I won't argue that it hasn't worked out as a currency due to transaction limitations... However there is more to it than efficiencies and transaction times.
Things where for example the aforementioned credit companies decided to "cutoff" Wikileaks, and Paypal for various reasons, but mostly because they could. The idea (ideal really) behind these BC based "currencies" would be the inability for anyone to control it.
That said, you are right that unless a "currency" can maintain a certain threshold of realistic transactions it isn't going to much much use for anybody... Other than as a speculative investment of course:)
Anyway the idea is laudable, but the implementation still needs considerable work. I think one of the problems is that speculative nature. Rather than transaction being used for exchanges in goods, transactions are being done for the sake of the currency only back and forth. While I don't think the current model would work anyway even if it wasn't being abused in this way, it probably certainly hasn't helped in gumming up the works (i.e. lengths of blockchains and their growth).
It's true, and a bit crazy. I think all Canadian's know they are getting hosed, but it became a stark contrast over 5 years ago when I went on a multinational trip into Europe. It had folks from all over and everyone had cellphones. Knowing I was travelling, I bought an expensive roaming package from bell for the trip, however it had so few anything it was really just for emergencies, mostly I was in airplane mode the whole time to avoid ridiculous charges except when I was within WiFi range from some hotel or cafe. EVERYBODY on the trip had cellphones and WAY better deals, including those from the USA. The folks from various European countries of course had good packages, but even those from Japan and else where had better coverage for a lot less. Bell and the few others that hold all the card in Canada like to say that our infrastructure is more expensive because of low population and large geography, hence the cost is higher. However that is clearly BS, because Australia is the same (or worse), and yet all the auzzies on the trip didn't seem to have to worry about a thing.
Anyway it isn't something that has changed much (though it has gotten a bit better, though I think that is despite Bell et al best efforts contrary), and as the story alludes, is largely because of the monopolistic nature of the companies involved, and the political leverage and lobbying they do to government, a regulator that is largely toothless and a stooge of industry (populated by ex-bell executives), and threats of job loss should Canada ever open the industry up to foreign investment. Never mind that 90% of the jobs that Bell et all create are call centre positions that have been under scrutiny for years now for unethical business practices and employee abuses, which they get away with largely by farming it out to 3rd party companies they can throw under the bus and then re-hire after a quick name change. claiming ignorance.
Anyway it is fscked, and I have little hope of resolution anytime soon. Every other political election it is brought up as a consumer issue, however it tends to get lost in the dust when the big ticket items get dusted off each year like health care, jobs, etc...
This was my thought. It's not like there is a big scarcity of screw standards or sizes. The question to ask is why they were using a "custom screw" in the first place. This wasn't a iphone or even a macbook, these were full sized workstations. I'm sure they had some tight real estate, however I've built ITX boxes before with retail components just fine.
I call BS on the whole screw story, the need for it, the implausible Texas "screw factory", it all smells of baloney to me. Oh we *HAD* to move everything to China, just think of the SCREWS!
Nope. Frances latest one even after overruns caused by Fukushima and even stricter regulation of 2 Billion, now is estimated to cost 11 Billion for a 1.6GW reactor, or 22 Billion for 3.4GW... so about 1/3 less (13 Billion) than the UK debacle. Even that one is well over budget. The UK one is like the worst example in the world.
The problem has been that the scale of these things have been proven to be well beyond the reach of private industry.
Like it or not, this is one of those things that really needs to be fully nationalized. Perhaps long down the road once all the heaving lifting has been done, the private sector might be able to be involved, and perhaps even innovate, but even single projects are really beyond the scope of private companies right now, never mind the kind of changes being talked about.
That is an interesting premise about the oil however. Then again war machines run on oil (apart from a few carriers and subs), not electricity....
While yours is ridiculously pessimistic. You just cherry picked the most expensive project in the world. It was also not supposed to cost that but has been subject to overrun after overrun, much of which can probably be attributed to regulations and political interference.
What is also not really brought up in these conversions are the physical requirements. Given A) that it isn't always on B) a life span of 1/5, C) loss due to efficiency, you are going to have to build out significantly more PV to achieve the same nuclear GW in terms of cost. When you look at that, the difference is usually more a wash.
How much do you think 4000 wind turbines would cost to build? I can't even fathom the math required to figure out PV, the largest complete farms of panels are in the megawatts... So if you built say 50 of the biggest solar farms that currently exist in the world (200MW but with same A, B, C limitations), how much would that cost? Now on top of ALL of that, how much real estate would those things take up, and how much would that cost on top of that? Additionally Wind turbines love waterfront property, and Solar loves flat farmland.
Anyway I won't argue that nuclear isn't "cheap", but folks who think the alternatives are cheaper are not comparing apples to apples. Now if you wanted to argue that the up front capitol costs are less, then yes I could agree with that. Also nuclear takes a long time and a lot of money, that financing becomes weird with inflation and things.
Anyway I agree with Bill. We should be putting our efforts into advances of nuclear, as otherwise it won't and has been stalled for some time now. I think it is great that private industry can push wind and solar forward, but national governments should be pushing nuclear solutions, not subsidizing commercial operations.
Yup. Diplomat is undiplomatic, and asked to resign. I could see if perhaps these things were said in private, as I'm sure diplomats have to. However apparently this was said to media, as the official ambassador... should have known better.
Makes me wonder if it was just a total gaff, some sort of international ploy throwing oneself under the sacrificial bus, or if he just didn't care anymore and/or just wanted a way out of the mess.
To me (who is not a Ambassador), I don't see why China is in such a twist with Canada. We have extradition obligations with the US, this isn't new nor outrageous. Canada isn't charging them with anything, the US is, Canada is simply fulfilling it's legal obligations. Take it up with the US jeesh! I mean when the shoe is on the other foot, would China like to have an agreement with Canada, only to have us not honour it because the US is snippy about it?
Anyway in summery ambassador bad, though China being a bit of a jerk about it all. Chalk it up to a Canadian trying to placate and make China feel a bit better about the situation even when he shouldn't.
Like many posters, I'll agree that the spin-offs both Rogue One and Solo were better than the sequels, and I think there is a lot of reason why.
1) First off is the stories. What Rogue One and Solo did was take bits of the original movies that were never really explained, but hinted at and basically made a movie about it. How were the DeathStar plans stolen, and why did so many Boffins die? Ok, we could have seen more Boffin death... How did Solo with the Falcon in a card game, and how did he meet and save Chewie's life? My only gripe with that movie was the lover that seemed to sacrifice herself for very little reason. These were things fans were already interested in, so it instantly has appeal. The sequels on the other hand were just fan service and pandering and basically reboots of the exact same stories already told. Ermagah! A DeathStar, but this time it's really really big, oh and twist the bad guy is related again. What was the last one about again? Some sort of returning jedi or something?
2) Technical Science Fiction gaffs that once you do them, hard to come back from. The new Star Treks are guilty of the same BS. Both universes have an existing rich and explored cannon of how physics and various stuff works. What the new produces of both don't seem to understand (or don't care), is that there is a lot of reasons for putting limits on things for the purpose of story telling. It's like if they made a new Superman and decided "you know what, he is more badass than ever, and is no longer weakened by kryptonite!"... Which would be incredibly stupid, because it is there for a reason, as in where the hell do you go from there in future movies etc... So the super teleporters in Star Trek... Why even bother with ships anymore? There was so much of this in the StarWars sequels, it's no doubt they need to have a "pause" and try to figure how the hell to dig themselves out of this mess without just doing a complete re-boot. From Ray basically being some sort of innate super jedi, to FTL weapons technology, space bombers and how gravity works, planet sized DeathStars and Star power, etc... Stupid plot holes like General purple hair going down with the ship again for seemingingly zero reason (I mean they don't have auto pilot? They seem to have a lot of droids hanging around doing nothing, they too busy or something?)
Anyway I'm sure there is a bunch more reasons, but I've complained enough for today. I'm sure the StarWars universe has plenty of life left into it, however they do need to get some new writing blood it seems. Draft up some original stuff, heck there is plenty of written content out there to steal from, I'm sure plenty of folks would love to see the General Thrawn trilogy made!
Say a small 3.8 GW Nuclear reactor. Takes 30 years to build, but will exist for 60. A very large (80m) wind turbine is 3.8MW. So it will take 1000 of them to match what the reactor does. But is doesn't because it isn't always windy. Then there is storage and efficiency loss and construction cost. I'll not even get into base electrification of the grid. Suffice it to say It'll actually take about 2000 of them to replace the reactor. But it won't, because after 25 or 30 years they will have to be replaced, so double it again, so 4000 turbines... Now compare and contrast how much that will cost, how long that will take to build, how much physical space etc...
For perspective I know of one built 10 years ago probably now that did 80 2.3 GW and it cost about 500,000,000 dollars. Which I don't think includes the cost sharing agreements to be signed with landowners... So grabbing a calculator and assuming that land actually exists for this (which it likely doesn't), that would be about 6.25 million a turbine, so multiple that by 4000, wow interesting an even 25 Billion. Now compare that again to what a nuclear reactor costs? Not so different now...
Anyway the main benefits to both wind in solar is the fact that the are high maintenance (of middle wage employment), and low initial capitol investment in comparison to nuclear, that is about it. Nuclear also employees a lot of people, but wages are typically higher, and also the initial investment is such, length of construction times, and lifespans, make money behave funny so to speak. When things like inflation and whatnot actually can play a serious role in outcomes. The problems with wind (other than the obvious), is the the best locations are on the water where all the most expensive and influential real estate is, and the problem with solar is that flat open farmland is where it likes to exist.
Anyway I love renewables, but they have some fundamental problems. Nuclear has to nationalize it is as simple as that. It is not something that is reasonable to do by commercial enterprise.
Well to be fair a couple of centuries is very rapid in relation to geologic time...
I was thinking of that myself really though as to what that change might actually look like to an actual observer. When it is described it is usually talking about "flipping" which sounds pretty instantaneous. Which a couple hundred years is in relation to billions of years, or at least hundreds of millions. Though in looking it up it seems to "flip" at least several times more less per million years or so... Still talking several hundred thousand years between flips though. Wonder how perceptible it would be during that flip time. I think I recall some rule of thumb in regards to magnetic north movement in geography class, I expect it would just be several magnitudes higher. Also wonder if there would be any physical manifestations or other geologic implications... Though I guess I shouldn't hold my breath. Heck I wonder if we're in the middle of a flip but don't even know because perceptually difficult to observe while in the middle of it and the scales of time involved...
Good comment. Likely only using the actual laptop screen for gaming a limited number of times, so for the few times you're at a hotel or something and are forced to play on a tiny screen it'll be nifty, but likely not really used all that often.
Even years ago a 99$ card is a low end card. That said you are more less correct... Mid-range should be 150$-250$. A 350$ seems a bit rich for mid range. That said, could just be the article. It's being compared to 1070ti and 1080 which are older high-end more less. Perhaps it is more accurately being "released" at 350$, and will be on sale for 250$ in the next 6 months or whenever AMD comes out with their next thing....
I largely got rid of it because I HATED iTunes and the locked down functionality. The ONE compliment I would give them is that the iTunes backup was pretty slick. I went with a Samsung S3 after that. It had a removable battery and Micro-SD. I pretty much decided after that that would be mandatory for me from now on. I eventually got rid of it because it was getting a bit slow and I cracked the screen. Also the battery life wasn't great ever.
The next phone I got (and still have) was a LG G4. It basically had all the previously mentioned features, had a bigger screen, and battery life that didn't suck. Immediately got an extra battery and charger for it, and a 64GB Micro-SD card for it. Didn't even really need the battery as much as the old Samsung as the battery was much better, but was still nice. 3 years later it is still going strong, however both my batteries have been dying the last few weeks. So I bought two new batteries off eBay for about 20$. Now it is as good as new again (haven't even used the 2nd battery yet).
So yeah. For 20$, my old phone is new again and I have no plans for immediate replacement. I figure some day it will start to slow down eventually and I will have to get a new one, however my requirements haven't changed, and I will find a new phone that meets them. That won't be Apple, and if not LG or Samsung, I'm sure there will be somebody out there that will take my money. The tech on this stuff has matured to the point that it isn't really rocket science anymore, and there are many brands of perfectly good phones out there to choose from.
Oh and Apple selling less phones because of "repairs"... lol ya right. I'm sure they loose some sales, but I'd say the bulk are not repairs but people opting for other brand options that are a lot less money with more features. That's just Tim saying "Don't worry our phones are still the best, we're just competing against ourselves, it isn't the fact that we're being beaten by our competitors... honest!"
Aliens had a quarry here for a billion years or so before moving operations elsewhere...
Anyway what would really blow some people's minds and start some speculation would be if in exploring other planets such as mars, we find the same discrepancy during the same time period... Some destructive stellar event perhaps?
Also one of the big detractors of a past advanced civilization is the lack of any evidence surviving at all. However if about a billion years of geological data is missing, that's a pretty big gap to fall into!
Anyway before just now I didn't even know about the "Great Unconformity" which is pretty cool and interesting in of itself!
Ha Ha! Similarly I had a 1985 Nissan Sentra Wagon in high school with a manual. Starter went on it... I remember for at least a couple of months before I got around to getting it fixed, I would either A) always park facing down a hill, or B) ensure I had a couple of guys with me to push, and jump started it everywhere which was surprisingly easy on that car.
At least by nobody young. Extra points for having a twitchy clutch you refuse to fix that makes it even harder...
That said the car in which the article is about was found a few days later abandoned in a parking lot. So it isn't like this is being used to "steal" the car, more like borrowing the car for whatever other nefarious deeds they might have been up to then ditching it.
I agree with both points. However I will add two of mine own:
1) "commercial liability insurance" HA HA HA! BS... There are plenty of privately run nuclear stations. How many have liability insurance in case of meltdown? Imma go with zero. Also how many insurance companies have paid out on a nuclear disaster? Imma also going to go with zero. It's one of the main problems I have always had with private nuclear operations. There is no responsibility or culpability, if something is to go very wrong, it is the NATION, in other words the tax payers who will pay for it.
2) Your point about immunity to cost considerations in terms of people. Sort of agree. It is expensive, so they use cheaper alternative. When alternatives are not cheaper anymore.... well that is something different. Additionally on the military front, much the the problem with cost is that it has been artificially kept high for a number of good reasons. However this has also stifled innovation that perhaps might have given us better access to more commercially viable nuclear energy sources. Lastly there have been plenty of things though out history that were only feasible in the realm of the military and nations, but given time it does change. Though I also agree with the parent poster that the timeline is sufficiently long that change is unlikely in the immediate future.
Nuclear power demand is only going to go up with time. Think about all those new drains on the power grid that used to carry around a little pot of oil to run independently on. With more and more electric cars getting sold, every night the draw on the system is going to get higher.
I don't blame Trump (other than GM can use him as a whipping boy), and neither GM cars being "inferior", or at least not in the traditional sense.
The big points are GM hasn't done a great job keeping up with changing trends, and I think they might be reading their "lessons learned" and taking a page out of the Ford playbook sensing the risk of a storm in the not so distant future. Also I think Ford has already cancelled pretty much all of the sedans as well.
#1 Nobody buys sedans anymore. Too hard to get in and out of for older folks. Hence all the milktoast "SUV's". The primary utility being it's easier for baby boomers to get into and out of.
#2 Possible economic hard times on the horizon. Speculative, but also possible another financial loan crisis on car loans. People can only roll the remainder of the the previous 96 month car loan into the new 96 month car loan so many times. Now interest rates are going up.
So basically GM needs to position itself into the electric SUV market, while banking some cash reserves into a leaner company that might better weather financial turmoil. Closing a bunch of plants that make cars that don't sell probably fits the bill.
Good luck with that! I'm going to assume you've never either owned a car before, or kept an old car?
While I laud your conservatism, it's practicality isn't very realistic.
The short answer to this issue is RUST. It will eventually get you in the end. Eventually if you REALLY want to keep that car past a certain point you are going to need to do a complete restoration, which unless things change a lot, will cost you a lot more than simply just buying a new car. So either it is a classic, and expensive car, or very near and dear to your heart...
I know I have a 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V that I bought new, so it's going on 17 years now (or just about half your 30 year target). Don't get me wrong, I plan on driving it as long as I am able (for a variety of reasons, nostalgia being one) before it is just a small pile of rust on my driveway. However I know that sooner or later rust is going to eat significant portions of body, and eventually the frame. At some point it will be a safety issue not just cosmetic, and to fix/replace just not reasonable.
Never mind you'll also start to run into electrical gremlins as water and condensation gets into things... simply identifying those problems let along re-wiring your car is why most people just live with them until the irritation forces the issue, usually into a new car.
If I make 20 years I'll count myself as really lucky, but odds are I probably only have a couple years left in the old girl before I have to send her out to pasture..:(
Haven't looked into this in a long time, but that could be false. The sun is big, really BIG. It is also made of fuel (hydrogen). It very well could be not producing more power than it absorbs. We do know that suns do not last forever. Eventually they run out of reaction and die. It is just that because it is so big, contains so much fuel, and I suppose is probably pretty efficient, it just takes a very long time (billions of years). However all of that is a matter of scale. As a thought experiment how many of those tomak reactors would fit into the volume of the sun, or even probably more applicable the amount of plasma that it uses... I'm gonna go with "a lot", where that is a pretty significant understatement. It's just that we don't have the capability to create something as large as the sun, nor access to that amount of fuel, and even if we did it wouldn't be a very practical application. The idea is something like the sun, but a billion times smaller (or more who knows with the scales we're talking about), that is efficient enough to use a reasonable amount of fuel over a reasonable amount of time for practical usage.
I second that motion. I refuse to even look or consider a new build on principle. Bitcoin and the like need to hurry up and finally die, we all know it is coming, so just die already!
As someone who has built his own PC's for many years I can also attest to the fact that most of us probably have 2 or 3 extra boxes just lying around not being used. If I REALLY want to build a rig, and I was REALLY put off by case prices, I'd probably just re-use an old one. It isn't like they really wear out or anything (sure you might have to replace a fan or something for a few bucks). The only reason to buy a new case really is if you really want something shiny or a different size, or something new and shiny:).
Really the only reason I haven't done a new build (my current one is getting a bit old in the tooth at probably 5+ years old) is: A) It still does what I need it to do, and can still play the games I want to play (at least for now). B) The prices of video cards have been stupid since the whole bitcoin craze started.
So tariffs aside, I'm more waiting until my rig can't handle the next big game I want to play, or all the bitcoin folks finally loose their shirts and the bitcoin miners all go out of business. Whichever comes first really. Trying to save 10% by hoarding components seems a terrible idea.
Productivity goes up. The demand for Widgets is the same. It now takes 1/4 of those jobs to make the same number of Widgets due to increase of productivity. Not only do the wages stagnate for the 1/4 with jobs (in part because they now compete with the other 3/4 who don't), and all the folks at the top are better off, but now you additionally have 3/4 of those now unemployed or looking for jobs in sectors with less "productivity"... Largely part-time service sector.
I think that the worst case pretty much describes the current reality.
The real downward spiral is when because only 1/4 of the people can now afford Widgets, the demand then drops... That's when things start to really go awry which is where we're probably eventually headed if left unchecked.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't argue that it hasn't worked out as a currency due to transaction limitations... However there is more to it than efficiencies and transaction times.
Things where for example the aforementioned credit companies decided to "cutoff" Wikileaks, and Paypal for various reasons, but mostly because they could. The idea (ideal really) behind these BC based "currencies" would be the inability for anyone to control it.
That said, you are right that unless a "currency" can maintain a certain threshold of realistic transactions it isn't going to much much use for anybody... Other than as a speculative investment of course :)
Anyway the idea is laudable, but the implementation still needs considerable work. I think one of the problems is that speculative nature. Rather than transaction being used for exchanges in goods, transactions are being done for the sake of the currency only back and forth. While I don't think the current model would work anyway even if it wasn't being abused in this way, it probably certainly hasn't helped in gumming up the works (i.e. lengths of blockchains and their growth).
It's true, and a bit crazy. I think all Canadian's know they are getting hosed, but it became a stark contrast over 5 years ago when I went on a multinational trip into Europe. It had folks from all over and everyone had cellphones. Knowing I was travelling, I bought an expensive roaming package from bell for the trip, however it had so few anything it was really just for emergencies, mostly I was in airplane mode the whole time to avoid ridiculous charges except when I was within WiFi range from some hotel or cafe. EVERYBODY on the trip had cellphones and WAY better deals, including those from the USA. The folks from various European countries of course had good packages, but even those from Japan and else where had better coverage for a lot less. Bell and the few others that hold all the card in Canada like to say that our infrastructure is more expensive because of low population and large geography, hence the cost is higher. However that is clearly BS, because Australia is the same (or worse), and yet all the auzzies on the trip didn't seem to have to worry about a thing.
Anyway it isn't something that has changed much (though it has gotten a bit better, though I think that is despite Bell et al best efforts contrary), and as the story alludes, is largely because of the monopolistic nature of the companies involved, and the political leverage and lobbying they do to government, a regulator that is largely toothless and a stooge of industry (populated by ex-bell executives), and threats of job loss should Canada ever open the industry up to foreign investment. Never mind that 90% of the jobs that Bell et all create are call centre positions that have been under scrutiny for years now for unethical business practices and employee abuses, which they get away with largely by farming it out to 3rd party companies they can throw under the bus and then re-hire after a quick name change. claiming ignorance.
Anyway it is fscked, and I have little hope of resolution anytime soon. Every other political election it is brought up as a consumer issue, however it tends to get lost in the dust when the big ticket items get dusted off each year like health care, jobs, etc...
This was my thought. It's not like there is a big scarcity of screw standards or sizes. The question to ask is why they were using a "custom screw" in the first place. This wasn't a iphone or even a macbook, these were full sized workstations. I'm sure they had some tight real estate, however I've built ITX boxes before with retail components just fine.
I call BS on the whole screw story, the need for it, the implausible Texas "screw factory", it all smells of baloney to me. Oh we *HAD* to move everything to China, just think of the SCREWS!
Nope. Frances latest one even after overruns caused by Fukushima and even stricter regulation of 2 Billion, now is estimated to cost 11 Billion for a 1.6GW reactor, or 22 Billion for 3.4GW... so about 1/3 less (13 Billion) than the UK debacle. Even that one is well over budget. The UK one is like the worst example in the world.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
An even better example is Finland with the exact same size as Hinkley, estimated cost to be 8.5 and now 10.5 Billion...
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
Not quite 35 Billion...
and then there is China.... with much the same for under 5 Billion...
https://www.scmp.com/business/...
The problem has been that the scale of these things have been proven to be well beyond the reach of private industry.
Like it or not, this is one of those things that really needs to be fully nationalized. Perhaps long down the road once all the heaving lifting has been done, the private sector might be able to be involved, and perhaps even innovate, but even single projects are really beyond the scope of private companies right now, never mind the kind of changes being talked about.
That is an interesting premise about the oil however. Then again war machines run on oil (apart from a few carriers and subs), not electricity....
While yours is ridiculously pessimistic. You just cherry picked the most expensive project in the world. It was also not supposed to cost that but has been subject to overrun after overrun, much of which can probably be attributed to regulations and political interference.
What is also not really brought up in these conversions are the physical requirements. Given A) that it isn't always on B) a life span of 1/5, C) loss due to efficiency, you are going to have to build out significantly more PV to achieve the same nuclear GW in terms of cost. When you look at that, the difference is usually more a wash.
How much do you think 4000 wind turbines would cost to build? I can't even fathom the math required to figure out PV, the largest complete farms of panels are in the megawatts... So if you built say 50 of the biggest solar farms that currently exist in the world (200MW but with same A, B, C limitations), how much would that cost? Now on top of ALL of that, how much real estate would those things take up, and how much would that cost on top of that? Additionally Wind turbines love waterfront property, and Solar loves flat farmland.
Anyway I won't argue that nuclear isn't "cheap", but folks who think the alternatives are cheaper are not comparing apples to apples. Now if you wanted to argue that the up front capitol costs are less, then yes I could agree with that. Also nuclear takes a long time and a lot of money, that financing becomes weird with inflation and things.
Anyway I agree with Bill. We should be putting our efforts into advances of nuclear, as otherwise it won't and has been stalled for some time now. I think it is great that private industry can push wind and solar forward, but national governments should be pushing nuclear solutions, not subsidizing commercial operations.
Yup. Diplomat is undiplomatic, and asked to resign. I could see if perhaps these things were said in private, as I'm sure diplomats have to. However apparently this was said to media, as the official ambassador... should have known better.
Makes me wonder if it was just a total gaff, some sort of international ploy throwing oneself under the sacrificial bus, or if he just didn't care anymore and/or just wanted a way out of the mess.
To me (who is not a Ambassador), I don't see why China is in such a twist with Canada. We have extradition obligations with the US, this isn't new nor outrageous. Canada isn't charging them with anything, the US is, Canada is simply fulfilling it's legal obligations. Take it up with the US jeesh! I mean when the shoe is on the other foot, would China like to have an agreement with Canada, only to have us not honour it because the US is snippy about it?
Anyway in summery ambassador bad, though China being a bit of a jerk about it all. Chalk it up to a Canadian trying to placate and make China feel a bit better about the situation even when he shouldn't.
Like many posters, I'll agree that the spin-offs both Rogue One and Solo were better than the sequels, and I think there is a lot of reason why.
1) First off is the stories. What Rogue One and Solo did was take bits of the original movies that were never really explained, but hinted at and basically made a movie about it. How were the DeathStar plans stolen, and why did so many Boffins die? Ok, we could have seen more Boffin death... How did Solo with the Falcon in a card game, and how did he meet and save Chewie's life? My only gripe with that movie was the lover that seemed to sacrifice herself for very little reason. These were things fans were already interested in, so it instantly has appeal. The sequels on the other hand were just fan service and pandering and basically reboots of the exact same stories already told. Ermagah! A DeathStar, but this time it's really really big, oh and twist the bad guy is related again. What was the last one about again? Some sort of returning jedi or something?
2) Technical Science Fiction gaffs that once you do them, hard to come back from. The new Star Treks are guilty of the same BS. Both universes have an existing rich and explored cannon of how physics and various stuff works. What the new produces of both don't seem to understand (or don't care), is that there is a lot of reasons for putting limits on things for the purpose of story telling. It's like if they made a new Superman and decided "you know what, he is more badass than ever, and is no longer weakened by kryptonite!"... Which would be incredibly stupid, because it is there for a reason, as in where the hell do you go from there in future movies etc... So the super teleporters in Star Trek... Why even bother with ships anymore? There was so much of this in the StarWars sequels, it's no doubt they need to have a "pause" and try to figure how the hell to dig themselves out of this mess without just doing a complete re-boot. From Ray basically being some sort of innate super jedi, to FTL weapons technology, space bombers and how gravity works, planet sized DeathStars and Star power, etc... Stupid plot holes like General purple hair going down with the ship again for seemingingly zero reason (I mean they don't have auto pilot? They seem to have a lot of droids hanging around doing nothing, they too busy or something?)
Anyway I'm sure there is a bunch more reasons, but I've complained enough for today. I'm sure the StarWars universe has plenty of life left into it, however they do need to get some new writing blood it seems. Draft up some original stuff, heck there is plenty of written content out there to steal from, I'm sure plenty of folks would love to see the General Thrawn trilogy made!
I'll use easy numbers...
Say a small 3.8 GW Nuclear reactor. Takes 30 years to build, but will exist for 60.
A very large (80m) wind turbine is 3.8MW. So it will take 1000 of them to match what the reactor does. But is doesn't because it isn't always windy. Then there is storage and efficiency loss and construction cost. I'll not even get into base electrification of the grid. Suffice it to say It'll actually take about 2000 of them to replace the reactor. But it won't, because after 25 or 30 years they will have to be replaced, so double it again, so 4000 turbines... Now compare and contrast how much that will cost, how long that will take to build, how much physical space etc...
For perspective I know of one built 10 years ago probably now that did 80 2.3 GW and it cost about 500,000,000 dollars. Which I don't think includes the cost sharing agreements to be signed with landowners... So grabbing a calculator and assuming that land actually exists for this (which it likely doesn't), that would be about 6.25 million a turbine, so multiple that by 4000, wow interesting an even 25 Billion. Now compare that again to what a nuclear reactor costs? Not so different now...
Anyway the main benefits to both wind in solar is the fact that the are high maintenance (of middle wage employment), and low initial capitol investment in comparison to nuclear, that is about it. Nuclear also employees a lot of people, but wages are typically higher, and also the initial investment is such, length of construction times, and lifespans, make money behave funny so to speak. When things like inflation and whatnot actually can play a serious role in outcomes. The problems with wind (other than the obvious), is the the best locations are on the water where all the most expensive and influential real estate is, and the problem with solar is that flat open farmland is where it likes to exist.
Anyway I love renewables, but they have some fundamental problems. Nuclear has to nationalize it is as simple as that. It is not something that is reasonable to do by commercial enterprise.
Well to be fair a couple of centuries is very rapid in relation to geologic time...
I was thinking of that myself really though as to what that change might actually look like to an actual observer. When it is described it is usually talking about "flipping" which sounds pretty instantaneous. Which a couple hundred years is in relation to billions of years, or at least hundreds of millions. Though in looking it up it seems to "flip" at least several times more less per million years or so... Still talking several hundred thousand years between flips though. Wonder how perceptible it would be during that flip time. I think I recall some rule of thumb in regards to magnetic north movement in geography class, I expect it would just be several magnitudes higher. Also wonder if there would be any physical manifestations or other geologic implications... Though I guess I shouldn't hold my breath. Heck I wonder if we're in the middle of a flip but don't even know because perceptually difficult to observe while in the middle of it and the scales of time involved...
Good comment. Likely only using the actual laptop screen for gaming a limited number of times, so for the few times you're at a hotel or something and are forced to play on a tiny screen it'll be nifty, but likely not really used all that often.
Even years ago a 99$ card is a low end card. That said you are more less correct... Mid-range should be 150$-250$. A 350$ seems a bit rich for mid range. That said, could just be the article. It's being compared to 1070ti and 1080 which are older high-end more less. Perhaps it is more accurately being "released" at 350$, and will be on sale for 250$ in the next 6 months or whenever AMD comes out with their next thing....
Either way, not buying a 350$ mid-range card.
I had an Apple 3S many years ago.
I largely got rid of it because I HATED iTunes and the locked down functionality. The ONE compliment I would give them is that the iTunes backup was pretty slick. I went with a Samsung S3 after that. It had a removable battery and Micro-SD. I pretty much decided after that that would be mandatory for me from now on. I eventually got rid of it because it was getting a bit slow and I cracked the screen. Also the battery life wasn't great ever.
The next phone I got (and still have) was a LG G4. It basically had all the previously mentioned features, had a bigger screen, and battery life that didn't suck. Immediately got an extra battery and charger for it, and a 64GB Micro-SD card for it. Didn't even really need the battery as much as the old Samsung as the battery was much better, but was still nice. 3 years later it is still going strong, however both my batteries have been dying the last few weeks. So I bought two new batteries off eBay for about 20$. Now it is as good as new again (haven't even used the 2nd battery yet).
So yeah. For 20$, my old phone is new again and I have no plans for immediate replacement. I figure some day it will start to slow down eventually and I will have to get a new one, however my requirements haven't changed, and I will find a new phone that meets them. That won't be Apple, and if not LG or Samsung, I'm sure there will be somebody out there that will take my money. The tech on this stuff has matured to the point that it isn't really rocket science anymore, and there are many brands of perfectly good phones out there to choose from.
Oh and Apple selling less phones because of "repairs"... lol ya right. I'm sure they loose some sales, but I'd say the bulk are not repairs but people opting for other brand options that are a lot less money with more features. That's just Tim saying "Don't worry our phones are still the best, we're just competing against ourselves, it isn't the fact that we're being beaten by our competitors... honest!"
Aliens had a quarry here for a billion years or so before moving operations elsewhere...
Anyway what would really blow some people's minds and start some speculation would be if in exploring other planets such as mars, we find the same discrepancy during the same time period... Some destructive stellar event perhaps?
Also one of the big detractors of a past advanced civilization is the lack of any evidence surviving at all. However if about a billion years of geological data is missing, that's a pretty big gap to fall into!
Anyway before just now I didn't even know about the "Great Unconformity" which is pretty cool and interesting in of itself!
I was wondering why all the funny looks when I dressed up as a ghost for my last two weeks of work...
"I'lllll beeee leeaving sooooon! Boo!"
Ha Ha! Similarly I had a 1985 Nissan Sentra Wagon in high school with a manual. Starter went on it... I remember for at least a couple of months before I got around to getting it fixed, I would either A) always park facing down a hill, or B) ensure I had a couple of guys with me to push, and jump started it everywhere which was surprisingly easy on that car.
At least by nobody young. Extra points for having a twitchy clutch you refuse to fix that makes it even harder...
That said the car in which the article is about was found a few days later abandoned in a parking lot. So it isn't like this is being used to "steal" the car, more like borrowing the car for whatever other nefarious deeds they might have been up to then ditching it.
I agree with both points. However I will add two of mine own:
1) "commercial liability insurance" HA HA HA! BS... There are plenty of privately run nuclear stations. How many have liability insurance in case of meltdown? Imma go with zero. Also how many insurance companies have paid out on a nuclear disaster? Imma also going to go with zero. It's one of the main problems I have always had with private nuclear operations. There is no responsibility or culpability, if something is to go very wrong, it is the NATION, in other words the tax payers who will pay for it.
2) Your point about immunity to cost considerations in terms of people. Sort of agree. It is expensive, so they use cheaper alternative. When alternatives are not cheaper anymore.... well that is something different. Additionally on the military front, much the the problem with cost is that it has been artificially kept high for a number of good reasons. However this has also stifled innovation that perhaps might have given us better access to more commercially viable nuclear energy sources. Lastly there have been plenty of things though out history that were only feasible in the realm of the military and nations, but given time it does change. Though I also agree with the parent poster that the timeline is sufficiently long that change is unlikely in the immediate future.
Nuclear power demand is only going to go up with time. Think about all those new drains on the power grid that used to carry around a little pot of oil to run independently on. With more and more electric cars getting sold, every night the draw on the system is going to get higher.
I don't blame Trump (other than GM can use him as a whipping boy), and neither GM cars being "inferior", or at least not in the traditional sense.
The big points are GM hasn't done a great job keeping up with changing trends, and I think they might be reading their "lessons learned" and taking a page out of the Ford playbook sensing the risk of a storm in the not so distant future. Also I think Ford has already cancelled pretty much all of the sedans as well.
#1 Nobody buys sedans anymore. Too hard to get in and out of for older folks. Hence all the milktoast "SUV's". The primary utility being it's easier for baby boomers to get into and out of.
#2 Possible economic hard times on the horizon. Speculative, but also possible another financial loan crisis on car loans. People can only roll the remainder of the the previous 96 month car loan into the new 96 month car loan so many times. Now interest rates are going up.
So basically GM needs to position itself into the electric SUV market, while banking some cash reserves into a leaner company that might better weather financial turmoil. Closing a bunch of plants that make cars that don't sell probably fits the bill.
Good luck with that! I'm going to assume you've never either owned a car before, or kept an old car?
While I laud your conservatism, it's practicality isn't very realistic.
The short answer to this issue is RUST. It will eventually get you in the end. Eventually if you REALLY want to keep that car past a certain point you are going to need to do a complete restoration, which unless things change a lot, will cost you a lot more than simply just buying a new car. So either it is a classic, and expensive car, or very near and dear to your heart...
I know I have a 2002 Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V that I bought new, so it's going on 17 years now (or just about half your 30 year target). Don't get me wrong, I plan on driving it as long as I am able (for a variety of reasons, nostalgia being one) before it is just a small pile of rust on my driveway. However I know that sooner or later rust is going to eat significant portions of body, and eventually the frame. At some point it will be a safety issue not just cosmetic, and to fix/replace just not reasonable.
Never mind you'll also start to run into electrical gremlins as water and condensation gets into things... simply identifying those problems let along re-wiring your car is why most people just live with them until the irritation forces the issue, usually into a new car.
If I make 20 years I'll count myself as really lucky, but odds are I probably only have a couple years left in the old girl before I have to send her out to pasture.. :(
Haven't looked into this in a long time, but that could be false. The sun is big, really BIG. It is also made of fuel (hydrogen). It very well could be not producing more power than it absorbs. We do know that suns do not last forever. Eventually they run out of reaction and die. It is just that because it is so big, contains so much fuel, and I suppose is probably pretty efficient, it just takes a very long time (billions of years). However all of that is a matter of scale. As a thought experiment how many of those tomak reactors would fit into the volume of the sun, or even probably more applicable the amount of plasma that it uses... I'm gonna go with "a lot", where that is a pretty significant understatement. It's just that we don't have the capability to create something as large as the sun, nor access to that amount of fuel, and even if we did it wouldn't be a very practical application. The idea is something like the sun, but a billion times smaller (or more who knows with the scales we're talking about), that is efficient enough to use a reasonable amount of fuel over a reasonable amount of time for practical usage.
I second that motion. I refuse to even look or consider a new build on principle. Bitcoin and the like need to hurry up and finally die, we all know it is coming, so just die already!
As someone who has built his own PC's for many years I can also attest to the fact that most of us probably have 2 or 3 extra boxes just lying around not being used. If I REALLY want to build a rig, and I was REALLY put off by case prices, I'd probably just re-use an old one. It isn't like they really wear out or anything (sure you might have to replace a fan or something for a few bucks). The only reason to buy a new case really is if you really want something shiny or a different size, or something new and shiny :).
Really the only reason I haven't done a new build (my current one is getting a bit old in the tooth at probably 5+ years old) is:
A) It still does what I need it to do, and can still play the games I want to play (at least for now).
B) The prices of video cards have been stupid since the whole bitcoin craze started.
So tariffs aside, I'm more waiting until my rig can't handle the next big game I want to play, or all the bitcoin folks finally loose their shirts and the bitcoin miners all go out of business. Whichever comes first really. Trying to save 10% by hoarding components seems a terrible idea.
Cloud dur Cloud cloud, cloudy McCloudsalot. Cloudry cloud re-cloud cloudology. Cloud. Cloud. Cloud. Hurpaderp der cloudy cloud. Bort! Bort! Bort!
Cloud.... Cloud. Cloud...............Cloud.
Cloud.
You forgot a rather important 3rd option:
Productivity goes up. The demand for Widgets is the same. It now takes 1/4 of those jobs to make the same number of Widgets due to increase of productivity. Not only do the wages stagnate for the 1/4 with jobs (in part because they now compete with the other 3/4 who don't), and all the folks at the top are better off, but now you additionally have 3/4 of those now unemployed or looking for jobs in sectors with less "productivity"... Largely part-time service sector.
I think that the worst case pretty much describes the current reality.
The real downward spiral is when because only 1/4 of the people can now afford Widgets, the demand then drops... That's when things start to really go awry which is where we're probably eventually headed if left unchecked.