Nobody needs to get murdered. You merely must create an environment where it's more profitable to research fusion energy than it is to commercialize fusion energy.
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I'm beginning to think that Tokamak is a way to funnel tax dollars into researcher's pockets. If we ever do achieve practical commercial fusion, we may look back at the Tokamak like modern pilots look back at the manned ornithopter attempts of the 1800's.
But if the Tokamak ever is made to be commercially viable, we're probably talking about a few gigantic power generators, which would mean we probably need to do something about that decades-old power line infrastructure.
We all hope not. And past performance is not an indication of future results. (Which is a good thing, in this case.) But the past several decades have pretty much beaten all the enthusiasm out of many of us.
Practical fusion would be a complete game changer in many different areas. Cheap enough, it would not only pretty much kill the oil industry, but may even make the "green" energy industry redundant. (Solar, wind, tides, geothermal.) Dirt cheap electricity, commonly available, would make electric vehicles a lot more interesting. Cheap centralized power would probably reverse the current tendency to diversify power and make upgrading our aging electric power infrastructure a priority. And so forth. Fusion is a very disruptive technology.
Maybe that's the real reason we don't have it yet.
True. This is not WinCE, or Win8 RT. It's "real" Windows. Nevertheless, it *is* Windows 8.1... And anytime Microsoft tries to shoehorn one of their operating systems into the "netbook" (or "chromebook" whatever the concept has morphed into) space, the process is usually (a) yes it work but it's really slow and the battery life is crap, (b) the next generation is heftier to be equal to the demands of the operating system, (c) eventually the product grows in capabilities and price to the point where it's really just a low end laptop. If MS is lucky, you then get (d), the market is muddied to the point where it becomes unprofitable and goes away.
It's the hardware equivalent of embrace, extend, extinguish.
Doesn't this pretty much eliminate any usage of a camera equipped drone anywhere in the city? How could you avoid filming bystanders if you were filming anything using a drone -- a high school football game, for instance.
I understand the reasons for the law -- we don't want people intentionally flying drones in areas where privacy would be expected -- and I include a back patio in that definition, if the owner has made a reasonable effort to make it a private space. But I'm concerned that a too-broad interpretation would ban all uses where there is any chance of unintentionally filming a stranger.
Photographers deal with this issue frequently. It's generally understood that if I take a photo of a street or a building, I don't need signed releases from every passer-by. But if I put my camera on a pole and raise it over the fence in someone else's enclosed back yard, I could get arrested (and would deserve to). Now that I think about it, wouldn't privacy issues regarding drones be covered by existing law?
Wait, didn't I hear something similar back in the seventies? Hope this works out better.
After all, we know it's from MS so it's going to be buggy and crappy.
That's actually a good point. What they really need is to disassociate the products from the parent company in some fashion. Maybe call the group of internet enabled apps
Well obviously, any plan to rename IE would eventually fall through when they realized the damn thing still sucks and then they'd just be gaining ANOTHER product under their brand that is universally recognized as a steaming pile of crap.
Right, but hasn't that been pretty much the way its gone for decades now?
Because that tactic worked so well for Comcast. (Xfinity.)
I don't have a reference handy, (would have to ask a certain member of my family who would know all about this) but I seem to remember that the banning of hemp had nothing to do with THC. That was only an excuse. The real reason was that hemp was competing too well with some other part of the textile industry.
That's going to bug me. I'll have to do research tonight and get more details.
Actually when I was in high school electronics class we had great fun charging up big capacitors then tossing them to our classmates yelling "Here, catch!". A few of us were smart enough not to catch.
In my high school electronics class the instructor announced on the first day of class that anyone charging up a capacitor and tossing it to someone else as a joke would automatically fail the class. (Apparently this was not his first rodeo.)
Up to that point, we'd never even realized this was possible. That Halloween was fun.
So the state (of which I am an unhappy citizen) can use environmental laws to harass the shit of out walmart, chevron and and other business not in favor, but simply be waived for favored industries ? In the name of money ? I hope someone sues the state
Yeah, it's called picking the winners and losers. Someone always is suing the state for something or other, but I don't expect much movement on this issue. The state (most states, I suspect) will continue to favor the hip and trendy businesses at the expense of businesses they don't like.
But you can't blame Musk for considering the deal. Because hey, free money.
My perception is that libraries carry books because they are books, and not for trendy or financial reasons. If I can't find an obscure title online, (admittedly, this happens less and less often) I can often find it at the library.