Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
dmelgar
Jul 8, 12:01 AM
I'm still on the iPhone 3G. I was seriously considering ditching AT&T and the iPhone 4 for Sprint/EVO 4G or Verizon/Droid X because I was dropping call every single call in my house (no joke, every single call) and multiple calls per day around town a few weeks ago, BUT...
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
I haven't dropped a call for a couple of weeks now and have had great reception in my house recently, as well. Really odd, but encouraging as I decide what you do about replacing this phone.
I've had poor AT&T coverage as well. Could never reliably make a call at home. After suffering for 2 years I ditched and went with the HTC Incredible on Verizon. Couldn't be happier. 3G coverage EVERYWHERE. I forgot what it was like to have coverage. Its like day and night. Over the last month, I've grown to really like Android as well.
UnixMac
Oct 8, 10:01 PM
- but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
Alex
This was exactly my point when I called Apple. I mean, we have lower tech everything, bus, RAM, Hard drives, Graphics cars, etc.....so where is the money going?
I'll tell you where, Apple and Dell are the only two hardware makers to post profits in the worst economy since 1980. The stock market is down 30% and Apple stock has not kept pace.
Also, Abercombieboy, go back to page two of this thread, and re-read my Hitler analogy, this is not about bashing Apple. I am a mac guy, it's about calling a spade a spade.
Alex
This was exactly my point when I called Apple. I mean, we have lower tech everything, bus, RAM, Hard drives, Graphics cars, etc.....so where is the money going?
I'll tell you where, Apple and Dell are the only two hardware makers to post profits in the worst economy since 1980. The stock market is down 30% and Apple stock has not kept pace.
Also, Abercombieboy, go back to page two of this thread, and re-read my Hitler analogy, this is not about bashing Apple. I am a mac guy, it's about calling a spade a spade.
Digitalclips
Apr 28, 08:32 AM
Now re tabulate by profitability.
miles01110
May 2, 09:34 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
MorganK
May 9, 11:35 PM
I have a 3G and my calls keep dropping for no apparent reason. I'll look down right after it ends and have 0 bars then 2 seconds later, standing in the same spot, I will have full bars. It is quite frustrating. Good thing I text more than I talk though or else I'd be highly annoyed.
pika2000
Mar 18, 03:00 AM
This is why I bought the Nexus One.
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
Although I'm afraid I might be forced to let go my grand-fathered unlimited data plan in the near future. Does anybody know if adding a line and converting both it and my line into a family plan will kick me out of the grand-fathered unlimited data plan?
dragonsbane
Mar 21, 08:06 AM
My world holds together quite well when people disagree, actually. Better than yours must, especially since history has proven my argument and disproven your morally relativistic approach. That society exists is a testament to you being wrong.
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
Ho ho, the fact that this program and discussion exist proves the fallacy of your argument. People will always T-H-I-N-K for themselves and make their own minds up about what is moral. That is all I ever said. That is all we are doing here - thinking. You are putting forward the argument that BECAUSE there is a law being broken it is wrong to break it. While I may agree with you on this particular case (I don't), my argument is simply that laws being broken do not define morality. If you would stop winding yourself up I do not think you would disagree with this.
Furthermore, if you lose the argument that breaking a law does not make you, by definition, immoral, then it follows quite easily that folks who want to use this app should and those that don't, should not - on moral grounds alone.
Everyone (except the rich and powerful) is bound by the same laws - there is no disputing that. So if you, or anyone else wants to kill me or break a copyright, you are subject to the laws of the land. I will always support your desire to reason what you will do out for yourself. Follow the laws if you WANT to. But do not follow them just because they are the law.
Can you really disagree with my desire to live my life that way? You yourself said that you speed. How is using this app any different from you deciding to speed or not. Are you going to teach your child that speeding is immoral?
hvfsl
Apr 13, 12:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
Well I love the new final cut, much better than I expected. I especially like how it sorts out the colour and audio when you import.
But then I am more of a hobbest, I might do the odd wedding or school play which I get paid for, but I generally use it on my holiday videos.
�algiris
May 2, 09:14 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
It's an app, pal.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
It's an app, pal.
wovel
Apr 28, 09:03 AM
Make up your mind what you want to count iPads as. Damn is it a mobile device a computer. Someone give them a ****ing category already.
It can count as a computer, net books do..
It can count as a computer, net books do..
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:38 AM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
Why, do you have proof of a virus for OS X ? Because if you do, let's see it.
The fact is, the days of viruses are long gone. It's not the easiest nor most effective sort of malware you can make. Like you state yourself, even windows these days is mostly virus free. Currently, spyware is all the rage, trojans have always been a good vector and the occasional worm when a remote execution/privilege escalation bug pops up can create some havoc.
But good old viruses ? Almost no one plays with those black arts anymore...
gnasher729
Apr 9, 02:47 AM
You summed it up beautifully. You're not a gamer. You're what is called a time passer, which are what 99 percent of IOS games are, mind numbing time killers.
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
So what exactly is the difference between a "gamer" and a "time passer"?
DakotaGuy
Oct 8, 11:15 PM
I don't understand you guys, you say that Windows XP is now stable and maybe you are right, and you say that PC's are faster and the hardware is the same quality for less money.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
I am getting close to replacing my old iMac and I have always been a Mac person, but maybe you are right PC's are better now. My buddy has had crappy luck with his, but it is a low priced one. I am going to keep my iBook. I have a Windows computer running 98 at the school where I teach, I don't like it, but I have never done anything with XP and from what you say and what I have started to read, XP sounds like an excellent operating system, just as good as OSX, and with lower prices and much better hardware I am going to seriously look at a new PC this winter and test it out. What is the best PC right now? Dell? Gateway? I have always been hell-bent against PC's, but when all I read anymore on Mac message boards is how good they have become then I need to go and check it out. I would prefer an all-in-one like my iMac. Gateway has the new Profile...does any other PC maker make a one-in-all?
I have always believed in buying the best product that offered more value, I have been a Mac guy, but when I hear Macs suck and PC's are better from people that actually like Macs and are not trolls, then I really have got to wonder, have I been wrong all along? and to think I just talked a buddy into a new iMac, I did not realize that PC's were this good now. He hated his old PC, but now they have became way faster then the Mac and more stable, I hope he will not be mad at me.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:50 PM
I think being Catholic is a psychological problem, but it doesn't mean that I have any desire to deny Catholics the same rights as anyone else.
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.
This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these? When I discuss rights with liberal, they seldom say what kinds of rights they're talking about, and they never tell me what a right is as such. Many liberals seem to love ambiguity. Ambiguity confuses me thoroughly. To see why, talk with a few postmodernists who refuse to define their jargon. They refuse to define it because they want to keep reinterpreting it.
This sentence (or phrase) is completely unintelligible.
Sorry, I wrote impulsively and didn't proofread what I wrote. Some here say there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological and/or environmental causes. I think it has both. But it's one thing to say that there's no evidence for what someone believes. It's something else to say that, although there is such evidence, no one has discovered it yet.
gopher
Oct 9, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Haven't we been over this before?
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
Haven't we been over this before?
Maybe we have, but nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. The Mac hardware is capable of 18 billion floating calculations a second. Whether the software takes advantage of it that's another issue entirely. If someone is going to argue that Macs don't have good floating point performance, just look at the specs. If they really want good performance and aren't getting it they need to contact their favorite developer to work with the specs and Apple's developer relations. Apple provides the hardware, it is up to developer companies to utilize the hardware the best way they can. If they can't utilize Apple's hardware to its most efficient mode, then they should find better developers.
If you are going to complain that Apple doesn't have good floating point performance, don't use a PC biased spec like Specfp. Go by actual floating point calculations a second.
Nobody has shown anything to say that PCs can do more floating point calculations a second. And until someone does I stand by my claim.
stcanard
Mar 18, 12:13 PM
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
aristobrat
Feb 16, 03:45 PM
The Android Marketplace is still relatively new.
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
The Android Marketplace "opened for business" roughly 90 days after the iTunes App Store did, no?
07/10/2008 = iTunes App Store launches
10/22/2008 = Android Marketplace launches
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:47 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
Yeah, because ever since the iTunes store opened, I haven't had the need...
Unless it's Metallica, then I'm all for ripping those guys off, just to mess with them!
balamw
Sep 12, 07:30 PM
It's got USB.
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:08 PM
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Didn't you read this?
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
Didn't you read this?
Until then, I just discovered that this terminal command will do the trick:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
iliketyla
Apr 20, 06:37 PM
Except for the inferior interface, battery life, apps and usability you mean.. Otherwise they are exactly the same!
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
Yeah! My battery lasts for upwards of two days. Definitely not comparable at all to an iPhone.
Inferior interface is subjective, and you've given no reference so that comment is irrelevant.
Name me one app that you have on your iPhone that doesn't have a similar if not identical app on the Android Market.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
Drewnrupe
Sep 12, 04:23 PM
The other this thing plays HD not SD like the eyeHome.
.
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
.
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น