It's hard to believe solar panels have a lifetime of over 10 years. What is the replacement cost of all this stuff?
The most likely cause of failure in a Solar PV system is the inverter, which generally need replacement every 7-10 years (depending on initial build quality). The panels themselves are rather durable assuming no trauma (i.e. falling trees, golfball sized hail, etc.). There is a degradation in output power of about 1% per year so peak output will be decreased significantly, but not critically, after 20 years.
What is the time frame of use on these estimates (20 years, 50 years)? I've never seen a PV estimate as low as that (or any of the other technologies for that matter).
Actually, that is exactly how it works. Solar power customers can predict with very high certainty what their future electric bills will be, because the costs are known.
And those costs are nowhere near as low as coal or nuclear power. They will know their electric rates, but those rates will probably be around $0.50 if true cost were in place. The Service/Utility Commissions will probably work something out so these people can actually afford their electricity.
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
You are naive.
What you've shown in your entire post is that the above was correct. Solar is not the answer when you have large corporate interests whom are against changes to the status quo. By investing the $2 billion the government is usurping those interests and providing capital to those companies who are not dependent on oil remaining the dominant energy form in the US. Now, debating whether or not solar was the right technology to invest in, that's the real question.
they spent $3B on the cash for clunkers program for heavens sake !
A program that by most analysis was a success. It got people buying cars which was the main point of that, keep dealerships and their employees in business, get old vehicles off the road.
Why waste time and money making a formal report, announcing it to the world, and generally just scaring people when 99% of the time the problems are eventually solved, anyway?
Because, just maybe, you (in the general sense) could have prevented this inane 3D tv/ movie/ game bullshit. Think of the grown men and women who could have been saved $1000s of dollars wasted on TVs, receivers and goofy glasses.
It makes the argument vacuous, and inadequate as a justification.
I think you're missing the point, the argument has multiple moral characteristics. Say I have the choice of working for company A or company B.
A claims to make weapons purely as defensive tools to protect people from other nations weapons. Maybe they work on missile shield technology that has purely defensive capabilities and zero offensive capabilities. Now, say company B does the same type of research but instead of a missile shield they are using the technology to thwart other nations missile shields so that the military can suppress other nations' militaries by fear.
Now, the person justifies their reasons with the argument that in the past the nation with the poorest military power has suffered tremendously. In the case of working at company A the person has taken that argument to develop something that gives them military power. In the case of company B the person has also taken the argument to develop something that gives them military power. It appears clear to me that their is more positive morality in working for company A because the technology is used purely to defend where as with company B the technology could be used to preempt and dominate the world.
I understand that the two companies and technologies I've stated probably could never exist because generally technology with zero offensive applications is rare to non existent. These are merely used as tools to develop and argument.
This answer is inadequate, and can be used to justify the production of weaponry for any regime from Ancient Greek Democracy to Hitler's Nazism. "Well, look at what has happened in the past - we must be strong or we'll be crushed!" is the mantra of every abusive government.
That might be true, but in deciding to work for a company involved in military research and development you have to consider the nation that the military is attached to. Now, if you believe that the USA and it's military are akin to Nazi Germany then you would have a strong moral argument for not working in military research and development. I would posit that most people from the United States don't feel that our nation is like Nazi Germany and therefore the morality of the decision changes.
Personally, I prefer not to work on weapons research and while I might be against violence I'm not going to say that the world would be a better place if the US just dropped all arms. That would most likely lead to WWIII as the removal of the top military power would create an even greater struggle to be the strongest military in the world.
I don't agree with what ASCAP is doing in this case. But, the information in the post above is simply wrong.
Based on the information found here (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html), only businesses greater than 2.000 sq ft and more than 6 speakers installed need to worry about a license.
2,000 sq ft is not as big as you think it is. And it's not hard to get up to six speakers, hell, most boom boxes are pushing that now, especially if you consider the woofer and tweeter as separate components on the same mold.
I just remember watching my friend try and play the first Metroid Prime and he struggled with it tremendously. And he's probably more than a casual gamer as he'll play games like Call of Duty, Guitar Hero and Street Fighter. I really enjoyed the games and they're probably not overly difficult but I have a hard time judging as I started out playing with the original zelda and mario. As someone else said, starting out with the two button NES controller and moving up to the current 10+ button controllers has made grasping control schemes easier than someone just starting on the newer controllers.
It has easy control (swing the remote) and easy gameplay, but solving the puzzles can be as challenging as a hardcore RPG. With a little more thought I could probably think of other "medium" difficulty games. Maybe Metroid Prime. Or one of the many Sonics.
I haven't tried the newer Metroid Primes but I definitely wouldn't consider the first two gamecube versions good casual, or bridge gapping games. Any of the sonics from the 16 bit era are great games and you can download those on all (?) of the systems.
(Last time I checked, Pokemon still continues to dominate sales charts while Halo 3/ODST, CoD:WaW/MW2 and Killzone 2/Resistance 2/Uncharted 2 have either disappeared or come crashing down from near/first place.)
Yes, truly, hardcore games are not selling well. Sure, the industry might be having some troubles but I don't see the industry surviving without hardcore games. Casual games are a legitimate viable market but rarely do you see the record breaking sales in casual games.
I also agree that you wouldn't be committing a robbery of any sort (armed or otherwise) since the money was handed over.
Not an attack on firearms, but if I was to go into a seven eleven and pickup $50 worth of stuff, brandish my firearm and then toss $50 on the counter it would still be robbery. The exchange of money does not change the fact that a robbery occurs. Say I break into your home and take your TV and leave $1000. Still robbery there as well, even though money was exchanged.
Nobody should ever lose the right to speak freely about a device, car, whatever that has caused them harm.
In the Apple case mentioned earlier it appears that Apple refused to give the person a refund unless he said he wouldn't discuss the issue. The person had all the rights in the world to trash on Apple and their product, but he wasn't going to be getting his refund if he did that. This is a prime case of Apple dickery but it isn't a breach of civil liberties.
ME: "No. Now here's your $500 cash plus $30 for tax." CLERK:"But sir you must buy accessories." ME: (opening coat to reveal concealed gun)* "No I don't. You have the money. I have my phone. We're done here."
And walk out the door with my phone.
So you feel that instead of finding another place to do business where they don't require the purchase of accessories you'd rather commit armed robbery? You have the right to have a concealed weapon (depending on where you live) and that's fine. You don't have a right to use that weapon to get whatever you want. If the store will only sell you the product if you buy secondary products then that's the breaks. Don't buy from them, voice your complaints, but you're $530 isn't the selling price for that item because you did not purchase the accessory with it.
Is the policy smart, no. Is it fair, most likely not. Does it warrant criminal activity, definitely not.
I would hope that Bank of America's entire database wasn't indexed. An educated guess would put the large majority of that data as private, secure (for the Internet) data and only a small portion of the data as public, such as their home page and loan advertising.
And yes, alcohol is technically a depressant, but unless you're living in a cave you know that alcohol can have effects that are very similar to those of stimulants.
Slashdot Mirror
It's hard to believe solar panels have a lifetime of over 10 years. What is the replacement cost of all this stuff?
The most likely cause of failure in a Solar PV system is the inverter, which generally need replacement every 7-10 years (depending on initial build quality). The panels themselves are rather durable assuming no trauma (i.e. falling trees, golfball sized hail, etc.). There is a degradation in output power of about 1% per year so peak output will be decreased significantly, but not critically, after 20 years.
What is the time frame of use on these estimates (20 years, 50 years)? I've never seen a PV estimate as low as that (or any of the other technologies for that matter).
Actually, that is exactly how it works. Solar power customers can predict with very high certainty what their future electric bills will be, because the costs are known.
And those costs are nowhere near as low as coal or nuclear power. They will know their electric rates, but those rates will probably be around $0.50 if true cost were in place. The Service/Utility Commissions will probably work something out so these people can actually afford their electricity.
Welfare doesn't make jobs anymore than Airbags make babies.
Fantastic.
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
You are naive.
What you've shown in your entire post is that the above was correct. Solar is not the answer when you have large corporate interests whom are against changes to the status quo. By investing the $2 billion the government is usurping those interests and providing capital to those companies who are not dependent on oil remaining the dominant energy form in the US. Now, debating whether or not solar was the right technology to invest in, that's the real question.
they spent $3B on the cash for clunkers program for heavens sake !
A program that by most analysis was a success. It got people buying cars which was the main point of that, keep dealerships and their employees in business, get old vehicles off the road.
I think your argument would benefit from the use of Twunt.
if fusion ever (and it will!) pays off.
20 years, right?
I guess my attempt at subtlety was too subtle or just bad.
Just the right amount of subtlety for most of us.
>
Why waste time and money making a formal report, announcing it to the world, and generally just scaring people when 99% of the time the problems are eventually solved, anyway?
Because, just maybe, you (in the general sense) could have prevented this inane 3D tv/ movie/ game bullshit. Think of the grown men and women who could have been saved $1000s of dollars wasted on TVs, receivers and goofy glasses.
It makes the argument vacuous, and inadequate as a justification.
I think you're missing the point, the argument has multiple moral characteristics. Say I have the choice of working for company A or company B.
A claims to make weapons purely as defensive tools to protect people from other nations weapons. Maybe they work on missile shield technology that has purely defensive capabilities and zero offensive capabilities. Now, say company B does the same type of research but instead of a missile shield they are using the technology to thwart other nations missile shields so that the military can suppress other nations' militaries by fear.
Now, the person justifies their reasons with the argument that in the past the nation with the poorest military power has suffered tremendously. In the case of working at company A the person has taken that argument to develop something that gives them military power. In the case of company B the person has also taken the argument to develop something that gives them military power. It appears clear to me that their is more positive morality in working for company A because the technology is used purely to defend where as with company B the technology could be used to preempt and dominate the world.
I understand that the two companies and technologies I've stated probably could never exist because generally technology with zero offensive applications is rare to non existent. These are merely used as tools to develop and argument.
This answer is inadequate, and can be used to justify the production of weaponry for any regime from Ancient Greek Democracy to Hitler's Nazism. "Well, look at what has happened in the past - we must be strong or we'll be crushed!" is the mantra of every abusive government.
That might be true, but in deciding to work for a company involved in military research and development you have to consider the nation that the military is attached to. Now, if you believe that the USA and it's military are akin to Nazi Germany then you would have a strong moral argument for not working in military research and development. I would posit that most people from the United States don't feel that our nation is like Nazi Germany and therefore the morality of the decision changes.
Personally, I prefer not to work on weapons research and while I might be against violence I'm not going to say that the world would be a better place if the US just dropped all arms. That would most likely lead to WWIII as the removal of the top military power would create an even greater struggle to be the strongest military in the world.
I don't agree with what ASCAP is doing in this case. But, the information in the post above is simply wrong.
Based on the information found here (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html), only businesses greater than 2.000 sq ft and more than 6 speakers installed need to worry about a license.
2,000 sq ft is not as big as you think it is. And it's not hard to get up to six speakers, hell, most boom boxes are pushing that now, especially if you consider the woofer and tweeter as separate components on the same mold.
I have four smartphones.
Really? Why? Please tell me you don't have four hip holsters.
Yes, I did read the rest of your post. No, it still doesn't make sense.
I just remember watching my friend try and play the first Metroid Prime and he struggled with it tremendously. And he's probably more than a casual gamer as he'll play games like Call of Duty, Guitar Hero and Street Fighter. I really enjoyed the games and they're probably not overly difficult but I have a hard time judging as I started out playing with the original zelda and mario. As someone else said, starting out with the two button NES controller and moving up to the current 10+ button controllers has made grasping control schemes easier than someone just starting on the newer controllers.
It has easy control (swing the remote) and easy gameplay, but solving the puzzles can be as challenging as a hardcore RPG. With a little more thought I could probably think of other "medium" difficulty games. Maybe Metroid Prime. Or one of the many Sonics.
I haven't tried the newer Metroid Primes but I definitely wouldn't consider the first two gamecube versions good casual, or bridge gapping games. Any of the sonics from the 16 bit era are great games and you can download those on all (?) of the systems.
(Last time I checked, Pokemon still continues to dominate sales charts while Halo 3/ODST, CoD:WaW/MW2 and Killzone 2/Resistance 2/Uncharted 2 have either disappeared or come crashing down from near/first place.)
Modern Warfare 2 Sales.
Yes, truly, hardcore games are not selling well. Sure, the industry might be having some troubles but I don't see the industry surviving without hardcore games. Casual games are a legitimate viable market but rarely do you see the record breaking sales in casual games.
I also agree that you wouldn't be committing a robbery of any sort (armed or otherwise) since the money was handed over.
Not an attack on firearms, but if I was to go into a seven eleven and pickup $50 worth of stuff, brandish my firearm and then toss $50 on the counter it would still be robbery. The exchange of money does not change the fact that a robbery occurs. Say I break into your home and take your TV and leave $1000. Still robbery there as well, even though money was exchanged.
Nobody should ever lose the right to speak freely about a device, car, whatever that has caused them harm.
In the Apple case mentioned earlier it appears that Apple refused to give the person a refund unless he said he wouldn't discuss the issue. The person had all the rights in the world to trash on Apple and their product, but he wasn't going to be getting his refund if he did that. This is a prime case of Apple dickery but it isn't a breach of civil liberties.
ME: "No. Now here's your $500 cash plus $30 for tax."
CLERK:"But sir you must buy accessories."
ME: (opening coat to reveal concealed gun)* "No I don't. You have the money. I have my phone. We're done here."
And walk out the door with my phone.
So you feel that instead of finding another place to do business where they don't require the purchase of accessories you'd rather commit armed robbery? You have the right to have a concealed weapon (depending on where you live) and that's fine. You don't have a right to use that weapon to get whatever you want. If the store will only sell you the product if you buy secondary products then that's the breaks. Don't buy from them, voice your complaints, but you're $530 isn't the selling price for that item because you did not purchase the accessory with it.
Is the policy smart, no. Is it fair, most likely not. Does it warrant criminal activity, definitely not.
I would hope that Bank of America's entire database wasn't indexed. An educated guess would put the large majority of that data as private, secure (for the Internet) data and only a small portion of the data as public, such as their home page and loan advertising.
Those were both hardware errors.
Those were in most part human errors.
They're inspected regularly, which is approximately how often the players lose.
Regularly is much less that almost always.
And yes, alcohol is technically a depressant, but unless you're living in a cave you know that alcohol can have effects that are very similar to those of stimulants.
Don't confuse stimulant with lack of inhibition.
I hear it's a series of tubes but there are dreams of a giant truck.