Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:fear and cowardice (Score 1) 421

by pablo_max (#47740855) Attached to: South Carolina Student Arrested For "Killing Pet Dinosaur"

Fear yes, but cowardice, no. That is not the point.
Folks in the US seem to have a hard time believing and/or seeing what is going on. It is social engineering 101. You are being taught several things. First and foremost, do not question authority.
They are also trying to teach fear the punishment for any thought of violence. They are even being to teach people to fear the consequences of speaking out against their leaders.
Swat raids for twitter posts anyone? In 20 years America will not even be recognizable. For F's sake, most teens don't care at all over the amount of control the government has over their lives. They are taught, from the beginning that this is good and right and just!
We saw the writing on the wall years ago though and left America to a free country.

Comment: Oversight and regulation (Score 5, Informative) 341

by pablo_max (#47675765) Attached to: Berlin Bans Car Service Uber

While I agree with you that most people cannot tolerate hipsters, I disagree with your assertion that most people will put up with unlicensed taxi drivers.
I travel all over Europe and Asian as part of job and for personal reasons and I have learned one thing..NEVER take unofficial taxis. EVER.
Oversight and regulation of certain industries are not a bad thing.

Comment: Re:Warp Drive (Score 1) 564

And immortal 2014 human living in the year 3000 would be like a Homo habilis hanging around us. Would be genetically obsolete..

Wait..what?
What is the purpose of living things? Most people would say that staying alive (self preservation) and reproduction of your genes.

I would say that a 2014 man, alive in the year 3000 and still reproducing has a wildly successful genome. Newer does not always mean better.

Comment: My next car will be electric (Score 1) 247

by pablo_max (#47387487) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

Yup, that's right. Our next car will be an electric. Even here in Germany, where electricity is WAY more expensive than in the US.

However, for us, it is perfect. My wife works only 2 miles from home and I work 12 miles from home. My house, which has a simple A-frame style roof which faces North/south. On the south side, I have 1/2 solar electric cells which bring me money from the grid and the other 1/2 is hot water cells which has reduced my oil usage by 50%.
Both of our current cars are diesel, which as you know are really bad for driving short distances. Especially since they have particulate filters. It would great to charge up once every couple weeks. I just hope the battery tech lets them last a long time.

Comment: What about solar? Why would that not work? (Score 1) 216

by pablo_max (#47322443) Attached to: Toyota's Fuel Cell Car To Launch In Japan Next March

You are basically correct that there are only a couple ways to get hygrogen on an industrial scale. There are of course some very promising new methods, but these are only working in the lab so far.

You also say, "Electrolysis is extremely inefficient. You loos about 50% of the electrical energy you put into this process.".
This is totally correct. However, does it really matter?
If I use coal or gas to create the the power, then sure it does. A lot. But what if we used something else to create the power?
What if we parked 100 square miles of solar reflectors and molten salt towers in Nevada? These type of plants generate loads of power. I could imagine to use them just to power hydrogen production. Then we do not even have to care that they only work in the day. Hell, we don't even have the problem of pollution generated from making solar power cell, since these are just mirrors. Other than keeping it clean, the power production is super cheap, so who cares if we waste half of it to make another fuel for cars which is way cleaner to use than gas?
.
.
. ..
.

Comment: Unions greed and MASSIVE economic damages (Score 0) 274

by pablo_max (#47313053) Attached to: China Starts Outsourcing From<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the US

I disagree with your post.

Decades ago, Unions were needed to protect workers rights. It was more about the overall working conditions and oppression of the work force. Company stores, unsafe conditions, no paid time off. Things like that.
In those days, our benevolent government did not regulate working conditions or a minimum wage. Thus, the Unions were needed to protect us from shady owners.

For a long time, this has not been true. The unions have become simply a tool for extracting more money from a company and going primarily into the hands the unions versus the workers. Unions routinely demand ridiculous wages for low skilled employment.
Think about the MASSIVE economic damage that the unions have done and are still doing.
Just this week in France, the baggage guys went on strike. It estimated to have caused more than a billion € in damage to the EU economy.
Do these asshole have the right to take money from my pocket because they do not like their job?? I should suffer because they feel they need 25€/hr to put a fucking bag on a trolley?
Think back to the 70's and 80's in the UK. The unions single-handedly destroyed the UK automotive production industry.
Same in the US.
GM, Ford, Chrysler. None of them were able to compete with foriegn car companies because of the unions. What? You need an extra run of cars? Well, we need triple time pay for that. We need at least 80 bucks an hour to stick a fucking screw into a hole.
Because of unions, it is not even possible to keep an excellent new teacher and fire a terrible old teacher simply because she has been there for 15 years. It doesnt matter if she knows how to teach or not.
No, the net impact of unions in this day and age, is negative.

Comment: Yes and now (Score 1) 86

by pablo_max (#47298853) Attached to: China Leads In Graphene Patent Applications

Patents, in their current state are certainly vastly more harmful to both consumers and industry then they are helpful. As such, having no patents would be more beneficial.
Patents were NEVER intended to be used the way they are now. The intention was simply give the inventor a short time period in which to bring his product to the market before everyone could copy it.
I would think a blanket restriction of two years is enough. Not from time to market, but from time of filing. This will prevent patents for ideas. Only a product should be able to hold a patent. Not a process or an idea.
Not a slide to unlock to a bounce scroll. These things are destroying the global economy and destroying innovation.

Comment: Learn your histroy son (Score 1) 86

by pablo_max (#47298751) Attached to: China Leads In Graphene Patent Applications

Specifically, learn about America's adherence to IP after WW2. Protip. They didn't recognize it at all! In fact, WW2 machinery production coupled with the Americas unwillingness to recognize the IP of other countries is what allowed America to become a super power.

On the other hand, with a history like that, one would think America could see that all the blanket IP crap is good for no one.

Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete successfully in business. Cheat. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...