A high speed trader does not increase liquidity, because for a high speed trader to work it has to know that It can buy something now and sell it moments later. This means the initial seller and the final buyer already existed before the high speed trader got involved, they just hadn't found each other yet. The item being sold was already as liquid as it was going to get.
I hope you are being ironic but I can't tell. If you're serious then it requires rebuttal. If a museum doesn't have interesting artifacts, then they don't attract visitors. If they don't attract visitors they don't have admissions income (or in the case of free museums have a hard time justifying the public funding they receive). Without income, they can't acquire interesting artifacts. It is a catch 22. If museums had to be run as a business and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, we wouldn't have any museums. All the great museums owe their existence to gift or public grant: The Louvre, The British Museum, The Smithsonian, American Museum of Natural History.
If these items are currently NASA property then transferring an asset from one government body to another has zero cost and the museum should not have to pay to acquire them. If these are not NASA property then there are one of two possibilities. 1) They are stolen US Government property. 2) NASA was wrong to transfer them to private ownership in the first place.
Gee if only we had a government body charged with the preservation of important historical documents. Oh wait! We do! I don't understand why these items aren't going to the National Archives. Its not like they are gonna raise enough money for a rocket or anything. The Smithsonian Institution would be a better home than some private collection.
Item A is the only one that really matters. It doesn't matter if it is (C) made in the UK, by (D) EEA employees, if the end product is just an imitation of US culture. Item B is meant to prevent it from just being an non-diverse outsiders caricature of British culture, which is what a game about warm beer, bad cooking and drinking tea would be.
Shalshdotti ite Domum
Now, write it out a hundred times. Hail Taco ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
Your right that compressed air is a less energy efficient storage medium than Li-ion batteries, but only for the first couple of years. Li-ion battery storage capacity decreases at about 20% a year because of natural degradation. Consider the cost to frequently manufacture, replace and dispose of batteries compared to the wear cycles of a compressed air container which is probably measured in decades.
My point here is that the maintenance cost for compressed air energy storage is quite low compared to other options. You also have to consider the cost of making the storage devices. Steel tanks are mostly hollow and we are already really good at making them. We are good at recycling steel too. Air storage, unlike fuel cells or batteries options which consume lots of metals and require complex electronics to regulate, compressed air is extremely cheap and simple.
If our choice is cheap simple but supposedly inefficient storage of 50% via compressed air or storing 0% via other supposedly more efficient but unaffordable and unsustainable methods the choice is pretty simple.
Bad Science and Science that does not agree with the reader are not the same thing. Bad research is defined by inaccurate models, failure to consider important variables, or just plain bad math. Bad research is not defined by what its results show.
My wife's PhD thesis was a Meta-Analysis, and I helped her create some new tools for doing the math behind the analysis so I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the topic. The process (greatly simplified) is this. Dig through hundreds of articles published in peer reviewed journals on the topic you are examining, and find as many as you can that test the specific theory you are studying. All the articles included in the meta-analysis must test the same theory. Next you need to reverse engineer the numbers reported in the article. This can be a bit tricky since each article may have reported their result using different statistical tests. Occasionally some articles don't have all the relevant numbers and you have to contact the author. Once you have all that data together the math is relatively straight forward.
Presuming that all the other articles that you feed into the process are based on high quality research, then a Meta-Analysis can give you an insight to the overall strength of the results of the theory being tested. As you might imagine this process can easily be a Garbage In Garbage Out sort of situation. The researcher performing the meta-analysis must have the ability to identify bad studies that overlooked key moderating variables, or were simply done poorly and remove these bad studies from their analysis. If you want to attack this meta-analysis, attack the articles it was based off of. A meta-analysis by itself is not 'conclusive' just because of the method it represents. The analysis itself must be performed on many many well done studies in order to have any credibility of its own.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source