That's fine, but it doesn't belong to the people of Alaska. It's a national asset.
And a side note for those commenting on Obama, and Rep. vs. Dem. The Ohio delegation has been from both parties.
It definitely didn't belong to the guy who renamed Mount Denali to Mount McKinley either. It's like I'd walk in your house, and rename your children, and the fringers would be mad that you wanted their originl names back.
That's fine, but it doesn't belong to the people of Alaska. It's a national asset.
And a side note for those commenting on Obama, and Rep. vs. Dem. The Ohio delegation has been from both parties.
As has been the Alaskan delegation.
My only real thoughts on this matter are that Alaska asked for it - thy wanted it - Republicans and Democrats want it.
The president did as they wished.
And sure as shit stinks, the fringers are taking another massive hissy fit about it. Their only tool is their anger, and eveything looks like a trigger event for it.
Efforts to change the peak's name back to Denali date back to 1975. The Washington Post reports that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) recently added language in a spending bill that would reestablish the mountain's original name.
C'mon, anon, at least elevate yourself to the type of anon who RTFA.
She's going to get in as much trouble as when Chris Christie hugged the present occupant.
How is it that the Interior Secretary can unilaterally declare a name change?
Guess we wouldn't have this problem then, as the name of the Mountain would have continued to be Denali, and never called McKinley.
Although it would be kinda cool if the people of Alaska would rename some part of Ohio and demand Ohio's citizens accept it.
Let's just call it state's rights, Alaskans by and large wanted it to return to Denali, so why shouldn't they.
He's making Alaskans happy with the stroke of a pen. What's the problem with that?
His haters have spent the last 8 years going nucking futs about everything he has ever done, and a whole lot he hasn't
So even thougt he was doing by law, what he was asked to do by duly elected Alaskan politicians, the core group of haters see this as yet another abuse of his power.
So it's same old, same old. People living in the bubble.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be renamed. I'm merely noting the 'monumental' efforts needed to update all existing documentation referring to the new Mt.Denali.
Well, they should have thought of that when they had to change all the books from Mount Denali to Mount McKinley
The cost isn't all that much anyhow. You ever see a map hanging on the wall with Ceylon or East Germany or Czechoslovakia or Yougoslavia? They become a footnote in history. current things like textbooks might get a sticky label inserted to note the name change, otherwise it's life as usual.
As long as President Obama is will to pay the 300 million dollars or so to replace every textbook and reference book that says the highest mountain in the US is Mount McKiney out of his own pocket I am fine with it.
I wonder who paid the money out of their own pockets to change all the textbooks when the changed the name of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy, then back to Cape Canaveral.
Perhaps that is not as important, depending on one's political stripe?
As the trolls manage to find another thing to be outraged about regarding the present occupant, expressing high Dudgeon that he would have the nerve to change a name that had been changed back to the original name it had been changed from, it merely shows how petty and ridiculous they are.
But Ol Olsoc, he isn't without a bit of sympathy, so let me tell ya a story that will gladden yer hearts.
Remember when that no good womanizing liberal socialist JFK passed away? He of turning the White house into Camelot?
Well those socialist liberals then went and re-named Cape Canaveral in Florida to Cape Kennedy. Can you imagine?
Fortunately smarter, stronger, and right minded folks re-named it back to Cape Canaveral to right that terrible wrong.
So hopefully that will help to gruntle your howls of umbrage, as the present occupant merely re-names it to what it was for all we know, it's first name.
Listen, buddy: Go away. Slashdot is full of opinions, which is everything I post here. I don't come here for debates, and guys like you, who have to prove they're right and everyone else is wrong, like any of this shit matters to anyone, anywhere, just give me a ice-cream headache. By the way you're not changing my mind about anything, and the 20 minutes you must have taken to write all that TL,DR was pretty much for nothing. Seriously internet trolls must have a field day with you, because you're so reactive to everything and everyone and everything.
Let me take the tl;dr approach for you.
You are an exceptionally angry person. You try to transfer that on to me. To think I'm angry is silly - I'm an agitation engineer, and it's sure working on you.
That's really, really messed up - I think you should get counseling to help with your anger issues. If you aren't here for discussions, you're just here to spew your anger. (ps, this is a discussion site)
I will leave you alone now, because you ain't all that much fun, my chachalaca, and I grow bored.
Each year since the late 90's the Republicans have become more and more batshit insane. It's become like a contest now.
And there are a lot of us out there who would vote Republican again if only they would lose that crazy shit, and get back to real conservative principles, like watch the money, but pay the bills, and to let people alone.
What is amazing though is that some of their base will go along with this, even though Christie's Star of David patch idea smacks a little of a mark of the beast as well. The amazing thing is that a mainstream candidate like Christie would not think twice about proposing this really bad idea with really bad precedents.
how much property do you have, i don't have enough land area to run solar panels where i can get to them, only place i have is the roof of a 2.5 story house. last year i had snow on my roof that was 3' deep.
And if you lived in a cave, solar would be a bad option as well. If you lived at the bottom of a steep walled canyon perpendicular to the typical flow of wind in the area, a wind turbine wouldn't be that good of an option.
And if you lived at the geographic north or south pole, solar wouldn't be a good option at all.
And if a person living in a desert can't find enough wood to heat their house in the winter, no one should.
All o this is to say that you're an intelligent person, and have to know that your situation does not equal everyone's.
So I'd make a reasoned guess that you just don't like alternative forms of energy, and look to make talking points against them any way you can.
You're right. I didn't see you anywhere in that video. It was just an interesting vdeo of what some folks on your side were talking about. We doing Oxford debate rules here?
Remind me again what portion of the INDUSTRIALIZED FIRST WORLD runs off of local wind turbines and/or local solar? Oh, that's right: not much. There's a perfectly good reason for that: it's not reliable power like grid power. Solar doesn't work when it's cloudy, at night, or when panels are covered by snow. Wind doesn't work unless it's windy.
And yet, looking at the Allegheny front near my place, there are a lot of wind turbines that seem to be running all the time. You occasionally see one in a turbine field that is stopped - I suspect that's for maintenance.
And as a small correction, the solar panels aren't charging at night. That's when we use the batteries tht the solar panels charge during the day. Works pretty well.
Grid power works all the time, every time.
Oh - bullshit. Here's a small sampling of your "works all the time, every time":
Living here in the Northeast, we've had a lot of major power interruptions, that put that "Grid power works all the time, every time." claim as utter bunkum. The interruptions are generally due to freak weather, but caused me to get first a generator, and I'm now working my way over towards solar. Some of the interruptions have been around a week, and it doesn't take too many freezerfulls of spoiled food to make you think about the need for alternative power.
Power that isn't there when you need it most is rather useless.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, your vaunted grid is not the uninterruptible power source that you claim it is. I really needed the power not available from the grid until I got those alternatives. I can't rely on your promises for power. Thos promises don't make power come out of the wall sockets. It gets too cold when we're out of it for a week.
Oh, and nice dig at Fox News, not that it's remotely relevant to the discussion. But it does show your bias.
I'm not a liberal, if that's your implication. I'm a pragmatist who likes to point out bullshit. And yes, the idea that Germany is successful in their attempts to use solar power because they are sunnier than we are is bullshit.
And the overall point of that post is that Fox News is not the only group spreading bullshit about alternative forms of power.
Especially when those folk write:
Grid power works all the time, every time
So really what was that? Was the quote bullshit? Or do you actually believe that:
Oh for fuck's sake, you've really got your panties in a bunch, don't you? Actual trolls must have a field day with you.
Umm, no I don't got 'm in a bunch. Your reply indicates I really pissed you off though.
I never said 'solar sucks'.
You did write this:
Except when it's a cloudy day.
Except when it's night time where you need power.
Except where it's not practical or possible to have solar panels.
Two comments about that, one, it's true you disn't specifically use the word "sucks"
But if we're going to be that precise, and since you used quote marks, why don't you point out where I said that you said "solar sucks"
Now, bashing fusion power is just plain silly, even if we don't have it
Seriously pal - who you arguing with? I think you are having conversations in your head about what I've said.
I'm not bashing fusion power at all. I'm bashing your not very clever comments about solar panel technology by comparing to a technology that doesn't exist yet.
And, finally: I'm sick and bloody well tired of the NIMBYs, environmentalists, and whoever else that gets their panties in a twist over anything with the word 'nuclear' in it.
Yes, I can see you have some anger issues. Don't transfer them onto me.
We have to transition out of fossil fuels, and the sooner the better, and nuclear power of some sort or another frankly one of the best and cleanest alternatives.
I wholheartedly agree.
Fission is messy but honestly it may be the best short-term solution
I likewise believe that fission can be made safe. It's really a matter of true recognition of the concentration of energy, the effects of radiation on materials, and allowing a conservative engineer have the final decision on every matter of safety. Not bean counters, not CEO's, not the guvmint.
So environmentalists and their alarmist ways need to calm the hell down and stop spreading FUD to the uneducated masses, I'm sick of hearing it, as are apparently so many others
Here is where I have some telling for you, although given your brittleness, I know you won't take it.
Do not for a minute think that a lot of people were told that nuclear power generation was prefectly safe. You can look up those words and see them emblazoned for you. Do not think for a minute that people were told Fukushima was safe. Three Mile island was a close call, but in the end, relatively minor.
So what you and your "sick and bloody well tired" of an opposing view folks have is a real and serious credibility problem.
1. You can rail on about how safe nuclear power is, but not many people are going to believe you. They are going to remember how they were told it was safe, then figure you are just telling them more of the bullshit - and you can quote me on that one.
2. Watching Chernobyl and Fukushima - not many want to get any of that yummy nukey fireworks. See number 1.
3. Acting as if anyone who has any ideas to the contrary is your enemy, or stupid, is not going to further your cause. You made completely incorrect assumptions about me based on my calling you out for comparing a technology that doesn't exist yet to a technology that is operating right now.
That's all I did, and you managed to extrapolate a lot of things from that, all completely untrue. You are a really bad advocate for nuclear power.
Have you analyzed how much energy you will expend to melt the snow, relative to the time rate of electric energy produced by the panel?
Have you analyzed that there are people actually using this stuff? I worked with an engineers some years ago with your outlook, We took a process that we were using, and after careful analysis, he determined that it was impossible. The system we had been using for years would not work.
Seriously, this is pretty basic math and electrical calculations,. You have your production ability based on insolation/hours, your storage based on ampere hours, and odds and ends of cables and other efficiencies.
Are you by any chance a moon landing denier?
Now lots think about it. To run enough power for a city. How many panels would you need. And to clear the snow off all those panels to get the infinitesimally small amount of sun when it is cloudy and cold. You arent going to power squat. Especialy with the length of time needed to clean it all off.
Deductive reasoning my friend, think further than the end of your nose.
You are limiting your options in a way they don't need to be limited.
I live in a fairly cloudy place, and despite what you think, my panels generate power all year round. Yes, less total power in the winter.
It is easily possible to calculate and determine how much surface area and how much storage is needed to get through the winter. The math is actually quite simple.
So there is an oversuppy in the summer - but there is a similar problem with all forms of power generation. It isn't a steady load or generation capacity.
In addition, I don't generate power for people that live ten miles away from me, so IR drop is not an issue, running through all those miles of wire.
Generating the power is only half the issue; you have to DISTRIBUTE the power to where it's needed as well, otherwise it's useless. Remind me again how many of the world's population centers are near the Sahara and Gobi deserts?
We do not need the solar insolation of the Sahara desert to generate panel based electricity. Germany is doing pretty well in spite of the fact that whle Fox news knows they are sunnier than the USA, in truth, they are about as sunny as coastal Alaska - which is to say, they aren't sunny at all.
But your idea that electricl power is useless unless it is distributed, and you actually wrote just that - is simply wrong.
We live in a day and age, where people who dont live near a power line have to pay per pole and per wire to run power to their house.
Do they dig pits to store their food? Do they shiver in the dark , lit by candles?
No they don't because in today's world, unless you are right on the grid path, it is often cheaper to just run solar or wind turbine. The grid isn't all that any more.
Look, fusion generated power will be fscking awesome if it happens.
But I ain't no young pup, and when I was a child in grade, in science class, we were hearing about practical fusion generators being a mere 20 years away. And here it is, 50 years later, and fusion power is still 20 years away.
So a person is more likely to shiver in the dark while waiting for fusion than for solar panel power.
I think marking this a troll is unfair since the parent poster concluded with an insulting, flamebait, trollish paragraph that was pretty much begging for a response.
I think marking me as a troll was mostly about me bitchslapping him with the truth.
I'd love to be using too cheap to meter fusion supplied power.
But it's a little premature to call solar panel power generation a failure compared to fusion power. Especially since I can go outside and watch my solar panels and all the blinky lights that show me they are working, and th eequipment they are powering.
I'll be happy to draw some fusion power from the mains to compare it.
oh.... wait..... Never mind, there isn't any fusion generated electricity generated.
Come back and strut around like a cock-a-whoop after your fusion reactors are actually producing electricity and in use.
So let me rephrase.
Presumably intelligent and rational people would point out every disadvantadge of solar electricuty production - and some that are just inherent to th method - and pronounce it a failure.......
And then in the following few sentences, proclaim the incredible success and awesommeness and no problems whatsoever of Fusion generated electricity.
You can mark me as troll on ever message I post, but it does not cange one undeniable truth.
There has been not one microamp of commercial fusion reactor electrical power generated or used by any consumer, outside of the sun. And no one wants another Carrington event.
So i gotta repeat - and I'll be nice this time. "When we are producing commercial fusion reactor power for people, then we can brag about how awesome it is. In the meantime, shouold we just go without any power, since fusion is going to be the best thing ever?
tl;dr version
Tear out those solar panels- the fusion power we don't even have yet is much better.
I'd say the biggest improvement over MS Office is the LACK of the ribbon.
It's fundamentally a bad interface,
Ribbon is completely weird. After I ended up needing some bit of proficiency in both at work, and with a year to get up to speed, the old school interface was faster. So certainly for me, not having that ribbon interface is a big plus.
I use Open Office myself, but I find it infinitely preferable to MS Office.
This is the point where someone chimes in with some obscure function that MS office has that the open source ones don't have.
But MS fanbois, rejoice in my torture - I use Maya.
Of course with open source you still may need to spend money on consultants that adapt the source to your need. But that's what really saves money because with closed source you are often stuck with default functionality.
Truly the smart guy or gal that has this stuff all figured out will always be needed.
Except when it's a cloudy day.
Except when it's night time where you need power.
Except where it's not practical or possible to have solar panels.
Except that, I surmise, the power density and lifespan of a practical fusion reactor will make it many times more practical than littering every available horizontal surface with solar panels that will have to be replaced in 20 years or less.
You do indeed surmise.
Come back and strut around like a cock-a-whoop after your fusion reactors are actually producing electricity and in use.
If you need a specific program, maybe you need a lock-in.
For that computer.
But hell, for open source software, and for the programs that most people use - I gotta tell ya. Libre is actually better than MS office.
I have several computers, all running Libre office. Macs, PC's, and Linux. No lock in.
And it is compatible no matter the platform. I can take a file between the Mac and the PC and the Linux machine, it it's the same. Microsoft Office can't even go between Windows and OS X without glitches. And no Linux at all. Pah - it's the outlier now. The biggest thing MS Office has going for it is it's feature bloat.
Open source as being cheaper? Hell I use a lot of that stuff because its better.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fine, but it doesn't belong to the people of Alaska. It's a national asset.
And a side note for those commenting on Obama, and Rep. vs. Dem. The Ohio delegation has been from both parties.
It definitely didn't belong to the guy who renamed Mount Denali to Mount McKinley either. It's like I'd walk in your house, and rename your children, and the fringers would be mad that you wanted their originl names back.
That's fine, but it doesn't belong to the people of Alaska. It's a national asset.
And a side note for those commenting on Obama, and Rep. vs. Dem. The Ohio delegation has been from both parties.
As has been the Alaskan delegation.
My only real thoughts on this matter are that Alaska asked for it - thy wanted it - Republicans and Democrats want it.
The president did as they wished.
And sure as shit stinks, the fringers are taking another massive hissy fit about it. Their only tool is their anger, and eveything looks like a trigger event for it.
C'mon, anon, at least elevate yourself to the type of anon who RTFA.
She's going to get in as much trouble as when Chris Christie hugged the present occupant.
How is it that the Interior Secretary can unilaterally declare a name change?
Guess we wouldn't have this problem then, as the name of the Mountain would have continued to be Denali, and never called McKinley.
Although it would be kinda cool if the people of Alaska would rename some part of Ohio and demand Ohio's citizens accept it. Let's just call it state's rights, Alaskans by and large wanted it to return to Denali, so why shouldn't they.
Who said he was?
He's making Alaskans happy with the stroke of a pen. What's the problem with that?
His haters have spent the last 8 years going nucking futs about everything he has ever done, and a whole lot he hasn't
So even thougt he was doing by law, what he was asked to do by duly elected Alaskan politicians, the core group of haters see this as yet another abuse of his power.
So it's same old, same old. People living in the bubble.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be renamed. I'm merely noting the 'monumental' efforts needed to update all existing documentation referring to the new Mt.Denali.
Well, they should have thought of that when they had to change all the books from Mount Denali to Mount McKinley
The cost isn't all that much anyhow. You ever see a map hanging on the wall with Ceylon or East Germany or Czechoslovakia or Yougoslavia? They become a footnote in history. current things like textbooks might get a sticky label inserted to note the name change, otherwise it's life as usual.
Having just recently read 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', I can't help but see the parallel.
Which part? Someone erasing the mountains name to call it Mount McKinley?
Or changing the name back to it's original name?
As long as President Obama is will to pay the 300 million dollars or so to replace every textbook and reference book that says the highest mountain in the US is Mount McKiney out of his own pocket I am fine with it.
I wonder who paid the money out of their own pockets to change all the textbooks when the changed the name of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy, then back to Cape Canaveral.
Perhaps that is not as important, depending on one's political stripe?
But Ol Olsoc, he isn't without a bit of sympathy, so let me tell ya a story that will gladden yer hearts.
Remember when that no good womanizing liberal socialist JFK passed away? He of turning the White house into Camelot?
Well those socialist liberals then went and re-named Cape Canaveral in Florida to Cape Kennedy. Can you imagine?
Fortunately smarter, stronger, and right minded folks re-named it back to Cape Canaveral to right that terrible wrong.
So hopefully that will help to gruntle your howls of umbrage, as the present occupant merely re-names it to what it was for all we know, it's first name.
Listen, buddy: Go away. Slashdot is full of opinions, which is everything I post here. I don't come here for debates, and guys like you, who have to prove they're right and everyone else is wrong, like any of this shit matters to anyone, anywhere, just give me a ice-cream headache. By the way you're not changing my mind about anything, and the 20 minutes you must have taken to write all that TL,DR was pretty much for nothing. Seriously internet trolls must have a field day with you, because you're so reactive to everything and everyone and everything.
Let me take the tl;dr approach for you.
You are an exceptionally angry person. You try to transfer that on to me. To think I'm angry is silly - I'm an agitation engineer, and it's sure working on you.
That's really, really messed up - I think you should get counseling to help with your anger issues. If you aren't here for discussions, you're just here to spew your anger. (ps, this is a discussion site) I will leave you alone now, because you ain't all that much fun, my chachalaca, and I grow bored.
And there are a lot of us out there who would vote Republican again if only they would lose that crazy shit, and get back to real conservative principles, like watch the money, but pay the bills, and to let people alone.
What is amazing though is that some of their base will go along with this, even though Christie's Star of David patch idea smacks a little of a mark of the beast as well. The amazing thing is that a mainstream candidate like Christie would not think twice about proposing this really bad idea with really bad precedents.
how much property do you have, i don't have enough land area to run solar panels where i can get to them, only place i have is the roof of a 2.5 story house. last year i had snow on my roof that was 3' deep.
And if you lived in a cave, solar would be a bad option as well. If you lived at the bottom of a steep walled canyon perpendicular to the typical flow of wind in the area, a wind turbine wouldn't be that good of an option.
And if you lived at the geographic north or south pole, solar wouldn't be a good option at all.
And if a person living in a desert can't find enough wood to heat their house in the winter, no one should. All o this is to say that you're an intelligent person, and have to know that your situation does not equal everyone's.
So I'd make a reasoned guess that you just don't like alternative forms of energy, and look to make talking points against them any way you can.
Right, and Germany is sunnier than the USA
Strawman. I never said anything of the sort.
You're right. I didn't see you anywhere in that video. It was just an interesting vdeo of what some folks on your side were talking about. We doing Oxford debate rules here?
Remind me again what portion of the INDUSTRIALIZED FIRST WORLD runs off of local wind turbines and/or local solar? Oh, that's right: not much. There's a perfectly good reason for that: it's not reliable power like grid power. Solar doesn't work when it's cloudy, at night, or when panels are covered by snow. Wind doesn't work unless it's windy.
And yet, looking at the Allegheny front near my place, there are a lot of wind turbines that seem to be running all the time. You occasionally see one in a turbine field that is stopped - I suspect that's for maintenance.
And as a small correction, the solar panels aren't charging at night. That's when we use the batteries tht the solar panels charge during the day. Works pretty well.
Grid power works all the time, every time.
Oh - bullshit. Here's a small sampling of your "works all the time, every time":
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/25/...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.foxnews.com/weather...
Living here in the Northeast, we've had a lot of major power interruptions, that put that "Grid power works all the time, every time." claim as utter bunkum. The interruptions are generally due to freak weather, but caused me to get first a generator, and I'm now working my way over towards solar. Some of the interruptions have been around a week, and it doesn't take too many freezerfulls of spoiled food to make you think about the need for alternative power.
Power that isn't there when you need it most is rather useless.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, your vaunted grid is not the uninterruptible power source that you claim it is. I really needed the power not available from the grid until I got those alternatives. I can't rely on your promises for power. Thos promises don't make power come out of the wall sockets. It gets too cold when we're out of it for a week.
Oh, and nice dig at Fox News, not that it's remotely relevant to the discussion. But it does show your bias.
I'm not a liberal, if that's your implication. I'm a pragmatist who likes to point out bullshit. And yes, the idea that Germany is successful in their attempts to use solar power because they are sunnier than we are is bullshit.
And the overall point of that post is that Fox News is not the only group spreading bullshit about alternative forms of power.
Especially when those folk write:
Grid power works all the time, every time
So really what was that? Was the quote bullshit? Or do you actually believe that :
Grid power works all the time, every time
Because it certainly doesn't.
Not even in Germany.
Oh for fuck's sake, you've really got your panties in a bunch, don't you? Actual trolls must have a field day with you.
Umm, no I don't got 'm in a bunch. Your reply indicates I really pissed you off though.
I never said 'solar sucks'.
You did write this:
Except when it's a cloudy day.
Except when it's night time where you need power.
Except where it's not practical or possible to have solar panels.
Two comments about that, one, it's true you disn't specifically use the word "sucks"
But if we're going to be that precise, and since you used quote marks, why don't you point out where I said that you said "solar sucks"
Now, bashing fusion power is just plain silly, even if we don't have it
Seriously pal - who you arguing with? I think you are having conversations in your head about what I've said.
I'm not bashing fusion power at all. I'm bashing your not very clever comments about solar panel technology by comparing to a technology that doesn't exist yet.
And, finally: I'm sick and bloody well tired of the NIMBYs, environmentalists, and whoever else that gets their panties in a twist over anything with the word 'nuclear' in it.
Yes, I can see you have some anger issues. Don't transfer them onto me.
We have to transition out of fossil fuels, and the sooner the better, and nuclear power of some sort or another frankly one of the best and cleanest alternatives.
I wholheartedly agree.
Fission is messy but honestly it may be the best short-term solution
I likewise believe that fission can be made safe. It's really a matter of true recognition of the concentration of energy, the effects of radiation on materials, and allowing a conservative engineer have the final decision on every matter of safety. Not bean counters, not CEO's, not the guvmint.
So environmentalists and their alarmist ways need to calm the hell down and stop spreading FUD to the uneducated masses, I'm sick of hearing it, as are apparently so many others
Here is where I have some telling for you, although given your brittleness, I know you won't take it.
Do not for a minute think that a lot of people were told that nuclear power generation was prefectly safe. You can look up those words and see them emblazoned for you. Do not think for a minute that people were told Fukushima was safe. Three Mile island was a close call, but in the end, relatively minor.
So what you and your "sick and bloody well tired" of an opposing view folks have is a real and serious credibility problem.
1. You can rail on about how safe nuclear power is, but not many people are going to believe you. They are going to remember how they were told it was safe, then figure you are just telling them more of the bullshit - and you can quote me on that one.
2. Watching Chernobyl and Fukushima - not many want to get any of that yummy nukey fireworks. See number 1.
3. Acting as if anyone who has any ideas to the contrary is your enemy, or stupid, is not going to further your cause. You made completely incorrect assumptions about me based on my calling you out for comparing a technology that doesn't exist yet to a technology that is operating right now.
That's all I did, and you managed to extrapolate a lot of things from that, all completely untrue. You are a really bad advocate for nuclear power.
So when the panels are covered in snow, you propose tilting them. They produce no power when covered in snow. Where is the power going to come from?
The batteries that store the power sent to them by the solar panels. Sheesh.
Have you analyzed how much energy you will expend to melt the snow, relative to the time rate of electric energy produced by the panel?
Have you analyzed that there are people actually using this stuff? I worked with an engineers some years ago with your outlook, We took a process that we were using, and after careful analysis, he determined that it was impossible. The system we had been using for years would not work.
Seriously, this is pretty basic math and electrical calculations,. You have your production ability based on insolation/hours, your storage based on ampere hours, and odds and ends of cables and other efficiencies. Are you by any chance a moon landing denier?
Now lots think about it. To run enough power for a city. How many panels would you need. And to clear the snow off all those panels to get the infinitesimally small amount of sun when it is cloudy and cold. You arent going to power squat. Especialy with the length of time needed to clean it all off.
Deductive reasoning my friend, think further than the end of your nose.
You are limiting your options in a way they don't need to be limited.
I live in a fairly cloudy place, and despite what you think, my panels generate power all year round. Yes, less total power in the winter.
It is easily possible to calculate and determine how much surface area and how much storage is needed to get through the winter. The math is actually quite simple.
So there is an oversuppy in the summer - but there is a similar problem with all forms of power generation. It isn't a steady load or generation capacity.
In addition, I don't generate power for people that live ten miles away from me, so IR drop is not an issue, running through all those miles of wire.
Generating the power is only half the issue; you have to DISTRIBUTE the power to where it's needed as well, otherwise it's useless. Remind me again how many of the world's population centers are near the Sahara and Gobi deserts?
Right, and Germany is sunnier than the USA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We do not need the solar insolation of the Sahara desert to generate panel based electricity. Germany is doing pretty well in spite of the fact that whle Fox news knows they are sunnier than the USA, in truth, they are about as sunny as coastal Alaska - which is to say, they aren't sunny at all.
But your idea that electricl power is useless unless it is distributed, and you actually wrote just that - is simply wrong.
We live in a day and age, where people who dont live near a power line have to pay per pole and per wire to run power to their house.
Do they dig pits to store their food? Do they shiver in the dark , lit by candles?
No they don't because in today's world, unless you are right on the grid path, it is often cheaper to just run solar or wind turbine. The grid isn't all that any more.
Look, fusion generated power will be fscking awesome if it happens.
But I ain't no young pup, and when I was a child in grade, in science class, we were hearing about practical fusion generators being a mere 20 years away. And here it is, 50 years later, and fusion power is still 20 years away.
So a person is more likely to shiver in the dark while waiting for fusion than for solar panel power.
I think marking this a troll is unfair since the parent poster concluded with an insulting, flamebait, trollish paragraph that was pretty much begging for a response.
I think marking me as a troll was mostly about me bitchslapping him with the truth.
I'd love to be using too cheap to meter fusion supplied power.
But it's a little premature to call solar panel power generation a failure compared to fusion power. Especially since I can go outside and watch my solar panels and all the blinky lights that show me they are working, and th eequipment they are powering.
I'll be happy to draw some fusion power from the mains to compare it.
oh.... wait..... Never mind, there isn't any fusion generated electricity generated.
Come back and strut around like a cock-a-whoop after your fusion reactors are actually producing electricity and in use.
So let me rephrase.
Presumably intelligent and rational people would point out every disadvantadge of solar electricuty production - and some that are just inherent to th method - and pronounce it a failure.......
And then in the following few sentences, proclaim the incredible success and awesommeness and no problems whatsoever of Fusion generated electricity.
You can mark me as troll on ever message I post, but it does not cange one undeniable truth.
There has been not one microamp of commercial fusion reactor electrical power generated or used by any consumer, outside of the sun. And no one wants another Carrington event.
So i gotta repeat - and I'll be nice this time. "When we are producing commercial fusion reactor power for people, then we can brag about how awesome it is. In the meantime, shouold we just go without any power, since fusion is going to be the best thing ever?
tl;dr version
Tear out those solar panels- the fusion power we don't even have yet is much better.
I'd say the biggest improvement over MS Office is the LACK of the ribbon.
It's fundamentally a bad interface,
Ribbon is completely weird. After I ended up needing some bit of proficiency in both at work, and with a year to get up to speed, the old school interface was faster. So certainly for me, not having that ribbon interface is a big plus.
I use Open Office myself, but I find it infinitely preferable to MS Office.
This is the point where someone chimes in with some obscure function that MS office has that the open source ones don't have.
But MS fanbois, rejoice in my torture - I use Maya.
Of course with open source you still may need to spend money on consultants that adapt the source to your need. But that's what really saves money because with closed source you are often stuck with default functionality.
Truly the smart guy or gal that has this stuff all figured out will always be needed.
Except when it's a cloudy day. Except when it's night time where you need power. Except where it's not practical or possible to have solar panels. Except that, I surmise, the power density and lifespan of a practical fusion reactor will make it many times more practical than littering every available horizontal surface with solar panels that will have to be replaced in 20 years or less.
You do indeed surmise.
Come back and strut around like a cock-a-whoop after your fusion reactors are actually producing electricity and in use.
For that computer.
But hell, for open source software, and for the programs that most people use - I gotta tell ya. Libre is actually better than MS office.
I have several computers, all running Libre office. Macs, PC's, and Linux. No lock in.
And it is compatible no matter the platform. I can take a file between the Mac and the PC and the Linux machine, it it's the same. Microsoft Office can't even go between Windows and OS X without glitches. And no Linux at all. Pah - it's the outlier now. The biggest thing MS Office has going for it is it's feature bloat.
Open source as being cheaper? Hell I use a lot of that stuff because its better.
Flight to quality. Common sense.
Ahh Distrowatch. Probably my inner geek showing, but I just love that place.