This what I mean. Always call people stupid, never give real explanation. You are troll.

I'm not going to spend an hour on that presentation given comments but if one was inclined to believe the lighting industry is against long life solutions, why are they letting LEDs move forward? LEDs don't get messed up because they're vibrated, tapped, or anything else that messed with the filament. LEDs with a reasonable heatsink should tend to not care that much how you cycle them, and are just more efficient that anything else going.

What I don't get along Orcishgamer's lines is why Dell and HP are the industry standard instead of IBM/Lenovo for personal computers. Particularly given HP seems incapable of writing good efficient code for their drivers and otherwise, and Dell wasn't that wonderful before they both went Foxconn.

Not attack. Have read. Claim others are troll, are troll yourself.

Let's say you're right. Are you helping yourself and your as far as I see largely undefined position versus his by carrying on like this? Or are you playing into his hand, at least as you claim it, of casting you as the... pardon the turn of phrase, fool?

Wow, this sounds like a really boring game...

BIG is a payment to all citizens, regardless of economic status (like the state fund payments in Alaska, these are a BIG). For some taxes would go up, others would find their net income much improved (most people, when counting their additional free time and their BIG will find they are better off). The idea is to fund enough social services that someone on BIG has enough to survive, if not buy any fancy, electronic doo-dads. It also demands that government actually sell our resources (as they are part of the commons in most countries, especially the US) for a good price.

Those who find even part time extra employment will be all the better off, but those that can't will still have their needs covered. We can finally put the insulting phrase "The world still needs burger flippers." to rest. Because, really, why the hell does it?

The basic idea is what's starting to become glaringly obvious, we don't need 100% of the population employed all the time. However, those less employed will need to be available for some periods of time to build up infrastructure (I'm not a big fan of mormons, but they actually do this pretty successfully, those receiving assistance must pitch in unless they are too ill to help).

I know a lot of people are afraid of big government, and it's easy to look at programs that don't work so well, but people then overlook the amazing amount of shit that just does work (weather satellites, fire service in most areas, FDA, etc.). No, even these programs aren't perfect and we can demand improvement, but generally they work and we have some really good infrastructure due to it. A lot of folks don't realize that the geysers in Yellowstone were filled with garbage until the Feds took over and made it a national park. A lot of people load up their guns in their trucks and go hunting, bitch about "socialism", and never realize without government management they wouldn't find any animals to shoot (and hopefully eat). I could go on.

I'll dig up a couple links for you to check out tomorrow, too tired tonight. The basic idea, though, is to uncouple peoples' incomes from their jobs. The Luddites may have been the first big movement that we have on record to protest this kind of thing, but the trend is clear (and it's actually a good trend, if we do it right) we can produce tons of stuff with very few people actually working to do so.

This-
"See? It's not so hard. I didn't even have to write out a formula or provide a link!"

wasn't directed at you by the way. It was an indirect criticism of some other posts in this thread. I didn't really want to start another flame war, but I just couldn't help myself so I tried to do it indirectly.

The BIG sounds interesting, but I don't know how it would be implemented. How would the market work?

A small example - what kind of incentives would there be for someone to either produce their own energy or put some extra they have produced on the grid during peak hours? Utilities don't usually tell their customers, but they pay a hefty amount of money for wholesale energy during peak hours if they don't produce energy themselves and have to buy it from other producers. They would be ecstatic to pay an avoided cost (usually only half of what they sell power for on the retail side) to someone who has pushed some energy onto the grid during peak hours from the distribution side. This is not fair to someone who has invested their resources to be able to provide for themselves and also put some power back on the grid, reducing the strain on the grid. Under a BIG, it would seem that everything would have to be priced at fixed rates. How could that possibly send a signal to people who can provide, even if only in small amounts individually, that the grid can't handle the demand and it needs some help?