I hate it when people ruin a perfectly good argument by pulling the "you obviously haven't studied economics" card. It's stupid. The only people who say that are people who know next to nothing about Economics. Anybody who had actually studied economics would realize that trained economists can't even agree on anything, especially when you start mixing up moralistic value judgments with the quantitative analysis. There is a reason that economists look down on normative statements and that's because it leads the debate to a philosophical dead end where everyone stops their feet and whines about how terrible everyone else is. Give me a break. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by accusing people who disagree with you on some subjective issue of knowing nothing about economics. Instead try formulating a cohesive argument, or just calling them an idiot.
"Evil" is probably putting it a little strongly. Adolf Hitler is evil. Josef Stalin is evil. Satan is evil. Corporate executives chasing their next bonus are pretty mild when compared to evil. Like it or not the world isn't black and white and to pretend so is to become evil yourself.
I spent a year at Oregon State University back in 2006-2007. They were talking about the ocean wave generators back then; it seems to be the darling of the engineering department there.
Don't ever go there by the way. It's in a really small town with an annoying football culture and an annoying number of frat houses, filled with small-time criminals, bored cops, and very few permanent residents.
Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African
I can't tell if you are supporting the idea of racial intelligence or not, but if you are you should have a look at Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" which makes a pretty convincing case that different races succeeded more than others due to their geographical positioning, instead of due to their inherent abilities as many people assume.
But that's the problem right there. If I want to specialize in speech, sneak and alchemy, it doesn't make any sense for the monsters to develop better combat skills while I'm developing my social skills. I never had a problem myself (my Wizard ended up being overpowered in the end) but I watched a friend hose his sneaking/archery character and how it ruined his experience of the game.
there is nothing stopping you from hitting the reset button when you fall off a cliff
Nothing besides classical pavlovian conditioning. He wants to win the game and he just can't help pulling that "win the game" lever if it is there. Or, in this case, he can't help not pulling the "lose the game" lever that is there.
Yeah, but then they could prosecute YOU for being an asshole for calling all lawyers and most people in Florida and Texas assholes with no citation. It's like that old poem thing about the Nazi's where it goes "and then they came for me..." except instead of Jews and Protestants and Black people or whatever it's assholes, assholes, and assholes, according to some random asshole's opinion of what an asshole is.
By "when you have to think all immersion is ruined" I believe the OP meant "when you have to meta-game all immersion is ruined." Vanilla Oblivion, with it's level-scaling baddies, was definitely a game where you had to meta-game in order to succeed. Otherwise the monsters would level more efficiently than you would and eventually you would find yourself outmatched by the Goblins you had utterly pwned 10 levels ago.
The risk of having to start over entirely is a much greater risk than the risk of having to re-load. Greater risk translates into greater feelings of excitement. This is why I never play Diablo 2 without a hardcore character (one life only).
So, in summary, we need to know the cost of the old solar cells as compared to the cost of the new solar cells in order to determine which one gets you "more bang for your buck," which is how anyone tasked with making a financial decision would define "efficiency" in this situation.
It really doesn't. You have an excellent point, and there are certainly many situations where people would be willing to pay a premium for space efficiency, but there is a point at which it would be too expensive for even those applications. Every person, every organization and every project has economic limitations.
This is a semantic debate over the definition of "efficiency" as it would be had between a company engineer and a company economist. If they cost *pinky to mouth* One Million Dollars then they may gather sunlight efficiently but they don't produce electricity cost-efficiently.
It's so difficult that it isn't practical. As another poster pointed out you can create gold from wood using high-energy equipment, but the energy invested would be worth more than the gold produced and therefore there are limitations on what you can and can't do. So, while strictly speaking it is possible, there are economic considerations.
Yes, you said it, they are fools. Anybody who thinks they know how the universe was created based on a few pages they read in some book that someone else wrote is a drooling idiot. Strict agnosticism is the most rational and logical theological position.
Furthermore your weak and unrelated hypothesis doesn't even begin to answer my question, how were the heavens and the earth created from nothing?
Face it, neither modern science nor biblical creation myths provide a satisfactory explanation as to why all of these particles are floating around in a three-dimensional space. The stupidest thing you could possibly do, regardless of your religious affiliation, is believe that the universe is not a mystery and that YOU in your infinite wisdom have EVERYTHING figured out.
You might theoretically make anything into anything but from a practical standpoint it is difficult. Show me how to turn wood into gold and I'll buy it;-) (pun intended)
If those passages aren't a mystery to you then I say you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read critically. Who is this God character? How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form, out of a void? There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.
More efficient technology does not mean wider applications irrespective of cost. Technology is defined as being more efficient BY what it costs; if it costs less it is more efficient. The science is still interesting but from a practical standpoint whether or not these will be used widely is directly related to the average cost of the electricity it produces. There is a reason that we don't use people pedaling on bicycles to produce electricity; because of the cost. If labor were much cheaper than burning coal then we would use that instead. Unfortunately the cost of labor is influenced by the COST of living.
If the super-efficient solar panels are constructed of rare materials that cost millions of dollars, then the higher efficiency will not necessarily lead to lower cost-per-kWh. The OP does care, they're just being realistic and not jumping to conclusions, which is what you should do when analyzing any investment.
I'm not a fan of Yahoo! but my Dad (born in 1960) has been using it as his primary e-mail and instant messaging service for years. It does everything he needs it to and he doesn't have the motivation to switch services. As far as I can tell the Yahoo! e-mail service has a comparable feature set to Gmail and Yahoo! messenger has all of the features of Google Talk (IE pop-up e-mail alerts, VOIP, messaging), except that it has been around for far longer.
Yahoo! isn't "in style" anymore and I was never a huge fan of it myself but for some people "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is enough of a reason not to switch service providers. I bet that Yahoo! will decline in popularity as the years go on and more and more of it's user base kicks the bucket.
Cardiovascular disease is also the leading cause of death in the United States and most of the world. I bet a lot of that is also related to alcohol. I doubt Russia is that unique.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate it when people ruin a perfectly good argument by pulling the "you obviously haven't studied economics" card. It's stupid. The only people who say that are people who know next to nothing about Economics. Anybody who had actually studied economics would realize that trained economists can't even agree on anything, especially when you start mixing up moralistic value judgments with the quantitative analysis. There is a reason that economists look down on normative statements and that's because it leads the debate to a philosophical dead end where everyone stops their feet and whines about how terrible everyone else is. Give me a break. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by accusing people who disagree with you on some subjective issue of knowing nothing about economics. Instead try formulating a cohesive argument, or just calling them an idiot.
"Evil" is probably putting it a little strongly. Adolf Hitler is evil. Josef Stalin is evil. Satan is evil. Corporate executives chasing their next bonus are pretty mild when compared to evil. Like it or not the world isn't black and white and to pretend so is to become evil yourself.
Clearly they're all doing it for $20 or less. Hardly a compelling or epic story as I'm sure was intended originally.
I spent a year at Oregon State University back in 2006-2007. They were talking about the ocean wave generators back then; it seems to be the darling of the engineering department there.
Don't ever go there by the way. It's in a really small town with an annoying football culture and an annoying number of frat houses, filled with small-time criminals, bored cops, and very few permanent residents.
Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African
I can't tell if you are supporting the idea of racial intelligence or not, but if you are you should have a look at Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" which makes a pretty convincing case that different races succeeded more than others due to their geographical positioning, instead of due to their inherent abilities as many people assume.
But that's the problem right there. If I want to specialize in speech, sneak and alchemy, it doesn't make any sense for the monsters to develop better combat skills while I'm developing my social skills. I never had a problem myself (my Wizard ended up being overpowered in the end) but I watched a friend hose his sneaking/archery character and how it ruined his experience of the game.
there is nothing stopping you from hitting the reset button when you fall off a cliff
Nothing besides classical pavlovian conditioning. He wants to win the game and he just can't help pulling that "win the game" lever if it is there. Or, in this case, he can't help not pulling the "lose the game" lever that is there.
Yeah, but then they could prosecute YOU for being an asshole for calling all lawyers and most people in Florida and Texas assholes with no citation. It's like that old poem thing about the Nazi's where it goes "and then they came for me ..." except instead of Jews and Protestants and Black people or whatever it's assholes, assholes, and assholes, according to some random asshole's opinion of what an asshole is.
That's crazy enough to work ...
What happens when the internet goes down and I want to play with my roommate? Go eat a dick, Blizz.
By "when you have to think all immersion is ruined" I believe the OP meant "when you have to meta-game all immersion is ruined." Vanilla Oblivion, with it's level-scaling baddies, was definitely a game where you had to meta-game in order to succeed. Otherwise the monsters would level more efficiently than you would and eventually you would find yourself outmatched by the Goblins you had utterly pwned 10 levels ago.
The risk of having to start over entirely is a much greater risk than the risk of having to re-load. Greater risk translates into greater feelings of excitement. This is why I never play Diablo 2 without a hardcore character (one life only).
So, in summary, we need to know the cost of the old solar cells as compared to the cost of the new solar cells in order to determine which one gets you "more bang for your buck," which is how anyone tasked with making a financial decision would define "efficiency" in this situation.
It really doesn't. You have an excellent point, and there are certainly many situations where people would be willing to pay a premium for space efficiency, but there is a point at which it would be too expensive for even those applications. Every person, every organization and every project has economic limitations.
This is a semantic debate over the definition of "efficiency" as it would be had between a company engineer and a company economist. If they cost *pinky to mouth* One Million Dollars then they may gather sunlight efficiently but they don't produce electricity cost-efficiently.
It's so difficult that it isn't practical. As another poster pointed out you can create gold from wood using high-energy equipment, but the energy invested would be worth more than the gold produced and therefore there are limitations on what you can and can't do. So, while strictly speaking it is possible, there are economic considerations.
Their accounts on those machines are also restricted "User" accts, so anything that needs to be installed has to go by me first
They must love their sense of autonomy.
Yes, you said it, they are fools. Anybody who thinks they know how the universe was created based on a few pages they read in some book that someone else wrote is a drooling idiot. Strict agnosticism is the most rational and logical theological position.
Furthermore your weak and unrelated hypothesis doesn't even begin to answer my question, how were the heavens and the earth created from nothing?
Face it, neither modern science nor biblical creation myths provide a satisfactory explanation as to why all of these particles are floating around in a three-dimensional space. The stupidest thing you could possibly do, regardless of your religious affiliation, is believe that the universe is not a mystery and that YOU in your infinite wisdom have EVERYTHING figured out.
Go milk a cow.
You might theoretically make anything into anything but from a practical standpoint it is difficult. Show me how to turn wood into gold and I'll buy it ;-) (pun intended)
If those passages aren't a mystery to you then I say you need to go back to elementary school and learn how to read critically. Who is this God character? How did he create the heaven and the earth from something without form, out of a void? There are obviously some details missing and I demand a refund for this explanation of the universe you have sold to humanity.
More efficient technology does not mean wider applications irrespective of cost. Technology is defined as being more efficient BY what it costs; if it costs less it is more efficient. The science is still interesting but from a practical standpoint whether or not these will be used widely is directly related to the average cost of the electricity it produces. There is a reason that we don't use people pedaling on bicycles to produce electricity; because of the cost. If labor were much cheaper than burning coal then we would use that instead. Unfortunately the cost of labor is influenced by the COST of living.
If the super-efficient solar panels are constructed of rare materials that cost millions of dollars, then the higher efficiency will not necessarily lead to lower cost-per-kWh. The OP does care, they're just being realistic and not jumping to conclusions, which is what you should do when analyzing any investment.
Being fit makes sex better! But really most people these days are happy with just being skinny.
I'm not a fan of Yahoo! but my Dad (born in 1960) has been using it as his primary e-mail and instant messaging service for years. It does everything he needs it to and he doesn't have the motivation to switch services. As far as I can tell the Yahoo! e-mail service has a comparable feature set to Gmail and Yahoo! messenger has all of the features of Google Talk (IE pop-up e-mail alerts, VOIP, messaging), except that it has been around for far longer.
Yahoo! isn't "in style" anymore and I was never a huge fan of it myself but for some people "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is enough of a reason not to switch service providers. I bet that Yahoo! will decline in popularity as the years go on and more and more of it's user base kicks the bucket.
The amount of money I spend on my WoW subscription in one month, I can burn through in the pub in about 2 hours
I can burn through $15 at the pub in 15 minutes!
Cardiovascular disease is also the leading cause of death in the United States and most of the world. I bet a lot of that is also related to alcohol. I doubt Russia is that unique.