Decelerating an object can be modeled as a spring damper system. The spring provides a force based on deflection and the damper provides a force based on velocity. It is the damper that does the energy absorption vehicle the spring will just return the energy to the system. Industrial shock absorbers work on this principle. A metal body acts both the spring and damper. A composite body will have less energy absorption but will still bring your vehicle to a stop. We actually have great technology in seatbelts and airbags now to almost eliminate body damage based on deceleration. More deaths are caused now by the crushing of or intrusion into the passenger compartment.
It would be interesting to see what the "poor" use the Internet for in a years time. Who here thinks the majority of the time will be spent filling out job applications or Khan Academy? I'm pretty sure YouTube, porn sites, and community flash mob organizing will be the major activities.
The big difference is back then you had an engine that was cast iron. The Malibu had an aluminum engine so although they may have had the same mass more mass is concentrated in the body of the Malibu which explains the crash results.
The big advance will happen when the manufacture of carbon composites gets the point it can be automated cheaply. They are lighter, stiffer, and stronger that most metals. In a minor crash the composite will deflect but not yield so you will most likely just need to buff it out and paint it.
The big problem with his assumption is that in 1400 years our knowledge of physics doesn't change. It's like an an aysos in the 1800s saying we won't be able to keep our homes lit because we will have killed off all the whales. I'm not saying I know the answer, just I am smart enough not to claim exponential energy growth using today's technology.
The flaw in your logic is the same as all centrally planned things. It is easy to describe something in a law or paper but impossible to administer in the real world. It stems from the fact lawyers write laws to be confusing because it gives politicians mo power since you never know if you are violating one.
Engineers deal with this all of the time with project requirements. A real requirement needs a way to verify it has been met. So a requirement that an assembly machine should run quickly and scrap a minimum number of parts is not a requirement. A real requirement would read more like,the machine should produce 1800 parts that are within specification with less than 1 scrapped part per 1000 parts within spec. This can actually be checked. Unfortunately most laws read like the former.
The idea of a patent sounds good. The first people to invent something useful get a monopoly on it. The implementation of this is impossible. It would be best to do away with it all together.
If they mean spend $100 Billion over 10 years digging a hole with no intention on using it I'd vote for my town.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 2
The history of the debt is punctuated by one major constant. War. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png There are several peaks which coincide with wars followed by peacetime declines. Revolution War of 1812. Civil War WWI WWII Cold War (Regans Spending) Global War on Terrorism
The Korean and Vietnam wars were overshadowed by the recovery from WWII which was massive.
A minor factor is when we had Central Banks. These helped allow deficit spending war or peace to occur. These are the times when we didn't have a Central Bank and you can see they correspond well with declines in debt. 1811–1816: No central bank 1837–1862: Free Bank Era 1863–1913: National Banks
The fact your post was moded to a 5 shows that we are doomed. What you and everyone else is missing is that as productivity increases most people have to work less. How many hours a year at minimum wage do you have to work to live as good as someone in the middle class from 60 years ago? No internet, no cable tv, no cell phone, crappy unsafe car, 1000 sqft house with no AC, 1950's healthcare? Not many. The problem is people are convinced they deserve things just for being alive. I'm typing this post on my iPad sitting outside. The president of the US couldn't do this in 1950 with all of the country's resource behind him.
Your question is flawed because people will be able to live fine with little income because things will be so cheap. It will almost be like communism where all of your needs are met by the state because it costs so little. Even today we are the first society in the history of the planet where the poorest are the fattest. think about that for a minute. There is so much food available so cheaply that the poor are fat form the same reason they are poor. They lack self control and the ability to delay gratification.
Please take some time to read Batist's "The Law". It is an excellent work that is free online. It was written in the 1800s but reads like current events.
I think you are misunderstanding my statement a bit. There are things the government can do that benefit all citizens including producers. Thins like having courts to protect life, property, and contracts. Infrastructure and laws designed to maintain open trade. These things benefit all people.
The danger is when laws are passed to tax or subsidize certain businesses or industries. This action cannot be done without harming consumers. I hope this clarifies it a bit.
So if it 90k jobs are created installing solar panels wouldn't it be better if 100 million jobs were created by having people on exercise bikes with generators?
Let me clear up my comment. Government does provide many necessary functions. It needs funds to do this so taxation or tariffs are required. The problem comes in when they are not applied evenly. I'm not even talking about tax rates. If you want a corporate tax fine. It you want it 50% fine. That will just be an overall drag on the economy. But the real devious ones are targeted tax breaks. These are for all essential purposes subsidies. These cause distortions in the economy that go against what consumers are naturally doing. And that is their purpose to distort and control peoples behaviors.
You are wrong. People in the US who don't work at all and live entirely off of handouts live better than 99% of the people that have ever lived on this planet. A person today can get a mobile phone for free that has more computing power than was available to entire governments only 50 years ago.
A person today can work minimum wage for a few weeks to pay for one way airfare to Europe. My great grandmother had to sell herself into indentured servitude for 7 years to pay for the trip to the US.
So with the tiniest bit of effort a person can live better than the majority of humanity due to productivity.
If you take your theory to it's logical conclusion we should eliminate all productivity increasing technology because it allows us to produce more with less labor. Therefore if we smash the machines it will require more people to make less products. And this somehow will make us richer. Right?
Of course natural monopolies can exist. But they don't exist for long in a free market. Usually when a natural monopoly exists it starts abusing the monopoly which leads competitors. Also those monopolies use politicians to write laws making the hurdles to entry even steeper. But then again that isn't a natural monopoly anymore.
That is why I wrote to the degree it is cost effective to do so.
Your original point was economics isn't a zero sum game. That is not accurate in all cases. In a free market it isn't a zero sum game. In a Centrally Planned one it is you can only give to one party what you take from another. It is only during a voluntary trade that wealth is gained by both sides.
When you go to the store to buy something who gains and who loses? Do you gain because you get a product you want or does the store gain because they get the money they want? The answer is both parties in a voluntary trade win and both are wealthier because of the trade otherwise they would not make the trade. This is how trading creates wealth because both parties value what they are trading for more than what they are trading with.
The stock market as it currently works is scam because of the monetary system we have. Banks are given a monopoly to create money out of nothing and then lend it out for interest. This is insanity and lies at the heart of many problems we have with the economy.
You are wrong on all accounts. But if it makes you feel better the vast majority of people share your opinion. It is also why we are in the situation we are now.
I know all about comparative advantage. When a country can produce more and better sugar because they have the right climate it makes sense to import it to the degree it is cost effective to do so. But if you pass a law restricting import or putting a tariff on it you do so specifically to benefit the domestic sugar producers at the expense of all sugar consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Decelerating an object can be modeled as a spring damper system. The spring provides a force based on deflection and the damper provides a force based on velocity. It is the damper that does the energy absorption vehicle the spring will just return the energy to the system. Industrial shock absorbers work on this principle. A metal body acts both the spring and damper. A composite body will have less energy absorption but will still bring your vehicle to a stop. We actually have great technology in seatbelts and airbags now to almost eliminate body damage based on deceleration. More deaths are caused now by the crushing of or intrusion into the passenger compartment.
If they are paying the bill I don't care. When my bill goes up to subsidize somebody else I do care.
It would be interesting to see what the "poor" use the Internet for in a years time. Who here thinks the majority of the time will be spent filling out job applications or Khan Academy? I'm pretty sure YouTube, porn sites, and community flash mob organizing will be the major activities.
The big difference is back then you had an engine that was cast iron. The Malibu had an aluminum engine so although they may have had the same mass more mass is concentrated in the body of the Malibu which explains the crash results.
The big advance will happen when the manufacture of carbon composites gets the point it can be automated cheaply. They are lighter, stiffer, and stronger that most metals. In a minor crash the composite will deflect but not yield so you will most likely just need to buff it out and paint it.
You have it backwards. You are witnessing the dollar bubble popping. Gold is just sitting there being worth what it always is worth.
You are assuming the laws of thermodynamics are perfectly understood.
The big problem with his assumption is that in 1400 years our knowledge of physics doesn't change. It's like an an aysos in the 1800s saying we won't be able to keep our homes lit because we will have killed off all the whales. I'm not saying I know the answer, just I am smart enough not to claim exponential energy growth using today's technology.
The flaw in your logic is the same as all centrally planned things. It is easy to describe something in a law or paper but impossible to administer in the real world. It stems from the fact lawyers write laws to be confusing because it gives politicians mo power since you never know if you are violating one.
Engineers deal with this all of the time with project requirements. A real requirement needs a way to verify it has been met. So a requirement that an assembly machine should run quickly and scrap a minimum number of parts is not a requirement. A real requirement would read more like ,the machine should produce 1800 parts that are within specification with less than 1 scrapped part per 1000 parts within spec. This can actually be checked. Unfortunately most laws read like the former.
The idea of a patent sounds good. The first people to invent something useful get a monopoly on it. The implementation of this is impossible. It would be best to do away with it all together.
If they mean spend $100 Billion over 10 years digging a hole with no intention on using it I'd vote for my town.
The history of the debt is punctuated by one major constant. War.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt.png
There are several peaks which coincide with wars followed by peacetime declines.
Revolution
War of 1812.
Civil War
WWI
WWII
Cold War (Regans Spending)
Global War on Terrorism
The Korean and Vietnam wars were overshadowed by the recovery from WWII which was massive.
A minor factor is when we had Central Banks. These helped allow deficit spending war or peace to occur.
These are the times when we didn't have a Central Bank and you can see they correspond well with declines in debt.
1811–1816: No central bank
1837–1862: Free Bank Era
1863–1913: National Banks
The fact your post was moded to a 5 shows that we are doomed. What you and everyone else is missing is that as productivity increases most people have to work less. How many hours a year at minimum wage do you have to work to live as good as someone in the middle class from 60 years ago? No internet, no cable tv, no cell phone, crappy unsafe car, 1000 sqft house with no AC, 1950's healthcare? Not many. The problem is people are convinced they deserve things just for being alive. I'm typing this post on my iPad sitting outside. The president of the US couldn't do this in 1950 with all of the country's resource behind him.
Your question is flawed because people will be able to live fine with little income because things will be so cheap. It will almost be like communism where all of your needs are met by the state because it costs so little. Even today we are the first society in the history of the planet where the poorest are the fattest. think about that for a minute. There is so much food available so cheaply that the poor are fat form the same reason they are poor. They lack self control and the ability to delay gratification.
Please take some time to read Batist's "The Law". It is an excellent work that is free online. It was written in the 1800s but reads like current events.
I think you are misunderstanding my statement a bit. There are things the government can do that benefit all citizens including producers. Thins like having courts to protect life, property, and contracts. Infrastructure and laws designed to maintain open trade. These things benefit all people.
The danger is when laws are passed to tax or subsidize certain businesses or industries. This action cannot be done without harming consumers. I hope this clarifies it a bit.
So if it 90k jobs are created installing solar panels wouldn't it be better if 100 million jobs were created by having people on exercise bikes with generators?
Let me clear up my comment. Government does provide many necessary functions. It needs funds to do this so taxation or tariffs are required. The problem comes in when they are not applied evenly. I'm not even talking about tax rates. If you want a corporate tax fine. It you want it 50% fine. That will just be an overall drag on the economy. But the real devious ones are targeted tax breaks. These are for all essential purposes subsidies. These cause distortions in the economy that go against what consumers are naturally doing. And that is their purpose to distort and control peoples behaviors.
You are wrong. People in the US who don't work at all and live entirely off of handouts live better than 99% of the people that have ever lived on this planet. A person today can get a mobile phone for free that has more computing power than was available to entire governments only 50 years ago.
A person today can work minimum wage for a few weeks to pay for one way airfare to Europe. My great grandmother had to sell herself into indentured servitude for 7 years to pay for the trip to the US.
So with the tiniest bit of effort a person can live better than the majority of humanity due to productivity.
If you take your theory to it's logical conclusion we should eliminate all productivity increasing technology because it allows us to produce more with less labor. Therefore if we smash the machines it will require more people to make less products. And this somehow will make us richer. Right?
So the post office monopoly on delivering first class mail is a result of the free market?
Of course natural monopolies can exist. But they don't exist for long in a free market. Usually when a natural monopoly exists it starts abusing the monopoly which leads competitors. Also those monopolies use politicians to write laws making the hurdles to entry even steeper. But then again that isn't a natural monopoly anymore.
That is why I wrote to the degree it is cost effective to do so.
Your original point was economics isn't a zero sum game. That is not accurate in all cases. In a free market it isn't a zero sum game. In a Centrally Planned one it is you can only give to one party what you take from another. It is only during a voluntary trade that wealth is gained by both sides.
Not really. That was pretty non specific.
And this is why the Republican Party is just as bad for the economy as the Democrats.
When you go to the store to buy something who gains and who loses? Do you gain because you get a product you want or does the store gain because they get the money they want? The answer is both parties in a voluntary trade win and both are wealthier because of the trade otherwise they would not make the trade. This is how trading creates wealth because both parties value what they are trading for more than what they are trading with.
The stock market as it currently works is scam because of the monetary system we have. Banks are given a monopoly to create money out of nothing and then lend it out for interest. This is insanity and lies at the heart of many problems we have with the economy.
You are wrong on all accounts. But if it makes you feel better the vast majority of people share your opinion. It is also why we are in the situation we are now.
I know all about comparative advantage. When a country can produce more and better sugar because they have the right climate it makes sense to import it to the degree it is cost effective to do so. But if you pass a law restricting import or putting a tariff on it you do so specifically to benefit the domestic sugar producers at the expense of all sugar consumers.
Monopoly only exists because of laws allowing it. Long term monopolies don' exist naturally.