That statement really shows adolescent mindset... "your type"... "you vs them". You need to seriously look in the mirror.
"Oh, it most certainly is. In fact, that's the entire founding idea of our country."
The founding fathers created a system of checks & balances. That is one of the fundamental principals of the US Constitution. You seem to revel in the idea of King George, who wanted to usurp power entirely into the Executive if he could have had his way. Of corporations with free reign to do as they wish, harking back to the days of laissez faire that ultimately resulted in the great depression, and similar lines of thinking that lead to the greatest depression since then (the one we're currently in, if you haven't been paying attention). Study up on 20th century history before blasting those who have.
As for my education, I had an excellent one thank you. I fear for our country when you believe your non-education is somehow superior.
The rest of your monologue is so fatally flawed that it's almost not worth responding to. To even have the audacity to say that the US healthcare system is the best in the world shows alot of ignorance. Sure if you're filthy rich and can afford any price for health care, it's great. But for the average middle class citizen it's a far cry from the best in the world.
Sorry but your examples are patently wrong, particularly about monopolies, and also with health care. Health insurance has been "free market" for ages in the US and it's in a terrible state of corruption. Can't blame the government there, just big business. You've been brainwashed by corporate marketing.
It's not simply a "free" vs "controlled" argument. Your black & white thinking reflects a shallow understanding of how the world works. Just as it exists now, a free market should have some controls to prevent human greed from spiraling out of control. Because any system, no matter how perfect on paper, is fundamentally flawed by human operation.
"Do you even think?"
Do you? The question (and answer) really means nothing in your case. It should really be "Do you think of the right things".
Anyway, had this discussion before and you're not one to let reason get in the way of a good solution. Go about blithely in your idealistic little world preaching how you have the perfect solution to everything.
It's because the "free market" is blind to long-term goals, settling for short-term benefits even when it undermines the longterm. A "free market" has only one logical conclusion: monopoly. The US doesn't have a free market, it's a hybrid of sorts leaning towards free.
Before calling the kettle black, consider how your stance is equally ideologically blind.
The truly exciting thing here is that it's yet another 'green' innovation brought to you by the private free market.... This is why you have to fight to keep it.
I couldn't tell whether you were being serious or facetious...
Ebay broke the "Watch this item" feature on their auction pages a few weeks back. It appeared to affect Firefox and not IE. The Ebay developers' first response was the same as this situation - "It works for me". That's terrible customer relations and reflects even poorer developer experience. Did Ebay lay off a bunch of their seasoned developers and trade in for high schoolers?
Solution - fix doppler radar so that it can distinguish between wind turbines and tornadoes. Might not be trivial, but certainly not rocket science.
Wind turbines > tornado warnings
Is it so sad? Execs at successful companies are not immune to errors in judgement (see AOL-TimeWarner merger, Microsoft's Ballmer's maniacal and self-destructive loathing of open source, etc...). Murdoch doesn't have a monopoly on understanding of the market, as much as he loves monopolies.
The fact that he was unable to properly monetize "free" content is further evidence that he has no clue of the online market.
FTA - "Runner up for best version number: 3.11. As in 1993â(TM)s Windows for Workgroups 3,11, one of the best versions of any operating system ever released."
The author instantly lost credibility in my mind. While WfW 3.11 may have been a breakthrough for PC architectures, it's pathetic compared to any other GUI OS from that era. And the only reason it was so great on the PC is because the only other "OS", DOS, was such weak sauce.
But other than that, it was an entertaining article.
1st thing that occurred to me was this could cause dangerous unintended consequences. For instance, while hurricanes are destructive to the coastal areas, they bring much needed moisture and rainfall into the main continent. The Gulf of Mexico is a prime example. States in the SW get very hot & dry in the summer and the high pressure prevents moisture from moving in. The only thing strong enough to push that high pressure out is a hurricane. Without some rain during the summer, the land would turn into a dry dustbowl.
In any case, why would you trust manipulation of global weather patterns to someone who thought that 640kB would be more than anyone would ever need?
Of course he's in it for the money. And he'll use & abuse as much govt loopholes & taxpayer money to get rich "quick". If it were entirely his money, sure he can get all the reward, but it's not all his money. It's our money, taxpayer money, that subsidizes much of his wealth.
You ask why people loathe oil whores. It's because their M.O. has been to systematically destroy renewable energy, lobby for rules & regulations that heavily favor coal & oil (e.g. virtually no responsibility for emissions), destroy stable & productive environments (e.g. mountaintop removal) and generally spread misinformation. They have been too successful at playing the lobbying game. The wealthier & bigger they get, the more monopolistic they behave, the easier it is for them to crush new potentially competitive technology, tech which almost always has a high capital investment and later becomes cheap. But that tech never gets a chance to reach the later stages because it's systematically dismantled.
Anyways, your cheap oil, big cars and endless highways are not the product of the Magic Powers of Capitalism. They are and have always been taxpayer subsidized industries. Buy whatever you want, but pay for it yourself.
.. and people complain about the range of EVs. This gets what, 5 mpg? A 20 gal tank, which would be huge for a small sports car, would net 100 mi. Blech
Are you basing your energy calculations on the amount of gasoline used to drive a certain distance/speed? Gasoline, while very dense in energy, is used very inefficiently by small ICE engines (e.g. cars). It's on the order of 20% efficiency (give or take 5%, depending on how old the car is and how well it's maintained). Assuming that's your assumptions, your calculations are off by a factor of 5.
That's why the only force that will drive EV acceptance is another surge in gas prices. The average person lives in a bubble, caring not for the consequences of h(is,er) actions. Only when it hits their pocketbook do they sit up and take notice.
Those poo-pooing fast charging are not up on the current state of the art in battery charging. There are extremely fast charging technologies that are safe and available now (60 Ah in a matter of minutes).
Agreed. Plenty of people drop $50k on a Lexus/BMW/Mercedes/etc pollution spewer without batting an eyelash. While this price point isn't "cheap", it significantly increases the audience that will consider electric cars.
Cries for calling the Tesla sedan a Model T instead of S don't make much sense. The T was designed for rock-bottom pricing. The Tesla sedan is a luxury high-tech car.
I too have a solar hot water system. Mine uses evacuated tubes which are more efficient at capturing heat than your flat plate collectors (from what I can tell in your photo).
With the heavy amount of sun in TX, the solar thermal collector provides 100% of our hot water for about 8 months of the year (Apr - Nov). The coldest 4 months average about 50% of our hot water supply. In the summer the tank easily exceeds 170 deg F. As comparison, scalding temp is about 120F and most hot water heaters are set to 120-130F for energy conservation purposes. Don't worry, a thermostatic valve mixes in cold water at the tank's exit point so that the superheated water doesn't reach the faucet. Based on my rough calculations, the system will pay for itself in 6-7 years which is pretty good. After that it's money in my pocket!
Solar thermal has its optimal and sub-optimal locations, as with any resource. Northern states would not benefit as much due to the colder climates. I am always surprised in the winter when the system can get the water up to 90F when it's 35F outside (on a sunny winter day). But with lower temps and more overcast days in some northern climates, solar thermal would take alot longer to pay for itself. Now if they can just figure out a way to extract energy from snow...
Here's another way to view this. Take the simple fact that we "need" electricity and will pay for it one way or another. We can pay for generation by fossil fuels, or we can pay for it in investments in renewable energy. It's not so much how long it'll take to pay back, it's that since the money will be spent on electricity anyway, might as well put it towards solar or wind based electrical generation. At some point in time the financials break even, so you've spent money more wisely. You're also not entirely at the mercy of the utilities (read: rolling blackouts).
There's alot of factors at play here. For example, it takes energy to make solar panels. From what I've read though, the total energy output of modern solar cells far exceeds the energy needed to manufacture them. [Sorry don't have a link, but Google reveals all]
The latest CFLs I bought months ago have an advertised PF of 0.90, far better than this article's claims of ~0.50.
As with any consumer product, quality varies greatly. Don't get caught up in the hype either way.
Get an IT degree if and only if you want to pursue a career in IT. From my experience, people hiring for software dev positions tend to shy away from IT graduates. Even if you're just as qualified, there's a firewall in people's brains between IT and "hard core" software dev. I s'pose that could be said of most any fields/specializations.
Slashdot Mirror
well done! and my condolences
Wow I feel old... this was seriously the bomb when it came out. So far ahead of its time, had me hooked for years!
lol boy, you "win". Go and get laid, it'll improve your outlook on life and give you a fresh perspective.
"It's funny how your type always..."
That statement really shows adolescent mindset... "your type"... "you vs them". You need to seriously look in the mirror.
"Oh, it most certainly is. In fact, that's the entire founding idea of our country."
The founding fathers created a system of checks & balances. That is one of the fundamental principals of the US Constitution. You seem to revel in the idea of King George, who wanted to usurp power entirely into the Executive if he could have had his way. Of corporations with free reign to do as they wish, harking back to the days of laissez faire that ultimately resulted in the great depression, and similar lines of thinking that lead to the greatest depression since then (the one we're currently in, if you haven't been paying attention). Study up on 20th century history before blasting those who have.
As for my education, I had an excellent one thank you. I fear for our country when you believe your non-education is somehow superior.
The rest of your monologue is so fatally flawed that it's almost not worth responding to. To even have the audacity to say that the US healthcare system is the best in the world shows alot of ignorance. Sure if you're filthy rich and can afford any price for health care, it's great. But for the average middle class citizen it's a far cry from the best in the world.
Sorry but your examples are patently wrong, particularly about monopolies, and also with health care. Health insurance has been "free market" for ages in the US and it's in a terrible state of corruption. Can't blame the government there, just big business. You've been brainwashed by corporate marketing.
It's not simply a "free" vs "controlled" argument. Your black & white thinking reflects a shallow understanding of how the world works. Just as it exists now, a free market should have some controls to prevent human greed from spiraling out of control. Because any system, no matter how perfect on paper, is fundamentally flawed by human operation.
"Do you even think?"
Do you? The question (and answer) really means nothing in your case. It should really be "Do you think of the right things".
Anyway, had this discussion before and you're not one to let reason get in the way of a good solution. Go about blithely in your idealistic little world preaching how you have the perfect solution to everything.
It's because the "free market" is blind to long-term goals, settling for short-term benefits even when it undermines the longterm. A "free market" has only one logical conclusion: monopoly. The US doesn't have a free market, it's a hybrid of sorts leaning towards free.
Before calling the kettle black, consider how your stance is equally ideologically blind.
The truly exciting thing here is that it's yet another 'green' innovation brought to you by the private free market. ... This is why you have to fight to keep it.
I couldn't tell whether you were being serious or facetious...
Ebay broke the "Watch this item" feature on their auction pages a few weeks back. It appeared to affect Firefox and not IE. The Ebay developers' first response was the same as this situation - "It works for me". That's terrible customer relations and reflects even poorer developer experience. Did Ebay lay off a bunch of their seasoned developers and trade in for high schoolers?
http://dev-forums.ebay.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600000891&anticache=1252934096581
Solution - fix doppler radar so that it can distinguish between wind turbines and tornadoes. Might not be trivial, but certainly not rocket science. Wind turbines > tornado warnings
Is it so sad? Execs at successful companies are not immune to errors in judgement (see AOL-TimeWarner merger, Microsoft's Ballmer's maniacal and self-destructive loathing of open source, etc...). Murdoch doesn't have a monopoly on understanding of the market, as much as he loves monopolies.
The fact that he was unable to properly monetize "free" content is further evidence that he has no clue of the online market.
.. or more accurately, Chinese ducks
"does this offer hope that someone might finally make a good movie based on a game IP?"
Actually I thought Doom was a decent flick. No masterpiece, but it's a "good movie".
FTA - "Runner up for best version number: 3.11. As in 1993â(TM)s Windows for Workgroups 3,11, one of the best versions of any operating system ever released."
The author instantly lost credibility in my mind. While WfW 3.11 may have been a breakthrough for PC architectures, it's pathetic compared to any other GUI OS from that era. And the only reason it was so great on the PC is because the only other "OS", DOS, was such weak sauce.
But other than that, it was an entertaining article.
1st thing that occurred to me was this could cause dangerous unintended consequences. For instance, while hurricanes are destructive to the coastal areas, they bring much needed moisture and rainfall into the main continent. The Gulf of Mexico is a prime example. States in the SW get very hot & dry in the summer and the high pressure prevents moisture from moving in. The only thing strong enough to push that high pressure out is a hurricane. Without some rain during the summer, the land would turn into a dry dustbowl.
In any case, why would you trust manipulation of global weather patterns to someone who thought that 640kB would be more than anyone would ever need?
Of course he's in it for the money. And he'll use & abuse as much govt loopholes & taxpayer money to get rich "quick". If it were entirely his money, sure he can get all the reward, but it's not all his money. It's our money, taxpayer money, that subsidizes much of his wealth. You ask why people loathe oil whores. It's because their M.O. has been to systematically destroy renewable energy, lobby for rules & regulations that heavily favor coal & oil (e.g. virtually no responsibility for emissions), destroy stable & productive environments (e.g. mountaintop removal) and generally spread misinformation. They have been too successful at playing the lobbying game. The wealthier & bigger they get, the more monopolistic they behave, the easier it is for them to crush new potentially competitive technology, tech which almost always has a high capital investment and later becomes cheap. But that tech never gets a chance to reach the later stages because it's systematically dismantled. Anyways, your cheap oil, big cars and endless highways are not the product of the Magic Powers of Capitalism. They are and have always been taxpayer subsidized industries. Buy whatever you want, but pay for it yourself.
.. and people complain about the range of EVs. This gets what, 5 mpg? A 20 gal tank, which would be huge for a small sports car, would net 100 mi. Blech
Are you basing your energy calculations on the amount of gasoline used to drive a certain distance/speed? Gasoline, while very dense in energy, is used very inefficiently by small ICE engines (e.g. cars). It's on the order of 20% efficiency (give or take 5%, depending on how old the car is and how well it's maintained). Assuming that's your assumptions, your calculations are off by a factor of 5.
That's why the only force that will drive EV acceptance is another surge in gas prices. The average person lives in a bubble, caring not for the consequences of h(is,er) actions. Only when it hits their pocketbook do they sit up and take notice. Those poo-pooing fast charging are not up on the current state of the art in battery charging. There are extremely fast charging technologies that are safe and available now (60 Ah in a matter of minutes).
Agreed. Plenty of people drop $50k on a Lexus/BMW/Mercedes/etc pollution spewer without batting an eyelash. While this price point isn't "cheap", it significantly increases the audience that will consider electric cars.
There was a Ford Model S (2nd paragraph)
http://wikicars.org/en/Ford_Model_T
Cries for calling the Tesla sedan a Model T instead of S don't make much sense. The T was designed for rock-bottom pricing. The Tesla sedan is a luxury high-tech car.
So it doesn't really make you go blind?
I too have a solar hot water system. Mine uses evacuated tubes which are more efficient at capturing heat than your flat plate collectors (from what I can tell in your photo).
With the heavy amount of sun in TX, the solar thermal collector provides 100% of our hot water for about 8 months of the year (Apr - Nov). The coldest 4 months average about 50% of our hot water supply. In the summer the tank easily exceeds 170 deg F. As comparison, scalding temp is about 120F and most hot water heaters are set to 120-130F for energy conservation purposes. Don't worry, a thermostatic valve mixes in cold water at the tank's exit point so that the superheated water doesn't reach the faucet. Based on my rough calculations, the system will pay for itself in 6-7 years which is pretty good. After that it's money in my pocket!
Solar thermal has its optimal and sub-optimal locations, as with any resource. Northern states would not benefit as much due to the colder climates. I am always surprised in the winter when the system can get the water up to 90F when it's 35F outside (on a sunny winter day). But with lower temps and more overcast days in some northern climates, solar thermal would take alot longer to pay for itself. Now if they can just figure out a way to extract energy from snow...
Here's another way to view this. Take the simple fact that we "need" electricity and will pay for it one way or another. We can pay for generation by fossil fuels, or we can pay for it in investments in renewable energy. It's not so much how long it'll take to pay back, it's that since the money will be spent on electricity anyway, might as well put it towards solar or wind based electrical generation. At some point in time the financials break even, so you've spent money more wisely. You're also not entirely at the mercy of the utilities (read: rolling blackouts).
There's alot of factors at play here. For example, it takes energy to make solar panels. From what I've read though, the total energy output of modern solar cells far exceeds the energy needed to manufacture them. [Sorry don't have a link, but Google reveals all]
The latest CFLs I bought months ago have an advertised PF of 0.90, far better than this article's claims of ~0.50. As with any consumer product, quality varies greatly. Don't get caught up in the hype either way.
Get an IT degree if and only if you want to pursue a career in IT. From my experience, people hiring for software dev positions tend to shy away from IT graduates. Even if you're just as qualified, there's a firewall in people's brains between IT and "hard core" software dev. I s'pose that could be said of most any fields/specializations.