Not the Secretary of State, not Assistant Secretary of State, not Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, not even Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, but 'Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran'. If that isnt a made-up title it ought to be. As distinguished as the title of Junior Interim Alternate Representative for Regional Greensward Eliminations that I gave my dog.
Well, OK. Personally I wasnt that upset about Solyndra in principle (in practice it smells dirty even if it wasnt but that in itself isnt damning). But IIUC the money was for ramping production, and Im not sure the Fed should be investing at that business stage. Think of how much research and/or development could have been done with that kind of money. I'd be all for a grant/loan for basic research. Or if the Fed's had ordered $500M of Solyndra panels over a few years for Fed buildings or military bases or something, er, tangible, that would have been better. But in both cases, yes you are correct, do it for the long term and stay the course.
On a side note, how about instituting a loan program for basic research, such that at any time you can either a) forgive the debt and transfer all results to the public domain or b) repay the loan from sales or royalties. Would that work?
A fair point, but the Fed's should have been smart enough to know that before handing over the coin. Accurately assessing market conditions and foreign competition should have been a key part of the vetting process. If that vetting was done by smart knowledgeable professionals then they are culpable for not getting it right. If it wasnt done by smart knowledgeable professionals then they are culpable for not vetting properly. Either way blaming it on China doesnt give the Feds a pass, even if its true.
As Monster Ethernet cables correct transmission errors, and Monster USB cables correct USB driver connectivity issues, and Monster Gold Plated fiber optic cables can exceed the speed of light. And Monster will sue anybody that says otherwise. Although according to The Consumerist
In one experiment, audiophile listeners could not distinguish between short Monster cables and ordinary coat hangers.
Absolutely. You can save 10mpg by following a Prius on the highway, drafting the wake of smugness. Mostly they leave me alone because I put a $3 sticker on my Yukon that says "Electric Vehicle Zero Emissions".
Do you have a cite for that study? It sounds interesting. I could only find a passing reference to the study here. I also learned that Googling Monkey Juice Economics is not particularly safe for work...
Because using a kinetic projectile is meming Heinlein not Alien. Or more to the point quoting a book instead of a movie, and who has time to actually read these days?
See? This was *exactly* my point. When we talk in terms of economics instead of AGW alarmists & deniers, we collectively have good productive conversations like this one. I dont really care anymore about GW since there are plenty of perfectly good reasons to adopt new technologies without it. Oil, at least as the mainstay of energy production, doesnt make sense anymore, even if it isnt killing polar bears. Thanks Genda (and F34nor)!
Yeah good point, I was thinking some of the large scale biofuels initiatives look good too, algae, switchgrass ethanol. But I lump that in with "not ready for prime time but Im 100% for continued R&D". But I think nuclear is ready today, and you can make just about anything else with enough electricity, including gasoline. And fresh water (in a nod to another SD article running today).
It would be nice to think that, but as a species this is not how we've acted in the past. Ever. The history of life as we know it is about consuming resources. Its pretty much one of the definitions of 'life' (go look it up on wikipedia, its interesting). Actually on a reread I dont even see how your statement and mine are different? (And I plagiarized that line, from a Business Week review of "The Conundrum: Why Your Prius Wont Save You" (note Business Week didnt like it so much))
I was with you until the end... blaming inaction on laziness and contempt is a little disingenuous. There are a lot of factors supporting the status quo, human nature, political and corporate self-interest, ignorance, etc. I cant accept that anyone truly believes they can make a difference but wont, or that they choose not to because they have no regard for their children. But I otherwise agree in principle. In practice though Ive seen nothing Id consider credible that addresses macro renewable energy production. Sure, put a microhydro plant on the stream by my house, that helps me and maybe 3 other houses. But nothing is going to take 500 coal fired plants offline tomorrow at anything with even a passing nod to cost parity. Except nuclear, and I consider our complete failure to adopt clean safe reactor designs (PBR & IFR) as an indication that we are incapable of collectively acting rationally.
...the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
Yes but some of the debate, and I think the more salient debate, is about what effect (if any) mitigation efforts will have and what they will cost. Some self-professed 'skeptics' dont take issue with GW or even AGW but more with the cost/benefit ratio, something that gets precious little rational discussion. Those who are skeptical of spending obscene amounts of money with at best fuzzy promises of any tangible results arent 'deniers' by any stretch no matter how convenient it is to label them as such. No matter which side of the debate you fall into we have to recognize and accept that the issue is an economic one, not a scientific one and not a religious one (and radical green-ism is certainly a religion). The only interesting voices in the debate (IMHO) are the economic skeptics on both sides that truly embrace workable cost-effective courses of action.
Looking past even economics, the 'debate' is also a sociological one, since at its core AGW comes down to this: how do we reverse humanity’s relentless pursuit of comfort.
Google gets the Motorola name and distribution agreements with the carriers and 3rd party retailers. The hardware has been a commodity for some time now. Well, not for Apple but everyone else. Let HTC and Samsung make the phone, put a Motorola label on it, load an Android thats one generation ahead of everyone else, and profit! Oh, also Google finally has the clout to force carriers to take phones packaged more or less crapware-free the way Google has always wanted to sell them (G1 and G2 anyone?).
How about you post something to support your claim that Apple is afraid of ICS?
I gotta think that Jobs saying he was going to destroy Android even if it took every last dollar of his stockholders money, kind of makes that obvious. You dont bankrupt a thriving company to fight something thats not a threat.
Slashdot Mirror
What's this 'bookstore' thing you mentioned?
Not the Secretary of State, not Assistant Secretary of State, not Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, not even Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, but 'Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran'. If that isnt a made-up title it ought to be. As distinguished as the title of Junior Interim Alternate Representative for Regional Greensward Eliminations that I gave my dog.
Great quote from an old Embedded Design Magazine: "I knew the world had fundamentally changed when I had to reboot my stove's exhaust fan"
Extinguisher Grenades dot tumblr dot com
Thats why we have politics, to generate ridiculous amounts of negative energy.
So, all you have to do is turn the ship 180 degrees before dropping out of warp? Sounds simple enough.
Well, OK. Personally I wasnt that upset about Solyndra in principle (in practice it smells dirty even if it wasnt but that in itself isnt damning). But IIUC the money was for ramping production, and Im not sure the Fed should be investing at that business stage. Think of how much research and/or development could have been done with that kind of money. I'd be all for a grant/loan for basic research. Or if the Fed's had ordered $500M of Solyndra panels over a few years for Fed buildings or military bases or something, er, tangible, that would have been better. But in both cases, yes you are correct, do it for the long term and stay the course.
On a side note, how about instituting a loan program for basic research, such that at any time you can either a) forgive the debt and transfer all results to the public domain or b) repay the loan from sales or royalties. Would that work?
A fair point, but the Fed's should have been smart enough to know that before handing over the coin. Accurately assessing market conditions and foreign competition should have been a key part of the vetting process. If that vetting was done by smart knowledgeable professionals then they are culpable for not getting it right. If it wasnt done by smart knowledgeable professionals then they are culpable for not vetting properly. Either way blaming it on China doesnt give the Feds a pass, even if its true.
As Monster Ethernet cables correct transmission errors, and Monster USB cables correct USB driver connectivity issues, and Monster Gold Plated fiber optic cables can exceed the speed of light. And Monster will sue anybody that says otherwise. Although according to The Consumerist
In one experiment, audiophile listeners could not distinguish between short Monster cables and ordinary coat hangers.
Kodak used Carl Zeiss optics, and their cameras always tested well for it, and look where it got them.
Also, prius drivers are douchebags.
Absolutely. You can save 10mpg by following a Prius on the highway, drafting the wake of smugness. Mostly they leave me alone because I put a $3 sticker on my Yukon that says "Electric Vehicle Zero Emissions".
Possibly the funniest cartoon ever, thanks for the reminder! For those that havent seen it it has its own Wikipedia Page
Do you have a cite for that study? It sounds interesting. I could only find a passing reference to the study here. I also learned that Googling Monkey Juice Economics is not particularly safe for work...
Good catch. So, this treatment is more like throwing tiny chairs at cancer cells.
Because using a kinetic projectile is meming Heinlein not Alien. Or more to the point quoting a book instead of a movie, and who has time to actually read these days?
A few square kilometers of Redmond is a small price to pay....
There fixed that for ya
See? This was *exactly* my point. When we talk in terms of economics instead of AGW alarmists & deniers, we collectively have good productive conversations like this one. I dont really care anymore about GW since there are plenty of perfectly good reasons to adopt new technologies without it. Oil, at least as the mainstay of energy production, doesnt make sense anymore, even if it isnt killing polar bears. Thanks Genda (and F34nor)!
Yeah good point, I was thinking some of the large scale biofuels initiatives look good too, algae, switchgrass ethanol. But I lump that in with "not ready for prime time but Im 100% for continued R&D". But I think nuclear is ready today, and you can make just about anything else with enough electricity, including gasoline. And fresh water (in a nod to another SD article running today).
It would be nice to think that, but as a species this is not how we've acted in the past. Ever. The history of life as we know it is about consuming resources. Its pretty much one of the definitions of 'life' (go look it up on wikipedia, its interesting). Actually on a reread I dont even see how your statement and mine are different? (And I plagiarized that line, from a Business Week review of "The Conundrum: Why Your Prius Wont Save You" (note Business Week didnt like it so much))
I was with you until the end... blaming inaction on laziness and contempt is a little disingenuous. There are a lot of factors supporting the status quo, human nature, political and corporate self-interest, ignorance, etc. I cant accept that anyone truly believes they can make a difference but wont, or that they choose not to because they have no regard for their children. But I otherwise agree in principle. In practice though Ive seen nothing Id consider credible that addresses macro renewable energy production. Sure, put a microhydro plant on the stream by my house, that helps me and maybe 3 other houses. But nothing is going to take 500 coal fired plants offline tomorrow at anything with even a passing nod to cost parity. Except nuclear, and I consider our complete failure to adopt clean safe reactor designs (PBR & IFR) as an indication that we are incapable of collectively acting rationally.
...the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
Yes but some of the debate, and I think the more salient debate, is about what effect (if any) mitigation efforts will have and what they will cost. Some self-professed 'skeptics' dont take issue with GW or even AGW but more with the cost/benefit ratio, something that gets precious little rational discussion. Those who are skeptical of spending obscene amounts of money with at best fuzzy promises of any tangible results arent 'deniers' by any stretch no matter how convenient it is to label them as such. No matter which side of the debate you fall into we have to recognize and accept that the issue is an economic one, not a scientific one and not a religious one (and radical green-ism is certainly a religion). The only interesting voices in the debate (IMHO) are the economic skeptics on both sides that truly embrace workable cost-effective courses of action.
Looking past even economics, the 'debate' is also a sociological one, since at its core AGW comes down to this: how do we reverse humanity’s relentless pursuit of comfort.
Google gets the Motorola name and distribution agreements with the carriers and 3rd party retailers. The hardware has been a commodity for some time now. Well, not for Apple but everyone else. Let HTC and Samsung make the phone, put a Motorola label on it, load an Android thats one generation ahead of everyone else, and profit! Oh, also Google finally has the clout to force carriers to take phones packaged more or less crapware-free the way Google has always wanted to sell them (G1 and G2 anyone?).
Yet driving around with an "AA" bumper sticker means something. Wait, what were we talking about again?
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
How about you post something to support your claim that Apple is afraid of ICS?
I gotta think that Jobs saying he was going to destroy Android even if it took every last dollar of his stockholders money, kind of makes that obvious. You dont bankrupt a thriving company to fight something thats not a threat.