Anyone who was around during the dot-com era remembers how it was H-1b limits that caused the crash of that wonderful era. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I won't be surprised at all
if the whole multithreading idea turns out to be a flop, worse than the
"Titanium"
approach that was supposed to be so terrific -- until it turned out that the
wished-for compilers were basically impossible to write.
Note that the link is to the Wikipedia article on "Itanium", not "Titanium".
Is this a misprint?
Did Knuth misspeak?
While it is laudable that more companies are sponsoring prize competitions, greater care must be taken when specifying things like "cost" or, as in the case of the Progressive Automotive X-Prize being "production capable", etc.
That's why in my specification of the O-Prize, which substitutes vegan omega-3 oils for fish oils, I avoided specifying those things. Rather, I just guaranteed a monthly market of a certain dollar amount, with sales going to the lowest bidder:
1) Enhance neurological development via nutritional supplementation
with omega-3 fatty acids and,
2) Provide an abundant renewable source of green or environmentally
friendly fuel oil.
A fixed dollar amount is withdrawn from the prize fund each month to
purchase algae oil from the lowest price source(s) certified for the
target market. That quantity of algae oil is then resold to the target
market and the funds are added to the prize fund. When the lowest
price certified sources can compete with the target market, that stage
of the O-Prize has finished.
The O-Prize is designed to let algae cultivation techniques mature in
two stages, building both technology and popular support for both
environmentally friendly and humanitarian purposes.
This racetrack instability is actually a well known problem with annular combustion chambers such as those used with the toroidal aerospike engine. One of the main virtues of vortex engines, like Orbital Technologies or the ultracentrifugal one invented by Roger Gregory and myself, is that the coriolis effect distorts the wave front sending it into the wall of the combustion chamber. In theory, at least, this should disrupt the resonance enough to prevent destructive standing waves.
Experiments have not been conducted to test this theory yet to the best of my knowledge.
The government has yet to release the names of the winning bidders, but it may do so in the next few weeks.
"may" do so? Did the New York Times misspell "must"? Or is it that there is a lack of clarity in the FCC's administrative law as to how long it can go before it makes public the detailed results of the auction?
Inaccessibly placed solar panels (such as the one suggested placed atop trees) are basically worthless in temperate environments due to snow. You can even have an excessive number of such mesh nodes distributed in tree-tops and the redundancy will essentially do you no good due to the fact that snow blankets them all -- and right when you most need communications for the rural areas which are, then, snowed-in.
Time was I might have opposed the asset taxation of a patent held by the original inventor. However, now that "non-obviousness to those skilled in the art" has been degraded to mean "non-obvious to people pretending to be skilled in the art", the patent system has become dysfunctional and there is no good reason to treat it as a natural right of the inventor.
Here's what I mean by "natural right of the inventor":
Since the primary function of government is the protection of non-subsistence property rights, it is sensible to charge a use fee for those rights. Note, I said "non-subsistence" property rights. The point here is that house and tools of the trade are protected from confiscation under bankruptcy law precisely because they are subsistence assets. Where government does not exist, subsistence properties are typically defended by the occupant, whose life is sustained by those assets. Government brings precisely the property rights we associate with civilization -- assets beyond home and tools of the trade.
Given the relatively liquid nature of civilization, it makes sense to define "subsistence" in some dollar value of assets. Various ways of defining the dollar value are all approximately equal:
* The median price of housing a person plus the median price of capitalizing a job.
* The threshold used by the SEC for "qualified investor".
* The level of savings insured by the FDIC.
* Or, for the historically inclined: The market price of 20 arable acres in the Confederate south, a mule, a plow and a small house on such land.
Until a citizen accumulates the subsistence net asset level, they should pay no tax and then pay tax only on the net assets they own above subsistence.
Assessments should be of the liquidation value of the assets ("liquidation value in place"). The owner can force the government to purchase his asset at the assessed value. The liquidation value can be set by the simple expedient of letting anyone place a bid on an asset by putting the amount bid in an escrow account with the Treasury, at the risk free interest rate (historically the interest rate on short term US treasury instruments), this being the basis for Modern Portfolio theory. Other forms of taxation could be eliminated in a revenue neutral way if net assets, in excess of subsistence levels, were taxed at the same rate.
Indeed, given the centralization of asset ownership that has resulted from the subsidy of non-subsistence property, a subsidy inherent in civilization, it may be the failure to use this tax base is the ultimate cause of the repeated decay of civilizations from ancient times.
Any skill that an engineer who can't pay the mortgage has is obviously an obsolete technical skill.
It couldn't be that the economy is run by a bunch of imbeciles.
Software and business processes are simply two more media within which invention may occur. It makes no sense to try to put certain media off limit to patents.
There are only 3 criteria for a patent: Utility, originality and disclosure.
Utility means it must be worth money.
Originality means it must not have been done before nor even be obvious from that which has been done before.
Real patent reform would simplify the current system by:
1) Removing all patent fees. Patent fees are an incredibly regressive tax on the most critical point of civilization: Creation.
2) Letting anyone establish priority by the simple expedient of posting to Usenet a digitally signed disclosure via an NNTP server at the Patent Office(s) which would then re-sign and time stamp the disclosure before replicating to Usenet repositories around the world.
3) By shifting the tax base to net assets rather than economic activity, thereby removing the government subsidy for centralized wealth that keeps centralizing wealth in the hands of the technically stupid who then keep useful, original and fully disclosed technologies from receiving appropriate bids. A perhaps non-obvious concomitant is to distribute the revenues so raised evenly to all citizens in a citizens dividend (raising the always-important question of who should really be a "citizen").
It is this last item that is critical to understand for real patent reform -- particularly with respect to the concept of "disclosure". In science, a key goal is to publish reproducible experiments. Reproducibility is also key to patent disclosure. The idea is that anyone with a reasonable, publicly available education in the relevant discipline(s) should be able to take the disclosure and "reproduce" the value of the invention.
What that means is that there should, for any "valuable" invention, be no lack of bids to buy the patent outright -- bids whose magnitude are an objective measure of the invention's utility.
The government then ensures that the technology is put to maximum use in the economy by removing taxes on economic activities, including those activities that make use of the technology, and replacing those taxes with a use fee for net assets in excess of subsistence properties, said fee assessed at the property's "no brainer" value times the "no brainer" rate of interest.
This will raise the hackles of many-a pseudo-libertarian so I'll repeat to them the following reason this is consistent with libertarian philosophy:
The function of government is to protect property rights, beyond those subsistence assets an individual would self-defend (home, tools, small territory/farm/hunting land) in the "state of nature" (perhaps you're more comfortable with Lockean terminology than "anarcho capitalism"). A precondition of government is that all property rights are under some sort of "duress": The threat of "taking" by force or fraud. This is the basis for using liquidation rather than market value. Moreover, since land is the most targeted asset for taking (even more than gold) it makes sense that the "in place" valuation be used since the taker would prefer their synergistic value.
Now as to the interest rate: When banks use the net present value calculation to estimate the value of collateral -- assets which they "take" upon breach of contract -- is by thinking about the profit stream they, as naive owners, would be virtually certain to obtain by taking control of the asset. Since they are naive, they must not use the profit stream expected from knowledgeable owners, but rather by virtually any competent adult. It is in that sense that I mean "no brainer". So they project their "no brainer" profit stream upon which they need to run a net present value calculation, which means they need to pick an interest rate. They pick the interest rate that corresponds to being able to turn that asset into cash over the short term and sock it away somewhere over the short term until they can loan it out more intelligently: the risk free interest rate of modern portfolio theory aka short term tre
Look, Malda, if you're bucking for inclusion with the big boys, might I suggest you try a bit better bargaining position than indicated by your coverage from the New York Times where you, at a time when there were NO digg stories about Ron Paul listed as "popular", based your theory of social networking on the "observation" of how "biased" digg was for Ron Paul?
These guys don't increase their bid for you on the basis of how much you beg to be their little bitch.
You're scoring pretty high on the obtuseness meter here.
You can't put aside the choice of valuation of the property while discussing the interest rate to apply as the use fee. The two are linked by the net present value calculation, as you yourself pointed out!
The function of government is to protect property rights, beyond those subsistence assets an individual would self-defend (home, tools, small territory/farm/hunting land) in "the state of nature" (perhaps you're more comfortable with Lockean terminology than "anarcho capitalism"). A precondition of government is that all property rights are under some sort of "duress": The threat of "taking" by force or fraud. This is the basis for using liquidation rather than market value. Moreover, since land is the most targeted asset for taking (even more than gold) it makes sense that the "in place" valuation be used since the taker would prefer their synergistic value.
Now as to the interest rate: When banks use the net present value calculation to estimate the value of collateral -- assets which they "take" upon breach of contract -- is by thinking about the profit stream they, as naive owners, would be virtually certain to obtain by taking control of the asset. Since they are naive, they must not use the profit stream expected from knowledgeable owners, but rather by virtually any competent adult. It is in that sense that I mean "no brainer". So they project their "no brainer" profit stream upon which they need to run a net present value calculation, which means they need to pick an interest rate. They pick the interest rate that corresponds to being able to turn that asset into cash over the short term and sock it away somewhere over the short term until they can loan it out more intelligently: the risk free interest rate of modern portfolio theory aka short term treasury rate.
Now, you might ask, why does the government "take" all this "no brainer" profit from non-subsistence property rights to protect those property rights and then redistribute them to everyone evenly in a citizen's dividends? Simple: That's how you turn the systemic incentive for taking into a systemic incentive for upholding those non-subsistence property rights without removing the incentive for knowledgeable ownership. That's what I mean by "non distorting".
Could you perhaps try thinking before insulting those with whom you are attempting "communication" oh thou PSEUDONYMOUS one?
What bankers call "liquidation value in place". Essentially, the use fee would be the risk free rate of return on the no-brainer value of the property as defined by bankers looking for loan collateral.
Market distortions basically occur when the government departs from the ideal anarcho capitalist system where everything is market driven, including force. Economists like to talk about it in different terms -- such as "no deadweight loss" due to "perfect inelasticity" but such perfection never really exists.
There should be no taxes -- only use fees for net property rights (with an exemption for one's subsistence assets up to, say $500k).
If the use fee were the short term treasury rate (also known as the risk free interest rate in modern portfolio theory), then it would not distort the market. Indeed, it would terminate abuses of property rights such as we see with domain grabbing, spectrum hoarding and last but not least, Microsoft.
Better yet, instead of disbursing it via political processes so far removed from the people no one but professional parasites can influence it, take the use fees and evenly divide them throughout the population to give everyone a uniform incentive to uphold enforcement of property rights starting, of course, with the sovereignty of a nation whose state is so wisely crafted.
Furthermore, even the childless "subsistence" wrought by international labor arbitrage is now threatened, according to MSN Money:
Stephanie Kaniecki, a spokesperson for the Credit Counseling Network, says CCN has been conducting focus groups to better understand their potential clients' debt problems. "It's a real eye-opener," she says, describing families with incomes of about $40,000 who are carrying $10,000 in debt, much of it from living expenses like paying their mortgage or tuition bills with credit.
So the reality is that even after foregoing children and frivolities, many households are finding themselves relying on credit -- something called "survival debt".
While it is possible for many of these "survival debt" households to further reeduce even their survival expenses, frequently the first thing to go is health insurance and preventative medical checkups. The best they can do is move to lower cost of living areas but this just as frequently results in fewer employment options as a cushion against underemployment.
The issue is what is really going on with millions of families who want to but cannot afford to have children. Your caricatures apply to many families certainly. There are many households getting in over their head in mortgages for McMansions they couldn't afford no matter how otherwise frugal, racking up credit card debt for things like 52" plasma HDTVs, etc. But the reality for many other households is that they are frugal, hardworking and still not able to provide sufficient security to make a responsible choice to bring children into the world.
This gets down to a fundamental law of economics called "the iron law of wages" wherein international arbitrage in labor results, in classical economics terminology, in wages settling out at "subsistence". In a world without birth control/abortion/women's rights, etc. this could not result "subsistence" going lower than the cost of reproduction. Nowadays, however, it can.
The big "exceptions" to this are the cultures, such as Mexicans, Indians, etc. being imported that have retained aspect of the old times where treatment of reproduction is different. Yes those families can have children for less security and, certainly in the case of Mexicans, they make extensive use of social safety nets for their children paid for by others.
PS: I didn't mention my personal circumstances. You can rest assured they are quite different from your imputations.
"There are currently no guidelines regulating the private acquisition of biological, chemical, and radiological detectors," warned Falkenrath, adding that this law was suggested by officials within the Department of Homeland Security.
This demonstrates how the movement of job security to government actually affects society:
Whenever you create a new bureaucracy, you have created a few more beds in the economic fallout shelter known as "civil service" where people can escape from the very real degradation of households due to loss of job security in the general economy.
These civil service positions are so vital for such basic things as having children in a reasonably secure environment and providing basic healthcare for them that people are literally willing to kill other citizens to get them. Among the many ways they kill other citizens are the unintended side-effects of activist bureaucracies trying to justify their 40-hours a week, sitting around in their government offices. They come up with "ideas" for how to justify their jobs and then, empowered by the time on their hands as well as the legislative mandates of their positions, proceed to terrorize their fellow citizens. I mean, after all, if they did nothing they might end up like the rest of us: paycheck to paycheck not knowing if we're going to be facing a foreclosure and potentially even homelessness for our families due to long term unemployment.
The ML866, in using dynamic lift, is taking one step toward the aeronautic transportation system that could displace all current transporation needs in the event that the evolution of virulence, driven by horizontal transmission in an age of mass migration, forces the collapse of civilization (city-based population structure).
A primary function of cities is transport of food.
Once food production and consumption is localized, the need for energy is radically reduced to that required to fill temporary localized shortages due to food production short-falls.
The residual function of cities is to provide routing and consolidation of food transport for famine relief.
Cities provide 2 primary functions in transport:
1. Minimization of road construction by providing central hubs.
2. Load consolidation for optimal use of fixed-capacity vehicles.
Transport systems minimizing these two functions minimize the residual transportation need for cities.
Aerospace transport renders road construction moot, hence is quite desirable. Shipping via ocean has this benefit to a lesser extent. Land transport should be limited to intra-deme if at all possible.
Variable sized transport vehicles minimizes load consolidation. Vehicle technologies that are relatively insensitive to scale are therefore immensely valuable.
Since human labor is costly and one of the primary failures of civilizations is due to transport of pathogens along trade-routes and humans are the primary vectors of human pathogens, autonomous and/or remote control transport technologies are immensely valuable.
The ideal primary mode of inter-deme agricultural transport is therefore probably:
1. Aeronautic.
2. Scalable.
3. Autonomous.
A Possible Residual Transporter
There is at least one type of transporter than can fulfill the requirements for residual, inter-deme transportation based on autonomous balloon technology.
The large variations in wind direction and speed with altitude, coupled with high speed electronic communication, computation, global positioning and weather analysis creates an opportunity for autonomous hydrogen balloons that fulfill the requirements to empty the cities of transportation hub infrastructure.
The long duration balloon experiment is very similar in some ways to a system designed to fulfill the requirements of emptying the cities.
With vertical sections of the "pumpkin" alternating between aluminized and clear, the sections could act as a series of horizontally polarized high-gain antennae for mesh communication as well as a reflector for a strobe. The vertical axis would have a Dyneema draw string that could tighten down the "pumpkin" shape into a toroidal shape to decrease volume and thereby decrease buoyancy, reversibly. Another potential created by this is to have the rib strings extend together into a composite draw-string in the center with the component strings, going down the sides of the sections, differentially tightened to create an asymmetry in the toroid so that during descent or ascent the balloon could experience some horizontal thrust, somewhat like a parachute. This might be useful during the terminal phase of the flight to tether it precisely (these would be unlikely to land--merely be under control of a ground mooring).
The top of the envelope would most likely have solar cells coated inside of the Mylar. Polymer solar cells are ideal.
Reversible hydrogen fuel cells would provide electrical power as well as converting water and excess power into hydrogen when needed. This aspect of the design is the most problematic at first since the number of catalysts useful for reversible fuel cells are relatively rare and will require some fraction of the transporters to be used on an ongoing basis to
Just because Public Law 101-611 requires NASA to, where possible, procure launch services from the private sector in a commercially reasonable is no reason to stop government bureaucrats from announcing they intend to offer government services that compete in commercial markets. This is NASA after all -- the organization that is bringing the frontier of space to humanity real soon now for the last half century...
Thank goodness they didn't do anything nasty to NASA the way they did to the satellite bureaucrats back in the 1960s when they banned government from competing with commercial satellite industries, or we might have seen manned space flight basically stay stagnated with access limited to an elite few chosen for reasons having little to do with opening a real frontier for humanity!
This is yet another reason to devolve the Federal government's powers to the States. Idiots like this don't understand the reason common carriers are not liable for transporting illegal goods. Fine. They're idiots playing with knives. Take away their toys before someone gets hurt.
At least at the State level there is more of a chance that someone with their feet on the ground will be heard.
If you look at "techie wages" adjusted for the increased price of real estate in places like Silicon Valley, and the lessening of the security of those wages, especially approaching middle age, then you see the real reason why mere propaganda isn't going to draw young people into tech fields ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who was around during the dot-com era remembers how it was H-1b limits that caused the crash of that wonderful era. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
This racetrack instability is actually a well known problem with annular combustion chambers such as those used with the toroidal aerospike engine. One of the main virtues of vortex engines, like Orbital Technologies or the ultracentrifugal one invented by Roger Gregory and myself, is that the coriolis effect distorts the wave front sending it into the wall of the combustion chamber. In theory, at least, this should disrupt the resonance enough to prevent destructive standing waves. Experiments have not been conducted to test this theory yet to the best of my knowledge.
The government has yet to release the names of the winning bidders, but it may do so in the next few weeks.
"may" do so? Did the New York Times misspell "must"? Or is it that there is a lack of clarity in the FCC's administrative law as to how long it can go before it makes public the detailed results of the auction?
Inaccessibly placed solar panels (such as the one suggested placed atop trees) are basically worthless in temperate environments due to snow. You can even have an excessive number of such mesh nodes distributed in tree-tops and the redundancy will essentially do you no good due to the fact that snow blankets them all -- and right when you most need communications for the rural areas which are, then, snowed-in.
Time was I might have opposed the asset taxation of a patent held by the original inventor. However, now that "non-obviousness to those skilled in the art" has been degraded to mean "non-obvious to people pretending to be skilled in the art", the patent system has become dysfunctional and there is no good reason to treat it as a natural right of the inventor.
Here's what I mean by "natural right of the inventor":
Since the primary function of government is the protection of non-subsistence property rights, it is sensible to charge a use fee for those rights. Note, I said "non-subsistence" property rights. The point here is that house and tools of the trade are protected from confiscation under bankruptcy law precisely because they are subsistence assets. Where government does not exist, subsistence properties are typically defended by the occupant, whose life is sustained by those assets. Government brings precisely the property rights we associate with civilization -- assets beyond home and tools of the trade.
Given the relatively liquid nature of civilization, it makes sense to define "subsistence" in some dollar value of assets. Various ways of defining the dollar value are all approximately equal:
* The median price of housing a person plus the median price of capitalizing a job.
* The threshold used by the SEC for "qualified investor".
* The level of savings insured by the FDIC.
* Or, for the historically inclined: The market price of 20 arable acres in the Confederate south, a mule, a plow and a small house on such land.
Until a citizen accumulates the subsistence net asset level, they should pay no tax and then pay tax only on the net assets they own above subsistence.
Assessments should be of the liquidation value of the assets ("liquidation value in place"). The owner can force the government to purchase his asset at the assessed value. The liquidation value can be set by the simple expedient of letting anyone place a bid on an asset by putting the amount bid in an escrow account with the Treasury, at the risk free interest rate (historically the interest rate on short term US treasury instruments), this being the basis for Modern Portfolio theory. Other forms of taxation could be eliminated in a revenue neutral way if net assets, in excess of subsistence levels, were taxed at the same rate.
Indeed, given the centralization of asset ownership that has resulted from the subsidy of non-subsistence property, a subsidy inherent in civilization, it may be the failure to use this tax base is the ultimate cause of the repeated decay of civilizations from ancient times.
Any skill that an engineer who can't pay the mortgage has is obviously an obsolete technical skill. It couldn't be that the economy is run by a bunch of imbeciles.
Not that CmdrTaco could write a line of Perl or anything.
Software and business processes are simply two more media within which invention may occur. It makes no sense to try to put certain media off limit to patents. There are only 3 criteria for a patent: Utility, originality and disclosure. Utility means it must be worth money. Originality means it must not have been done before nor even be obvious from that which has been done before. Real patent reform would simplify the current system by: 1) Removing all patent fees. Patent fees are an incredibly regressive tax on the most critical point of civilization: Creation. 2) Letting anyone establish priority by the simple expedient of posting to Usenet a digitally signed disclosure via an NNTP server at the Patent Office(s) which would then re-sign and time stamp the disclosure before replicating to Usenet repositories around the world. 3) By shifting the tax base to net assets rather than economic activity, thereby removing the government subsidy for centralized wealth that keeps centralizing wealth in the hands of the technically stupid who then keep useful, original and fully disclosed technologies from receiving appropriate bids. A perhaps non-obvious concomitant is to distribute the revenues so raised evenly to all citizens in a citizens dividend (raising the always-important question of who should really be a "citizen"). It is this last item that is critical to understand for real patent reform -- particularly with respect to the concept of "disclosure". In science, a key goal is to publish reproducible experiments. Reproducibility is also key to patent disclosure. The idea is that anyone with a reasonable, publicly available education in the relevant discipline(s) should be able to take the disclosure and "reproduce" the value of the invention. What that means is that there should, for any "valuable" invention, be no lack of bids to buy the patent outright -- bids whose magnitude are an objective measure of the invention's utility. The government then ensures that the technology is put to maximum use in the economy by removing taxes on economic activities, including those activities that make use of the technology, and replacing those taxes with a use fee for net assets in excess of subsistence properties, said fee assessed at the property's "no brainer" value times the "no brainer" rate of interest. This will raise the hackles of many-a pseudo-libertarian so I'll repeat to them the following reason this is consistent with libertarian philosophy: The function of government is to protect property rights, beyond those subsistence assets an individual would self-defend (home, tools, small territory/farm/hunting land) in the "state of nature" (perhaps you're more comfortable with Lockean terminology than "anarcho capitalism"). A precondition of government is that all property rights are under some sort of "duress": The threat of "taking" by force or fraud. This is the basis for using liquidation rather than market value. Moreover, since land is the most targeted asset for taking (even more than gold) it makes sense that the "in place" valuation be used since the taker would prefer their synergistic value. Now as to the interest rate: When banks use the net present value calculation to estimate the value of collateral -- assets which they "take" upon breach of contract -- is by thinking about the profit stream they, as naive owners, would be virtually certain to obtain by taking control of the asset. Since they are naive, they must not use the profit stream expected from knowledgeable owners, but rather by virtually any competent adult. It is in that sense that I mean "no brainer". So they project their "no brainer" profit stream upon which they need to run a net present value calculation, which means they need to pick an interest rate. They pick the interest rate that corresponds to being able to turn that asset into cash over the short term and sock it away somewhere over the short term until they can loan it out more intelligently: the risk free interest rate of modern portfolio theory aka short term tre
Its amazing that so many people on the internet don't get that.
Does anyone know? Has he ever said?
These guys don't increase their bid for you on the basis of how much you beg to be their little bitch.
You can't put aside the choice of valuation of the property while discussing the interest rate to apply as the use fee. The two are linked by the net present value calculation, as you yourself pointed out!
The function of government is to protect property rights, beyond those subsistence assets an individual would self-defend (home, tools, small territory/farm/hunting land) in "the state of nature" (perhaps you're more comfortable with Lockean terminology than "anarcho capitalism"). A precondition of government is that all property rights are under some sort of "duress": The threat of "taking" by force or fraud. This is the basis for using liquidation rather than market value. Moreover, since land is the most targeted asset for taking (even more than gold) it makes sense that the "in place" valuation be used since the taker would prefer their synergistic value.
Now as to the interest rate: When banks use the net present value calculation to estimate the value of collateral -- assets which they "take" upon breach of contract -- is by thinking about the profit stream they, as naive owners, would be virtually certain to obtain by taking control of the asset. Since they are naive, they must not use the profit stream expected from knowledgeable owners, but rather by virtually any competent adult. It is in that sense that I mean "no brainer". So they project their "no brainer" profit stream upon which they need to run a net present value calculation, which means they need to pick an interest rate. They pick the interest rate that corresponds to being able to turn that asset into cash over the short term and sock it away somewhere over the short term until they can loan it out more intelligently: the risk free interest rate of modern portfolio theory aka short term treasury rate.
Now, you might ask, why does the government "take" all this "no brainer" profit from non-subsistence property rights to protect those property rights and then redistribute them to everyone evenly in a citizen's dividends? Simple: That's how you turn the systemic incentive for taking into a systemic incentive for upholding those non-subsistence property rights without removing the incentive for knowledgeable ownership. That's what I mean by "non distorting".
Could you perhaps try thinking before insulting those with whom you are attempting "communication" oh thou PSEUDONYMOUS one?
What bankers call "liquidation value in place". Essentially, the use fee would be the risk free rate of return on the no-brainer value of the property as defined by bankers looking for loan collateral.
Market distortions basically occur when the government departs from the ideal anarcho capitalist system where everything is market driven, including force. Economists like to talk about it in different terms -- such as "no deadweight loss" due to "perfect inelasticity" but such perfection never really exists.
If the use fee were the short term treasury rate (also known as the risk free interest rate in modern portfolio theory), then it would not distort the market. Indeed, it would terminate abuses of property rights such as we see with domain grabbing, spectrum hoarding and last but not least, Microsoft.
Better yet, instead of disbursing it via political processes so far removed from the people no one but professional parasites can influence it, take the use fees and evenly divide them throughout the population to give everyone a uniform incentive to uphold enforcement of property rights starting, of course, with the sovereignty of a nation whose state is so wisely crafted.
So the reality is that even after foregoing children and frivolities, many households are finding themselves relying on credit -- something called "survival debt".
While it is possible for many of these "survival debt" households to further reeduce even their survival expenses, frequently the first thing to go is health insurance and preventative medical checkups. The best they can do is move to lower cost of living areas but this just as frequently results in fewer employment options as a cushion against underemployment.
That's my point.
The issue is what is really going on with millions of families who want to but cannot afford to have children. Your caricatures apply to many families certainly. There are many households getting in over their head in mortgages for McMansions they couldn't afford no matter how otherwise frugal, racking up credit card debt for things like 52" plasma HDTVs, etc. But the reality for many other households is that they are frugal, hardworking and still not able to provide sufficient security to make a responsible choice to bring children into the world.
This gets down to a fundamental law of economics called "the iron law of wages" wherein international arbitrage in labor results, in classical economics terminology, in wages settling out at "subsistence". In a world without birth control/abortion/women's rights, etc. this could not result "subsistence" going lower than the cost of reproduction. Nowadays, however, it can.
The big "exceptions" to this are the cultures, such as Mexicans, Indians, etc. being imported that have retained aspect of the old times where treatment of reproduction is different. Yes those families can have children for less security and, certainly in the case of Mexicans, they make extensive use of social safety nets for their children paid for by others.
PS: I didn't mention my personal circumstances. You can rest assured they are quite different from your imputations.
See Residual, Inter-deme Transport Requirements:
Take the proposed budget for Orion and the current operating cost of the shuttle and use that cash to bid for commercial manned spaceflight. Change the missions to better utilize the ISS if necessary.
Just because Public Law 101-611 requires NASA to, where possible, procure launch services from the private sector in a commercially reasonable is no reason to stop government bureaucrats from announcing they intend to offer government services that compete in commercial markets. This is NASA after all -- the organization that is bringing the frontier of space to humanity real soon now for the last half century... Thank goodness they didn't do anything nasty to NASA the way they did to the satellite bureaucrats back in the 1960s when they banned government from competing with commercial satellite industries, or we might have seen manned space flight basically stay stagnated with access limited to an elite few chosen for reasons having little to do with opening a real frontier for humanity!
This is yet another reason to devolve the Federal government's powers to the States. Idiots like this don't understand the reason common carriers are not liable for transporting illegal goods. Fine. They're idiots playing with knives. Take away their toys before someone gets hurt. At least at the State level there is more of a chance that someone with their feet on the ground will be heard.
Here is the link to the preliminary video report.
If you look at "techie wages" adjusted for the increased price of real estate in places like Silicon Valley, and the lessening of the security of those wages, especially approaching middle age, then you see the real reason why mere propaganda isn't going to draw young people into tech fields ever again.