You don't seem to understand basic economics. Your consumption is reduced when you use energy that is generated. You get paid for energy fed back into the grid when you are not using it.
No, you don't seem to understand basic economics.
I realize that you think vague general ideas trumps actual numbers, but in reality they do not.
In effect, you have made it even harder to recover the costs over 5 years because you used more panels than you needed in order to have that surplus electricity that you think is a magic bullet, so your hand waving about it means absolutely nothing to people with a brain because they know that having a surplus costs fucking money.
Do some math, find a supplier, find an installer, then show us some numbers. if thats too hard for you, then maybe you shouldnt be lecturing anyone about basic economics. Here, i'll start this off for you: The cheapest system that would produce a monthly surplus costs $12,515 from this supplier.. and that doesnt even fucking include installation cost or roof racks. To produce a 100% surplus, that would cost $23,770 but of course only get you back $5583.60 over 5 years and save $5583.60 over 5 years, for a total loss after 5 years of $12,602.80.. again not including the cost of fucking installation.
If the building is designed to last 5 years or more and you can afford the up-front cost the solar PV will always pay off, so why wouldn't you do it?
..because obviously there is no way in hell that it pays off in 5 years.
The national average home uses 940 kWh/month. The national average for 1 kWh is $0.099. Therefore the national average electricity cost is $93.06/month.
In order to break even after 5 years the cost of the solar power system must be no greater than $5583.60 and at that price it must cover 100% of the homes energy needs.
In what dream world are you living in that such a system can be installed for that price?
Politicians don't write the laws, they take the laws that the lobbyists give them and then merge them with what the other lobbyists give them and then amend them with amendments that by and large were created by lobbyists and vote on that mess.
Another apologist, I see.
Clearly you will never hold a politician accountable. You hate corporations that much, eh? Fuck the fact that the politician enables it, benefits from it, and encourages it... no sir, its those evil corporations and their evil lobby groups that the politician gladly sells his services to.. its their fault that someone is selling a service to them, right?
To be informative, the average transmission loss in America is 6.5% of produced energy, which is estimated based on the difference between national electricity production and national electricity sales.
Why does US companies pay weekly when other countries pay monthly?
It mainly depends on which State you live in. Some States actually require weekly payment unless the business can land itself a special State exemption, and most have made the option of monthly payment illegal.
When my paycheck has been spent and I didn't make the withdrawl, who is going to believe me?
When using direct deposit, what if the money never appears in your account?
Your employer says that they transfered the money, while the bank says they never received it... so who exactly is at fault?
This is the risk of direct deposit. Sure, you will eventually get it sorted out, but prior to that point you really dont know which institution is at fault so dont know which institution can ultimately solve the problem. The risk of this is low, but non-zero. It all depends what you value the convenience of direct deposit to be, and for me I estimate the value is be just about zero which is why I elect to receive a payroll check instead.
I like 'free' banking in the UK, long may it continue, but the money to run my account is almost certainly NOT being covered by interest my bank earns on the contents of my current ("checking") account
In the U.S. the opposite is almost certainly the case. The highest fractional reserve requirement for any bank is 10%, so if you have $1000 on average in the bank then they can loan out $10000. Even at a dismal 1% interest rate thats $100/year they are receiving because you let them use your $1000, but more often than not they are getting 8% or greater interest on the money they lend out.
Does "checking account" mean that users are typically paid in cheques
No, a checking account is a bank account that someone uses to write personal checks against. This is in contrast to a savings account where money can only be removed via either an ATM or in-bank transaction.
The act of being paid directly into a bank account rather than receiving a payroll check is called direct deposit. Often, you may only have direct deposit set up for a checking account so people that have ruined their relationship with banks with regards to checking accounts (too many bad checks, still owe fees, etc..) cannot utilize direct deposit.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but the United States also has a significant number of people called the unbanked who do not maintain any bank accounts at all.
I have never written a bad check on my healthy checking account, and yet still I do not utilize direct deposit even though my employer offers it because I do not see any value to automating this part of my life. I only visit the bank approximately once per month, depositing several payroll checks at the same time. This is a trip I would be making to the bank anyways because there is one bill I will only ever pay using a money order, which are similar in utility to checks but carry no personally identifying information, something I do not want to receiver to have.
GM/JP : "So why doesnt it have that 'Designed for Windows' sticker on it like those others do?"
Your grandmother is not asking that question, and doesnt even know that such a sticker exists.
You are stretching farther and farther into an absurd reality in order to hate Microsoft on this one. With all the valid reasons to hate Microsoft, why are you so intent on manufacturing a fantasy in order to create another one out of vapor?
And that attack vector can completely be negated by having the BIOS read-only by default, while only enabling updates when the user toggles a physical switch when the BIOS needs an update.
...but isnt the only current valid argument against Secure Boot that "its hard for the average user to either disable it or change keys in a bios setup screen, so its a barrier against them installing Linux/BSD/etc"
..the upshot of this is that the same excuse can be used to undermine the completely logical argument that you have just made, that not only should there be a Secure Boot, but also that nothing shouldnt be able to alter its settings without the user throwing a physical switch...
At the end of the day it IS a barrier to entry into alternative OS's for the casual user, but the validity of this argument doesnt actually negate the benefits of Secure Boot, nor does it address the current reality that more and more often the casual user is buying completely locked down devices that can't ever run Windows....
I don't think anyone who's posted has actually expressed a "pro cell phone in movies" sentiment.
You did about 9 times now in 9 different posts on the subject, in the span of about 9 minutes.
What are you trying to cover for there chief? So many posts, telling people they must have a shitty attention span, telling people to just watch the movie regardless of how you behave right in front of them, and so forth... what gives chief?
Why should I care about the people around me>? Listen to this pro-cell-phone-in-movies fucks right here in slashdot.. if they dont need to care, then i dont either.
What movie theater do you frequent? I'll make sure to shine a flashlight in your eyes and tell you your attention span sucks and that maybe instead of complaining like a little girl that you should just go back to watching the movie.
One of my aunts recently told me that Michael Bloomberg is her hero.
Ouch.
More and more of my liberal co-workers are moving towards libertarianism (which isnt "right wing" like the liberals claim, more like "up wing") but a few are, like your aunt, instead embracing what they have been inaccurately accusing the republicans of all these years. Bloomberg is the greatest example of a billionaire meddling in politics, and he is a first class wholly unadulterated big city liberal.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't seem to understand basic economics. Your consumption is reduced when you use energy that is generated. You get paid for energy fed back into the grid when you are not using it.
No, you don't seem to understand basic economics.
I realize that you think vague general ideas trumps actual numbers, but in reality they do not.
In effect, you have made it even harder to recover the costs over 5 years because you used more panels than you needed in order to have that surplus electricity that you think is a magic bullet, so your hand waving about it means absolutely nothing to people with a brain because they know that having a surplus costs fucking money.
Do some math, find a supplier, find an installer, then show us some numbers. if thats too hard for you, then maybe you shouldnt be lecturing anyone about basic economics. Here, i'll start this off for you: The cheapest system that would produce a monthly surplus costs $12,515 from this supplier.. and that doesnt even fucking include installation cost or roof racks. To produce a 100% surplus, that would cost $23,770 but of course only get you back $5583.60 over 5 years and save $5583.60 over 5 years, for a total loss after 5 years of $12,602.80.. again not including the cost of fucking installation.
If the building is designed to last 5 years or more and you can afford the up-front cost the solar PV will always pay off, so why wouldn't you do it?
The national average home uses 940 kWh/month. The national average for 1 kWh is $0.099. Therefore the national average electricity cost is $93.06/month.
In order to break even after 5 years the cost of the solar power system must be no greater than $5583.60 and at that price it must cover 100% of the homes energy needs.
In what dream world are you living in that such a system can be installed for that price?
Politicians don't write the laws, they take the laws that the lobbyists give them and then merge them with what the other lobbyists give them and then amend them with amendments that by and large were created by lobbyists and vote on that mess.
Another apologist, I see.
Clearly you will never hold a politician accountable. You hate corporations that much, eh? Fuck the fact that the politician enables it, benefits from it, and encourages it... no sir, its those evil corporations and their evil lobby groups that the politician gladly sells his services to.. its their fault that someone is selling a service to them, right?
Wake the fuck up.
Yes.
That should be +5 insightful, not funny.
I'm fairly certain that even if NASA continues to pick the names themselves, that eventually they would be left with Urrectum as the best choice.
(d) allowing stuff like the Boston bombings to happen gives them an excuse to tight their grip
But there are dictators already, they are the corporations who are rewriting US laws and circumventing the constitution in their favour.
Stop apologizing for the politicians.
Corporations do not write or rewrite law, politicians do. Politicians sell the service of lawmaking to corporations.
Clearly you dont care.
You say that like the source to GCC isn't available....
Transmission over power lines? Taking a hit.
To be informative, the average transmission loss in America is 6.5% of produced energy, which is estimated based on the difference between national electricity production and national electricity sales.
It's funny how many times people have said this, as if this addressed the problem. The last thing I want to do is memorize the name of every app I use
There is a new input paradigm thats perfect for people like you... its called a touch interface.
Why does US companies pay weekly when other countries pay monthly?
It mainly depends on which State you live in. Some States actually require weekly payment unless the business can land itself a special State exemption, and most have made the option of monthly payment illegal.
When my paycheck has been spent and I didn't make the withdrawl, who is going to believe me?
When using direct deposit, what if the money never appears in your account?
Your employer says that they transfered the money, while the bank says they never received it... so who exactly is at fault?
This is the risk of direct deposit. Sure, you will eventually get it sorted out, but prior to that point you really dont know which institution is at fault so dont know which institution can ultimately solve the problem. The risk of this is low, but non-zero. It all depends what you value the convenience of direct deposit to be, and for me I estimate the value is be just about zero which is why I elect to receive a payroll check instead.
I like 'free' banking in the UK, long may it continue, but the money to run my account is almost certainly NOT being covered by interest my bank earns on the contents of my current ("checking") account
In the U.S. the opposite is almost certainly the case. The highest fractional reserve requirement for any bank is 10%, so if you have $1000 on average in the bank then they can loan out $10000. Even at a dismal 1% interest rate thats $100/year they are receiving because you let them use your $1000, but more often than not they are getting 8% or greater interest on the money they lend out.
Does "checking account" mean that users are typically paid in cheques
No, a checking account is a bank account that someone uses to write personal checks against. This is in contrast to a savings account where money can only be removed via either an ATM or in-bank transaction.
The act of being paid directly into a bank account rather than receiving a payroll check is called direct deposit. Often, you may only have direct deposit set up for a checking account so people that have ruined their relationship with banks with regards to checking accounts (too many bad checks, still owe fees, etc..) cannot utilize direct deposit.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but the United States also has a significant number of people called the unbanked who do not maintain any bank accounts at all.
I have never written a bad check on my healthy checking account, and yet still I do not utilize direct deposit even though my employer offers it because I do not see any value to automating this part of my life. I only visit the bank approximately once per month, depositing several payroll checks at the same time. This is a trip I would be making to the bank anyways because there is one bill I will only ever pay using a money order, which are similar in utility to checks but carry no personally identifying information, something I do not want to receiver to have.
GM/JP : "So why doesnt it have that 'Designed for Windows' sticker on it like those others do?"
Your grandmother is not asking that question, and doesnt even know that such a sticker exists.
You are stretching farther and farther into an absurd reality in order to hate Microsoft on this one. With all the valid reasons to hate Microsoft, why are you so intent on manufacturing a fantasy in order to create another one out of vapor?
And that attack vector can completely be negated by having the BIOS read-only by default, while only enabling updates when the user toggles a physical switch when the BIOS needs an update.
At the end of the day it IS a barrier to entry into alternative OS's for the casual user, but the validity of this argument doesnt actually negate the benefits of Secure Boot, nor does it address the current reality that more and more often the casual user is buying completely locked down devices that can't ever run Windows....
You seem to be under the impression that the keys are tested vs a remote certificate authority during bootup.
In other words, you do not seem to actually understand very much. The certificate authority is UEFI, not some server on the internet.
Exactly. Secure boot is not properly implemented.
Its properly implemented. you are just putting an undue amount of weight to the hand wavers that don't really have an argument:
Te get windows certification, the end user must be able to:
a) disable secure boot
b) install their own keys
What extra implementation restriction did you have in mind?
OEMs cannot make a living by selling PCs without Windows at its bulk discounted price, nor without a Windows certification sticker on it.
The only consumers that care about Windows Certification are enterprise customers...
Seriously.. do you think your grandmother makes sure that the laptop has Windows Certification before she buys it?
Translation: You really havent thought about this at all, but have just jumped at a shallow poorly considered excuse to hate at Microsoft again.
you just lost your license to distribute OEM Windows copies.
No you didn't...
..you just lost Windows Certification.
Another way to lose Windows Certification is not allowing the end user to disable Secure Boot.
In other words, Windows Certification actually protects your rights.
I don't think anyone who's posted has actually expressed a "pro cell phone in movies" sentiment.
You did about 9 times now in 9 different posts on the subject, in the span of about 9 minutes.
What are you trying to cover for there chief? So many posts, telling people they must have a shitty attention span, telling people to just watch the movie regardless of how you behave right in front of them, and so forth... what gives chief?
Why should I care about the people around me>? Listen to this pro-cell-phone-in-movies fucks right here in slashdot.. if they dont need to care, then i dont either.
What movie theater do you frequent? I'll make sure to shine a flashlight in your eyes and tell you your attention span sucks and that maybe instead of complaining like a little girl that you should just go back to watching the movie.
One of my aunts recently told me that Michael Bloomberg is her hero.
Ouch.
More and more of my liberal co-workers are moving towards libertarianism (which isnt "right wing" like the liberals claim, more like "up wing") but a few are, like your aunt, instead embracing what they have been inaccurately accusing the republicans of all these years. Bloomberg is the greatest example of a billionaire meddling in politics, and he is a first class wholly unadulterated big city liberal.