Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Perpetual motion machine of the first type (Score 1) 374

A working EM drive has a massive power draw. It's only a source of energy while you feed power into it. In order to make a perpetual motion machine, you'd have to arrange it so that you were generating more power than you're putting in. Given the efficiency of this drive, that seems quite the far-fetched assumption.

Comment Re:Perpetual motion machine of the first type (Score 1) 374

You seem to be confusing the conservation of energy and of momentum. This drive seems not to conserve momentum (which, if this drive is not BS, then we know that really means there's some new physics here, that when understood restores conservation of momentum).

There's nothing about a drive like this that violates conservation of energy. As long as waste heat plus kinetic energy gained adds up to input energy (and no reason to think it doesn't), energy is conserved.

If it released energy out one side, that counts as reaction mass.

Photons, BTW, explicitly do not have mass. That's kind of the defining characteristic of particles that move at the speed of light. They have momentum even so. Relativistic energy is the sum of two terms: a mass term and a momentum term. The mass terms for a photon really is 0.

Comment Re:Prepare to be (Score 1) 374

technological progress is inevitable. It will never end!

This part is true, at least for the lifetime of the species. However, technological progress will be within the laws of physics, so we may not get everything we want.

This "EM drive", if real, changes nothing near-term because it's uselessly weak. However, it might relax the bounds of that "within the laws of physics" part. That's exciting, in a long term way, because it changes things from travel to nearby stars being effectively impossible, to being impractical with current technology.

Comment Re:If they're going to do this... (Score 1) 193

We have never seen this hyperinflation effect from low unemployment

When have you seen low unemployment? Have you ever seen 1% unemployment or a labor shortage in full?

So show me this 1% unemployment society with the problems you claim it'll have.

Let me break down the problems with the model you provide here. First, there's no evidence for your assertion that extremely low unemployment rates will have any significant effect on an economy aside from making it rather hard to fill jobs. There is some inflation effect, but it is an order of magnitude or more lower than anything you've claimed so far. There is a lot of elasticity in the job market and it's just not going to massively overconsume existing labor unless some urgent need or disaster comes up (like a meter of volcanic ash suddenly appears on the Midwest and the US needs food badly).

Second, your "universal social security" scheme is just not that awesome. We already have a number of similar programs throughout the world which should have similar effects. They act more like friction for the economy than somehow generating decades of economic growth in a short span of time. Again, another key lack of evidence.

Third, there's no linkage between having such a program and the problems you claim will happen. Why would demand for human labor suddenly jump massively just because wealth is being redistributed? There isn't really that much change in the economy. Poor people are just a somewhat bigger sliver. Nor is their spending somehow magic.

Finally, you have the opposite of a solution - doing exactly what it takes to make the problem worse, doesn't fix the problem.

Again: Imagine if $1,000,000,000,000 per year were dumped into the economy. Salaries don't go up, so the cost of goods isn't increased. Your employer still pays $50,000 to have you at your desk, but somehow you take home $6,000 more throughout the year, and NOBODY ELSE IS $6,000 POORER to get that money into your hands. Inflation doesn't make this go away: it's divided up as a fixed, scalar proportion of the money supply (17% of all income), and so e.g. 10% inflation means $1,100,000,000,000 more money is landing in people's paychecks, plus the 10% increase in their income they're already getting.

I've already covered printing money as a source of hyperinflation. That has nothing to do with the employment rate as Zimbabwe has so amply demonstrated.

Does that sound like anything that's ever happened in history to you? The total mobilized spending money is about $1.8 trillion, if you count money that's actually displaced (i.e. that this policy moves out of one person's hands and into the hands of another, notably giving poor people money to spend). That's 11.6% of all income absolutely, and 17% of all taxable income after deductions (including business income). Name one time something like that happened *permanently*, such that any inflation or increase in production would proportionally be reflected in the increased spending power (i.e. that if there's inflation, the amount of extra dollars you get to spend increases by that much, too).

I believe global public entitlements are about an order of magnitude bigger than that. If something awesome was going to happen, we'd see it by now.

My take is that a universal basic income scheme will just be another sort of mild friction in the economy. It takes wealth from people who were doing something really productive and gives it to people who are somewhat less productive. My expectations concerning such a scheme are that it's more something to keep people from starving and/or rioting rather than something that will have a significant benefit or change to the economy's systems.

And as long as you aren't printing money, there should be little to no inflationary effect from the scheme.

Comment Re:Stop with the hysteria (Score 1) 185

Plus, cops get paid well, have great benefits and get to retire at 45, so excuse me if I don't break out my tiny violin. Oh yeah, and being a cop is a safer job than driving a beer truck, being a garbage man or a school janitor. We canonize cops way too much in this country.

Really? I guess it depends on where, because there's cops that only make $30k USD/year and have to buy everything from their uniforms and weapons to the fuel for their patrol cars. That still happens today. I knew cops back in the early 00's who made $18k/year(median wage $42k). Yep very well paying. Keep in mind that the median US wage is just under $50k these days. Never met a cop that retired at 45 who also didn't have 25 years of service in already either, they're also so rare that I can count the number of them on one hand. And again it depends on where you work doesn't it on "safe." If you're a long haul trucker you're pretty safe. If you pull stuff into the inner city shithole you're more likely to be shot, hijacked and so on. Same with police, if you're out in the country or patrolling the suburbs you're not at a high of a risk as compared to the guys working in the city. But you might have also missed that being a cop is still in the top 15 most dangerous jobs you can work at.

Also keep in mind that in the vast majority of those cases in those other 14 top jobs when someone dies? It's directly related to the job itself, usually mechanical failure, worksite related, and so on. Being a cop is one of the few jobs where direct interaction with the public is proportional to your chance of being killed.

I also like some of those "most dangerous" job listings. Lots of management in there, which isn't surprising. One of my first jobs was an apprentice at a auto garage. A first line manager(aka the person that deals with the people) was nearly crushed because he walked under a car which was being lowered.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat. -- The First Law Of Thermodynamics

Working...