Out of curiosity, what is the line that separates a UAV from a R/C? I mean, there are some R/Cs out there that are on steroids – and some really cheap UAV. Is it a subjective thing or is there a rule? (Is it like Horse vs. Pony. There are some hard rules, such as being under 14.2 hands and some subject rules – such as the Icelandic horse has always been called a horse, so it is a horse, even though it is under 14 hands.)
So there you go. Heck, you can compare countries and you will find a correlation between CO2 emissions and GDP – because there is a casual effect. GDP is based on labor, inputs, capital, and productivity. Energy is a pretty big input, which today means CO2
That is a better answer to why people listen to music, but it does not explain the relative decline of music sales to other entertainment products. Consider this: The 80’s is generally considered to be the zenith of the mainstream recording industry. Since then the amount people have spent on music has fallen – both in dollar terms or as a percentage of their entertainment budget.
Video games were a niche product of young men. Today even grandmas are playing the Wii.
Movies were limited to the screen or rental - buying a VHS movie was about $100. Now it is much easier to buy a DVD to build your library or steam something on line.
But music was relative cheap, value wise. A low end stereo system did a good job. Walkman allowed you to take the music on the go. Sure, MP3 players are an big improvement – but relatively speaking the 2 examples that I am giving had a relatively larger improvement.
Question – why do you blame it on pirates? Not saying illegal downloading does not have an effect. (I think it does but I am reading the article) – but why do you name it as the primary cause?
Why not blame the consumer for buying other types of media, such as games and videos?
Why not blame it on market structure where the market has become more efficient and the consumer is grabbing more of the surplus? Consumers are buying more single tracks. They are listening to streaming radio channels which pay less than radio.
My instinct is that these 2 factors have as much to do with this as anything.
Out of curiosity, do you oppose all religious naming? I am thinking about the Roman (Plants, space program), medicine (lots of Greek mythos here), satellite defense (Star Wars is part of the Jedi credo, etc.), various “ark” programs (Jewish or Christen), etc?
Oddly enough, powerful cultural ideas tend to inspire scientist.
The US is a net energy importer. You are probably thinking about the fact that the US is a net exporter of petroleum products by value.
A good example is that we import low value Nigerian Crude, refine it, and sell it back to them as high value gasoline. (or even better, plastics, etc.) We export almost no fracked natural gas directly – if we do export it as feedstock. Its Chemical engineers and refiners which are doing this – not the well guys.
First, China surpassed the US as the world’s largest manufacture in 2010.
Then factor in that the things that China produces tend to be more energy intensive (like steel or concert) and they are less efficient (having lower pollution controls, cheap labor, and cheap capital lesses the need for energy efficiency.)
Or, to put it another way, to produce $1 of American manufactured goods – like a 747 – takes less energy than to produce $1 ton of Chinese goods.
I would take the opposite side. It is more important to have access to the machines that drive the real economy then to consumer toys. Locked out devices help lock in customers – from the costs to business to the impediment to innovation (all of which will trickle down and hit us) – would be much higher.
I would argue that it is much more invidious that only Oracle can service oracle machines then unlocking Blue Ray disks. Do we want 3D printers that can only run the manufactory’s OS – implying they could restrict printed objects to only “legal” shapes. If a surgeon develops a new procedure on the da Vinci Surgical System should they have to rewrite it every time?
IIRC the number of steel mills that China is building has leveed off, but they do need to import much of the raw materials – such as metallurgical coal – which is referred to in the summary. However, they are also investing a lot in electric power production and they are favoring coal plants over gas plants.
Now, I am not sure of the breakdown between US, Australian, and Chinese coal that is going into power production – but I do know that China is increasing it’s use of coal for electricity.
No, you have hit the problem square on the head. China and underdeveloped countries have argued for technology transfers in treaty talks to address exactly what you saying.
True – but I think it is a reasonable assumption. Factor in that China’s middle class earns about a 1/3 of developed nations – that implies lower energy usage and lower CO2 emissions. I would think this was true even after you factor in that China relies heavily on dirty coal. (Now, start projecting 20 years in the future when middle class income is closer to developed country levels.)
No I don't - If you had read the parent they suggested she should have been compensated for the use of her genetic material - which natural leads to copy write of said material, which would be a very bad idea.
I am confused – what do you think a better idea would be?
Let each person copy write their genes? Every time a scientist wants to study the process of life they have to pay you? Maybe if you have a special gene you get a cut from any drug that is developed from it? (That idea, thankfully, has been struck down by Federal Court.)
Good noise canceling headphones are expensive. Another, cheaper, alternative is to get a white noise generator. I know some people who swear by it. Personally I find it distracting, but each to their own.
He is a Jesuit – Big emphasis on education - they all have post-grad degrees. As part of the Counter Reformation the Catholics decided that they needed better intellectual firepower so the Jesuits were created. They run a lot of schools – IIRC Bill Clinton went to one for primary education. They are also known for their particular strident/rigors methods of thought and debate. (i.e. they tend to turn out better lawyers then chemist.)
Also, the pope is a “prince” and gets a regal name – just like when any other royal ascends to the throne. This is partly done to distinguish between their prior personal life (when they spoke for themselves) verse the royal state where they are the state (Royal “We”, body of the state/church, etc.)
. Neanderthals did not trade with villages thousand of years ago
Which is what I said – humans did, Neanderthals did not.
True civilization stated about 6000 years ago, it worked because people did better when they cooperated
Which is what I was trying to say. But why did people cooperate? I have peer reviewed double blind studies showing that people who believe in religion are more cooperative – and altruistic, trusting, and trustworthy. What reason do you have? Or are you irrational (or crazy, in your words) anti-religious?
First, there is overlap between religion, morality, and philosophy. “Why am I here?” and “what should I do?” are valid questions.
Second, religion has organic and evolutionary backgrounds. There are parts of the brain hardwired for “religious” experiences. Furthermore, religion teaches about altruism and justice. This extends trust and fairness across distance and time. i.e. “If I do something good today for a stranger something good will happen in the future”. Human settlements that were contemporary with the Neanderthals were 1. larger 2. Showed signs of economic specialization, 3. And traded with villages thousands of miles away. Religion was the glue that allowed these big complex pre-history villages to form – it was the killer app that allowed civilization to form.
What you saying is correct, but I am missing a step here.
You hand over your bitcoins for the fund to invest. They split the bitcoins into 3 pieces. o.k. - but how is that investing? If they are just keeping the bitcoins secure that is not even banking.
Let’s try to unpick this – and suggest that taxes can work.
A tax would work (and would be the most efficient choice) if it were a uniform global tax. Canada would still have the highest greenhouse gas emitter but that would be o.k. Extractive and heavy industries tend to be the most polluting, but I would wager that they would be one of the more efficient producers, so total greenhouse gases would go down.
The issues is that lesser developed countries would like to develop, and thus have an incentive to lower carbon taxes. The proven method is to invest in extractive and heavy industries – and to fuel those with cheap dirty coal. It’s hard to convince people to forgo the easy fruits of today for the fruits of tomorrow. And then there is the point that we actually want these countries to develop.
So, one option is to levy a carbon tax on imports. That has issues as well. On part is the measuring of carbon inputs. The other is that these taxes are often a veil to hide special interest groups trying to grab special favors.
I don’t think the US is the #1 greenhouse gas emitter. IRC
Canada and Australia are higher per person then the USA, having a lot of extractive industries.
China admits more than the US, having a higher population and a greater reliance on inefficient coal for energy.
India has the fastest growth.
(Not trying to diminish your concerns, just adding facts.)
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, what is the line that separates a UAV from a R/C? I mean, there are some R/Cs out there that are on steroids – and some really cheap UAV. Is it a subjective thing or is there a rule? (Is it like Horse vs. Pony. There are some hard rules, such as being under 14.2 hands and some subject rules – such as the Icelandic horse has always been called a horse, so it is a horse, even though it is under 14 hands.)
On a per capita basis – that is adjusted for population – yes – because it is already baked in.
Now, let's check the facts.
We will use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita and
US = $48,112
China = $8,400
(We will need to make some adjustments depending on how you define “middle class” - China has a lower Gini coefficient then the US. )
Then we will use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
US = 17.2t
China = 5.3t
So there you go. Heck, you can compare countries and you will find a correlation between CO2 emissions and GDP – because there is a casual effect. GDP is based on labor, inputs, capital, and productivity. Energy is a pretty big input, which today means CO2
That is a better answer to why people listen to music, but it does not explain the relative decline of music sales to other entertainment products.
Consider this: The 80’s is generally considered to be the zenith of the mainstream recording industry. Since then the amount people have spent on music has fallen – both in dollar terms or as a percentage of their entertainment budget.
Video games were a niche product of young men. Today even grandmas are playing the Wii.
Movies were limited to the screen or rental - buying a VHS movie was about $100. Now it is much easier to buy a DVD to build your library or steam something on line.
But music was relative cheap, value wise. A low end stereo system did a good job. Walkman allowed you to take the music on the go. Sure, MP3 players are an big improvement – but relatively speaking the 2 examples that I am giving had a relatively larger improvement.
Question – why do you blame it on pirates? Not saying illegal downloading does not have an effect. (I think it does but I am reading the article) – but why do you name it as the primary cause?
Why not blame the consumer for buying other types of media, such as games and videos?
Why not blame it on market structure where the market has become more efficient and the consumer is grabbing more of the surplus? Consumers are buying more single tracks. They are listening to streaming radio channels which pay less than radio.
My instinct is that these 2 factors have as much to do with this as anything.
Out of curiosity, do you oppose all religious naming? I am thinking about the Roman (Plants, space program), medicine (lots of Greek mythos here), satellite defense (Star Wars is part of the Jedi credo, etc.), various “ark” programs (Jewish or Christen), etc?
Oddly enough, powerful cultural ideas tend to inspire scientist.
Maybe. IIRC CO2 released into the atmosphere tends to remain a lot longer than the cooling effect of soot.
Plus – well – is that even a solution? Soot acid rain, lung disease, etc. Not sure if the pluses outweigh the minuses.
The US is a net energy importer. You are probably thinking about the fact that the US is a net exporter of petroleum products by value.
A good example is that we import low value Nigerian Crude, refine it, and sell it back to them as high value gasoline. (or even better, plastics, etc.) We export almost no fracked natural gas directly – if we do export it as feedstock. Its Chemical engineers and refiners which are doing this – not the well guys.
First, China surpassed the US as the world’s largest manufacture in 2010.
Then factor in that the things that China produces tend to be more energy intensive (like steel or concert) and they are less efficient (having lower pollution controls, cheap labor, and cheap capital lesses the need for energy efficiency.)
Or, to put it another way, to produce $1 of American manufactured goods – like a 747 – takes less energy than to produce $1 ton of Chinese goods.
I would take the opposite side. It is more important to have access to the machines that drive the real economy then to consumer toys. Locked out devices help lock in customers – from the costs to business to the impediment to innovation (all of which will trickle down and hit us) – would be much higher.
I would argue that it is much more invidious that only Oracle can service oracle machines then unlocking Blue Ray disks. Do we want 3D printers that can only run the manufactory’s OS – implying they could restrict printed objects to only “legal” shapes. If a surgeon develops a new procedure on the da Vinci Surgical System should they have to rewrite it every time?
They are interested in both.
IIRC the number of steel mills that China is building has leveed off, but they do need to import much of the raw materials – such as metallurgical coal – which is referred to in the summary. However, they are also investing a lot in electric power production and they are favoring coal plants over gas plants.
Now, I am not sure of the breakdown between US, Australian, and Chinese coal that is going into power production – but I do know that China is increasing it’s use of coal for electricity.
No, you have hit the problem square on the head. China and underdeveloped countries have argued for technology transfers in treaty talks to address exactly what you saying.
Rare earths are – well – rare. (Well, not really – but they are tricky to mine and refine.) Coal is plentiful and easy to mine.
It’s called market structure, not comedy.
True – but I think it is a reasonable assumption. Factor in that China’s middle class earns about a 1/3 of developed nations – that implies lower energy usage and lower CO2 emissions. I would think this was true even after you factor in that China relies heavily on dirty coal. (Now, start projecting 20 years in the future when middle class income is closer to developed country levels.)
No I don't - If you had read the parent they suggested she should have been compensated for the use of her genetic material - which natural leads to copy write of said material, which would be a very bad idea.
I am confused – what do you think a better idea would be?
Let each person copy write their genes? Every time a scientist wants to study the process of life they have to pay you? Maybe if you have a special gene you get a cut from any drug that is developed from it? (That idea, thankfully, has been struck down by Federal Court.)
Good noise canceling headphones are expensive. Another, cheaper, alternative is to get a white noise generator. I know some people who swear by it. Personally I find it distracting, but each to their own.
He is a Jesuit – Big emphasis on education - they all have post-grad degrees. As part of the Counter Reformation the Catholics decided that they needed better intellectual firepower so the Jesuits were created. They run a lot of schools – IIRC Bill Clinton went to one for primary education. They are also known for their particular strident/rigors methods of thought and debate. (i.e. they tend to turn out better lawyers then chemist.)
Also, the pope is a “prince” and gets a regal name – just like when any other royal ascends to the throne. This is partly done to distinguish between their prior personal life (when they spoke for themselves) verse the royal state where they are the state (Royal “We”, body of the state/church, etc.)
Scott Adams / Dilbert work a how to book call “Build A Better Life by Stealing Office Supplies.”
The thing about this system is that there is accountability and trust – so I would be in favor of an experiment like that.
. Neanderthals did not trade with villages thousand of years ago
Which is what I said – humans did, Neanderthals did not.
True civilization stated about 6000 years ago, it worked because people did better when they cooperated
Which is what I was trying to say. But why did people cooperate? I have peer reviewed double blind studies showing that people who believe in religion are more cooperative – and altruistic, trusting, and trustworthy. What reason do you have? Or are you irrational (or crazy, in your words) anti-religious?
I will point out that cherry picking extreme, narrow, simplistic crude aspects of religion is going to create a fun house mirror distortion.
If you want better academic data on the subject I might recommend Oxfords’ “Explaining Religion” http://www.icea.ox.ac.uk/large-grants/explaining-religion/
Or, if that is too much, a good lay article can be found here: http://www.economist.com/node/10903480
Well, no.
First, there is overlap between religion, morality, and philosophy. “Why am I here?” and “what should I do?” are valid questions.
Second, religion has organic and evolutionary backgrounds. There are parts of the brain hardwired for “religious” experiences. Furthermore, religion teaches about altruism and justice. This extends trust and fairness across distance and time. i.e. “If I do something good today for a stranger something good will happen in the future”. Human settlements that were contemporary with the Neanderthals were 1. larger 2. Showed signs of economic specialization, 3. And traded with villages thousands of miles away. Religion was the glue that allowed these big complex pre-history villages to form – it was the killer app that allowed civilization to form.
What you saying is correct, but I am missing a step here.
You hand over your bitcoins for the fund to invest. They split the bitcoins into 3 pieces. o.k. - but how is that investing? If they are just keeping the bitcoins secure that is not even banking.
Let’s try to unpick this – and suggest that taxes can work.
A tax would work (and would be the most efficient choice) if it were a uniform global tax. Canada would still have the highest greenhouse gas emitter but that would be o.k. Extractive and heavy industries tend to be the most polluting, but I would wager that they would be one of the more efficient producers, so total greenhouse gases would go down.
The issues is that lesser developed countries would like to develop, and thus have an incentive to lower carbon taxes. The proven method is to invest in extractive and heavy industries – and to fuel those with cheap dirty coal. It’s hard to convince people to forgo the easy fruits of today for the fruits of tomorrow. And then there is the point that we actually want these countries to develop.
So, one option is to levy a carbon tax on imports. That has issues as well. On part is the measuring of carbon inputs. The other is that these taxes are often a veil to hide special interest groups trying to grab special favors.
However, people have suggested methods. For a good article on the subject: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21572180-can-trade-restrictions-be-justified-environmental-grounds-air-trade
I don’t think the US is the #1 greenhouse gas emitter. IRC
Canada and Australia are higher per person then the USA, having a lot of extractive industries.
China admits more than the US, having a higher population and a greater reliance on inefficient coal for energy.
India has the fastest growth.
(Not trying to diminish your concerns, just adding facts.)