Wireless electricity isn't complicated--you can make a hilariously inefficient system easily. A system worth using on the other hand....
As a point of how easy it is, Domino's Pizza uses wireless chargers to charge the batteries in the electric heated pizza bags. It's seriously not complicated technology. It's just too inefficient to be useful outside a few isolated applications.
Remember also that as the temperature drops the solubility of water in air drops--this is why it is so dry up there normally. The air physically cannot hold much water at that temperature. So as the temperature up there decreases over time there should be LESS cloud formation, because there will be less moisture from which to form clouds.
None of these "same" scientists will be alive in the amount of time it would take for the next major ice age to set in (even if it were starting right now).
Nobody bothered writing much of anything about it down for a hundred thousand years, and it was another two thousand years after that before anyone was thorough and systematic about it (aside from navigation purposes).
an 8GB drive (which costs, ooh, about £5 - hardly a "ludicrous" cost)
A 2TB hard drive costs $230. A 16GB flash drive costs $42. That is 200 times the per GB cost. If you are trying to store large volumes of data (which is what was being referred to) SSDs ARE ludicrously expensive. 200 times as expensive as hard drives. Given that an external 2.5" drive DOES fit in my pocket, and costs FAR less per GB, there is little justification for the thumb drive.
Leif Ericson is described as Norwegian because his grandfather and his father were born there. His grandfather was a murderer, so he fled to Iceland. His father was a murderer, so he fled to Greenland, where Leif was born.
Calling them not Norwegian is like calling the Nazis who escaped to Argentina not German.
And now that I have successfully Godwinned this argument, we are done.
And you've ignored his point, which was that people can value the art for whatever reason they want. Just because YOU don't like that reason doesn't mean other people don't.
To ensure that costs of accidents are paid, rather than going unpaid by people who don't have $20,000 laying around to cover the medical bills of the person they crippled. The point is in fact the opposite of collecitivization--that those involved in/responsible for accidents pay for them (through their insurance premiums). The purpose (the stated purpose at least) is NOT collectivization.
It's the same thing with universal health insurance really. The current scenario--where the uninsured rely on emergency room care, passing off the cost of their care to the collective--is little different than a single payer health care system (for those uninsured). Just a very inefficient and poorly run single payer health care system. The purpose of mandating universal insurance is to de-collectivize that cost (and to, hopefully, reduce those costs in the process).
The main difference is that in an insurance scheme (as opposed to a purposely collectivized scheme) there is still motive for individual parties involved to reduce their use of insurance payouts--because they are paying the premiums, and premiums go up (for some kinds at least--like auto insurance, not necessarily for other kinds--that health insurance does not do this is one of the reasons costs are spiraling out of control) if you use the insurance frequently. In a purposely collectivized system this is (usually) not the case--the cost to you is the same no matter how much you use it, so the incentive becomes to use it as much as you can to get the best value, which drives the system towards insolvency.
In essence an insurance scheme is a middle ground between total privatization of costs and total collectivization of costs. But the purpose (historically and ontologically) is not collectivization. You CAN use an insurance scheme to collectivize, since partial collectivization is an effect, but that has not been done (explicitly at least) in the past.
Don't you dare compare living with pigeons to starting a religion! Living with pigeons is an honorable, peaceful lifestyle choice. It is nothing like the skullduggery of starting a religion.
Nash managed (after more than a decade of very bad things though, going on and off anti-psychotics, and being involuntarily committed many times, but he did manage).
A major value of Lloyd's was actually that you could collectivize risk, in the sense that you could buy, say, a 10% share of risk on a certain venture, which would spread the risk out over the different names involved.
Eh....this is true, but I took the OP to mean 'collectivize' in a social sense. I realise now that I might have been mistaken and that he might have meant it in your sense.
You are required by law to have some kinds of insurance. In those cases the EFFECT of insurance is the collectivization of the costs you are insuring against (for example: good drivers who have no accidents but have to buy insurance end up subsidizing the expenses of bad drivers). But it is not the purpose. The post I was replying to was claiming that the purpose was collectivization.
Lloyd's is a market, not a firm however. Lloyd's is the NYSE of Insurance, which is not the same as offering insurance themselves. I didn't want to get into the structure of the middle men as I felt it was a side issue.
My point was that the purpose of insurance has nothing to do with collectivization.
You're wrong. The EFFECT of insurance is to collectivise, but it is NOT the purpose. The purpose of insurance is to reduce risk.
Historically insurance originated as part of the mercantile economy of the British Empire. A ship was an expensive thing, and the loss of a ship could ruin a middle class merchant. So they'd buy insurance--basically they'd pay a fee to a wealthy noble who would then gaurantee the value of the expedition--if the ship sank, they wouldn't lose anything. The amount they paid would be proportional to the risk of losing the ship, the value of the ship/cargo, and plus a margin of profit. Without that profit there'd have been no point for the nobleman to enter into the deal, and the state certainly wasn't about to assume to risk for the merchants.
Insurance only effectively collectivises when it is widespread (i.e. when everyone has it). But that is a side effect, not the purpose.
Well by your logic, Americans have the most criminal society on the planet, what with having more than China. Somebody should just lock everyone in that country up and be done with it.
/sarcasm -- Because I know the mods would have missed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wireless electricity isn't complicated--you can make a hilariously inefficient system easily. A system worth using on the other hand....
As a point of how easy it is, Domino's Pizza uses wireless chargers to charge the batteries in the electric heated pizza bags. It's seriously not complicated technology. It's just too inefficient to be useful outside a few isolated applications.
Remember also that as the temperature drops the solubility of water in air drops--this is why it is so dry up there normally. The air physically cannot hold much water at that temperature. So as the temperature up there decreases over time there should be LESS cloud formation, because there will be less moisture from which to form clouds.
None of these "same" scientists will be alive in the amount of time it would take for the next major ice age to set in (even if it were starting right now).
Nobody bothered writing much of anything about it down for a hundred thousand years, and it was another two thousand years after that before anyone was thorough and systematic about it (aside from navigation purposes).
Yes, how could I forget? Yours is the only valid opinion, O Master!
an 8GB drive (which costs, ooh, about £5 - hardly a "ludicrous" cost)
A 2TB hard drive costs $230. A 16GB flash drive costs $42. That is 200 times the per GB cost. If you are trying to store large volumes of data (which is what was being referred to) SSDs ARE ludicrously expensive. 200 times as expensive as hard drives. Given that an external 2.5" drive DOES fit in my pocket, and costs FAR less per GB, there is little justification for the thumb drive.
Leif Ericson is described as Norwegian because his grandfather and his father were born there. His grandfather was a murderer, so he fled to Iceland. His father was a murderer, so he fled to Greenland, where Leif was born.
Calling them not Norwegian is like calling the Nazis who escaped to Argentina not German.
And now that I have successfully Godwinned this argument, we are done.
And you've ignored his point, which was that people can value the art for whatever reason they want. Just because YOU don't like that reason doesn't mean other people don't.
To ensure that costs of accidents are paid, rather than going unpaid by people who don't have $20,000 laying around to cover the medical bills of the person they crippled. The point is in fact the opposite of collecitivization--that those involved in/responsible for accidents pay for them (through their insurance premiums). The purpose (the stated purpose at least) is NOT collectivization.
It's the same thing with universal health insurance really. The current scenario--where the uninsured rely on emergency room care, passing off the cost of their care to the collective--is little different than a single payer health care system (for those uninsured). Just a very inefficient and poorly run single payer health care system. The purpose of mandating universal insurance is to de-collectivize that cost (and to, hopefully, reduce those costs in the process).
The main difference is that in an insurance scheme (as opposed to a purposely collectivized scheme) there is still motive for individual parties involved to reduce their use of insurance payouts--because they are paying the premiums, and premiums go up (for some kinds at least--like auto insurance, not necessarily for other kinds--that health insurance does not do this is one of the reasons costs are spiraling out of control) if you use the insurance frequently. In a purposely collectivized system this is (usually) not the case--the cost to you is the same no matter how much you use it, so the incentive becomes to use it as much as you can to get the best value, which drives the system towards insolvency.
In essence an insurance scheme is a middle ground between total privatization of costs and total collectivization of costs. But the purpose (historically and ontologically) is not collectivization. You CAN use an insurance scheme to collectivize, since partial collectivization is an effect, but that has not been done (explicitly at least) in the past.
Or Buddha.
Don't you dare compare living with pigeons to starting a religion! Living with pigeons is an honorable, peaceful lifestyle choice. It is nothing like the skullduggery of starting a religion.
Nash managed (after more than a decade of very bad things though, going on and off anti-psychotics, and being involuntarily committed many times, but he did manage).
Don't feed the troll.
@YourSig:
The best part of waking up, is Linux in your cup.
True, but the properties of crocodile immune proteins are well documented. Here is a less idiotic link on the matter:
Abstract from Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2R-49KSKF9-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=961247909&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a1d6189fa9fc622240974a24a20b098e
A major value of Lloyd's was actually that you could collectivize risk, in the sense that you could buy, say, a 10% share of risk on a certain venture, which would spread the risk out over the different names involved.
Eh....this is true, but I took the OP to mean 'collectivize' in a social sense. I realise now that I might have been mistaken and that he might have meant it in your sense.
You are required by law to have some kinds of insurance. In those cases the EFFECT of insurance is the collectivization of the costs you are insuring against (for example: good drivers who have no accidents but have to buy insurance end up subsidizing the expenses of bad drivers). But it is not the purpose. The post I was replying to was claiming that the purpose was collectivization.
Lloyd's is a market, not a firm however. Lloyd's is the NYSE of Insurance, which is not the same as offering insurance themselves. I didn't want to get into the structure of the middle men as I felt it was a side issue.
My point was that the purpose of insurance has nothing to do with collectivization.
Congratulations, you invented legal insurance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Expenses_Insurance Want a cookie?
You're wrong. The EFFECT of insurance is to collectivise, but it is NOT the purpose. The purpose of insurance is to reduce risk.
Historically insurance originated as part of the mercantile economy of the British Empire. A ship was an expensive thing, and the loss of a ship could ruin a middle class merchant. So they'd buy insurance--basically they'd pay a fee to a wealthy noble who would then gaurantee the value of the expedition--if the ship sank, they wouldn't lose anything. The amount they paid would be proportional to the risk of losing the ship, the value of the ship/cargo, and plus a margin of profit. Without that profit there'd have been no point for the nobleman to enter into the deal, and the state certainly wasn't about to assume to risk for the merchants.
Insurance only effectively collectivises when it is widespread (i.e. when everyone has it). But that is a side effect, not the purpose.
Never mind that military hardware like that is not exactly available to Pepsi in the first place.
Personally I prefer +5 Troll.
Well by your logic, Americans have the most criminal society on the planet, what with having more than China. Somebody should just lock everyone in that country up and be done with it.
/sarcasm -- Because I know the mods would have missed it.
Are you kidding? Can you imagine how that would be abused? Answer: HILARIOUSLY.
1)Post Epic Troll.
2)Let a few responses build up.
3)Replace Epic Troll with deeply insightful post.
4)
5)Profit
Basestar.
I am so ashamed of you.