When you have huge, systemic, macroeconomic catastrophes resulting from the actions of large numbers of trustees of wealth, you have to start looking for the culprit in the "science" of economics.
If civil engineers refused to back up their calculations with formulas derived from physics, they'd be liable when their structures fail. That's why they are lucky physicists -- at least the classical physicists upon which they base their calculations -- were fundamentally competent.
The "quant geeks" are similarly limited -- but their problem is that their "physicists" are better than Court Astrologers -- but not by much.
The real meaning of "5000" is probably something reasonable but -- but whatever it is, the newspaper article should have reported a much lower number in appropriate units. I mean its great that a 7th grader did something other than try to make like Snoop Dog, but let's be real.
his 3D cells would provide 500 times more light absorption than commercially-available solar cells
Since commercially-available solar cells convert around 10% of the incident light to electricity, we can safely say that they are "absorbing" at least 10%.
So, if they absorb 500 times that amount we have a solar cell with 500*10% = 5000% conversion efficiency!
YOWZAH!!!
Now the skeptics out there will claim that this violates conservation of energy, but did they stop to consider that his may be a new form of low temperature solid state nuclear fusion merely catalyzed by solar radiation???
Property rights are enforceable only by a sovereign entity. What sovereign entity would you posit enforce Youtube's property rights but government and what distinguishes said sovereign entity from government?
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
How, exactly, are we to interpret this sentence if not that terrorism is a fundamental human right?
That's the best argument I've seen against this political strategy. Thanks.
However, the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution (even as abused as it has been historically) does legitimately extend to authority over railroads. Hence federal legislation can declare the railroad easements to include the right to bury direct-current superconducting cables on the existing rights of way.
I'm sure CSX would consider leasing you some air rights.
Basically because of the original problem: "Conservation only" environmentalists have acquired an asymmetric weapon: Use legal technicalities during environmental impact litigation to delay implementation of projects to cause time value damage of sufficient magnitude to deter development of new capacity. You must provide them with something real that they want. I understand that opponents can tell them that railroad electrification is an insignificant sliver in the energy use pie chart and that the capacity being created is going to increase over-all energy utilization and perhaps they will take out the project anyway, but the strategy has at least a prayer of getting them to swallow the medicine since it is sugar-coated.
Perhaps these guys don't understand the complexities of/problems with transmitting cryogenic fluids over distances longer than, say 1000 meters, as well:
At connections of productions units like offshore windmill parks the energy losses can be reduced by ~40% by use of RTD design HTS [high temperature superconductor -- jab] cables.
There are far fewer locomotives and tracks than there are cars and roads, and many, if not most, locomotives are already electric -- its just that they have their own on-board generators.
Moreover, the topology of the rails follows the food distribution routes, which generally goes through the same routes that you want electricity from wind to go through from the midwest to the coasts.
I will argue that the strategic target for wind energy advocates should be the passage of legislation promoting the electrification of the nation's railways.
This is crucial to the wind energy advocates (and all other electrical energy source advocates) as a consequence of the following facts:
1) The main goal of public policy reform of wind energy advocates is to put into place transmission lines to carry electricity from the high wind potential areas (such as the Midwest) to the high utilization areas (such as the coasts).
2) The main obstacle to constructing said transmission lines is the delays suffered by projects subjected to environmental impact litigation following from attempts to obtain rights of way.
3) The main motive for said environmental impact litigation is a misguided environmental movement's tendency to see any increase of capacity in the nation's energy capacity as harmful to the environment. This cannot be addressed directly in legislation (as has already been attempted, btw) due to the fact that the environmentalist tactic is to use legal tricks to get the courts to delay implementation of systems until the time value of those systems has run out.
4) The electrification of railroads is a proven technology -- indeed the largest railroad line in the world, the Trans-Siberian, is electrified.
5) The "conservation only" environmentalists will not oppose going to electrified railroads since they already see decreasing the energy use of railways and increase of railroad utilization -- which would result from railroad electrification -- as a way of reducing the nation's energy utilization.
6) The railroads already have rights of way that approximate the topology and coverage of transmission lines required to distribute wind electricity from sources to destinations.
7) The use of cryogenic transmission lines buried under the tracks would render the transmission capacity of virtually all existing railroad rights of way enormously greater than the possible use by the railways.
The Solar Updraft Tower Algae Biosphere houses 200,000 people and supplies all their needs at US standards of consumption with an ecological footprint less than 100th of the current industrialized nations.
It does so in a carbon neutral way by starting with food production -- ending with a form that could quite easily be interpreted as a 1,000 meter high Minaret rising at the center of the population.
Net present value of all outputs of such a "Minaret Biosphere": $3.5 billion.
What you don't get is that the land barons are flesh and blood creatures like the rest of us. When they start messing with our flesh and blood, which is what they are doing by getting the government to subsidize their property rights at the expense of our families -- with our ability to raise children...
Ultimately, they depend on the government for their property rights and the government depends on the people, despite the strenuous efforts of those currently residing in Washington, D.C.
Outsourcing is (relatively) good!
on
My Job Went To India
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Its better to lose a job to an Indian living in India than to an Indian living elsewhere.
Ultimately, land is all "we" have and we shouldn't be giving it up to others without either a fight or a frontier to which we can escape.
The problem with Perl isn't with succinct code -- its with a lack of intelligible documentation and intelligent coders.
If you look at the way technical academic papers are written, there are mathematical expressions that those outside the discipline don't understand. The text surrounding the mathematical expressions is there to make the intent of the math transparent. But no one in their right mind would try to get technical academic papers to use formalisms that weren't succinct just because it would make the math more "readable". On the contrary -- it is the job of the reader to learn the new formalisms with the assumption that the author introduces them only when necessary (profitable in more succinctly describing the model of the world expressed).
Yes, bad scholars will behave the way bad coders behave and create new symbols and/or new constructs rather than reusing existing -- well established and widely understood -- ones. This is frequently due to a lack of intelligence (leading to ignorance of prior symbols).
The goal of coders should be first to come up with the right formalisms -- the most succinct "math" if you will. If necessary, they should relate this form to previously accepted optimal forms -- and make a damn good argument for the new forms where introduced. They should then make their succinct formalisms intelligible by surrounding them with explanatory prose, the way an academic paper explains its succinct formalisms -- and provides cites to the relevant prior works.
There was some move in this direction with something called "literate programming".
Most Perl constructs that frustrate readers are no more onerous nor less useful than highly used formalisms in academic papers that make expressing things in a rigorously precise, and ultimately more intelligible, manner practical. The annoyances attributable to the Perl4 -> Perl5 transition are relatively minor compared to the unintelligible things that appear in the code of most programmers in any language.
Actually, I knew Jeff Smith back in the 80s when he was associated with the Georgists in San Diego and must credit him with starting me thinking along the lines of economic rent.
My thinking has advanced some since then but the basic idea of distributing, as citizens' dividend the economic rent falling on zero-risk assets is a good one.
So the presuming idea that governments and nations can have legitimate possession of land opens oneself to "serious ridicule".
OK.
I'm willing to discuss a pure Lockean notion of legitimate land tenure since that is precisely where I'm coming from, but if you "seriously" think that presuming the current zeitgeist opens oneself to "serious ridicule" then I have to wonder what company you keep.
The citizens are the designated beneficiaries of the land trust -- the posterity of the founders of the nation. Is there something wrong with a landlord collecting rent? Is there something wrong with inheritance?
When you acquire property, it is your property that entails a need for government service because of the need to enforce the rights to that property. So you pay a use fee while you enjoy the property rights under the protection of that government -- regardless of your citizenship.
Income? Expenses? Value added?
That's economic activity by which property rights change. Its silly to tax changes of property rights.
For example, when has a net asset tax as a replacement for taxes on economic activity been tried?
The closest thing to it in history is the use of the land value tax, which, in every instance it has been tried, has resulted in astounding economic growth. Early Hong Kong is one example.
As for the citizen's dividend, it is a vastly superior way of allocating economic rent than either public or private sector rent seeking.
What is the primary service of government if not protection of property rights? Where should the use fee for those services come from? Transactions? Do you understand the difference between a derivative and integral?
Slashdot Mirror
If civil engineers refused to back up their calculations with formulas derived from physics, they'd be liable when their structures fail. That's why they are lucky physicists -- at least the classical physicists upon which they base their calculations -- were fundamentally competent. The "quant geeks" are similarly limited -- but their problem is that their "physicists" are better than Court Astrologers -- but not by much.
The real meaning of "5000" is probably something reasonable but -- but whatever it is, the newspaper article should have reported a much lower number in appropriate units. I mean its great that a 7th grader did something other than try to make like Snoop Dog, but let's be real.
Since commercially-available solar cells convert around 10% of the incident light to electricity, we can safely say that they are "absorbing" at least 10%.
So, if they absorb 500 times that amount we have a solar cell with 500*10% = 5000% conversion efficiency!
YOWZAH!!!
Now the skeptics out there will claim that this violates conservation of energy, but did they stop to consider that his may be a new form of low temperature solid state nuclear fusion merely catalyzed by solar radiation???
HMMMMM?????
So now you are ready to address my original question.
Property rights are enforceable only by a sovereign entity. What sovereign entity would you posit enforce Youtube's property rights but government and what distinguishes said sovereign entity from government?
Since government precedes property rights the ball is in your court, Ayn.
How, exactly, are we to interpret this sentence if not that terrorism is a fundamental human right?
Obviously the government should regulate VR under the doctrine that such discrimination represents a "badge of slavery".
However, the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution (even as abused as it has been historically) does legitimately extend to authority over railroads. Hence federal legislation can declare the railroad easements to include the right to bury direct-current superconducting cables on the existing rights of way.
Thanks for remembering...
I'm sure CSX would consider leasing you some air rights.
Basically because of the original problem: "Conservation only" environmentalists have acquired an asymmetric weapon: Use legal technicalities during environmental impact litigation to delay implementation of projects to cause time value damage of sufficient magnitude to deter development of new capacity. You must provide them with something real that they want. I understand that opponents can tell them that railroad electrification is an insignificant sliver in the energy use pie chart and that the capacity being created is going to increase over-all energy utilization and perhaps they will take out the project anyway, but the strategy has at least a prayer of getting them to swallow the medicine since it is sugar-coated.
Moreover, the topology of the rails follows the food distribution routes, which generally goes through the same routes that you want electricity from wind to go through from the midwest to the coasts.
Time-to-solution is crucial here.
This is crucial to the wind energy advocates (and all other electrical energy source advocates) as a consequence of the following facts:
1) The main goal of public policy reform of wind energy advocates is to put into place transmission lines to carry electricity from the high wind potential areas (such as the Midwest) to the high utilization areas (such as the coasts).
2) The main obstacle to constructing said transmission lines is the delays suffered by projects subjected to environmental impact litigation following from attempts to obtain rights of way.
3) The main motive for said environmental impact litigation is a misguided environmental movement's tendency to see any increase of capacity in the nation's energy capacity as harmful to the environment. This cannot be addressed directly in legislation (as has already been attempted, btw) due to the fact that the environmentalist tactic is to use legal tricks to get the courts to delay implementation of systems until the time value of those systems has run out.
4) The electrification of railroads is a proven technology -- indeed the largest railroad line in the world, the Trans-Siberian, is electrified.
5) The "conservation only" environmentalists will not oppose going to electrified railroads since they already see decreasing the energy use of railways and increase of railroad utilization -- which would result from railroad electrification -- as a way of reducing the nation's energy utilization.
6) The railroads already have rights of way that approximate the topology and coverage of transmission lines required to distribute wind electricity from sources to destinations.
7) The use of cryogenic transmission lines buried under the tracks would render the transmission capacity of virtually all existing railroad rights of way enormously greater than the possible use by the railways.
It does so in a carbon neutral way by starting with food production -- ending with a form that could quite easily be interpreted as a 1,000 meter high Minaret rising at the center of the population.
Net present value of all outputs of such a "Minaret Biosphere": $3.5 billion.
Ultimately, they depend on the government for their property rights and the government depends on the people, despite the strenuous efforts of those currently residing in Washington, D.C.
Ultimately, land is all "we" have and we shouldn't be giving it up to others without either a fight or a frontier to which we can escape.
If you look at the way technical academic papers are written, there are mathematical expressions that those outside the discipline don't understand. The text surrounding the mathematical expressions is there to make the intent of the math transparent. But no one in their right mind would try to get technical academic papers to use formalisms that weren't succinct just because it would make the math more "readable". On the contrary -- it is the job of the reader to learn the new formalisms with the assumption that the author introduces them only when necessary (profitable in more succinctly describing the model of the world expressed).
Yes, bad scholars will behave the way bad coders behave and create new symbols and/or new constructs rather than reusing existing -- well established and widely understood -- ones. This is frequently due to a lack of intelligence (leading to ignorance of prior symbols).
The goal of coders should be first to come up with the right formalisms -- the most succinct "math" if you will. If necessary, they should relate this form to previously accepted optimal forms -- and make a damn good argument for the new forms where introduced. They should then make their succinct formalisms intelligible by surrounding them with explanatory prose, the way an academic paper explains its succinct formalisms -- and provides cites to the relevant prior works.
There was some move in this direction with something called "literate programming".
Most Perl constructs that frustrate readers are no more onerous nor less useful than highly used formalisms in academic papers that make expressing things in a rigorously precise, and ultimately more intelligible, manner practical. The annoyances attributable to the Perl4 -> Perl5 transition are relatively minor compared to the unintelligible things that appear in the code of most programmers in any language.
The WSJ is notorious for poor research of the most critical issues.
Actually, I knew Jeff Smith back in the 80s when he was associated with the Georgists in San Diego and must credit him with starting me thinking along the lines of economic rent. My thinking has advanced some since then but the basic idea of distributing, as citizens' dividend the economic rent falling on zero-risk assets is a good one.
OK.
I'm willing to discuss a pure Lockean notion of legitimate land tenure since that is precisely where I'm coming from, but if you "seriously" think that presuming the current zeitgeist opens oneself to "serious ridicule" then I have to wonder what company you keep.
What is the smartest action for someone who owns T-bills? Do nothing and wait for your check?
The citizens are the designated beneficiaries of the land trust -- the posterity of the founders of the nation. Is there something wrong with a landlord collecting rent? Is there something wrong with inheritance?
Income? Expenses? Value added?
That's economic activity by which property rights change. Its silly to tax changes of property rights.
For example, when has a net asset tax as a replacement for taxes on economic activity been tried?
The closest thing to it in history is the use of the land value tax, which, in every instance it has been tried, has resulted in astounding economic growth. Early Hong Kong is one example.
As for the citizen's dividend, it is a vastly superior way of allocating economic rent than either public or private sector rent seeking.
What is the primary service of government if not protection of property rights? Where should the use fee for those services come from? Transactions? Do you understand the difference between a derivative and integral?