The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying sets the standards for licensing engineers.
Their certification tests include:
Architectural
Chemical
Civil: Structural
Civil: Transportation
Electrical and Computer: Computer Engineering
Electrical and Computer: Electrical and Electronics
Nuclear
Petroleum
SOFTWARE
Structural

> And why the fuck are they pushing it into laws?

What are you talking about? What laws? The story is that the head of the industry association said internet providers should offer plans that bill customers based on usage. I don't see anything about any change in law here.

I called to order FIOS. The sales rep told me it's not just shared, it's way over sold, so during business hours I typically wouldn't get nearly the "up to" speed I was paying for. I see elsewhere that they have 64 customers per fiber, that you're sharing with 63 other people. That's less sharing than cable, but it's not dedicated.

> the question is, how much does the engine produce, how much is needed to propel the vehicle.

The engine is mechanically connected to the wheels, so whatever the engine produces propels the vehicle. There cannot be any "extra" energy.

The system can produce more energy by pressing the gas pedal further, using more gas.

There is exactly one energy "leak" in all systems - heat. If you could set something on top of the muffler to convert that heat to something usable ...

What you say is true for small purchases of consumer goods. For a multi-million dollar infrastructure, the cost is the same each month. I realize that's counter-intuitive if you've never managed a business.

The provider sets up a deal with Netflix and they see they'll need $100 million of equipment to upgrade the city. They figure th. e equipment will be replaced in five years. They can get that equipment in any of three ways. They can lease the equipment. You may have noticed that businesses lease a lot of stuff - copiers, cars, all kinds of things. You wouldn't lease a home computer, but businesses often lease computers. The reason will soon be apparent. If they lease the equipment, they pay $X per month every month, from the first month to the last. Since the equipment will need to be replaced in five years, they do a five year lease.

Instead of leasing, they can put $100 million on their Visa card and make monthly payments. ;). They borrow $100M from the bank and make monthly payments. They'll need to do it again in five years, so they need to pay this loan off in five years so they can afford the new one. The payment is the same every month.

Lastly, they can use the cash they have in the bank. They know that they'll need to replace the equipment in five years, so they better start saving up so they'll have $100M to do it again in five years. Every month, they put aside some money for the next upgrade. They set aside the same amounteqcheach month.

This isn't pocket change, they don't just get $100M from their wallet. They either borrow and pay back monthly or they save up monthly but either way it's a long term expense paid for over time.

You can see that all of the three options end up like a lease - they pay five years to use stuff for five years. The lease just makes the exact term and cost explicit. That's one reason why businesses lease more than individuals - it clarifies, simplifies what's going to happen anyway, and that clarity is good for the accounting and taxes. (No need to argue with the IRS over the value of five year old SFP modules).

So that's how capital expenses like upgrading a city wide network end up being paid as steady monthly expenses, no matter how the deal is structured.

That "unused" router isn't unused, it's being used by your neighbor for a second or two as he loads a page, then you use it for a second or two. If you're using it 24 / 7 that's capacity not available to your neighbor. Residential prices are based on sharing the capacity and sharing the cost.

You can get dedicated, unshared bandwidth at ten times the cost by signing up for a business plan.

Cell phones did limits and usage based.
Market forces ended up with unlimited plans and $10 plans available. I see no reason to think internet wouldn't be the same, provided government doesn't force a monopoly in the area.

You CAN buy 10 Mbps dedicated. It costs about $500 / month. The standard model for residential is that you load a page, using the bandwidth for one second, then your neighbor uses it for a second or two, etc. An hour later, you're watching TV and a different neighbor is using the bandwidth. Since you're sharing the bandwidth, you share the cost.

I have dedicated bandwidth that I don't share. I pay over $1,200 / month. You can do the same.
 

I had to think that through myself, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work.
To power the alternator requires more power from the engine. More power means burning more fuel. So 2 lbs MORE hydrogen burned to make one pound.

If it's NOT powered by the engine, but instead uses energy you're trying to throw away, that could work. The only energy I can think of you'd want to throw away when be when you're braking . You'd connect it to the brakes, not the engine .

Still it would probably be more efficient to store the braking energy by compressing a gas or in a high speed flywheel, as in a toy friction car . It could theoretically work, though.

Cool. I wondered if I was missing the point.

The alternator would be powered by the engine, right? The engine is powered by the hydrogen. So you'd be burning hydrogen to make hydrogen.
Is that what you mean? If that's what you have in mind, it'll "work", you just have to burn two pounds of hydrogen to get the electricity to make one pound.
I suppose it's an interesting, Rube Goldberg, way to get rid of hydrogen.

You can make the hydrogen, H2, much more energy dense and easier to handle by combining it with another element or two.
Plants and animals are powered by a hydrogen based molecule of the type Cm(H2O)n, meaning two hydrogen molecules combined with one oxygen molecule, bound to some number of carbon molecules. Having the oxygen in there is a waste of space, so you could take that out and power a car with CnH2n.

CnH2n has seven times better mileage than H2, and is found in nature, so it doesn't have to be made via electrolysis or any other method.
It burns well in an engine, but doesn't explode. The "n" in that formula stands for any of many different numbers that will work. For example,
C8H18 is quite good. It makes for pretty efficient engines because it's 100 octane rating allows for a 10:1 compression ratio. In general, the
CnH2n group is called "hydrocarbons". C8H18 is octane, a primary component of gasoline.

An electrolysis rig and $200 of electricity will get you $40 of hydrogen, yes.

Oil comes from dirt. What's the point?

Sure that has something to do with it. Clinton took office while growth was strong and he's given credit for what he was handed. This even though growth slowed a lot over his eight years and his final two budget years, with his policies having been in place for a few years, were much worse than what Bush Sr. handed him.

  On the other hand, Reagan and Obama both took over during poor economic conditions. Eight years of Reagan saw great improvement and people recognize that. Six years of Obama have had things go from bad to worse, and people can see that too. Eight years is a long time, and people see if things get better or get worse .

Just about. One of the two, Obama or Bush II, is the worst president since Harding or perhaps Filmore. By the numbers, things that can be objectively
compared, Obama comes out significantly worse than Bush. It's mostly economic numbers that can be objectively compared.
One thing about Bush is he really began to suck in the final year or two of his eight years. It wasn't until 2008 that economic growth dropped below 3%,
and the country didn't go into recession until Obama took office (recession meaning negative growth). Seven of Bush's eight years weren't bad,
looking at the objective numbers, and subjective approval ratings tell the same story.

In 2004, Bush's approval rating was 65%, Obama rated 45% at the same point in his presidency. Again that's 45% Obama, 65% Bush.
Absolutely Bush was a below average president - nearly 80% of historians agree on that. For this month the October following re-election,
only Nixon has a lower approval rating than Bush and Obama, who are tied for second worst.

So yeah, we've done a TERRIBLE job of picking the last two presidents. Their two predecessors, Clinton and Bush Sr., were average to slightly above average,
by the numbers. Not great picks, but significantly better than these last two. (Compare approval average for all presidents 54%, Clinton average approval 55%, Bush Sr. average approval 60%).

That sounds like a law you just made up.
Let's try it out:

Brad, if you have any employees, please fire one of them.

Am I going to jail for saying that?