Comment Re:Greed (Score 2) 292
(One botched dam in China...)
Seriously, though, radiation's totally overrated.
(One botched dam in China...)
Seriously, though, radiation's totally overrated.
Slashdot: Where no energy source can be allowed to pass unmolested.
What exactly is the non-racist explanation for that lack of proportionality?
The BB gun kid was excercising his American right to hold arms; The science student was engaged in an act of Godless, materialist alchemy.
Or something? You're making an argument when you don't even know? Check out green energy tariffs. They are a bit more expensive than ordinary ones. But not 4 times, that would be ridiculous.
The US Department of Energy estimates that a new photovoltaic power plant entering service in 2017 will runs about $157/MWh in total levelized system costs (in 2010 dollar terms). It figures natural gas at $65. Dirty coal plants in China are cheaper though.
How about this, instead? We invest in alternative energy technologies R&D now?
If you're going to use the word "invest", let's talk investment and ask the tough questions, see if we can come up with some good answers. What is the return on this investment? Is it financial, or non-financial? Are the returns earned by the owner of the investment or by third parties? Who is qualified to estimate the size of these returns in an unbiased manner? (If non-financial returns are being earned by the third parties, it may be better understood as an exercise in philanthropy than in investment.) What is the opportunity cost of this investment: are there other investments which could make a non-philanthropic investor more money, or, if we're operating in the realm of philanthropy, are there other worthier philanthropic endeavors with larger and more immediate returns that we ought to be investing in, instead of this? (There are a lot of candidate investments in the class of "get clean water to $african_village".)
By "let's invest" do you primarily mean "let's have the government levy taxes and attempt to make this happen"? What sort of incentives are in place to make sure that the "investment" actually is done wisely, rather than becoming an exercise in corporate leeches clamoring for government funds but producing nothing of value? Or even just bankruptcy a la Solyndra? (There's room enough for criticism about where the money gets to when the government "always seem[s] to be able to find money to fund wars", and wars are relatively easy to measure results on.) What is the real price of this investment to taxpayers, in terms of taxes or debt and debt-service (and the effects of debt like the government calls "crowding out"?) And if "we always seem to be able to find the money to fund wars", what about the ~50% increase in US government spending combined with ~0% increase in government revenues since 2007, and the commensurate increase in the annual deficit to ~50% of revenues? That's easily more spending than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined; should we roll some of the new programs back in order to pay for this proposed investment? How do you sell the policy changes to people as politically active entities, especially if they will suffer material setbacks (taxes or higher energy costs)? Even if they're willing to suffer setbacks in theory, do the people trust these investments to actually deliver meaningful value of some sort?
Not that all these questions are unanswerable. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's easy.
And if we have to switch to renewables anyway, why not do it as soon as possible.
This question is easier to ask when you're making well-above-average computer-programmer-level salaries and quadrupling the price of electricity and fuel (or something) and the various manufactured things which depend on that price isn't going to really ding your lifestyle. But given the number of people in this world who make a trivial fraction of that, it gets more complicated.
The UK has not made any friends by passing this law.
Well, the media companies are delighted with it.
We are Reagans children!! We are the Masters of the Universe!!
Uncle Reagan promised us money! Why is the Government getting in our way!??! This Dysfunctional world is our God given Birthright!!
That's not an article about tax avoidance, though, that's an article about tax evasion, which is different. Remember, tax avoidance is the legal one which has even been endorsed by the court system: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase oneâ(TM)s taxes." - Helvering v. Gregory.
(Not that tax avoidance and tax evasion are both bipartisan things, but, the distinction is worthwhile, because one is criminal.)
Guess Hyundai hasn't heard of the Moller flying car:
http://youtu.be/rgjug_0OAF0 youtube video.
http://moller.com/dev/ company website.
still in R&D but getting closer.
Looking back over your career throught most of the 20th centruy and into the 21st, have you ever observed certain knowladge, techniques or disiplines fade away over time?
Are there ways of doing or thinking about physics and mathematics which were prevalent in the past, but which are no longer common knowladge? How do you compare the abilities and backgrounds of modern professors and graduates to those of the past?
Running a business is a skill entirely different from engineering.
Indeed. But do you extend that to the point where the majority of the board members of the world's largest computer software company cannot actually read, write or understand software?
If I was offered a board position in a company called MicroSoft, "Microprocesser Software", and I didn't know anything about software, I would decline the position on the principal that I was unqualified to represent the shareholder's interests. At least I would; I'm not naive enough to believe that such concerns apply in contemporary boardrooms.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth