clean; but we want electric cars, which fall into the same category of 'moving to the power grid').
By the given numbers, anyway. Which are highly confused.
But, see, I made the science argument, I supplied some numbers, so the argument is valid. The point isn't so much exactly how much switching to electric lawn care would improve the situation as:
1. It improves it a lot compared to cars--less, but when we compare car emissions to lawn tool emissions it's a big chunk. Even if it comes to 20%, it's a big chunk.
2. It's a simpler, economically cheaper alternative than replacing all cars.
3. Nobody talks about this seriously.
So the federal investment into electric cars based on scientific data was completely bonkers. They could have saved the economy a lot of pressure and meddling from federal money by pushing for electric lawn care tools primarily, with electric cars secondary. This would have seeded battery development, preparing the economy for a strong push for electric vehicles. T
Usefulness for a purpose has disconnected but relevant bearing on how it works. Operational details specify what problems the technology can solve; there is overlap for bare function, but the details are important. In this case you could have a chip with an inherent structure that would self-regrow when current is applied if damage is not extensive and materials were present (i.e. cracks self-heal infinitely, uses electricity); or a blue-goo type chip that contains a reservoir of consumable raw material to accomplish same purpose (consumes goo and electricity); or redundant schematics back-ups and FPGA (limited surface area to damage; potential routing problems); or redundant schematics with blue-goo (same, different implementation, in practice one will have an advantage of weight and effectiveness over the other but basic concerns are identical); or a simply redundant chip (prone to manufacturing deviations reducing its effectiveness; certain failures may be fatal; you need 100% additional capacity plus routing for each 100% redundancy; redundancy is per redundant component--100% blue-goo could repair the same 1% of surface through 100 failures, but 100% pure redundancy can recover from the same 1% surface failure 1 time).
This is not really "self-healing" but "redundant". Of the three above, you have these considerations:
Stable reflowing crystal: Can't heal from large damage; small damage (microcracks, minor fissures, electrical/mechanical stress) should heal. Chip normal lifecycle is extended indefinitely.
Blue-goo self-repair: Can heal from larger damage for a limited supply. Works off total damage: Eventual cumulative loss over 100% of chip area with 100% repair capacity will repair itself. Beyond capacity, repairs cease. Most likely, blue-goo would have transport issues into very tiny micro-fissures and cracks--cracks embedded deep inside substrate are not physically reachable and won't repair, yet may affect electrical properties of the substrate and thus impact chip performance.
Redundancy: Absolute healing from any type of failure. Redundancy takes up additional space for each redundant copy of each component: if you have 2 redundant copies of an ALU, you need space for 3 ALU total. If you lose one or two, it's functional. If you have one redundant copy of every component (100% coverage) and you lose two of any one, you lose the whole package at what may be 10% or 1% or more or less utilization. Contrast with blue-goo, where 10% loss means 10% loss of capacity to self-heal. Likely a high-stress area will require more specific redundancy; and bad luck could render a chip useless even with all that unutilized self-repair (redundant) capacity.
The holy grail would be a stable reflowing crystal with blue-goo that can repair the crystal. Tiny cracks would self-heal, while larger damage would trigger self-repair. Redundancy is worthless: if you have 3 ALU, you should be parallel processing instead of idling 2 of them for fail-over. Redundancy only seems desirable because we don't have a better method like blue-goo or stable reflowing crystal.
Interestingly, if you melt 'just ice', nothing happens. The ice displaces as much water as its total mass; when it melts, it changes density, and its total volume is the same as the water it previously displaced. If it's propped up on top of land (including reaching the sea floor and piling more ice on top), it will cause a volume change in the liquid ocean; otherwise non.
Slashdot Mirror
Heinlein makes an interesting point, though I don't like the suicide aspect. The reason we have plea-by-insanity is it's "inhumane" to punish people for being crazy.
Here's my thing: It's eugenics. It's all eugenics. Criminals? We jail criminals to keep them out of society, not to rehabilitate them. Hopefully they die in there without breeding. Murderers, we execute--remove from society, remove their social influence and hopefully they don't breed either. The insane? Why would we not execute an insane murderer? Do you want to treat him so he can be "normal" and make more genetically brain damaged little children who can murder more normal, sane people and then get treatment too, until they've slowly eroded our society and replaced it with a bunch of insane people?!
Justifiable homicides: Self defense, defense of others, severe coercion (someone is going to murder you/your family--yeah, sucks, we have all kinds of funny ideals about how you should go to the police, but what then? Your 10 year old daughter gets murdered by having her vagina pulled inside out slowly with fishhooks, while you're duct taped to a chair to watch... no, people fall to psychological pressure; go find the real criminal).
Unjustifiable homicides: Vengeance, thrill, insurance money (greed), etc.
I don't care if you're nuts. If you are prone to kill people, we need to get rid of you.
Treating the florid paranoid schizophrenia that led him to kill his parents and one of his siblings is a very fine line
Maybe if we stopped using toxic industrial waste to force-feed everyone fluoridated water we wouldn't have these problems!
That seems better. "More than a decade" sounds too short term of an investment.
More like doing a backtrace. The indulgences could be considered shoving enough money to buy a camel through the eye of a needle. Also there is a pattern of people amending metaphor when someone does something--in this case it is said that a rich person making it to heaven is as a camel through a needle's eye, and so a rich man entering heaven has put his camel through the needle's eye. Or, has put himself through the needle's eye. Or, as I said, the money for the camel. The money or the camel itself could be considered "paid the camel" (as in the invoice was for one (1) camel and he has paid one (1) camel).
Language is very abstract, apparently.
The cable guy came, got the serial # off my modem, went outside, climbed the pole, and switched the feed on. The cable was there, but physically off. This is how cable works.
Does it matter? Once you scale up past a few dozen people, the point becomes moot. You're on Feudalism or regulated Enterprise. Feudalism works where open markets won't, sometimes--if resources are too scarce for anything but socialism, but the whole thing is too big for socialism to work, you get feudalism. Feudalism has advantages: it has incentive, it has structured management (i.e. the landlord wants a tithe; he doesn't care who produces what or how much or how, as long as the tithe is paid), hell the landlord even protects the land and the serfs from invaders (because he has incentive--that's his wealth).
In other words: the scope is so small as to be uninteresting. Like a full review on when chewing gum solves engine problems.
It's usually moot. If your size-of-area is so small that pure socialism or pure capitalism works, there's no room for error and nothing else probably has come to mind. I mean, do you think they could be anything but socialists on Gilligan's Island? Capitalism between the six of them won't work.
I was referencing the biblical simile between a rich person getting into heaven and a camel passing through a needle's eye to the Catholic Church's short-lived program of paying the Catholic Church money to ensure your place in heaven (you know, the whole affair that forked the Lutheran Church). The implication is they've paid their tithe, and therefor they can consume as much as they want without paying for anything again--they've paid once so it's okay to take things without paying for them.
They hook your cable/DSL up to a different house?
The constitution is and always has been a flawed legal document. It was amended before it even took effect to fix some of the flaws; it has been repeatedly amended since. It has too much bolt-on shit that's ineffective and poorly works around the framework it provides, and needs to be torn down and rewritten.
Gun crimes are committed by both legal and illegal gun owners--legal gun owners with your psychological profile are the likely to commit gun crimes, while those with more reservation and less paranoia are less likely. Legal gun owners with your mentality also commit more "justifiable homicide" because of a pattern of zero tolerance--of immediately and fatally employing a firearm where it would be legally and even barely justifiable, more concerned with "he had it coming, I was protecting myself" than trying to stay human. The strict, mechanical decision process of "there is a threat, I must eliminate it by any force" is inhuman.
Socialism is a good thing... in moderation. Socialist programs support and balance an economy, whereas pure socialism and pure capitalism both concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few.
Further, context is important: Extremely small economies--for example, colonies of less than 100 people--benefit from full scale socialism because any other economy is infeasible; but as the colony grows, these economies quickly fail. This is because a family unit is inherently socialistic, and a small community must be socially tight-knit to survive. Larger, socially disconnected communities (nations of hundreds, thousands, millions) quickly lose such motivation because they lose sight of the need, and then lose the need outright; thus capitalism comes into play. As nations get quite large, capitalism fails; thus regulations must come into play to retain the benefits offered by capitalism.
Political parties promise the world, while economic theorists are used to back up assertions about capitalism and socialism and how we'd be much better off in a feel-good socialist utopia or a freedom-driven capitalist free market. The truth is all systems can be exploited; on a small scale exploitation is impossible because the risk is unmanageable (exploit your power in a colony of 50 people barely trying to survive as is and you'll probably collapse the economy, then you die with everyone else--if they don't hang you first and get on with their lives), but on a large scale it's too easy.
Micro-managing an economy is simply impossible on a large scale: socialism works, but only when you absolutely understand the needs and constraints of the entire economic system on all levels; you can't, and so capitalism allows for these details to work themselves out (i.e. delegation).
Capitalism is ripe for exploit and stagnation, however, and so minor socialist practices--regulations, tax incentives, etc--are put in place to guide the system. Excessive or improper use of these practices is destructive to the economy, but so is not employing them at all.
There is a balance. Nobody seeks it. Those in power seek more power, or seek to push ideals they believe will universally solve all problems; they won't.
People want to pay for the stuff they get
People want to pay for the privilege to not face retribution. They're taught that certain things are illegal, immoral, or somehow wrong; and that being a bad boy will get you in trouble. Thus they pay the camel through the needle's eye to stay out of hell.
How do they send you an invoice, roll the wire to your house, etc.?
The USD isn't cyclical, except versus world currency. However, when you borrow money with interest, you need to pay back the interest. There simply isn't money to pay back the interest; we must issue new money, or more debt. Businesses borrow money, so the theory of "more labor to move money faster to pay off the debt" doesn't work--the creditors are concentrating ownership of the money, the businesses are raising prices and/or selling more product to obtain money to pay their debt, etc. Salaries increase to afford these new products and greater prices.
The value of what a $currency buys you goes down over time. Absolutely.
A fizzle? *I* could collect, refine, and detonate nuclear material in a gun-type fission bomb. Do you remember the boyscout that built a nuclear reactor? High-speed high-temperature centrifuge isn't the only way to refine nuclear material; it's the most efficient way to scale, but there are cheaper ways to start up and get material that can go super-critical.
There's no uranium in my back yard (I know this for a fact: there's no radon gas entering my basement) and I don't have connections to get any (UnitedNuclear will sell civilians non-useful low-REM ore, but nothing with high concentrations and high radioactivity); however I know of PLENTY of private land that has viable uranium ore on it (which is sold to research labs and the Government only). Trespassing aside, I could easily acquire some such land, if I had more money than I have now--if I could afford, say, a half a million dollar house, I could afford some land in a prime area to get some uranium. Uranium prospecting is similar to gold prospecting (but requires different technique; the base skill is the same, and you can even pan rivers and look for evidence of uranium), and involves figuring out where uranium is (i.e. certain parts of California have gold) and then figuring out where specifically in that area you can actually find uranium (i.e. a particular plot of land); so you find the land and you obtain a deed.
So, if I were slightly rich, like "District Manager" rich, not like "Oil Tycoon" rich, I could get my hands on uranium and go through an expensive-per-gram-on-scale but cheap-for-a-one-off refinement process, probably involving acids and lots of fire to separate uranium isotopes by density. Then some high explosives and a gun-type fission device and it's go time.
Now consider: North Korea is run by a guy who can afford a military and has diplomatic relationships.
If I started trying to get nuclear material, I'd probably set off flags, and somebody would come to talk to me about all this stuff about uranium that's been coming up. If Kim Jeong-Un tries to get nuclear material... someone might whine, but uh. He has his own military force.
I'd wager on missiles able to reach South Korea. ICBM to America not so much. I'd believe North Korea has successfully produced nuclear fission bombs. I'd believe they've produced dirty fusion-pumped fission bombs, which are trivially easy once you have nukes.
We'd give them to South Korea.
No, think like when Bill Gates asked: "Can we do something specific to break ACPI in Linux? I don't want Linux to be able to use ACPI." That's the details. They want software to become popular on Ubuntu, they want Steam to run under Mir but not X or Wayland, to cripple everything else and become the Linux, and make the Money.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
the merits or lack thereof in choosing the Mir project over Weyland
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
One day Git will be Bzr. One day Gnome will be Unity. One day X will be Mir. One day Linus Torvalds will be a gray-haired beggar on the street, still acting like an immature teenager, implying that people on the LKML would do better spending more of their time sucking cocks; and Canonical will be running the new, improved, coded-from-scratch, Linux-compatible Ubrik kernel.
Since Cannonical believes they are the shit, they want to be in control of the X successor. Their candidate is "Mir".
You say a lot of words. I can answer the question in three:
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.
The Lead Standard: Their value drops like a lead brick when inflation and interest happen.
I wasn't being entirely serious, just pointing out your ridiculous argument with the assumption that you're either an atheist or a member of the Church of the Great Meatball. Science has placed a purported 'fact' in front of us, with so-called evidence. The dispute isn't over whether or not we can negotiate with the facts; it's over whether or not the science is correct.
In the 70s we had issues with the scientific-consensus-driven fact of Global Cooling. Skeptics held out for better research, and in turn were granted that the world is actually warming--not only is science wrong, it's completely backwards.
Nowadays, we're confronted with science that's federally funded. Science that's funded federally requires federal money to stay funded. Federal money is great because it's a one-stop-shop: You can research 30 different things on federal money. If you have oil money, they pay you to research oil things; researching medicine things is out of the question, that's not what oil money is for.
If you offend the federal money stream, you lose all your money. Publish a paper about how global warming is bullshit and the federal government stops funding all your HIV research; use non-sanctioned embryonic stem cell strains and the same thing happens. So you can now only study things funded by interested parties, which is very complex--you are limited to what you can get various parties interested in, and you have to find and convince those various parties.
There are also ridiculous logical disconnects in the science itself, rather than just the politics. For example: Stop driving cars? We want cars that eat less fuel? Are you kidding? LAWN MOWERS belch out more garbage and burn more fuel per year than ALL CARS ON THE PLANET. Lawn tools are poorly tuned and badly filtered, using two-stroke engines that burn oil by design. GreenWorks, Worx, Black and Decker, etc. produce good electric lawn care tools, which can use coal/oil burned much more efficiently and with less pollution output, or even solar (my power is 9.2c/kWh solar-wind-geo-hydro, rather than 8.7c/kWh coal).
Replacing all the lawn tools with 40V Lithium Ion tools would give a huge boost to clean air. At 1.73x10^9 gal/year (assumes 300 million population divided by 3 per household, 20 min per week lawn care, including snow blowers which are similar to lawnmowers), as much HC and NOx as driving a car 445 billion miles, and as much CO as driving 695 billion miles. The same 100 million people drive 12,000 miles annually, or 1200 billion miles. 445 billion is 1/2.7 of that, 695 billion is 1/1.7 (58%) of that. Moving to electric lawn care could cut roughly 1/3 to 1/4 of our total consumer-end-generated emissions (not so much total emissions, since coal power plants are more efficient than cars and lawnmowers, but not 100% clean; but we want electric cars, which fall into the same category of 'moving to the power grid').
By the given numbers, anyway. Which are highly confused.
But, see, I made the science argument, I supplied some numbers, so the argument is valid. The point isn't so much exactly how much switching to electric lawn care would improve the situation as:
So the federal investment into electric cars based on scientific data was completely bonkers. They could have saved the economy a lot of pressure and meddling from federal money by pushing for electric lawn care tools primarily, with electric cars secondary. This would have seeded battery development, preparing the economy for a strong push for electric vehicles. T
RAID is only 15 years old? It came about in like 1998?
Usefulness for a purpose has disconnected but relevant bearing on how it works. Operational details specify what problems the technology can solve; there is overlap for bare function, but the details are important. In this case you could have a chip with an inherent structure that would self-regrow when current is applied if damage is not extensive and materials were present (i.e. cracks self-heal infinitely, uses electricity); or a blue-goo type chip that contains a reservoir of consumable raw material to accomplish same purpose (consumes goo and electricity); or redundant schematics back-ups and FPGA (limited surface area to damage; potential routing problems); or redundant schematics with blue-goo (same, different implementation, in practice one will have an advantage of weight and effectiveness over the other but basic concerns are identical); or a simply redundant chip (prone to manufacturing deviations reducing its effectiveness; certain failures may be fatal; you need 100% additional capacity plus routing for each 100% redundancy; redundancy is per redundant component--100% blue-goo could repair the same 1% of surface through 100 failures, but 100% pure redundancy can recover from the same 1% surface failure 1 time).
This is not really "self-healing" but "redundant". Of the three above, you have these considerations:
Stable reflowing crystal: Can't heal from large damage; small damage (microcracks, minor fissures, electrical/mechanical stress) should heal. Chip normal lifecycle is extended indefinitely.
Blue-goo self-repair: Can heal from larger damage for a limited supply. Works off total damage: Eventual cumulative loss over 100% of chip area with 100% repair capacity will repair itself. Beyond capacity, repairs cease. Most likely, blue-goo would have transport issues into very tiny micro-fissures and cracks--cracks embedded deep inside substrate are not physically reachable and won't repair, yet may affect electrical properties of the substrate and thus impact chip performance.
Redundancy: Absolute healing from any type of failure. Redundancy takes up additional space for each redundant copy of each component: if you have 2 redundant copies of an ALU, you need space for 3 ALU total. If you lose one or two, it's functional. If you have one redundant copy of every component (100% coverage) and you lose two of any one, you lose the whole package at what may be 10% or 1% or more or less utilization. Contrast with blue-goo, where 10% loss means 10% loss of capacity to self-heal. Likely a high-stress area will require more specific redundancy; and bad luck could render a chip useless even with all that unutilized self-repair (redundant) capacity.
The holy grail would be a stable reflowing crystal with blue-goo that can repair the crystal. Tiny cracks would self-heal, while larger damage would trigger self-repair. Redundancy is worthless: if you have 3 ALU, you should be parallel processing instead of idling 2 of them for fail-over. Redundancy only seems desirable because we don't have a better method like blue-goo or stable reflowing crystal.
Interestingly, if you melt 'just ice', nothing happens. The ice displaces as much water as its total mass; when it melts, it changes density, and its total volume is the same as the water it previously displaced. If it's propped up on top of land (including reaching the sea floor and piling more ice on top), it will cause a volume change in the liquid ocean; otherwise non.
You can't negotiate with God either and look at all the miracles and wrath like thunder.