Re: Dumbass mouthpiece strikes again
Is that "post organic", as in "post modern"
69 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jul 2011
It is true that artists only get a sliver of what is collected, but it is also true that they actually do get that sliver, instead of nothing.
However one, if not the major factor that allows that to happen, is that big focused music corporations also get money that way that they would not otherwise get, and a diffuse cloud of corporations (your hairdresser) get milked for it. This dynamic makes it work (legally and politically).
Free software is the opposite - big focused corporations don't want to pay, unless they are going to be getting lots more money from the great mass of unfocussed corporations and consumers. They currently see "cloud taxing" and free software as the way to do this.
To see how completely unprepared to pay-up megacorps are you just have to look at the Apple - Qualcomm fight. Apple is not prepared to pay anything significant for what is the core underlying technology of their whole product. It is only by being utterly ruthless and toxic that Q can get paid royalties at all. It seems delusional that Apple would share anything but floor sweepings with people who do not carry a very big stick.
I recently was at a supplier fishing event for tradies. Someone pointed out that the plumbers turned up with raycraft, and the sparkies turned up with tinnies. It was true: electricians will undercut each others rates. plumbers don't. Who knows why, but the result was very clear down at the boat ramp. I didn't notice any free software developers - I suppose you don't have to catch ramen noodles.
Good luck with your project Bruce, but looks to me more like something that cannot really do better than put free software developers on welfare or subsistence, not a decent living, and is more likely to see a big income stream going to megacorps if it works at all.
"Hi Sundar, Nice to hear from you. How life at the Big G"
"Oh you know, just fired 12k.
Getting a bit of blowback about my stock options though.
Could you pop out a press release asking us to fire 20k instead."
"No Problemo - Why don't I make it a round 30k, that should make them properly grateful eh?"
Corporate tussles: It's actually like WWF wrestling
Much as rockets and space are very cool, I think we get little payback from it.
Compare spending just on the SLS with the total US spend on fusion power.
One of these things pushes the boundaries of pure science and applied engineering to the very limits, so far we are not even certain of an outcome. It might give the whole planet a way out of existential threats.
The other retreads the 1960's, but even when/if it succeeds there is no significant payoff for the people who paid for it.
You seem to be supporting my point, not contradicting it.
Since baseload electrical generation (of the kind you describe) can't be shutdown quickly, you need to have loads that can be turned on and off at whim instead.
Process heat, augmenting existing fossil fueled furnaces with renewable electricity is that kind of of load. You can turn the heaters up and down as fast as you can send control signals. Your process always runs as normal, because it is (initially at least) a fossil fueled system anyway
This is economic because the (pre-existing) fossil fuel furnace is sunk cost - so there is no penalty for not using it when cheaper renewables are available.
Of course this is a transitional tool, in 30 years time, long after today's furnaces have been scrapped we need to do something different.
Easy to find some number for that: 46 vs 164g/kWh
Total life cycle GHG emissions from solar PV systems are similar to other renewables and nuclear energy, and much lower than coal.
It is true to point out however than renewables are front loaded: most of the emissions happen today, not over the lifetime.
It is reasonable to expect solar to improve by a factor of 2 over time, while coal won't.
(My mate just added new panels and they are ~30% lighter/W than those installed 6 years ago)
Assuming your figures (18km/yr) are correct, then:
To miss a 12600 diameter object you have to move 6300km / 18km/yr = 350 x 570kg=200,00kg
SpaceX Starship is ~100T dry mass and 100+T payload = 200,000kg
From cars whose engines overheated when the sun came out,
I still remember shock at British Leyland when they discovered that in some parts of the world, water fell from the sky unexpectedly fouling the ignition system that was right behind the front grille. Luckily they were able to put a piece of cardboard in to stop water.
This -> 100.5 tonnes is f-all.
And obviously wrong since 100T of carbon is ~10 truckloads of coal - not exactly going to run a power station for a year is it?
I roughly calculate that 100MW @4hrs/day average = 105,195 tonnes CO2/year for coal fired power.
At 2 years for construction energy and 25 year lifetime to 50% output, that's 1.8MT CO2
> drive into the back of a stationary Motorcycle in broad daylight
Oh yeah, I was stopped at a pedX for an old lady to dodder across, and (improbably) noticed a car coming up behind didn't seem to be slowing. The screaming wheelie I did at the last possible second probably saved the old lady too. I dare say she didn't think so.