You can't guarantee a minimum speed, because it depends on the quality of the infrastructure, the quality of the wiring in the house, the quality of the modem, and so on and so forth. If it's reasonable (eg. 8Mb/s on a 24MB/s ADSL2+ plan is fine, 128kb/s is not), then what's the issue?
You need some sort of pressing concern if you want to get people to change things. For example, we brought in compulsory voting when only ~59% of the population turned up one year, and preferential voting when the Country party split the non-labour vote. No doubt there will be something that forces change in the US.
Ah, I see. Over my way you have to register either before or very soon after (recently set to 8pm on the same day) the election is called, so you can't just put your registration form in on the day. The electoral commission comes out to schools, so most everyone gets their registration in. I'm not sure about the proof-of-citizenship thing, since we had somewhat more relaxed authentication requirements, since a few teachers were there to witness everything.
Looks like a number of election-law changes will be needed to fix things.
Hang on...how exactly do you have people voting that aren't on the electoral roll? Why are they allowed in if they've not had their name ticked off? Dodgy staff at the polling place?
You need more accountability in the process. Apart from having electoral officials sign everything (inital each ballot that goes out, sign the seals on the ballot boxes, etc.), what can a shady character do if representatives from each candidate are watching the process?
The two may be related---without a constitution guaranteeing certain rights, judges don't feel the need to limit themselves to what is in there. This was one of the arguments against introducing it in the US to begin with---listing a set of fundamental rights may result in the loss of all others. IIRC, there was a push to introduce such a thing over here as well, but it didn't gain much momentum for that reason.
Not to mention that it takes nothing short of an Act of God to get a constitutional amendment through in Australia.
Why strain the postal system? Over my way (Australia) everyone (yes, everyone, it's compulsory) goes out to the polling place on a Saturday afternoon, and we know who will form the government that very night.
Similarly in Australia. If you tried claiming that the federal elections were being rigged, people would think you were mad unless you had some incredibly good evidence.
The idea that a government should be able to deny access to social services to any citizen/permanent resident is ridiculous. Education is something that should be encouraged, and not denied to anyone.
I am from Australia---we've had a system of government-funded university tuition for many years, though, in the last 20 years or so, students have been required to pay a contribution (loaned by the government, and repaid through the tax system). An engineering degree currently costs the student AU$7118/year, for instance. This is available to all citizens, permanent residents, and New Zealand citizens, among others (though non-citizens must pay their contribution up-front). Disqualifying any citizen (see Wikipedia for more information) would be a rather unpopular move.
What does one have to do to be disqualified from receiving funding in the US? I have heard that a criminal record was sufficient, but I have trouble believing that.
I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm from Australia, where ISPs almost universally cap usage. That said, most ISPs host (unmetered) mirrors for the more popular legit stuff, so those of us with a nice ADSL2+ connection can use our them for something without suffering the rather slower transatlantic link.
If that's the case, then they should stop selling their product as though it isn't. Claiming that customers can download as much as they want before cutting them off for downloading too much is false advertising, plain and simple. Don't you have a consumer affairs organisation to deal with this kind of thing?
You're right---I missed out energy considerations (that's why I initially mentioned efficiency).
The reaction's enthalpy is 1.76 x 10^7 eV/reaction, or 1.695 x 10^12 J/mol. Worldwide power usage is approximately 1.5 x 10^13 W[1], so, if all power was supplied by fusion, you would get approximately ten moles per second as a by-product, assuming perfect efficiency. Multiply the figure by three or five to account for inefficiencies in the power generation, divide by some number to account for lost helium---the energy of the alpha particle (helium-4 nucleus) is in the MeV range, and you'd never get it all (it's more radiation than gas).
Let me repeat that: at current demand levels, a figure on the order of 10 mol/s would be produced (moles are equivalent to cubic metres for gases at STP) worldwide cheaply as a byproduct of power production (multiply or divide by whatever number you like to account for inefficiencies---this is just an order of magnitude, and 50 mol/s is probably closer to the upper bound). The rest would have the cost that I mentioned before.
Possibly, but for each helium atom produced, energy in the MeV range is emitted. It's 4AM and I'm too tired to make the calculations work out, but to make it work out (if it could be done at all), you would need a very large fraction of the world's power generation to be carried out with fusion. With that much energy, it looks as though it should not be able to produce sufficient quantities of helium at the necessary power levels to match demand. I could be wrong though.
That's not really practical. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a fusion reactor can convert 10% of the power from its reaction to electricity.
The most promising reaction, according to Wikipedia, is that of:
First of all, there is the Deuterium. This is harvested from Heavy Water, water that has one or two deuterium atoms instead of normal hydrogen atoms. This heavy water costs approximately US$300/kg[2] for consumers, and the deuterium produced approximately US$1/L[3]. This is a lot. Deuterium has a molar mass of approximately two g/mol, with one mole of a gas taking up one cubic metre at standard temperature/pressure. At US$1/L, this deuterium costs US$1000/m^3, or US$500/g (I'm assuming that gases volumes refer to STP. If I'm wrong, feel free to point this out---I've never dealt with bottled gas).
Next is tritium. At US$30000/g[4], it's hardly cheap. For the reaction to take place, you need the two isotopes to react stoichiometrically (in the proper ratio). IOW, for each mole of tritium, you need a mole of deuterium. Converted to masses (tritium's molar mass is approximately three), this means that you need a ratio of 3g tritium : 2g deuterium. For each mole of Tritium, you will get a mole of helium. Because we're dealing with helium-4, the molar mass is ~4g/mol. The rest of the mass is made up by the neutron; this doesn't matter to us. Therefore, to make four grams of helium, we need three grams of tritium, and two grams of deuterium. At the prices given, this is US$91000 per four grams of helium, which, because it is one mole, is one cubic metre at STP. Helium, as of 1986 (yeah, yeah, I know) cost US$37.50/1000f^3. This is about US$1.30/m^3. Think about those prices. 9.1 x 10^4 US$/m^3, vs 1.3 x 10^0 US$/m^3. That's almost five orders of magnitude. There would have to be be a bloody good reason to be using helium at those prices.
In conclusion: Helium-4 produced by fusion will cost five orders of magnitude more than current prices
Cryogenics---including the superconducters used by MRI machines---often uses liquid Helium, though MRI machines might be using high-temperature superconductors now; I'm not sure.
Welding---the various *IG welders use helium in mixtures of gases to protect the high-temperature metal from the air.
Would I be correct in assuming that this was a private school? My (well, now former) school put forth a vaguely-defined sedition policy (they didn't call it that, but they seemed quite careful to use the same wording as the actual law, with s/Sovereign/school/g applied) that could, in theory, cause something like that to happen. If they were to try, though, they'd probably end up in more trouble than they'd save, though.
Those current-affairs shows could be good for something after all.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't guarantee a minimum speed, because it depends on the quality of the infrastructure, the quality of the wiring in the house, the quality of the modem, and so on and so forth. If it's reasonable (eg. 8Mb/s on a 24MB/s ADSL2+ plan is fine, 128kb/s is not), then what's the issue?
50MB/mo or not, they still take up a spot on the DSLAM---there are costs beyond sending data in and out of the network.
DHCP is available for IPv6, though.
You need some sort of pressing concern if you want to get people to change things. For example, we brought in compulsory voting when only ~59% of the population turned up one year, and preferential voting when the Country party split the non-labour vote. No doubt there will be something that forces change in the US.
Where do you think plastics come from?
Just don't let them meet the remains of the second method? :)
Ah, I see. Over my way you have to register either before or very soon after (recently set to 8pm on the same day) the election is called, so you can't just put your registration form in on the day. The electoral commission comes out to schools, so most everyone gets their registration in. I'm not sure about the proof-of-citizenship thing, since we had somewhat more relaxed authentication requirements, since a few teachers were there to witness everything.
Looks like a number of election-law changes will be needed to fix things.
Hang on...how exactly do you have people voting that aren't on the electoral roll? Why are they allowed in if they've not had their name ticked off? Dodgy staff at the polling place?
You need more accountability in the process. Apart from having electoral officials sign everything (inital each ballot that goes out, sign the seals on the ballot boxes, etc.), what can a shady character do if representatives from each candidate are watching the process?
The two may be related---without a constitution guaranteeing certain rights, judges don't feel the need to limit themselves to what is in there. This was one of the arguments against introducing it in the US to begin with---listing a set of fundamental rights may result in the loss of all others. IIRC, there was a push to introduce such a thing over here as well, but it didn't gain much momentum for that reason.
Not to mention that it takes nothing short of an Act of God to get a constitutional amendment through in Australia.
Why strain the postal system? Over my way (Australia) everyone (yes, everyone, it's compulsory) goes out to the polling place on a Saturday afternoon, and we know who will form the government that very night.
The point is that you can't use the game, and hence you don't get what you pay for.
Similarly in Australia. If you tried claiming that the federal elections were being rigged, people would think you were mad unless you had some incredibly good evidence.
Isn't news.com.au owned by News Corp? Sounds fairly similar...
And, of course, whether the standard is any good. OOXML has all sorts of crap in it, including broken date handling, unspecified units, etc. etc.
But if you drop a rock onto a pedestrian and no-one is around to observe it, has an innocent bystander been seriously hurt?
The idea that a government should be able to deny access to social services to any citizen/permanent resident is ridiculous. Education is something that should be encouraged, and not denied to anyone.
I am from Australia---we've had a system of government-funded university tuition for many years, though, in the last 20 years or so, students have been required to pay a contribution (loaned by the government, and repaid through the tax system). An engineering degree currently costs the student AU$7118/year, for instance. This is available to all citizens, permanent residents, and New Zealand citizens, among others (though non-citizens must pay their contribution up-front). Disqualifying any citizen (see Wikipedia for more information) would be a rather unpopular move.
What does one have to do to be disqualified from receiving funding in the US? I have heard that a criminal record was sufficient, but I have trouble believing that.
I'm not disagreeing at all. I'm from Australia, where ISPs almost universally cap usage. That said, most ISPs host (unmetered) mirrors for the more popular legit stuff, so those of us with a nice ADSL2+ connection can use our them for something without suffering the rather slower transatlantic link.
Such a scheme has been used in Australia since forever. Though we sell it as a 20GB/40GB/whatever cap.
If that's the case, then they should stop selling their product as though it isn't. Claiming that customers can download as much as they want before cutting them off for downloading too much is false advertising, plain and simple. Don't you have a consumer affairs organisation to deal with this kind of thing?
You're right---I missed out energy considerations (that's why I initially mentioned efficiency).
The reaction's enthalpy is 1.76 x 10^7 eV/reaction, or 1.695 x 10^12 J/mol. Worldwide power usage is approximately 1.5 x 10^13 W[1], so, if all power was supplied by fusion, you would get approximately ten moles per second as a by-product, assuming perfect efficiency. Multiply the figure by three or five to account for inefficiencies in the power generation, divide by some number to account for lost helium---the energy of the alpha particle (helium-4 nucleus) is in the MeV range, and you'd never get it all (it's more radiation than gas).
Let me repeat that: at current demand levels, a figure on the order of 10 mol/s would be produced (moles are equivalent to cubic metres for gases at STP) worldwide cheaply as a byproduct of power production (multiply or divide by whatever number you like to account for inefficiencies---this is just an order of magnitude, and 50 mol/s is probably closer to the upper bound). The rest would have the cost that I mentioned before.
References:
Possibly, but for each helium atom produced, energy in the MeV range is emitted. It's 4AM and I'm too tired to make the calculations work out, but to make it work out (if it could be done at all), you would need a very large fraction of the world's power generation to be carried out with fusion. With that much energy, it looks as though it should not be able to produce sufficient quantities of helium at the necessary power levels to match demand. I could be wrong though.
That's not really practical. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a fusion reactor can convert 10% of the power from its reaction to electricity.
The most promising reaction, according to Wikipedia, is that of:
First of all, there is the Deuterium. This is harvested from Heavy Water, water that has one or two deuterium atoms instead of normal hydrogen atoms. This heavy water costs approximately US$300/kg[2] for consumers, and the deuterium produced approximately US$1/L[3]. This is a lot. Deuterium has a molar mass of approximately two g/mol, with one mole of a gas taking up one cubic metre at standard temperature/pressure. At US$1/L, this deuterium costs US$1000/m^3, or US$500/g (I'm assuming that gases volumes refer to STP. If I'm wrong, feel free to point this out---I've never dealt with bottled gas).
Next is tritium. At US$30000/g[4], it's hardly cheap. For the reaction to take place, you need the two isotopes to react stoichiometrically (in the proper ratio). IOW, for each mole of tritium, you need a mole of deuterium. Converted to masses (tritium's molar mass is approximately three), this means that you need a ratio of 3g tritium : 2g deuterium. For each mole of Tritium, you will get a mole of helium. Because we're dealing with helium-4, the molar mass is ~4g/mol. The rest of the mass is made up by the neutron; this doesn't matter to us. Therefore, to make four grams of helium, we need three grams of tritium, and two grams of deuterium. At the prices given, this is US$91000 per four grams of helium, which, because it is one mole, is one cubic metre at STP. Helium, as of 1986 (yeah, yeah, I know) cost US$37.50/1000f^3. This is about US$1.30/m^3. Think about those prices. 9.1 x 10^4 US$/m^3, vs 1.3 x 10^0 US$/m^3. That's almost five orders of magnitude. There would have to be be a bloody good reason to be using helium at those prices.
In conclusion:
Helium-4 produced by fusion will cost five orders of magnitude more than current prices
References:
- Cryogenics---including the superconducters used by MRI machines---often uses liquid Helium, though MRI machines might be using high-temperature superconductors now; I'm not sure.
- Welding---the various *IG welders use helium in mixtures of gases to protect the high-temperature metal from the air.
- Lasers---Helium-Neon lasers are sometimes used.
Wikipedia's Helium page. has more details.Would I be correct in assuming that this was a private school? My (well, now former) school put forth a vaguely-defined sedition policy (they didn't call it that, but they seemed quite careful to use the same wording as the actual law, with s/Sovereign/school/g applied) that could, in theory, cause something like that to happen. If they were to try, though, they'd probably end up in more trouble than they'd save, though.
Those current-affairs shows could be good for something after all.