A tax of 5.5 cents per gigabyte is more than 100 times as expensive as the price of global IP transit, which is now less than $0.10 per megabit/s per month ($0.10 per 324 gigabytes).
I need to switch! Where do I get internet at these prices?
The Democrats don't have the power to fix anything, the best they might be able to do is to stop things from getting worse quite as quickly.
Despite the fact that the current Republican majorities in both houses have abdicated their responsibilities - Congress has the "power of the purse".
Congress has the power of the purse... but it takes a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate to override a presidential veto, and it's nearly impossible the Democrats will win that. Congress might be able to stop things from getting worse, but, no, they won't have the power to fix things.
Best case, or possibly worst depending on your viewpoint, is a stalemate and government shutdown
Other sources put it slightly higher (https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/role-nuclear-power-energy-mix-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ ) but not an order of magnitude higher,
If you think those numbers are comparable, yes, you are innumerate.
maybe bacteriophage (viruses that target bacteria) are the immerging technology. They are also useful in therapy for certain kinds of cancer.
Yeah, but it costs tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and weeks of study to do that.
There's a lot of work being done ( https://www.nature.com/article... ) including designing of genetically engineered bacteriophages ( https://news.stanford.edu/stor... ).
So, stay tuned.
I'm not sure the Dems claim to be able to fix things quickly. That's Trump's domain - he solved the Ukraine war within a week, remember that? Also Iran wasn't going to take long - now going for months and costing billions.
Yeah; unless they can win the presidency, the best they can do it try to stop things from getting worse.
And even if they do win the presidency, the problems are things that won't be fixed fast. In fact, you should distrust any politician (on either side) who promises to fix things instantly.
Everything is Trump's fault.
Accurate. DT has been reducing the budget and firing workers at the FDA and the CDC, which is to say, the medical professionals charged with stopping disease,.
Democrats will fix it in a few weeks
Unlikely. Even if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, DT is still the president and hence the chief executive. The Democrats don't have the power to fix anything, the best they might be able to do is to stop things from getting worse quite as quickly.
Possibly they could get rid of RFK Jr, who seems to be actively trying to destroy medical science in the US, but DT would just find another incompetent to replace him, and if the Senate won't ratify, he has no problem just keeping an "acting" head forever.
We just need infinity immigrants. That solves everything.
Not sure how you can have "infinity" immigrants, but, yes, we could bring in doctors, nurses, and medical researchers from abroad.
Do we know if these are mainly developing in the USA or elsewhere in the world? The USA actually restricts antibiotics by requiring prescriptions.
Yes... and no.
The USA restricts antibiotics for humans by requiring prescriptions.
Farm animals get fed antibiotics by the truckload, and don't need prescriptions.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insig...
https://extension.okstate.edu/...
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ant...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
You want to fix global warming by creating hundreds upon hundreds of projects that equate to some of the most carbon intensive and cement consuming constructions we have, all for a change of maybe *starting* to reduce a problem we have today in 40 years?
The carbon dioxide produced by making cement for a nuclear reactor is absolutely insignificant compared to that produced by burning billions of tons of fossil fuels... and keeping on burning that much every year, forever.
This is an effect known as "innumeracy"-- not being clear about the distinction between thousands of tons, millions of tons, and billions of tons,
Bring on Fusion. Fission had it day.
Would be great, but so far we don't know how to do it; all the proposals to do it are very expensive, and even if we could do it, we have only notional ideas of how to convert fusion energy (primarily hot neutrons) into electricity.
Not fair. There are applications for which nuclear appears to be the best solution. But, yeah, solar and wind scale a lot faster and more cheaply, even when you include the needed storage.
This is an important point that I think slashdot commentators miss. Solar has an advantage that is scales well to small applications. You can start small and work up. But, a hundred megawatt solar field is (nearly) a hundred times as expensive as a one megawatt solar field; there's no economy of scale at large sizes.
Nuclear, on the other hand, is the opposite. It scales well at large sizes. It's not twice as expensive to make a nuclear plant that puts out twice as much power, and hence big units are much cheaper (per watt) than small.
What if we funded an indexed, broad-based UBI financed through monetary expansion mechanisms like QE (quantitatively easing for actual people rather than just backstopping corporate balance sheets), specifically paired with an open-source, Homebrew-style ethos of individual and localized production?
Does this sentence have any meaning at all, or did the AI just insert economics-related buzz words into a grammar template?
Addressing only the last four words of this, the answer is that the economies of scale of mass production means "individual and localized production" is much more expensive than factories, and hence individual and localized production may work in a society that is small and poor, but not in one that is large and rich.
Right. We get this headline every year, because since the carbon dioxide level is rising, and therefore every year sets a new record.
https://www.climate.gov/ghg/cu...
"Rising line is higher than it was previously! " is a headline, but not really "news".
Methane was only named in 1866. How did they make their cockenbull measurements of it 100 years before?
Paleoclimate researchers measure ancient methane primarily by analyzing air bubbles trapped in glacial ice cores retrieved by drilling into ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland.
Do you have a source for this?
"Who cares if it doesn't do anything? It was made with our new Triple-Iso-Bifurcated-Krypton-Gate-MOS process ..."
