Simply BANNING renewable energy?
Simply BANNING renewable energy?
Why, exactly, are you exhibiting faulty thinking?
One must not necessarily "win" at the expense of the other...
It takes all kinds man. And tunnel vision like yours helps nothing and nobody.
It's not that hard to get iron, and there's no shortage of it. The asteroid would never be worth the cost of moving it to somewhere useful. And nickel-iron isn't a particularly useful material in space, being very heavy.
I'm sure your impactful work benefits mankind no end.
His work helps get (and keeps) people employed. Putting food on the table for an unknown number of people and their families.
So, at least in the short term, their work is more important than some jackass screaming "Global Warming! Global Warming!" while jumping up and down with their hair on fire and hoping someone will give them a grant so THEY can put food on the table.
I would fire the guy who made the registry to begin with. It was always a bad idea.
The registry as originally created was actually a great idea. Every program still used ini files for it's own settings, but you had the registry, very small at the time, as a sort of "global ini file" for things like file associations that needed to be centralized. A lightweight DB-style approach was safer for third parties to edit than a tree of text files - it actually limited the damage of an installer bug.
Then some asshole got the idea to move all program settings into the registry, and a ton of OS settings that could have stayed in ini files, and the downhill slide began. By the era of Win95 it had gone to a very bad place, and never really recovered.
Could it be, with the crash history of "autopilot", people are now using it more as it was intended? As DRIVER ASSIST, rather than turning it on and dozing off behind the wheel?
I mean, THAT couldn't affect numbers at ALL, right?
Obviously, your family members don't do any real work.
You'll find that's common for kids and retirees.
Meanwhile, in the office, Apple laptops are the norm in the tech industry. Boggles my mind, since they don't even have docking stations, and the battery life is about half of what I get, but there it is. What I've been seeing for years is 90% Apple, 5% Windows, 5% Ubuntu.
What percentage of PCs don't run Windows?
Where I work, one of the "big 5" tech companies, about 5% do run Windows. That's a higher percent then you'll find at Google or (obviously) Apple. Windows is vanishing from tech companies. That's a good sign that in a generation it will be vanishing everywhere else.
Sure, inflation-adjusting historical prices can make sense, though a lot of bias can be snuck in by how you do the inflation-adjusting, so it's good to watch for that. It's also helpful to understand prices in terms like hours of work at the media wage.
Tell me more about how brown people can't solve their own problems, but they can only be solved from the outside. Do you have more details about your Final Solution to the India problem?
India is an emerging economy. Change takes time, but their economy is growing at twice the rate of the US economy, and unlike Chine their manufacturing base is for local consumers, not exports. They're certainly capable of becoming a modern industrialized nation, and have come a long way along that path in the past 20 years. They're certainly moving faster than we did in our industrial revolution.
Being a corporation may grant immunity to the owners, but it means nothing for the decision makers. You go to jail regardless. If prosecutors aren't seeking jail time for fraud, something odd is going on.
The only objective notion of value is: what it sells for. Every individual values things differently. A market discovers the balance between supply (of different amounts at different costs) and peoples various ideas of value (different for everyone).
The asteroid belt make no economic sense until there's already a thriving economy in space. Fortunately there are plenty of asteroids made of useful stuff very near Earth (not that I would consider nickel-iron "useful stuff" in this context).
An asteroid that you can make rocket fuel from, dragged into high Earth orbit, will be commercially viable once the cost of getting stuff into orbit drops enough.
You don't need to smelt it: smelting is a purification process. But this particular asteroid is worthless.
The first asteroid of commercial value will be a CHON asteroid very close to Earth . Moved into high orbit and used to make rocket fuel, it's a fundamental missing piece of a space economy. (Plus, the only way to ever get the fuel to move the first asteroid is if that asteroid is made of fuel). Naturally, automated robotics has a way to go first, but automated robotics seems very plausible these days.
The you want an aluminum asteroid, not a nickel-iron one. The first ship built mostly in space will be built mostly of aluminum (well, it will be mostly fuel like any rocket, but then the aluminum).
"Helicopter money" and "QE" are not some sort of opposite or choice. QE is the latest form of printing money. Want to give helicopter money out? It needs to come from somewhere - taxes, borrowing, or QE. Government spending was massive during the great recession, and QE helped pay for it.
The trade off is "helicopter money" vs "bank bailouts". Bush and Obama both chose bank bailouts. Almost 2 trillion worth. They could have given about $5000 to every American instead. Either way, though QE would have paid for it.
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos