Again, if the process itself have a ratio of greater then 1 to 1, and it is sufficiently cheap to do, then it is not a problem. Suppose it takes 2 cents and 0.5 KWH to produce a KWH of power with a particular resource, then we have a cheap resource that have a ratio of 1:2, which is horrible, according to you, but we can still sell power at 4 cents per KWH and still break even. Suppose that we have resource B that cost 50 cents and 0.0000000001 KWH to produce a KWH of power, the ratio would be completely awesome, but power will still be expensive enough to change our way of life noticeably. The key to every technology is how much it costs and its ratio, not just one or the other.
Divestment rarely causes an area to become impovished again. Historically, every nation that got out of absolute poverty remained out of absolute poverty. Thus, the number of poor nations goes down, never up.
But 2.5 to 1 ratio is not fundamentally a problem; as long as transporting it is cheaper then 50% of the energy produced, you come out ahead. In any case, if the process can be sufficiently automated, you can repeat it as many times as you want in a loop and get any ratio you want. (use the output as input, over and over again)
Africa is not exactly what I would call stable. In any case, Africa have got less people then either China or India. If outsourcing can push living standards in both countries up considerably in just 20 years, there is no reason to think that any country would remain both poor and stable in another say... 50 years.
If I recall correctly, moving liquids in a pipe does not cost much energy. In theory, there should be no reason why you can't produce somewhere dirt cheap, and then transport it over with pipelines. Alternatively, we can use electric trains to transport the stuff, and then generate the electricity with nuclear power.
Problem is, the number of poor countries that are stable enough to invest in is not large, and once a country becomes a wealthy, it rarely slides downwards very far. Thus, this should end relatively soon, as soon as corporations run out of countries.
It is entirely possible that they have given this stuff up. Keep in mind that the B2 was fairly close to being done by the time that Clinton came in. Clinton cut the military's budget by a fair amount, and black budget stuff is the easiest to cut (by definition, not very many people needs to know about it)It is somewhat doubtful that Bush can afford to keep funding these things, considering the wars that he is fighting, and the high tech planes he is funding. In any case, the military is hardly in desperate need of better stuff, and that the air force would probably much rather spend any of this money on F-22s anyhow.
So far, at least, similar systems have worked well with a great deal of other identity related things (passports, driver licenses, military ids, etc, etc). Regardless what is actually watching the watchers, it would appear that it worked well.
However, this kind thing goes on in private companies all of the time as well. The problem here is one that exists with any sort of large organization.
I think the key difference here is that the conflicts that North America got involved in killed a very small number of north Americans (comparatively speaking)
Nothing is quite that simple, I am afraid. That is true if and only if everyone have perfect information. It is quite possible that while this firm is not profitable today, it will become extremely profitable tomorrow. Now, if everyone have perfect information, then banks would be willing to loan it money to permit it to survive. Problem is, we don't have perfect information, so the situation that I described is actually quite possible.
Very, very wrong. If that is indeed anywhere near correct, then people can make enormous fortunes shorting the dollar right now. Which would make the dollar weak. That is not happening, ego, that analysis is very wrong.
The original Chrysler bailout is a reasonably good example. The government turned a profit, Chrysler became profitable (for a while, anyway), and no body was hurt.
GHZ is actually very important. Given that all else remains the same, a 10% increase in clock speed is not greatly different from a 10% improvement in performance in CPU bound applications. Comparing GHZ across different designs is a rather bad idea, but that is not all that is going on here.
I wouldn't be sure whether it would be wise to reconsider - after all, there is a lot of genetic material in the world, and just out of sheer coincidence, there might be a string to that effect.
Assuming everyone is rational and is perfectly informed (aka an abstraction of reality that is not really true) then the money they make from selling it should be the exact same as they would get from licensing it.
The CPU usage of the program when used with a good video card is 25% on my quad core machine, implying it is CPU bound right now. That means if they can get the CPU overhead down, even a little bit, they will stand to get huge gains.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, if the process itself have a ratio of greater then 1 to 1, and it is sufficiently cheap to do, then it is not a problem. Suppose it takes 2 cents and 0.5 KWH to produce a KWH of power with a particular resource, then we have a cheap resource that have a ratio of 1:2, which is horrible, according to you, but we can still sell power at 4 cents per KWH and still break even. Suppose that we have resource B that cost 50 cents and 0.0000000001 KWH to produce a KWH of power, the ratio would be completely awesome, but power will still be expensive enough to change our way of life noticeably. The key to every technology is how much it costs and its ratio, not just one or the other.
Divestment rarely causes an area to become impovished again. Historically, every nation that got out of absolute poverty remained out of absolute poverty. Thus, the number of poor nations goes down, never up.
But 2.5 to 1 ratio is not fundamentally a problem; as long as transporting it is cheaper then 50% of the energy produced, you come out ahead. In any case, if the process can be sufficiently automated, you can repeat it as many times as you want in a loop and get any ratio you want. (use the output as input, over and over again)
Africa is not exactly what I would call stable. In any case, Africa have got less people then either China or India. If outsourcing can push living standards in both countries up considerably in just 20 years, there is no reason to think that any country would remain both poor and stable in another say... 50 years.
If I recall correctly, moving liquids in a pipe does not cost much energy. In theory, there should be no reason why you can't produce somewhere dirt cheap, and then transport it over with pipelines. Alternatively, we can use electric trains to transport the stuff, and then generate the electricity with nuclear power.
Problem is, the number of poor countries that are stable enough to invest in is not large, and once a country becomes a wealthy, it rarely slides downwards very far. Thus, this should end relatively soon, as soon as corporations run out of countries.
After all, the spectrum that TV uses have already being partly sold. Wouldn't Verizon, et. al. be rather annoyed about this development?
The only minor issue with the theory is that there is no DRM in digital broadcasts.
It is entirely possible that they have given this stuff up. Keep in mind that the B2 was fairly close to being done by the time that Clinton came in. Clinton cut the military's budget by a fair amount, and black budget stuff is the easiest to cut (by definition, not very many people needs to know about it)It is somewhat doubtful that Bush can afford to keep funding these things, considering the wars that he is fighting, and the high tech planes he is funding. In any case, the military is hardly in desperate need of better stuff, and that the air force would probably much rather spend any of this money on F-22s anyhow.
So far, at least, similar systems have worked well with a great deal of other identity related things (passports, driver licenses, military ids, etc, etc). Regardless what is actually watching the watchers, it would appear that it worked well.
However, this kind thing goes on in private companies all of the time as well. The problem here is one that exists with any sort of large organization.
The same era where slavery was common? It will take a very creative moral system to claim that era was one of morality.
Considering that this money is to transport the craft safely, probably a lot more.
I think the key difference here is that the conflicts that North America got involved in killed a very small number of north Americans (comparatively speaking)
As far as I know, you can choose to trade in bubble gum.
Nothing is quite that simple, I am afraid. That is true if and only if everyone have perfect information. It is quite possible that while this firm is not profitable today, it will become extremely profitable tomorrow. Now, if everyone have perfect information, then banks would be willing to loan it money to permit it to survive. Problem is, we don't have perfect information, so the situation that I described is actually quite possible.
Very, very wrong. If that is indeed anywhere near correct, then people can make enormous fortunes shorting the dollar right now. Which would make the dollar weak. That is not happening, ego, that analysis is very wrong.
The original Chrysler bailout is a reasonably good example. The government turned a profit, Chrysler became profitable (for a while, anyway), and no body was hurt.
GHZ is actually very important. Given that all else remains the same, a 10% increase in clock speed is not greatly different from a 10% improvement in performance in CPU bound applications. Comparing GHZ across different designs is a rather bad idea, but that is not all that is going on here.
I wouldn't be sure whether it would be wise to reconsider - after all, there is a lot of genetic material in the world, and just out of sheer coincidence, there might be a string to that effect.
Assuming everyone is rational and is perfectly informed (aka an abstraction of reality that is not really true) then the money they make from selling it should be the exact same as they would get from licensing it.
The CPU usage of the program when used with a good video card is 25% on my quad core machine, implying it is CPU bound right now. That means if they can get the CPU overhead down, even a little bit, they will stand to get huge gains.
Tthey really would NOT want to do that - I am willing to bet that most of their customer did NOT only use legit music.
Problem is, all it takes is for one of your friends to post something.....
Well, by the sound of it, a cell phone backed by a bluetooth keyboard would do the trick neatly.