Granted, but but my point was: you still need the additional step to convert water into H2 to begin with, which you do not have with batteries.
Thus, for instance: a nuclear plant provides electricity, with that electricity hydrogen is created, that hydrogen is put into a fuel cell, where it's converted back into electricity for the car.
Versus:
A nuclear plant provides electricity, that electricity is put into the battery, which gives it back to the car.
So, it's not hard to see that, however you turn it, there is an additional step in the H2 loop, and that that extra step costs additional energy..
Of course, there are other considerations to be made as well, but as I've explained in my other posts, the 'advantages' that fuel cells may currently have are getting less and less pronounced by the year. And with current costs for H2 cars and dito H2 infrastructure, there never will be. But let's say H2 technology imùproves and progress is made. Ok. But so does normal electric cars and the grid with chargers. Within 5-10 years, there is no real incentive anymore (nor a market) for fuel cells. By that time, improved superchargers will have cut the loading time in half, and cars will have doubled or tripled their max distance.
There's really no need for an alternative system that has little to no advantages, but which is less efficient.
Well, nothing is certain and everything is possible, so I refrain from talking in such terms.
Let's say it this way: it is much more unlikely that H2 cars and a H2 infrastructure can be build that is economical competitive with electric cars and the grid with improved superchargers by the time such a thing would be completed.
It doesn't follow Moore's law (a tripling in 5 years isn't Moore's law, even when considering it's not about transistors;-)), but it's fast enough to make it uneconomical to invest large amounts of money and time in a H2-alternative. Even now there is little incentive to do so, since the problems you raised aren't a major problem for most people. Just triple the distance once again, and reduce the loading time by half, and there is virtually no case to be made anymore. One can discuss if that will take another 5 years, or 10 years, but it's reasonably to assume (aka, pretty likely, thus), that it will happen rather sooner than later. Even when taking 10 years, there is still no case to be made for H2, even if you started subsidising it massively.
One shouldn't go for H2 just for the heck of it. What does the trick, does the trick. One would have to imagine a future where there are made *huge* advances in H2 technology, coupled with huge cost-reduction while at the same time normal electric cars and its infrastructure hardly knows any progress anymore from now on, to make a case strong enough for H2. this seems pretty unrealistic. At least, far more unlikely than what I predict.
Heh. Well... it's a certainty that using electricity to convert water into H2 and then converting it back to electricity for the car is ALWAYS going to be less efficient than just putting the electricity directly into the car in the first place.
That has nothing to do with being a technology pessimist, just being logical and applying physical reality.
And this would offset the huge costs of a future H2 infrastructure, how, exactly?
It used to take 3 hours for a battery to be charged enough, now it's reduced to 30 minutes. Unless you want to claim progress stops now, it's not unreasonable to assume it will get further reduced. In fact, some experimental chargers already can charge in the 15 min range.
It's also easy to see e-cars will continue to expand their range. It used to be 100km five years ago, now it's 300km, in another 5-10 years it will be 900km. So in 10 years, you'll get a car where you have to wait and fill your car for 15 minutes...
You really think that will still outweigh the massive costs of building FC-cars, and worse, a complete H2 infrastructure?
You're not thinking this through, squire. Sure, FC will make technological progress too, but it will ALWAYS be less efficient, and ALWAYS be more costly (especially the infrastructure) than normal e-cars and its infrastructure. And for reasons that will not longer exist neither, and since long will have been dealt with, by the time it would ever get done.
Indeed. I explained exactly the same. I'm glad to see others follow the most logical conclusion on this topic.
It's rather simple: *even* if we were to assume there are some area's in which FC-cars are still better today, seen the rapid progress that advantage will be gone in 5-10 years. It's clear, as you say, that to create a viable H2 infrastructure which would support a large network of FC-cars, it would take decades. By that time, all objections one points to today of electrical cars and their chargers will long since be solved and gone, and for a fraction for the price that a H2-infrastructure delivering the same would cost.
There simply isn't an economical case to be made for a future of H2 cars and network.
That's to say, they're not *inherently* mutual exclusive, but I don't think the market is there for two completely different systems.
Let's face it: cars like Tesla are making enormous strides and know great progress, these last 5-10 years. FC are still nowhere. Not only that, but as pointed out by others, they're inherently more inefficient (in essence, they're electrical cars that have the added difficulty and inefficiency of having to convert electricity ot hydrogen, nd than back again). And it's even worse for creating a viable infrastructure for hydrogen: they would need high pressurised vessels and pipes to transport and storage it, and the safety measures would be stringent. It would cost huge amounts of money, and decades in order for every (or at least most) petrol-stations to convert to it - with a high risk too, because they wouldn't have much of a market (the classical chicken and egg problem).
And for what? The only advantages that currently exist are that FC can travel longer distances, and get faster filled... but normal electric cars get further and further too, and get more and more (and faster) chargers (like the supercharger of Musk). So in another 5-10 years, there will be no case to be made for FC cars anymore.
Seen the rapid evolution of electric cars these last 5 years, it's not all that far-fetched to predict that e-cars will continue to improve, and superchargers will continue to be built and improve too. In the very beginning, cars could not even muster 100 km, now they're doing 300km. Five years ago, you had NO superchargers, now you have several hundreds of them.
Now, continue this for the next 5-10 years. Then you'll have cars doing 900km and have thousands of superchargers which charge at 15 minutes.
The cost and time-span for this is only a fraction than what it would take (both in money and time) for fuel cell / hydrogen cars to become common, and providing all the infrastructure for hydrogen transportation and storage. Even heavily subsidised, it would take several decades to come at this point. By then, electric cars will long since have gotten passed the point(s) you raised, and all your objections you raised today will since long have been dealt with.
In short, even if one would agree with you with today's specs that there is still a niche market for fuel cells in cars, there is no reason trying to implement it (at great cost, I may add), since by the time it gets to a useful state, the electric car will already have covered the entire market - even the niche markets of those who want to make long interstate drives and find not enough superchargers. So there really is no market, no economic sense, and no future in it.
Well, at least, he ain't wrong if his stance is google.com (which is a legal entity based in the US, with its servers on US-soil) does not have to abide by French law. Google.fr IS complying with French law.
Chauvinism aside, it's clear they do not have jurisdiction over google.com. So demanding it would comply to French law is nonsensical. Set that precedent, and other countries would follow, EVEN towards the EU. It would be crazy trying to abide by all laws of any country *outside* the territorial jurisdiction of those laws/countries.
That France 'only want them to comply when it involves citizens of their country', does *nothing* to counter the fact that the company (google.com) itself, as a legal entity, is based in the US, as are its servers, and hence, it still does not fall under their jurisdiction. Just like when those same French citizens order something illegal (in their country) from the US by snailmail, France can not demand the US company sending it does not send it anymore to their citizens. Because THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY over it. What they should (and in practise do), thus, is controlling incoming goods by customs, and apprehend and seize the goods at their border.
And THAT is exactly what France should do, if it has so much trouble with it. That they create their very own little "Great Firewall", like China, and block all info coming from google.com. That's how they should deal with it, if they're having such a problem with it. Not by claiming worldwide applicability of their own national law, nor demanding that a foreign company under another jurisdiction should comply with their laws because it's French citizens that are asking for the info.
Nevertheless, France is in the wrong here, nd google is right to not abide by by it. As for the rational reasons why; I've placed them on my pots above.
Why do you not understand that it being 'easy' to geotag it or not, is NOT the issue at all? Whether they do it with their adds or not has NOTHING to do with them being obliged to abide by another countries' law. Google...google.com, that is... should NOT just geo-target it. Not because it would be hard or easy, nor because they already voluntarily do this with ads or not, but because they DO NOT FALL under EU law. They aren't geo-tagging adds because they are obliged to do so, they do it because they WANT to do it. As a US company, they don't want to be forced to abide by laws from another country, since that would create a precedent on jurisdiction, and obviously then countries like Russia, China, Saudi-Arabia, etc. would chirp in too.
So the two things are unrelated. When is this finally going to dawn on you? No-one is saying they can't geo-tag requests, they're saying they do not want to do it, and they do not have to do it. And they're right. It would be crazy trying to abide by all laws of any country *outside* the territorial jurisdiction of those laws/countries.
That they 'only want them to comply when it involves citizens of their country', does *nothing* to counter the fact that the company itself is in the US, as is its servers, and hence, it still does not fall under their jurisdiction. Just like when those citizens order something illegal (in their country) from the US by snailmail, that country can not demand the US company sending it does not send it anymore to their citizens. Because THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY over it. What they should (and in practise do), thus, is controlling incoming goods by customs, and apprehend and seize the goods at the border.
And THAT is exactly what France should do, if it has so much trouble with it. That they create their very own little "Great Firewall", like China, and block all info coming from google.com. That's how they should deal with it, if they're having such a problem with it. Not by claiming worldwide applicability of their own national law, nor demanding that a foreign company under another jurisdiction should comply with their laws because it's French citizens that are asking for stuff they don't like.
Always claiming other opinions are equal to Trump-style-debating is a bit too easy, and a form of mental laziness of your part as well - as Trump would do it.;-)
The *intent* of the law doesn't matter. Whether it is 'well-intended' or not does not matter. Why do you not get that? Apart from the fact that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions, the essence of the matter is, that one country can not demand compliance of its laws outside its jurisdiction.
Now, it might be, like you always claim, that they 'only ask to comply within their borders' but they ask it FROM an entity (google.com, not google.fr) which is a US based entity, with its servers on US-based soil. THEREFORE it has no jurisdiction over it, and google.com DOES NOT have to abide by it, EVEN if French citizens are asking for the info. And even if google.com is delivering the data to them. If you do not get this, let's take a correct analogy, and say booze.com is an US booze-delivery-service situated in the US. Saudi-Arabia forbids buying, selling and drinking booze. However, citizens of their nation order booze from booze.com, and to counter that, the government demands that booze.com stops sending booze to their citizens.
I ask you: why the F- should the US company booze.com have to comply with what the Saudi government asks? If it's legal to send booze in the US, than it doesn't matter one iota what another country wants, and that company DOES NOT have to comply. No, not even if Saudi-arabia does it with the utmost of well-intended thoughts, like..ermm... combating drunkenness.
"Oh", you say, "but they aren't asking to not sell booze to anyone, they just ask they would sell it to citizens of Saudi-arabia"!
Well... THAT DOES NOT MATTER. They are STILL not compelled to go in to those demands. In practise, what you get is wht you get in r/l now: it's for *CUSTOMS* of Saudi-Arabia to control and seize things that they consider illegal. It's NOT for a foreign company to comply with their laws and to not send it anymore. And that's why, in effect, you see a lot of things being ordered abroad, even illegal (in the customers' country) things, and yet companies will send it anyway, since it's legal to send it where they send it, and then it's for the customs of the country who has made the object illegal to stop it. Either by seizing the goods, and/or by putting the customer in their own country behind bars.
I'm not sure why you do not understand this, or you act as if people with a different viewpoint on the matter are some ass-twits and Trump-alikes.
It's perfectly logical and easy to understand for any logically minded person, I would think.
Some people use any contrived analogy just to try to make a point, but it's obvious that backfires most of the times.
"A flag on the other side of the bar" does not mean you're in another country. It's implied that it is (otherwise the flag-mentioning has no value whatsoever), yet it is then as much implied that there is no different jurisdiction, since it's 'the same bar'.
But one can't have it both ways.
If the bar-side with the other flag *REALLY* fell under another jurisdiction with other laws, where beer could be served to a minor, then the answer would clearly be: no, they are NOT in the same country anymore. It would have constituted a 'micro-nation' of half a bar long. And in that case, the whole reasoning breaks down.
So the question comes down to: is it just placing a flag without any meaning in that bar, or does the flag actually brings you into another jurisdiction? And since the servers *and* the legal entity (google.com) is on US soil, it clearly is subjected to another jurisdiction, as you correctly surmised.
To argue differently, would also mean the US *and* the EU would have to adhere to laws from China or Saudi-Arabia, and, in fact, every country would need to comply with laws of any other country, since it would all be "meaningless flags placed in 'the same' bar".
The argument is ludicrous, and I don't understand how so many people still try to defend it. Or maybe there are even more trolls then usual on slashdot on this topic.
Whether it's trivial and easy or not is not the point. It's the principle of the matter that counts.
Take the parent posters' example of a country which had a stupid law that said women faces cant be shown online. Now imagine there is a program that can do that automatically, in a very, very cheap and easy way.
Would that change in anything the essence of the issue here?
It's not whether it's trivial or easy or not, it's whether another country has the right to demand that its laws are being followed by a company that is outside their jurisdiction.
And the answer is and should be: no.
Because going the other route, means countries like China have the right to impose THEIR laws on EU-institutions too. That's what it boils down to, really. So imagine Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan, etc. forbids any cartoons of Mohamed to be shown, nor any women without a niqab. Are you now *really* going to argue that EU-sites should censor themselves and have the obligation to not show cartoons nor any women without a niqab to any user of those countries? *WE* should police ourselves and censor ourselves for *their* convenience? We should create our own 'Great Firewall' for them so *they* don't have to do it anymore?
Are you daft?
We have no reason to comply with such demands, whether those governments like that or not. And whether it's their citizens searching for the cartoons and women's faces or not. And neither does the US has to do so with our EU-laws.
"Casual" searches? Is it explicitly mentioned as such, and is a definition given of 'casual'? I highly doubt it. There is no clear line between 'casually' looking it up and 'non-casually' looking it up on google.
So that point doesn't matter, and thus, it amounts to: "to not show the original info". Period. And then we come to your primary assertion: that it's ok since it doesn't remove it, it only doesn't show it, so you can't find it, at least not with a search-engine.
Now... for me, and I think I can make a logical case for it, this amounts to simply diverting and obfuscating the actual result of this. It is, in fact, a semantic way in deluding someone it's something else, while it amounts to the same. Because, let's face it, if you can't find any info, it amounts the same to no *having* that info. Maybe not in the strict sense, but certainly in a de facto sense.
It's like... making a law which forbid to read books. And then saying: "Oh, but we did NOT forbid books! We just forbid to *READ* books."
That might be an important distinction to you, but not to me (nor most other people with a rationally thinking mind, I wager). Because forbidding *READING* books has the same effect as forbidding books themselves, and they loose all intent and purpose, since the whole point of books is being able to be read. The same goes for information on the internet; if you're not able to find the information, than that information could as well be considered non-existent, and there is no de facto difference anymore between deleting all findings, and deleting the info itself.
It isn't just semantics, it means google.fr is subjected to French law, and google.com is subjected to US law (basically, where the respective legal entities have their respective servers).
In that sense, let's try your analogy again. "Walmart France" can't sell guns in France, if it's against the law there. "Walmart US" CAN sell guns to France (in the hypothetical case where US law would allow this, which it doesn't). In that case, if a French citizen ordered a gun by snailmail, it would be fully legal for 'Walmart US" to send it to that person. If France has a problem with that, it either should seize the snailmail when it enters France, or find it illegal and punishable that a French citizen ordered it.
What it CAN NOT do, is demand that "Walmart US" does not send any guns by snailmail anymore, since they have no jurisdiction for that to demand it. so, to your answer, provided it would be legal to send guns in the US, then yes, they are allowed to send guns to users in France. Because it is NOT bound by the law of another country.
What is it, you find so difficult to understand?
If you still don't grasp the concept...: let's say China has trouble with searchengine sin the EU, because they are critical of their government. Can they now demand EU search-sites to censor themselves and to not show anything to any Chinese? Aka, deliberately place a "Chinese Firewall" on their own searchengine, just to accommodate the laws of China?
Why the heck would EU companies need to listen to the Chinese government, EVEN if they're being consulted by Chinese citizens?
It is as true in current modern times as it was in ancient times: the only thing the masses and the hoi palloi need to remain relatively docile is food and entertainment.
Well, we seem to end rather amicably in our debate; a rare event on slashdot if the viewpoints are somewhat divergent.;-)
Just one last comment: "The loophole is that companies are allowed to substract expenditures before calculating their taxes owed."
Yes, but you can't really curb that, unless you specify for each and every case what are expenditures and what not, and what may be deductible and what not: that's where some of the loopholes are created, and always will be. And one can't just say: "oh, we'll not look at profit, but at total revenue", because what about companies that actually HAVE costs?
Let me take the same company as in my former post. But now it actually has to pay for licenses to another company, completely unrelated, so they're actually having to pay for it and thus lose that money. Say it has a total revenue of 100 million. With your suggestion, you'd tax them on the 100 million. Say 25 million. But what if they *then* have to still pay that other company for their IP-rights 80 million? In that case, the company actually makes no profit anymore, but instead has a loss! Basically, taxing companies on their gross total revenue, without looking at their costs, means those companies go bankrupt Only the ones which have, at the end of the day, more than - with the flattax - 25%, would still be able to remain afloat. All others with any lower profit-margin would just go under..
So I don't see how you can readily tax companies without allowing them to deduct their costs, and without looking at the actual profits.
The same goes for what you said about other countries; yes, if you managed to convince the whole world to go for a flattax of the same level, there would no use for the rich to go elsewhere. Only... that's *very* unlikely to ever happen.So it's rather an utopian wishful thinking idea, not something that will help in subsidizing an UBI in the next 30-40 years.
As for Germany... well, no doubt not everything goes well - but their economy is still better off than in most other countries of the EU. And it's *still* a welfare state. Just compare it with the USA, and I think the differences will still be more than obvious.
Well, at least we seem to partially agree to some things, now.;-)
"There are many nationalised, successful and efficient companies in the world. In Europe, privatization was late (80s, 90s) and today it is clear where it worked (telecommunication) and where it failed bitterly (railroad companies)."
I actually agree that not all privatisation is better - though in many cases it has proven to be, indeed, better. The major issue is to recognise where it does work well and where it doesn't. This, imho, has much to do with how much competition one gets in the same domain. In that case, it's easy to see that all things which are geographically fixed (like railroads) and all have to use *that* infrastructure (there is no secondary or third railroad-network to be used). In essence, it gives it a de facto monopoly. This would also be true for things like internet through cable and electricity. Sure, one can have multiple companies offering electricity and internet, but they ALL have to go through the same infrastructure (often paid by tax-payers money). So whatever private entity owns that infrastructure, owns a de facto monopoly, and can ask whatever price it wants, without giving much thought to the wishes of customers. Those customers can't go elsewhere anyway.
In that case, without due competition, I'm rather a proponent to let those basic infrastructures - which are paid by our taxes anyway - be in the hands of the state.
For all the rest, however, I'm all for privatisation coupled with strong competition. I'm actually in favour of moderate capitalism, after all.
"The failure of communism had little to do with that question."
I largely disagree. Sure, no doubt there were many variables for it, but the most basic ones are just what I said: use the mechanisms of communism and go too much for "equal' and you, indeed, end up equal: all equally poor, that is. There is no incentive to work harder neither. Nationalisations and central planning largely sucks. And there are, indeed, no incentives. Those are the MAIN reasons. Spending too much on the military is another drop, but if they hadn't done that, the USSR would still have crumbled, only a few years later, maybe. The same goes for any other communist country, under whatever 'style': NONE have been particular successful, and the truth is, the average wealth of Chinese citizens have risen dramatically now (now that they're de facto a capitalist system) compared to under the communist rule of Mao. And I'm not only talking about the millionaires, but about *all* Chinese.
Communism doesn't work.
"I don't even want it. As I said: Until multinational corporations have tanks, the "inevitable" argument is bullshit. I'm tired of hearing it. "There is no alternative" has become a mantra to silence opposition and competing ideas. There is always at least one alternative."
I fear that's again more of a semantic issue again, or maybe just being a bit pedant about it. I think it was understood to mean: you don't have a *viable* alternative. In the sense of: a system where your economy gets BETTER, not worse. You could also say, where the wealth, welfare, health of your populace is the highest in a *sustainable* manner. And for that, you need a good economy, coupled with a democracy. And both prohibit doing the things that you suggested.
So, it's an alternative, just like the alternative to living poor is to kill yourself. In that sense, thereis ALWAYS an alternative, but that wasn't the point. I think we both now what is meant. It's not an alternative, if you want to reach the goal that you want to accomplish. In this case, the goal was how to augment the wealth for the state and all its citizens, more specifically in the context of paying for an UBI. And it's clear that, in that sense, your suggestions form no viable alternative.
If they are no viable, realistic alternatives, it makes no sense to propose them neither, since you can't implement them anyway (at least, you'll not achieve the desired result)
I think the point is, one making the *original* claim is the one that needs to provide proof.
Thing that lack any way of observation, are scientifically worthless. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But you can't say anything sensible about it.
Next!
If you postulate 'God', thus, it's for you to prove God exists. If you can't prove that, saying 'but you can't proof he doesn't' is besides the point. In the best case, it just means it should be ignored, just as the postulate 'tooth fairies exist', and 'magical dragons exist'. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't, but since you have no way to know, the complete concept is worthless in a scientific context.
In practise, of course, since one has to have some pragmatism at least, we consider it 'not true' or 'non-existent'. That's, strictly speaking, not a purely scientific stance, but it is one that is de facto the most sensible. With a limited budget, personnel and time, you can't expect the scientific community to research every crack-pot idea and extremely unlikely idea or concept out there, certainly when that has no observational nor theoretical basis, after all. It's a matter of gradation, thus, and the lower you get on that scale (and without any theoretical substantiation, nor observational proof, you're scoring extremely low) the less likely it's to be considered worthwhile. 'Impossible' in that sense, just means: so extremely unlikely and doubtful that one is best of ignoring it altogether.
you're right that the entangled pair stays undetermined on itself, but, as far as I can see, this doesn't stop the possibility of retrieving info.
As I interpreted the paper, what they're saying is that they can determine if the wavefunction has collapsed or not, without it actually make it collapse by doing so.
In that case, let's say I have 100 qubits, 50 times 2 qubits. You agree before you leave Earth, that they'll all stay in the uncollapsed state, unless you want to say something, and what you're going to say is agreed on in front. For instance, if the first one is collapsed, it means 'A' and it means you must send a probe into the star A, if the second one has collapsed, it means 'B', and you have to send a probe into star B. Now you measure the qubits in the way the paper describes. You look at the first pair; you see it indicates the first qubit is in a determined state, and the second isn't. You look at the second pair; you see it indicates the first qubit is in a determined state, and the second isn't. You look at the third pair; idem. You look at all 50 of them, and the vast majority of them indicate the first qubit is in a determined state. Then it's pretty sure Earth send 'go for the first star A', no?
It doesn't say in what polarisation-state qubit A is in, exactly, but you don't need to know that. Only that it indicates that it's collapsed.
So..what am I missing here? If the paper is right. If. Wouldn't that mean you *can* retrieve info this way?
You are right that a weak measurement doesn't influence the outcome of the state it is in, but nothing prohibits the folks *on Earth* to do a strong measurement, thereby collapsing the wavefront, and the guys at Alpha Centaury to measure it in a weak way, thereby identifying the first qubit has collapsed.
While true, it still sheds some doubts on my former absolute stance it wasn't possible, I regret to say.
Let's say you can perform weak measurements with some uncertainty, without it collapsing the wavefront.
As long as that uncertainty is lower than the statistical chance it being equal to a random number (aka, 50%), it would still mean one could get information out of it in a statistical way.
Let's say you have two qubits, the right one mean yes, the left one no. If you can check both qubits without collapsing them, and you note that the first (yes) is more likely to be in a determined state than it is to be in an undetermined state (this would be the 'some uncertainty' you spoke of), then you would be 'more close' to the answer being yes than no. And, if you would have 10 pairs of those, and it almost always showed the right qubit to be in a determined state, it would augment the statistical certainty that the message is 'yes'.
While the amount of information you would get from it is indeed limited, it would still mean you can get *some* information from it. In that case, how meagre it may be, you would have information at FTL.
Well, that's what I think of it, reading that paper. Feel free to point out any mistakes in my reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, but but my point was: you still need the additional step to convert water into H2 to begin with, which you do not have with batteries.
Thus, for instance: a nuclear plant provides electricity, with that electricity hydrogen is created, that hydrogen is put into a fuel cell, where it's converted back into electricity for the car.
Versus:
A nuclear plant provides electricity, that electricity is put into the battery, which gives it back to the car.
So, it's not hard to see that, however you turn it, there is an additional step in the H2 loop, and that that extra step costs additional energy..
Of course, there are other considerations to be made as well, but as I've explained in my other posts, the 'advantages' that fuel cells may currently have are getting less and less pronounced by the year. And with current costs for H2 cars and dito H2 infrastructure, there never will be. But let's say H2 technology imùproves and progress is made. Ok. But so does normal electric cars and the grid with chargers. Within 5-10 years, there is no real incentive anymore (nor a market) for fuel cells. By that time, improved superchargers will have cut the loading time in half, and cars will have doubled or tripled their max distance.
There's really no need for an alternative system that has little to no advantages, but which is less efficient.
Well, nothing is certain and everything is possible, so I refrain from talking in such terms.
Let's say it this way: it is much more unlikely that H2 cars and a H2 infrastructure can be build that is economical competitive with electric cars and the grid with improved superchargers by the time such a thing would be completed.
It doesn't follow Moore's law (a tripling in 5 years isn't Moore's law, even when considering it's not about transistors ;-)), but it's fast enough to make it uneconomical to invest large amounts of money and time in a H2-alternative. Even now there is little incentive to do so, since the problems you raised aren't a major problem for most people. Just triple the distance once again, and reduce the loading time by half, and there is virtually no case to be made anymore. One can discuss if that will take another 5 years, or 10 years, but it's reasonably to assume (aka, pretty likely, thus), that it will happen rather sooner than later. Even when taking 10 years, there is still no case to be made for H2, even if you started subsidising it massively.
One shouldn't go for H2 just for the heck of it. What does the trick, does the trick. One would have to imagine a future where there are made *huge* advances in H2 technology, coupled with huge cost-reduction while at the same time normal electric cars and its infrastructure hardly knows any progress anymore from now on, to make a case strong enough for H2. this seems pretty unrealistic. At least, far more unlikely than what I predict.
Heh. Well... it's a certainty that using electricity to convert water into H2 and then converting it back to electricity for the car is ALWAYS going to be less efficient than just putting the electricity directly into the car in the first place.
That has nothing to do with being a technology pessimist, just being logical and applying physical reality.
And this would offset the huge costs of a future H2 infrastructure, how, exactly?
It used to take 3 hours for a battery to be charged enough, now it's reduced to 30 minutes. Unless you want to claim progress stops now, it's not unreasonable to assume it will get further reduced. In fact, some experimental chargers already can charge in the 15 min range.
It's also easy to see e-cars will continue to expand their range. It used to be 100km five years ago, now it's 300km, in another 5-10 years it will be 900km. So in 10 years, you'll get a car where you have to wait and fill your car for 15 minutes...
You really think that will still outweigh the massive costs of building FC-cars, and worse, a complete H2 infrastructure?
You're not thinking this through, squire. Sure, FC will make technological progress too, but it will ALWAYS be less efficient, and ALWAYS be more costly (especially the infrastructure) than normal e-cars and its infrastructure. And for reasons that will not longer exist neither, and since long will have been dealt with, by the time it would ever get done.
Indeed. I explained exactly the same. I'm glad to see others follow the most logical conclusion on this topic.
It's rather simple: *even* if we were to assume there are some area's in which FC-cars are still better today, seen the rapid progress that advantage will be gone in 5-10 years. It's clear, as you say, that to create a viable H2 infrastructure which would support a large network of FC-cars, it would take decades. By that time, all objections one points to today of electrical cars and their chargers will long since be solved and gone, and for a fraction for the price that a H2-infrastructure delivering the same would cost.
There simply isn't an economical case to be made for a future of H2 cars and network.
I think they are.
That's to say, they're not *inherently* mutual exclusive, but I don't think the market is there for two completely different systems.
Let's face it: cars like Tesla are making enormous strides and know great progress, these last 5-10 years. FC are still nowhere. Not only that, but as pointed out by others, they're inherently more inefficient (in essence, they're electrical cars that have the added difficulty and inefficiency of having to convert electricity ot hydrogen, nd than back again). And it's even worse for creating a viable infrastructure for hydrogen: they would need high pressurised vessels and pipes to transport and storage it, and the safety measures would be stringent. It would cost huge amounts of money, and decades in order for every (or at least most) petrol-stations to convert to it - with a high risk too, because they wouldn't have much of a market (the classical chicken and egg problem).
And for what? The only advantages that currently exist are that FC can travel longer distances, and get faster filled... but normal electric cars get further and further too, and get more and more (and faster) chargers (like the supercharger of Musk). So in another 5-10 years, there will be no case to be made for FC cars anymore.
Well, you could look at it in a pragmatic way.
Seen the rapid evolution of electric cars these last 5 years, it's not all that far-fetched to predict that e-cars will continue to improve, and superchargers will continue to be built and improve too. In the very beginning, cars could not even muster 100 km, now they're doing 300km. Five years ago, you had NO superchargers, now you have several hundreds of them.
Now, continue this for the next 5-10 years. Then you'll have cars doing 900km and have thousands of superchargers which charge at 15 minutes.
The cost and time-span for this is only a fraction than what it would take (both in money and time) for fuel cell / hydrogen cars to become common, and providing all the infrastructure for hydrogen transportation and storage. Even heavily subsidised, it would take several decades to come at this point. By then, electric cars will long since have gotten passed the point(s) you raised, and all your objections you raised today will since long have been dealt with.
In short, even if one would agree with you with today's specs that there is still a niche market for fuel cells in cars, there is no reason trying to implement it (at great cost, I may add), since by the time it gets to a useful state, the electric car will already have covered the entire market - even the niche markets of those who want to make long interstate drives and find not enough superchargers. So there really is no market, no economic sense, and no future in it.
But he ain't wrong. That's just the point.
Well, at least, he ain't wrong if his stance is google.com (which is a legal entity based in the US, with its servers on US-soil) does not have to abide by French law. Google.fr IS complying with French law.
Chauvinism aside, it's clear they do not have jurisdiction over google.com. So demanding it would comply to French law is nonsensical. Set that precedent, and other countries would follow, EVEN towards the EU. It would be crazy trying to abide by all laws of any country *outside* the territorial jurisdiction of those laws/countries.
That France 'only want them to comply when it involves citizens of their country', does *nothing* to counter the fact that the company (google.com) itself, as a legal entity, is based in the US, as are its servers, and hence, it still does not fall under their jurisdiction. Just like when those same French citizens order something illegal (in their country) from the US by snailmail, France can not demand the US company sending it does not send it anymore to their citizens. Because THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY over it. What they should (and in practise do), thus, is controlling incoming goods by customs, and apprehend and seize the goods at their border.
And THAT is exactly what France should do, if it has so much trouble with it. That they create their very own little "Great Firewall", like China, and block all info coming from google.com. That's how they should deal with it, if they're having such a problem with it. Not by claiming worldwide applicability of their own national law, nor demanding that a foreign company under another jurisdiction should comply with their laws because it's French citizens that are asking for the info.
Nevertheless, France is in the wrong here, nd google is right to not abide by by it. As for the rational reasons why; I've placed them on my pots above.
Sigh. It's the fifth time I see you write this.
Why do you not understand that it being 'easy' to geotag it or not, is NOT the issue at all? Whether they do it with their adds or not has NOTHING to do with them being obliged to abide by another countries' law. Google...google.com, that is... should NOT just geo-target it. Not because it would be hard or easy, nor because they already voluntarily do this with ads or not, but because they DO NOT FALL under EU law. They aren't geo-tagging adds because they are obliged to do so, they do it because they WANT to do it. As a US company, they don't want to be forced to abide by laws from another country, since that would create a precedent on jurisdiction, and obviously then countries like Russia, China, Saudi-Arabia, etc. would chirp in too.
So the two things are unrelated. When is this finally going to dawn on you? No-one is saying they can't geo-tag requests, they're saying they do not want to do it, and they do not have to do it. And they're right. It would be crazy trying to abide by all laws of any country *outside* the territorial jurisdiction of those laws/countries.
That they 'only want them to comply when it involves citizens of their country', does *nothing* to counter the fact that the company itself is in the US, as is its servers, and hence, it still does not fall under their jurisdiction. Just like when those citizens order something illegal (in their country) from the US by snailmail, that country can not demand the US company sending it does not send it anymore to their citizens. Because THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY over it. What they should (and in practise do), thus, is controlling incoming goods by customs, and apprehend and seize the goods at the border.
And THAT is exactly what France should do, if it has so much trouble with it. That they create their very own little "Great Firewall", like China, and block all info coming from google.com. That's how they should deal with it, if they're having such a problem with it. Not by claiming worldwide applicability of their own national law, nor demanding that a foreign company under another jurisdiction should comply with their laws because it's French citizens that are asking for stuff they don't like.
Always claiming other opinions are equal to Trump-style-debating is a bit too easy, and a form of mental laziness of your part as well - as Trump would do it. ;-)
The *intent* of the law doesn't matter. Whether it is 'well-intended' or not does not matter. Why do you not get that? Apart from the fact that the highway to hell is paved with good intentions, the essence of the matter is, that one country can not demand compliance of its laws outside its jurisdiction.
Now, it might be, like you always claim, that they 'only ask to comply within their borders' but they ask it FROM an entity (google.com, not google.fr) which is a US based entity, with its servers on US-based soil. THEREFORE it has no jurisdiction over it, and google.com DOES NOT have to abide by it, EVEN if French citizens are asking for the info. And even if google.com is delivering the data to them. If you do not get this, let's take a correct analogy, and say booze.com is an US booze-delivery-service situated in the US. Saudi-Arabia forbids buying, selling and drinking booze. However, citizens of their nation order booze from booze.com, and to counter that, the government demands that booze.com stops sending booze to their citizens.
I ask you: why the F- should the US company booze.com have to comply with what the Saudi government asks? If it's legal to send booze in the US, than it doesn't matter one iota what another country wants, and that company DOES NOT have to comply. No, not even if Saudi-arabia does it with the utmost of well-intended thoughts, like..ermm... combating drunkenness.
"Oh", you say, "but they aren't asking to not sell booze to anyone, they just ask they would sell it to citizens of Saudi-arabia"!
Well... THAT DOES NOT MATTER. They are STILL not compelled to go in to those demands. In practise, what you get is wht you get in r/l now: it's for *CUSTOMS* of Saudi-Arabia to control and seize things that they consider illegal. It's NOT for a foreign company to comply with their laws and to not send it anymore. And that's why, in effect, you see a lot of things being ordered abroad, even illegal (in the customers' country) things, and yet companies will send it anyway, since it's legal to send it where they send it, and then it's for the customs of the country who has made the object illegal to stop it. Either by seizing the goods, and/or by putting the customer in their own country behind bars.
I'm not sure why you do not understand this, or you act as if people with a different viewpoint on the matter are some ass-twits and Trump-alikes.
It's perfectly logical and easy to understand for any logically minded person, I would think.
You are completely correct.
Some people use any contrived analogy just to try to make a point, but it's obvious that backfires most of the times.
"A flag on the other side of the bar" does not mean you're in another country. It's implied that it is (otherwise the flag-mentioning has no value whatsoever), yet it is then as much implied that there is no different jurisdiction, since it's 'the same bar'.
But one can't have it both ways.
If the bar-side with the other flag *REALLY* fell under another jurisdiction with other laws, where beer could be served to a minor, then the answer would clearly be: no, they are NOT in the same country anymore. It would have constituted a 'micro-nation' of half a bar long. And in that case, the whole reasoning breaks down.
So the question comes down to: is it just placing a flag without any meaning in that bar, or does the flag actually brings you into another jurisdiction? And since the servers *and* the legal entity (google.com) is on US soil, it clearly is subjected to another jurisdiction, as you correctly surmised.
To argue differently, would also mean the US *and* the EU would have to adhere to laws from China or Saudi-Arabia, and, in fact, every country would need to comply with laws of any other country, since it would all be "meaningless flags placed in 'the same' bar".
The argument is ludicrous, and I don't understand how so many people still try to defend it. Or maybe there are even more trolls then usual on slashdot on this topic.
Whether it's trivial and easy or not is not the point. It's the principle of the matter that counts.
Take the parent posters' example of a country which had a stupid law that said women faces cant be shown online. Now imagine there is a program that can do that automatically, in a very, very cheap and easy way.
Would that change in anything the essence of the issue here?
It's not whether it's trivial or easy or not, it's whether another country has the right to demand that its laws are being followed by a company that is outside their jurisdiction.
And the answer is and should be: no.
Because going the other route, means countries like China have the right to impose THEIR laws on EU-institutions too. That's what it boils down to, really. So imagine Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan, etc. forbids any cartoons of Mohamed to be shown, nor any women without a niqab. Are you now *really* going to argue that EU-sites should censor themselves and have the obligation to not show cartoons nor any women without a niqab to any user of those countries? *WE* should police ourselves and censor ourselves for *their* convenience? We should create our own 'Great Firewall' for them so *they* don't have to do it anymore?
Are you daft?
We have no reason to comply with such demands, whether those governments like that or not. And whether it's their citizens searching for the cartoons and women's faces or not. And neither does the US has to do so with our EU-laws.
"Casual" searches? Is it explicitly mentioned as such, and is a definition given of 'casual'? I highly doubt it. There is no clear line between 'casually' looking it up and 'non-casually' looking it up on google.
So that point doesn't matter, and thus, it amounts to: "to not show the original info". Period. And then we come to your primary assertion: that it's ok since it doesn't remove it, it only doesn't show it, so you can't find it, at least not with a search-engine.
Now... for me, and I think I can make a logical case for it, this amounts to simply diverting and obfuscating the actual result of this. It is, in fact, a semantic way in deluding someone it's something else, while it amounts to the same. Because, let's face it, if you can't find any info, it amounts the same to no *having* that info. Maybe not in the strict sense, but certainly in a de facto sense.
It's like... making a law which forbid to read books. And then saying: "Oh, but we did NOT forbid books! We just forbid to *READ* books."
That might be an important distinction to you, but not to me (nor most other people with a rationally thinking mind, I wager). Because forbidding *READING* books has the same effect as forbidding books themselves, and they loose all intent and purpose, since the whole point of books is being able to be read. The same goes for information on the internet; if you're not able to find the information, than that information could as well be considered non-existent, and there is no de facto difference anymore between deleting all findings, and deleting the info itself.
It isn't just semantics, it means google.fr is subjected to French law, and google.com is subjected to US law (basically, where the respective legal entities have their respective servers).
In that sense, let's try your analogy again. "Walmart France" can't sell guns in France, if it's against the law there. "Walmart US" CAN sell guns to France (in the hypothetical case where US law would allow this, which it doesn't). In that case, if a French citizen ordered a gun by snailmail, it would be fully legal for 'Walmart US" to send it to that person. If France has a problem with that, it either should seize the snailmail when it enters France, or find it illegal and punishable that a French citizen ordered it.
What it CAN NOT do, is demand that "Walmart US" does not send any guns by snailmail anymore, since they have no jurisdiction for that to demand it. so, to your answer, provided it would be legal to send guns in the US, then yes, they are allowed to send guns to users in France. Because it is NOT bound by the law of another country.
What is it, you find so difficult to understand?
If you still don't grasp the concept...: let's say China has trouble with searchengine sin the EU, because they are critical of their government. Can they now demand EU search-sites to censor themselves and to not show anything to any Chinese? Aka, deliberately place a "Chinese Firewall" on their own searchengine, just to accommodate the laws of China?
Why the heck would EU companies need to listen to the Chinese government, EVEN if they're being consulted by Chinese citizens?
You're just not thinking this through, squire.
Panem et circenses.
It is as true in current modern times as it was in ancient times: the only thing the masses and the hoi palloi need to remain relatively docile is food and entertainment.
Pretty few posts on this topic, I must say...
That said, since NASA is paid by tax-payers' money, they should make available ALL of their patents to ALL the citizens...
then it must be so! ;-)
My only regret is, that Mr. Spock can't say that anymore.. :-(
Slashdot is an illusion as well.
"Do not try and bend free will, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth..."
"What truth?"
"There is no free will."
Well, we seem to end rather amicably in our debate; a rare event on slashdot if the viewpoints are somewhat divergent. ;-)
Just one last comment: "The loophole is that companies are allowed to substract expenditures before calculating their taxes owed."
Yes, but you can't really curb that, unless you specify for each and every case what are expenditures and what not, and what may be deductible and what not: that's where some of the loopholes are created, and always will be. And one can't just say: "oh, we'll not look at profit, but at total revenue", because what about companies that actually HAVE costs?
Let me take the same company as in my former post. But now it actually has to pay for licenses to another company, completely unrelated, so they're actually having to pay for it and thus lose that money. Say it has a total revenue of 100 million. With your suggestion, you'd tax them on the 100 million. Say 25 million. But what if they *then* have to still pay that other company for their IP-rights 80 million? In that case, the company actually makes no profit anymore, but instead has a loss! Basically, taxing companies on their gross total revenue, without looking at their costs, means those companies go bankrupt Only the ones which have, at the end of the day, more than - with the flattax - 25%, would still be able to remain afloat. All others with any lower profit-margin would just go under..
So I don't see how you can readily tax companies without allowing them to deduct their costs, and without looking at the actual profits.
The same goes for what you said about other countries; yes, if you managed to convince the whole world to go for a flattax of the same level, there would no use for the rich to go elsewhere. Only... that's *very* unlikely to ever happen.So it's rather an utopian wishful thinking idea, not something that will help in subsidizing an UBI in the next 30-40 years.
As for Germany... well, no doubt not everything goes well - but their economy is still better off than in most other countries of the EU. And it's *still* a welfare state. Just compare it with the USA, and I think the differences will still be more than obvious.
This is what a TRAPPIST looks like:
http://sr1.wine-searcher.net/i...
Well, at least we seem to partially agree to some things, now. ;-)
"There are many nationalised, successful and efficient companies in the world. In Europe, privatization was late (80s, 90s) and today it is clear where it worked (telecommunication) and where it failed bitterly (railroad companies)."
I actually agree that not all privatisation is better - though in many cases it has proven to be, indeed, better. The major issue is to recognise where it does work well and where it doesn't. This, imho, has much to do with how much competition one gets in the same domain. In that case, it's easy to see that all things which are geographically fixed (like railroads) and all have to use *that* infrastructure (there is no secondary or third railroad-network to be used). In essence, it gives it a de facto monopoly. This would also be true for things like internet through cable and electricity. Sure, one can have multiple companies offering electricity and internet, but they ALL have to go through the same infrastructure (often paid by tax-payers money). So whatever private entity owns that infrastructure, owns a de facto monopoly, and can ask whatever price it wants, without giving much thought to the wishes of customers. Those customers can't go elsewhere anyway.
In that case, without due competition, I'm rather a proponent to let those basic infrastructures - which are paid by our taxes anyway - be in the hands of the state.
For all the rest, however, I'm all for privatisation coupled with strong competition. I'm actually in favour of moderate capitalism, after all.
"The failure of communism had little to do with that question."
I largely disagree. Sure, no doubt there were many variables for it, but the most basic ones are just what I said: use the mechanisms of communism and go too much for "equal' and you, indeed, end up equal: all equally poor, that is. There is no incentive to work harder neither. Nationalisations and central planning largely sucks. And there are, indeed, no incentives. Those are the MAIN reasons. Spending too much on the military is another drop, but if they hadn't done that, the USSR would still have crumbled, only a few years later, maybe. The same goes for any other communist country, under whatever 'style': NONE have been particular successful, and the truth is, the average wealth of Chinese citizens have risen dramatically now (now that they're de facto a capitalist system) compared to under the communist rule of Mao. And I'm not only talking about the millionaires, but about *all* Chinese.
Communism doesn't work.
"I don't even want it. As I said: Until multinational corporations have tanks, the "inevitable" argument is bullshit. I'm tired of hearing it. "There is no alternative" has become a mantra to silence opposition and competing ideas. There is always at least one alternative."
I fear that's again more of a semantic issue again, or maybe just being a bit pedant about it. I think it was understood to mean: you don't have a *viable* alternative. In the sense of: a system where your economy gets BETTER, not worse. You could also say, where the wealth, welfare, health of your populace is the highest in a *sustainable* manner. And for that, you need a good economy, coupled with a democracy. And both prohibit doing the things that you suggested.
So, it's an alternative, just like the alternative to living poor is to kill yourself. In that sense, thereis ALWAYS an alternative, but that wasn't the point. I think we both now what is meant. It's not an alternative, if you want to reach the goal that you want to accomplish. In this case, the goal was how to augment the wealth for the state and all its citizens, more specifically in the context of paying for an UBI. And it's clear that, in that sense, your suggestions form no viable alternative.
If they are no viable, realistic alternatives, it makes no sense to propose them neither, since you can't implement them anyway (at least, you'll not achieve the desired result)
I think the point is, one making the *original* claim is the one that needs to provide proof.
Thing that lack any way of observation, are scientifically worthless. Maybe they exist, maybe not. But you can't say anything sensible about it.
Next!
If you postulate 'God', thus, it's for you to prove God exists. If you can't prove that, saying 'but you can't proof he doesn't' is besides the point. In the best case, it just means it should be ignored, just as the postulate 'tooth fairies exist', and 'magical dragons exist'. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't, but since you have no way to know, the complete concept is worthless in a scientific context.
In practise, of course, since one has to have some pragmatism at least, we consider it 'not true' or 'non-existent'. That's, strictly speaking, not a purely scientific stance, but it is one that is de facto the most sensible. With a limited budget, personnel and time, you can't expect the scientific community to research every crack-pot idea and extremely unlikely idea or concept out there, certainly when that has no observational nor theoretical basis, after all. It's a matter of gradation, thus, and the lower you get on that scale (and without any theoretical substantiation, nor observational proof, you're scoring extremely low) the less likely it's to be considered worthwhile. 'Impossible' in that sense, just means: so extremely unlikely and doubtful that one is best of ignoring it altogether.
Well... let' say I *could* be wrong. ;-)
you're right that the entangled pair stays undetermined on itself, but, as far as I can see, this doesn't stop the possibility of retrieving info.
As I interpreted the paper, what they're saying is that they can determine if the wavefunction has collapsed or not, without it actually make it collapse by doing so.
In that case, let's say I have 100 qubits, 50 times 2 qubits. You agree before you leave Earth, that they'll all stay in the uncollapsed state, unless you want to say something, and what you're going to say is agreed on in front. For instance, if the first one is collapsed, it means 'A' and it means you must send a probe into the star A, if the second one has collapsed, it means 'B', and you have to send a probe into star B. Now you measure the qubits in the way the paper describes. You look at the first pair; you see it indicates the first qubit is in a determined state, and the second isn't. You look at the second pair; you see it indicates the first qubit is in a determined state, and the second isn't. You look at the third pair; idem. You look at all 50 of them, and the vast majority of them indicate the first qubit is in a determined state. Then it's pretty sure Earth send 'go for the first star A', no?
It doesn't say in what polarisation-state qubit A is in, exactly, but you don't need to know that. Only that it indicates that it's collapsed.
So..what am I missing here? If the paper is right. If. Wouldn't that mean you *can* retrieve info this way?
You are right that a weak measurement doesn't influence the outcome of the state it is in, but nothing prohibits the folks *on Earth* to do a strong measurement, thereby collapsing the wavefront, and the guys at Alpha Centaury to measure it in a weak way, thereby identifying the first qubit has collapsed.
No?
While true, it still sheds some doubts on my former absolute stance it wasn't possible, I regret to say.
Let's say you can perform weak measurements with some uncertainty, without it collapsing the wavefront.
As long as that uncertainty is lower than the statistical chance it being equal to a random number (aka, 50%), it would still mean one could get information out of it in a statistical way.
Let's say you have two qubits, the right one mean yes, the left one no. If you can check both qubits without collapsing them, and you note that the first (yes) is more likely to be in a determined state than it is to be in an undetermined state (this would be the 'some uncertainty' you spoke of), then you would be 'more close' to the answer being yes than no. And, if you would have 10 pairs of those, and it almost always showed the right qubit to be in a determined state, it would augment the statistical certainty that the message is 'yes'.
While the amount of information you would get from it is indeed limited, it would still mean you can get *some* information from it. In that case, how meagre it may be, you would have information at FTL.
Well, that's what I think of it, reading that paper. Feel free to point out any mistakes in my reasoning.