Their selling point for W8 and attempt to compete with Apple's iPad was meant to be unity between desktop and tablet, but that was always a pipe dream. They put the cart before the horse by forcing Metro on people before there was any semblance of a mobile app base so it simply became a nuisance.

A mobile interface should have always been adapted into the standard Windows UI, rather than existing as a separate entity with separate complimentary versions of IE, media players. They seem be trying to bridge the two together in W10 but I think it's too little too late.

Realistically though tablets are largely about consumption, the issue was that this was forced on desktop. I mean sure, I've seen the Surface make a great note taking device (any large Wacom tablet would do this great), but beyond that? I mean the idea of doing anything beyond basic Word let alone Excel/Access work on a tablet is farcical.

Clicking manage literally does nothing, lol. But thanks. To be fair, I have modified W8.1 quite a lot (e.g. bringing back start menu) but I did the same with W7 and never had such problems.

Along with @VoodooV you both blindly miss the point. Voodooh is not worth even answering anymore. He is carrying around too many personal issues that the chip on his shoulder is weighing him down.

You believe that everything evolved and t there is no room for Quantum physics in evolution. You say these 2 ideas are exclusively different and not connected

I say Yes Quantum physics is part of evolution "Quantum theory is the theoretical basis of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level." But from that understanding it is theorized that you are in multiple places at once. That point of thought has been well stated by your non god believing scientist.

In theory you are in many places at once. So what part of evolution does that serve? From an evolution point of view quantum physics should not be needed and should not exist.


And you indicate that before the big bang and up to that point its anybody's guess.

Your best guess is, well we don't know, but no fucking way GOD did it. Now that's being closed minded.


If science proves GOD to be a pipe dream then so be it. But every day I see science proving the case that there is a GOD.

Wind turbines to provide the comparable megawatts for millions of homes ARE a frivolous waste. The huge amounts needed for wasteful, programmed, energy-addicted peeps IS a huge logistical clusterfuck of resources there, notarobot.

Your example of one family with a turbine and a solar array is fine and all (the upfront cost for such a setup is a shitload of funds and the upkeep of his dual set-up is probably a complete bitch of a money-pit to maintain) but were talking efficiency for the masses here.. Your 'research' should be based upon something besides what seems more of an emotionally passionate ideal moreso than anything practical for the many.

Personally, I think this virgin-trail-run Bloom box bullshit is simply another snake-oil scam. Much more work need be done to ever make them practical. What really should done in the realm of a practical kind of "reality" (otherwise known as a construct...reality that is) is to revive anti-trust/monopoly laws to hobble the robber-baron's once again...

Go listen some Bucky Fuller perhaps and try to awaken from the pipe-dream of monkey-business-as-usual instead of towing some lazy cop-out nouveau-hippy green-party line??

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!

I've heard that argument before, that we need an orderly plan of action step by step instead of just spending money wildly and creating more problems than solutions. But I've yet to see anyone site a specific example of this happening. In fact much of the industrialized world has spent billions already implementing solutions that we here in the US continue to stall on.

As to the idea that potential solutions shouldn't create profit. The is a wonderful idea but is a pipe dream, at least here in the US. Profit drives everything here. After all, those with the biggest hand in the problem are already making more money than almost anyone else in history and spending a lot of it to stop climate research and potential solutions in their tracks.

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

Another pipe dream.

I work for one of the comapnies listed. There is ZERO plan to blackout. This list is not a list of companies who will blackout to protest SOPA.

"According to Markham Erickson, head of the NetCoalition trade association, there’s been talk of a so-called “nuclear option,” in which the likes of Google, Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo! would go simultaneously dark to protest the legislation to highlight the fundamental danger the legislation poses to the function of the internet." The 'full list' is just an image that could be used as a placeholder when sites go dark listing companies who are against SOPA.

So the story is a complete fabrication based on one dudes pipe-dream list.


Sorry.

A. I don't understand how you're arguing we haven't been practicing Keynesian economics since the Great Depression. We've run deficits almost the entire time, lowered interest rates even further during recessions, and enact stimulus when recessions hit in the form of tax rebate checks, income tax cuts to consumers, gov't programs to provide jobs to increase demand, extended unemployment, etc., although we normally do a poor job of running surpluses when we should. But in a nutshell, that is Keynesian economics. And it has worked pretty well overall. Influence of monetarist policies have tamed the Keynesian interventions, but there's little doubt that all the above actions in the last two recessions were born of Keynesian thought.

B. If a business is making $100,000 off your labor, but is paying you $80,000, resulting in a $20,000 profit, why wouldn't they fire you if they could fire someone to do your job for $50,000, resulting in a 250% increase in profit? It does happen. I was the victim of it in 2004.

C. If the devils in the details could be worked out, and that's a big if, I'd be in favor of having stipulations to unemployment benefits. But you got a lot of issues you'd have to deal with. What if the person on unemployment has kids? You're gonna deny them welfare if the kids would starve? Very complicated issue as just one example.

I do think though we need in this age better education to retrain workers for the new jobs that come into the US as jobs get outsourced to other countries.

D. About the FDIC... First off, you're saying that people could check the banks' ability to make too risky of loans, but it's a whole other thing to say FDIC insurance encourages bad lending. It's simply not true. Again, regardless if deposits are insured or not, banks will go under if they make risky loans regardless of deposit insurance for consumers in most cases. Again, bailouts are a whole other issue. As for people checking the banks for bad lending, that's a pipe dream. The general consumer has no clue what are good or bad loans overall, nor the time to monitor the lending practices of banks. Hell, BANKERS didn't understand the crap they got themselves into in the mortgage crisis until it was too late, and they're professionals in the field. It's not a practical solution. On top of all that, the FDIC does in some ways help to ensure baseline qualities of banks. Not every bank can be FDIC insured, and many of the regulations FDIC insist upon make the banks more solvent, etc. So when consumers insist the bank is FDIC insured, they're insuring their deposits as well as guaranteeing a minimal level of integrity in the bank itself.

Lastly, I'm totally down with reasoned dialogue, even from points of view I completely oppose. I'm not slamming this guy because he's a conservative. I'm slamming him because he made ridiculous claims that are obviously factually inaccurate. Ideology shouldn't blind people from obvious fact that don't fit.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.
First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?
Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.
I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.
I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).
Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

Did he say acupuncture? Don't tell me I have to wait 40 years to have needles stuck into my back to help me feel at ease during major turbulence and a rough landing. I wonder how many more flight attendants will have to be hired to reload all the needles.

The far fetched pipe dreams diminish the shine of the more realistic predictions in this video.

RoPaul is a pipe dream without a pipe. Here's the deal, coming from someone (me) who agrees with Paul on most things.

The average American has been rendered ignorant of history and economics. 60 years of union-run government schools will do that to you.

Ron Paul sez, "Get rid of the Fed." No one even knows what the Fed is or why it is, and they don't care to learn. How are you going to free people from shackles they can't even see?

Ron Paul sez, "Let's return all our military to the homeland..." The unfinished part of that sentence is "...so Red China can build their own bases where we were."

But let's assume Paul actually makes it to the White House. How is one man going to tell Congress, a bunch of petty, grasping, emotionally-insecure motherfkers, however useless they are to you and me, to voluntarily give up 90% of their power and strip them of the ability to buy votes from their districts with federal pork. And that's just them, excluding the powers behind their thrones, the lobbies, the corporatists, etc.

So the people behind Paul's election (you and me) are going to save us, you say?

Historically speaking, whatever the Cause, a third of the people are For, a third Against, and a third doesn't give a sh1t either way. The people who depend on Congress for handouts--corporations and "public" unions both--aren't going to go quietly to projects they have to pay for upfront, or lower-paying (aka non-taxpayer-funded) jobs based on merit and market demand. Remember Wisconsin?


Do you understand that the media is still 95% leftist (statist)? That FOX has barely been around and is inconsequential? All the horseshit and calamity and LIES the left manufactures ("Uh, there's a Recovery going on!") will be turned against Paul like a magnifying glass against ants. The leftmedia isn't going to patiently explain what libertarianism is to the masses. I can't even begin to imagine the level of hysteria.

THE LIBERTARIANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY! NO MORE MEDICARE, THEY'LL STACK THE DYING ELDERLY IN THE GUTTERS! CAMPS! THEY WANT LEGALIZED DRUGS SO THE FIENDS CAN RUN WILD IN THE STREETS! THEY ARE ANARCHISTS!

I hate saying all this sh1t, because most of Paul's Constitutional rollback is what we really need. But it just ain't gonna happen. Right now the oxen (the people) are STILL dumb and comfortable, even with 5-dollar gas, rising food costs and 22% unemployment. Ron Paul would be assassinated right after the unlikely event that he was even nominated.

rEVOLution without bloodshed? Not on the scale Paul, you and I want. Even if we do nothing, it's going to go to guns, maybe not next year but in the next ten for sure. NOT reelecting the kenyan asshole would help, but for the kind of change that's needed, a state or states will have to say, "Enough tyranny, DC" and secede, which they have every right to do.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_dream


Huh? Is it a pipe dream to imagine that AA already takes in over 100 million in private donations? I don't understand the objection.

The problem with the free market is that it has no respect for humanity. Profit motive has no moral objections to slavery, violence, pollution, theft, war or oppression. In recent times, deregulation has lead to massive corruption, further social stratification and consolidations of corporate wealth and power. In times past, unregulated markets lead to a multitude of inhumane labor abuses, including slavery, child labor, unfair wages, dangerous working conditions, long hours, no breaks, no redress for on the job injury and the murder of workers who step out of line. All is fair when selfishness is seen as virtue. Do you really want to go back to these dark times?

Why do you think corporations spend so much money on the institutions that inform your politics? You never did comment on the fact that the same people who fund Cato and Reason also fund the 'Project for a New American Century'.

'Volunteerism' is such a load of bullshit. People will always need food, water, security, energy and shelter. Those things are necessities, and cannot be 'voluntarily' opted in or out of. Whomever takes control of these resources becomes the new King.

There is no utopia and there will always be a state. Embrace it. Every system is going to be flawed, because human beings are flawed. If not a public state, then other forces will rise to take control.. Never has there been a failed state that resulted in 'people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements'. That's a pipe dream. In reality, power vacuums in failed states are quickly filled by warlords, gangs and financial interests. What we want to do is have the system that empowers everyone, not just the strong and wealthy. Democracy accomplishes this, the free market does not.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
A free market is merely people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements without coercion. That's a good place to start. That's not been the problem. The problem is interventionism and cronyism. I think you conflate corporatism with free markets. And I know you think we've had unfettered raw free market practices in the US for 200 years and that's been the cause of our ills, but it's simply not true. We've been living at the trough of progressivism since the early 1900s, and that's only fostered a dangerous climate of corporatism and crony capitalism.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The free market isn't the cure, it's the disease.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
There's never a guarantee of anything. Life is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. Without a state there's no guarantee there won't be violence, theft and oppression. Violence, theft and oppression will always exist. There is no human utopia. But maybe it'll get better?

I can guarantee this: under our current system the plagues of our society (violence, theft, etc.) will continue to exist and probably will get worse as the police state grows. I know you see it. I know you see the problems with government. You hate the war as much as me. You hate the police state as much as me. Voting hasn't and will never remedy this growing problem, because it's only proven to increase it over time.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?

Yah quite welcome. I enjoyed it.

Got the Animusic 2 - Pipe Dream 2 that I glommed playing right now.

Peace.

In reply to this comment by residue:
somebody's been in mah pqueue, thanks!

This is definitely one of those ideas that could only work on paper. Is it "possible"? Sure - we could make a bunch of glass roads. Would they work as billed? A little yes but mostly no. Would it be affordable compared to asphalt or concrete? Definitely not..

Solar power is just one of those things that people refuse to admit is just a pipe dreams because the idea is so romantic. It conjures up mental images of the Jetsons where power is free and everyone is flying to work on their solar powered suitcase cars. The brutal reality of solar power is that it is incredibly expensive, terribly inefficient, and hobbled by battery technology which itself is about one step away from pointed sticks. The limitations make solar power unlikely to ever have any role except as a tiny niche of the energy market.