Your complaint about geoengineering is that it's unpredictable. The problem with global warming is that it's unpredictable. We don't know precisely what will happen, only that we probably won't like it.
My (likely) worst case scenario: an ice age in 100 years. That would be worse than global warming.
We know how to emit stuff. We know how to burn stuff to stay warm. But the only way we know how to cool stuff is by generating heat.
I can attest that it is not thermal. It works in a vacuum. It works in a Faraday cage and it works when you reverse the device (the thrust reverses).
from what i recall , it does not defy the laws of physics , it uses a traveling em wave to crate "grip" to the static universal em background field , this method provides thrust from input power by creating a traveling wave that is out of phase to the external one causing motion , like swimming through the background field using the background field to displace it like a phase drive motor , just that its too easy to miss in the maths
The problem is that theoretically, there is no "background field" to "grip". You appear to be proposing a "universal aether" or maybe "phlogiston". Those aren't exactly groundbreaking ideas.
According to theory the quantum vacuum has virtual particles in it, but that doesn't make it a "fabric" to grip or push against.
I am interested to see what kind of thrust they DO claim to have gotten this time. And I am also curious why they chose to use a lower-power source, rather than trying to replicate the original experiments.
Not really. At some point, because it is currency (and not just an asset), it is useful and needed in commerce. Those products and services that actually provide usefulness become valued, while extemporaneous superfluous expenditures.
Here is a good example of the difference between currency and an asset. You had $1000 in 1987 to use. You could buy an Apple MacBook, or invest it in Apple stock. Looking back did you make the right decision between Asset or Currency (buying something). Now, if buying the MacBook made you enough money, to later buy $1000 in stock, and other things (it was a tool) then you made a good decision. If not, then it wasn't a good decision.
The long term view of deflationary CURRENCY is that it is also an asset, but it also remains a currency. It has double usefulness. Inflationary currency is a long term net loss if you hold it. It is a liability. The currency part means that you work hard, and save ANYTHING it because a net gain for you. There is no loss over time.
And this is different than now how? You're under the assumption that what you said is something that isn't happening now. I already said the rich hold assets. Changing what is an asset doesn't actually change anything.
However, a poor man, being frugal, can become rich over time. A worker earns his wage and doesn't lose value before he is even been paid.
Here, I'll show you: A worker works for an hour, and earns a bit coin. The person paying him owes him a bit coin. If the currency is deflationary, the longer the payer holds that coin, the worse it is for the payer. He owes that coin no matter what its purchasing power is. Today, one bitcoin can buy a shopping cart full of food. Tomorrow, the shopping cart and something else (a candy bar).
With Inflationary money, a worker can work for $500, which can buy a shopping cart of food. If the payer holds that currency, the worker waits and when he gets it, he can buy a shopping cart of food, minus a candy bar.
Guess which is better for which person. I work for a salary. I haven't had a raise in 7 years. Guess what happens in the inflationary currency? If I work for deflationary currency, guess what happens (hint, it is the opposite).
There are other issues with deflationary currency. However, those that work hard, work extra, save currency are rewarded in deflationary currency market, and punished in inflationary currency.
By definition the middle class can AFFORD things, the poor and lower class need help MORE than the middle-class does.
Yes, but the problem is that the help for the poor and the lower class is coming from the middle class, instead of from the rich, who have all the money. If you help the poor and lower class at the expense of the middle class, all you're going to do is wind up with more socioeconomic stratification — i.e., just two classes, upper and lower, with an even bigger divide between them. Like pretty much everything else today, it's selling out our future for a temporary, apparent improvement.
Also remember that the context here was that I pointed out why the people Jane's disagreeing with might claim to have studied something for years, even though their absurd conclusions might suggest otherwise to students of the Constitution like Jane Q. Public.
I doubt the average reasonable person would, on reading the original comment this is about, conclude that it referred to "other people".
I'm terribly sorry that there's poverty.
No, you're cowardly sorry.
Why should we believe you've got it as bad as people who are rioting?
Why should we believe anything you wrote?
Libtard SJWs love a good riot, go look up mayday in the bay area for example.
As anyone knows, it's futbol fans that really love rioting.
You imagine laws would constrain very powerful individuals. But you also postulate government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub.
I'm not a libertarian, just a liberal. If I'm to be associated with any party, perhaps it should be the greens. I care more about the environment than any of these other issues.
People want to know why the rich keep getting richer? It is because they don't deal in currency, they deal in assets. Currency is only used when converting one asset for another. Most Currency is inflationary, meaning if you hold it, you lose. This is such a little known fact of life. BitCoin, should it survive will ultimately be deflationary currency, meaning it gains value the longer you hold it.
Think of it this way, you work hard, when you're young, you can retire if you save anything, because deflationary currency becomes an asset. But that doesn't bode well for the rich n powerful, or politicians who need a dependent class of people to take care of.
Actually it doesn't have to match anything. It has to match what the market in Argentina bears. And since Bitcoin is deflationary, while Pesos are Inflationary they counter each other very well. By having Bitcoins, the average Argentine can increase wealth by performing services and charging BitCoins for them.
In terms of monetary terms, withholding payment in Inflationary currency (Peso) is a net gain, and unless you are paid in cash (or equivalent) immediately, Pesos are a losing proposition for workers. On the other hand, withholding payment in a deflationary currency (BitCoin) is bad for the employer, and good for the worker.
This will result in better economy for Argentina, at least for workers.
Same reason we're not making oil from algae, it costs more than pulling it out of the ground.
Right, as long as you make the whole world pay for what it actually costs to get it out of the ground, you make out like a bandit.
Purchasing power of gold wildly fluctuates over time.
You say that like it is a bad thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, just different.
I'd say having unaccountable private enterprise (the Fed) in charge of money supply has, at least partially, been responsible for dismantling the middle class, and the accumulation of wealth by the few at the top.
Happiness is twin floppies.
