I thought it was clear with the phrase "iTunes/iPods", but perhaps not. My intent was to say that you can use the XML file (that Apple themselves write in order for 3rd-parties to integrate with iTunes - see http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660 ) to read/write from/to the iTunes database, and therefore sync to the iPod. I wasn't suggesting there was a direct link, it's an indirect one.
Knowing what's in the iTunes library, and having the built-in ability to script iTunes itself allows you to add a file to the iTunes library (and therefore to the attached iPod) or remove one, and therefore indirectly sync the iPod.
I really don't understand this. I mean, all you have to do is plug it in. That's it. Nothing more.
As I type this I've just picked up the iPhone and docked it. I get a 'Sync in progress' message on the phone, and then it goes away. All done. Total time about 13 seconds.
It is *NOT* about shutting off access. There is a public, well-established API to get stuff into and out of iTunes/iPods (and by extension Palm Pre's). Palm chose NOT to use that API, they instead chose to pretend to be an iPod (which is slightly easier for the user, and has a slightly nicer interface). Hell, even Linux can do it...
By choosing not to play ball with the public api, Palm screwed themselves and their customers. That is all.
So, you stating that they're a monopoly doesn't make it so, either.
As and when they are adjudged to be a monopoly (by, you know, someone who counts, like a judge), then their behaviour is held to a higher standard. At the moment, I see Apple working hard to establish their products, and some johnny-come-lately hacking those products by falsely claiming to be an ipod at the device-id level. That's not a poster-child for interoperability. Not by a long chalk.
Let's consider the difference between an Operating System (something designed to run applications, and opened to third-parties as a way of making more money for the Operating System vendor), and a piece of consumer electronics, designed for the purpose of playing music, and specifically not licenced to third-parties. Perhaps these two completely different cases should be regarded as, you know, different.
You may prefer using files - I don't care. I'd be willing to bet you're in the minority though. I'd be willing to bet Palm would agree with me too, or they'd not have done it in the first place. I guess we'll see...
Merely stating that my post is "idiocy" doesn't make it so. If my opinion disagrees with your own, it doesn't make it idiotic either. I'd be interested in knowing which part of my post in particular you thought was idiotic, although I might be tempted to agree if you'd said it was snarky:)
It's Apple's tech, they put the work in, they deserve to reap the rewards. Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO.
I can't see it really affecting anyone though. As any fule know, iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative (what Pre owners are left with), the ability to "just drag files to it as a disk" ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by/. comments in the past. Wonder how that'll work out in practice ? Guess we'll see:)
My apologies, I hadn't realised you were impaired with regard to reading comprehension. Let me try and state it more plainly:
A solar panel has an efficiency rating - or (said differently) it converts solar energy into electrical energy at a given rate. For example, an efficiency of 30% means that 30% of the incident solar energy will appear as electrical energy on the outputs.
Production saturation is reached once the panel attains that conversion efficiency. Now I know that's lots of big words, so let me try and dumb it down for you... Let's represent 100% efficiency as:
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
... where each [x] represents 10%. Now if a solar panel is rated at 30% efficiency, it will never produce more than that, so it would look like
[x][x][x]
Do you see how I did that ? Ok, I'll tell you: If each [x] is 10%, then we have to use 3 of them to get 30%, and that looks like the [x][x][x] above.
Still with me ? Good. I know, it's hard, but stick with it. I'm sure you'll follow this eventually... So, now this is a difficult concept... The speed with which you attain this conversion-efficiency is not a function of that efficiency.
Oh, you're looking puzzled again. I get it - words of more than a syllable (there I go again) or two confuse you. Let's try and dumb it down to your level again...
I want you to imagine that you're holding onto a rope, about 20 feet above a cesspit. Now, I know you like wallowing in shit, so there's only 2 things you're going to do here - you could climb down the rope and get yourself nice and comfy in the cesspit, or you could just let go and splash down into all that shit - I know you'd like that.
Now, you're asking yourself, "what is this shit" ? The point is the shit doesn't care how fast you got there, you're still covered in shit whether you climbed down into the cesspit, or whether you (and we both know this is what you'd do) just let go. The shit here is the efficiency - you're going to hit the shit, and the shit will envelop you, but you won't get any further. How fast you hit the shit is up to you, but it's not relevant to hitting that shit. Shit just happens.
So, after all that, I hope you now understand that saturation to an efficiency point is indeed a valid statement.
Shit. And here we come full-circle. Because I did read the manuals for the panels, and it says "Your panels are designed and guaranteed to give 80% efficiency 20 years after deployment, with minimal maintenance". It also says that washing them is only for "cosmetic purposes" unless there is "significant accrual of material such that the underlying blue color (sic) cannot be discerned".
So, again, to belabour the point: When you said "If it's blocking light, it is making a difference. If you can see the dust, it's a noticeable difference", you were totally, utterly, unequivocally and entirely wrong. Proven by the data in the graph. Backed up by the manual. And verified by the accounts of people on this very site who have 20-year-old panels performing as-expected at ~80% of their initial rating.
Lord Hewit: "... it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Nothing much has happened to change that, apart from government organisations wanting more power, and the governed giving it to them. RIP Justice, it was kinda cool while you were around...
Gee, so you're telling me all those "breakthroughs" over the last decade about solar panels becoming more efficient and using more of the light that this them are... bullshit? I'm shocked.
No. Those are two entirely different things. My point was that saturation to a given efficiency happens quickly. That's not to say that higher efficiencies can't be achieved by better science, better procedures, or simply more efficient chemical interactions being discovered.
Basically, the two things you're trying to conflate aren't even vaguely related.
So, you've got inefficient panels, were disappointed with their output, and decided to wash them on about day 20 after being installed?
The panels are pretty damn efficient - they were the best available (by BP) at the time I bought them. My point is that your point is bullshit. I'm actually very happy with the panels - as I detail above, my bill dropped from a high of $1000/month last year to $49 for May (the last month). That's a significant gain.
A few weeks worth of dust is nothing compared to the normal day-to-day variations. We're talking about years of dust. Debris. Bird shit. Snow.
No, actually, you weren't talking about that. Your actual quote was "If it's blocking light, it is making a difference. If you can see the dust, it's a noticeable difference". Clearly, you're wrong. The hard data proves this.
For what it's worth, the graph above is 6 months in, the dust in question was significant (actually from a neighbouring house-extension project), and the date of the washing was the 19th (that scale is day-of-month, not days-into-the-project). As you can clearly see, there was no effect. None. Not even a little bit.
So, just to belabour the point. You were totally, utterly, unequivocally and entirely wrong.
I'm in California, and I'm grid-tied. You true-up on a yearly basis, so you generally give to the grid in Summer and take from the grid in Winter.
What you cant do is make a profit over the year. In fact they charge you $5/month for the fancy meter, so you always end up owing something....
It's also important to get onto the 'expensive-electricity-in-the-day, cheap-electricity-at-night' tariff. Then you're generally charging them expensive electricity with your overage, and pulling cheap electricity when the solar panels aren't working ('cos it's night time:)
[sigh] Solar panels don't produce linear output from their solar absorption. They quickly ramp up to a maximum saturated level, and stay there as solar illumination increases (in fact too much solar radiation will decrease the efficiency due to over-heating). Decreasing the illumination eventually lowers the output (of course) but dust makes little-to-no difference. I knew that intellectually, but it didn't stop me from washing the panels:)
I have power-monitoring on my own systems. Here is the link to the graph of power-produced for the week within which the panels were washed. Can you tell me which of those days the panels were washed ? I certainly couldn't distinguish it, and I know the day (I was curious, so I recorded it).
In the graph, the blue line is the DC power measurement from the panels themselves. Notice the rapid ramp-up, negative effect due to heating, and rapid decrease to zero once the saturation-point can't be maintained.
Agreed on the up/down thing, but I'm guessing there's probably large losses for friction (the solar heating essentially consists of lots of little black-rubber tubes laid out on the roof). Not much chance for laminar flow at the rate I'm pumping water.
I do indeed have a crazy-high electricity rate. The basic (boil a kettle once a day) rate is 11 cents/kWH, rising to 44 cents/kWH on the top-tier last time I looked. And yes, I live in CA... Half of my power-use was in the 44 cents/kWH:(
I paid in cash, although there are loans specially for solar power, at a subsidised rate I believe.
My roof is new (as of 3 years ago) and looking pretty good, so it shouldn't be an issue for a while, but the panels are very lightweight (I can lift one with my little finger) and rest on an aluminium frame that attaches to the roof - you'd need to remove the frame and then re-attach. More involved than just replacing the roof, but not terribly so.
Snow ? What's that ? Not much of it in sunny CA [grin]. I have washed them once - when the blue colour turned into a more browny-blue, but it didn't seem to make any difference to the panels production. *I* felt better, having "taken action":) If snow is a real possibility, I guess you accept the loss of power or you clean'em. I guess you might be able to get 'windscreen-wipers' for panels:)
Well, I'm in the bay area, CA, so hailstorms aren't that common:) But yes, the panels are listed on the house insurance. At $1000 each, and with 48 of them, they almost have to be...
There are three main causes - the air-conditioning, the water pumps (for the pool and the pond), and the server-rack in that order. The air-conditioning is a must (so I'm told by fiancee-unit:), and pumping pool water for 4-5 hours a day is a significant sink of electricity - switching the pool pump on *always* makes the electricity meter show that I'm pulling energy from the grid, even at peak solar production times. The pool pump sends water up to the roof to be heated by solar absorption, so it's basically pumping several thousand gallons of water per day about 20 feet up in the air...
The server-rack has 2 servers in it (each with dual PSU), and combined with the tape-backup, the UPS, and the SAN disks they take ~1kW. That adds up to ~12kWH/day, which is a fair old whack. The air-con is on a 40A circuit though, as is the pool pump. Those *really* suck power.
Then there's two water pumps for the pond (2 waterfalls). Those are running 24-hours though I am considering putting one of the pumps (the big one:) on a manual switch. any water pump running at 24x7 costs a fair amount...
Summer is much worse (for us) than Winter because we trim the pool back to a 2-hour maintenance cycle, and there's no air-conditioning to worry about.
Last year I got on a step-ladder and sprayed the panels with a hose. It makes no noticeable difference (which is to say that I happen to agree with the grandparent, dust isn't a problem), but it made them look cleaner, and it made me feel better:)
Panels generally last 25 years at which time they're at 80% of their initial efficiency.
I spent $78k (with no loan, so no extra payback) putting solar panels on my house late last year. My highest bill (August last year) was ~$1000 and I was averaging ~$700/month over the year; my May bill this year was $49. I estimate payback for my system to be ~10 years or so. There's a few things to consider if you're thinking of doing it yourself:
The cost of electricity is only going up. If you graph it over time, it's been steadily increasing for the last 10 years or so in my area (Bay area, CA)
You put yourself on the 'expensive electricity in the day, cheap electricity at night' and get a meter that sells your over-production back to the utility
It puts a significant value on the house should you want to sell it, because the new owner gets to spend less per month on electricity.
Your state will give you a chunk of change back (I got $15k or so) if you invest in solar power for your house
You'll also get a 30% tax credit (ie: taken off your tax bill, not off your earnings-before-tax) if you go solar this year. Last year it was capped at $2k, so I lost out on ~$20k. Oh well.
The more electricity you use, the more expensive each unit becomes. The cost of the top 50% of my electricity-use per month was costing 2x as much as the bottom 50% because prices are tiered. If you can get yourself out of that top-tier, it can really be worth it.
We use a lot of electricity. This is a nice, green way to offset that and still have the toys I like (heated swimming pool, air-conditioning, pond in the back yard, server-room in the garage,...). Example: last month (1st May -> 31st May), the power production (I have the monitoring system all set up:) was 1,260 kWH. That matches nicely with our average 40 kWH/day with air-conditioning on. And if it's not being soaked up by your solar panels, it's just warming the roof and causing your air-con to go into overdrive...:)
The payback calculation is pretty easy. Maintenance is essentially zero, so total cost including permits, installation, etc. was ($78k - $2k - $15k) = $61k. Savings per year are ~$6000. Payback in ~10 years, assuming electricity costs are static (unlikely) and after that it's all gravy:)
Ok, that just ended this discussion for me. You just seriously compared enslaving people with not being able to install a program on a phone. You clearly have a political agenda (which sounds nuts to me, btw!) Goodbye.
I hope so too. I'm not defending Apple here as much as defending the rightness of enforcing a contract. As I point out above, I don't believe he contacted Apple Europe anyway, because if he did he'd have something in writing along the lines of "Yes, you can develop your emulator and we will let you load it onto the iPhone".
Talking to someone from Apple marketing over the phone and getting a verbal "hey that sounds cool" is completely and utterly worthless. Getting written permission as above would give him a fully justifiable case (and probably a lawsuit). He's probably somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately unless you have the written permission, you have nothing.
On the contrary, I've owned and sold companies even. I have a *lot* of experience with contracts at a reasonably high level, which is why I stressed the importance of getting something in writing.
In my dim and distant youth, one large company (which shall remain nameless) strung us along for years before finally buying us. I'm well aware of the dangers of nods-and-winks, and I'm well aware that they're completely and utterly worthless. Get it in writing or you don't have anything.
What I don't have any sympathy for is agreeing to X then complaining it means you can't do Y, when the initial agreement specifically pointed out you can't do Y. It's not as though it's some unexpected corollary of a sub-clause hidden in the fine-print - it's right out there in the open. You cannot load executable code. End of story.
[Turns politeness gauge down a notch to reply in the same fashion as the parent post]
And I'm sick and tired of this entitlement meme. Here's another quote "Just because you can doesn't mean you ought to".
Look, you (and (s)he) haven't got a legal leg to stand on, so you want to claim some sort of moral or ethical stance instead - fuck off yourself.
If the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to do, or restricts you in any way that you don't like, then just don't fucking use it. How hard is that to understand ? What you don't get to do is agree to a contract and subsequently say "oh, but not for this little area here that means I can make a metric butt-load of cash because Apple's worked hard to make the device really popular".
Still sounds a lot (to me) like toys exiting a pram at high velocity.
If indeed he really contacted Apple, he ought to have something in writing. If he has something in writing, he has a case. I see nothing in writing or any claim of such. Basically I think he's lying.
Which brings us back to the original statement. He did something specifically against the terms of an agreement he made, and then complained when that agreement was enforced. Tough.
It's not an "excuse", it's clearly against the terms of the *agreement* the developer *agreed* to *before* starting work on it.
You can argue that Sega ought to be treated the same way (and I'd agree with that), but to call it an "excuse" when the terms specifically and explicitly forbid it smacks of throwing one's toys out of the pram and screaming "waaaaaaaahhhh"! "I want, I want, I want!" is such an ugly character flaw when it's seen in "adults"...
Take a look at Anandtech's MBP review. The tagline 'Battery life to die for' sort of gives away the tale though.
Apple claim 5-8 hours. Anand got 4.92 (heavy downloading + XVid + Web browsing) to 8.13 hours (Wireless web browsing) with the screen at half-brightness ("completely useable") and no funny optimisations.
Maybe, just maybe, there's something to this "our batteries are better" thing they've got going; if someone comes out with a spare-battery-attached-to-a-magsafe-connector for those die-hards who absolutely *need* it, angels may sing in the treetops. Personally I've never needed to change the battery in my portable (whatever portable I've had) so it's no big deal to me. Yadda yadda, one datapoint not a trend...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that was me, not him.
I thought it was clear with the phrase "iTunes/iPods", but perhaps not. My intent was to say that you can use the XML file (that Apple themselves write in order for 3rd-parties to integrate with iTunes - see http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1660 ) to read/write from/to the iTunes database, and therefore sync to the iPod. I wasn't suggesting there was a direct link, it's an indirect one.
Knowing what's in the iTunes library, and having the built-in ability to script iTunes itself allows you to add a file to the iTunes library (and therefore to the attached iPod) or remove one, and therefore indirectly sync the iPod.
Simon.
I really don't understand this. I mean, all you have to do is plug it in. That's it. Nothing more.
As I type this I've just picked up the iPhone and docked it. I get a 'Sync in progress' message on the phone, and then it goes away. All done. Total time about 13 seconds.
How much easier can it be ?
Simon
It is *NOT* about shutting off access. There is a public, well-established API to get stuff into and out of iTunes/iPods (and by extension Palm Pre's). Palm chose NOT to use that API, they instead chose to pretend to be an iPod (which is slightly easier for the user, and has a slightly nicer interface). Hell, even Linux can do it...
By choosing not to play ball with the public api, Palm screwed themselves and their customers. That is all.
Simon
So, you stating that they're a monopoly doesn't make it so, either.
As and when they are adjudged to be a monopoly (by, you know, someone who counts, like a judge), then their behaviour is held to a higher standard. At the moment, I see Apple working hard to establish their products, and some johnny-come-lately hacking those products by falsely claiming to be an ipod at the device-id level. That's not a poster-child for interoperability. Not by a long chalk.
Simon
Simon
And is anyone surprised ? Really ?
/. comments in the past. Wonder how that'll work out in practice ? Guess we'll see :)
It's Apple's tech, they put the work in, they deserve to reap the rewards. Coming along late-to-the-party and just trying to muscle your way in without an invite just shows a lack of class, at least IMHO.
I can't see it really affecting anyone though. As any fule know, iTunes just sucks so badly at managing music that the alternative (what Pre owners are left with), the ability to "just drag files to it as a disk" ought to be a liberating breath of fresh air - at least going by
Simon.
A solar panel has an efficiency rating - or (said differently) it converts solar energy into electrical energy at a given rate. For example, an efficiency of 30% means that 30% of the incident solar energy will appear as electrical energy on the outputs.
Production saturation is reached once the panel attains that conversion efficiency. Now I know that's lots of big words, so let me try and dumb it down for you... Let's represent 100% efficiency as:
Do you see how I did that ? Ok, I'll tell you: If each [x] is 10%, then we have to use 3 of them to get 30%, and that looks like the [x][x][x] above.
Still with me ? Good. I know, it's hard, but stick with it. I'm sure you'll follow this eventually... So, now this is a difficult concept... The speed with which you attain this conversion-efficiency is not a function of that efficiency.
Oh, you're looking puzzled again. I get it - words of more than a syllable (there I go again) or two confuse you. Let's try and dumb it down to your level again...
I want you to imagine that you're holding onto a rope, about 20 feet above a cesspit. Now, I know you like wallowing in shit, so there's only 2 things you're going to do here - you could climb down the rope and get yourself nice and comfy in the cesspit, or you could just let go and splash down into all that shit - I know you'd like that.
Now, you're asking yourself, "what is this shit" ? The point is the shit doesn't care how fast you got there, you're still covered in shit whether you climbed down into the cesspit, or whether you (and we both know this is what you'd do) just let go. The shit here is the efficiency - you're going to hit the shit, and the shit will envelop you, but you won't get any further. How fast you hit the shit is up to you, but it's not relevant to hitting that shit. Shit just happens.
So, after all that, I hope you now understand that saturation to an efficiency point is indeed a valid statement.
Shit. And here we come full-circle. Because I did read the manuals for the panels, and it says "Your panels are designed and guaranteed to give 80% efficiency 20 years after deployment, with minimal maintenance". It also says that washing them is only for "cosmetic purposes" unless there is "significant accrual of material such that the underlying blue color (sic) cannot be discerned".
So, again, to belabour the point: When you said "If it's blocking light, it is making a difference. If you can see the dust, it's a noticeable difference", you were totally, utterly, unequivocally and entirely wrong. Proven by the data in the graph. Backed up by the manual. And verified by the accounts of people on this very site who have 20-year-old panels performing as-expected at ~80% of their initial rating.
Simon.
Lord Hewit: "... it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Nothing much has happened to change that, apart from government organisations wanting more power, and the governed giving it to them. RIP Justice, it was kinda cool while you were around...
Simon.
Gee, so you're telling me all those "breakthroughs" over the last decade about solar panels becoming more efficient and using more of the light that this them are... bullshit? I'm shocked.
No. Those are two entirely different things. My point was that saturation to a given efficiency happens quickly. That's not to say that higher efficiencies can't be achieved by better science, better procedures, or simply more efficient chemical interactions being discovered.
Basically, the two things you're trying to conflate aren't even vaguely related.
So, you've got inefficient panels, were disappointed with their output, and decided to wash them on about day 20 after being installed?
The panels are pretty damn efficient - they were the best available (by BP) at the time I bought them. My point is that your point is bullshit. I'm actually very happy with the panels - as I detail above, my bill dropped from a high of $1000/month last year to $49 for May (the last month). That's a significant gain.
A few weeks worth of dust is nothing compared to the normal day-to-day variations. We're talking about years of dust. Debris. Bird shit. Snow.
No, actually, you weren't talking about that. Your actual quote was "If it's blocking light, it is making a difference. If you can see the dust, it's a noticeable difference". Clearly, you're wrong. The hard data proves this.
For what it's worth, the graph above is 6 months in, the dust in question was significant (actually from a neighbouring house-extension project), and the date of the washing was the 19th (that scale is day-of-month, not days-into-the-project). As you can clearly see, there was no effect. None. Not even a little bit.
So, just to belabour the point. You were totally, utterly, unequivocally and entirely wrong.
Just saying
Simon
Ah yes, I forgot to mention the reef tank - not huge at 150G, but not small either... Water plays quite a large part in our home :)
I went for T5's rather than Metal Halide, but it's probably still a fair amount.
Simon
I'm in California, and I'm grid-tied. You true-up on a yearly basis, so you generally give to the grid in Summer and take from the grid in Winter.
:)
What you cant do is make a profit over the year. In fact they charge you $5/month for the fancy meter, so you always end up owing something....
It's also important to get onto the 'expensive-electricity-in-the-day, cheap-electricity-at-night' tariff. Then you're generally charging them expensive electricity with your overage, and pulling cheap electricity when the solar panels aren't working ('cos it's night time
Simon.
[sigh] Solar panels don't produce linear output from their solar absorption. They quickly ramp up to a maximum saturated level, and stay there as solar illumination increases (in fact too much solar radiation will decrease the efficiency due to over-heating). Decreasing the illumination eventually lowers the output (of course) but dust makes little-to-no difference. I knew that intellectually, but it didn't stop me from washing the panels :)
I have power-monitoring on my own systems. Here is the link to the graph of power-produced for the week within which the panels were washed. Can you tell me which of those days the panels were washed ? I certainly couldn't distinguish it, and I know the day (I was curious, so I recorded it).
In the graph, the blue line is the DC power measurement from the panels themselves. Notice the rapid ramp-up, negative effect due to heating, and rapid decrease to zero once the saturation-point can't be maintained.
Simon
Agreed on the up/down thing, but I'm guessing there's probably large losses for friction (the solar heating essentially consists of lots of little black-rubber tubes laid out on the roof). Not much chance for laminar flow at the rate I'm pumping water.
:(
I do indeed have a crazy-high electricity rate. The basic (boil a kettle once a day) rate is 11 cents/kWH, rising to 44 cents/kWH on the top-tier last time I looked. And yes, I live in CA... Half of my power-use was in the 44 cents/kWH
Simon
I paid in cash, although there are loans specially for solar power, at a subsidised rate I believe.
:) If snow is a real possibility, I guess you accept the loss of power or you clean'em. I guess you might be able to get 'windscreen-wipers' for panels :)
My roof is new (as of 3 years ago) and looking pretty good, so it shouldn't be an issue for a while, but the panels are very lightweight (I can lift one with my little finger) and rest on an aluminium frame that attaches to the roof - you'd need to remove the frame and then re-attach. More involved than just replacing the roof, but not terribly so.
Snow ? What's that ? Not much of it in sunny CA [grin]. I have washed them once - when the blue colour turned into a more browny-blue, but it didn't seem to make any difference to the panels production. *I* felt better, having "taken action"
Simon
Well, I'm in the bay area, CA, so hailstorms aren't that common :) But yes, the panels are listed on the house insurance. At $1000 each, and with 48 of them, they almost have to be...
Simon
There are three main causes - the air-conditioning, the water pumps (for the pool and the pond), and the server-rack in that order. The air-conditioning is a must (so I'm told by fiancee-unit :), and pumping pool water for 4-5 hours a day is a significant sink of electricity - switching the pool pump on *always* makes the electricity meter show that I'm pulling energy from the grid, even at peak solar production times. The pool pump sends water up to the roof to be heated by solar absorption, so it's basically pumping several thousand gallons of water per day about 20 feet up in the air...
:) on a manual switch. any water pump running at 24x7 costs a fair amount...
The server-rack has 2 servers in it (each with dual PSU), and combined with the tape-backup, the UPS, and the SAN disks they take ~1kW. That adds up to ~12kWH/day, which is a fair old whack. The air-con is on a 40A circuit though, as is the pool pump. Those *really* suck power.
Then there's two water pumps for the pond (2 waterfalls). Those are running 24-hours though I am considering putting one of the pumps (the big one
Summer is much worse (for us) than Winter because we trim the pool back to a 2-hour maintenance cycle, and there's no air-conditioning to worry about.
Ever heard of a hose ?
:)
Last year I got on a step-ladder and sprayed the panels with a hose. It makes no noticeable difference (which is to say that I happen to agree with the grandparent, dust isn't a problem), but it made them look cleaner, and it made me feel better
Simon
I spent $78k (with no loan, so no extra payback) putting solar panels on my house late last year. My highest bill (August last year) was ~$1000 and I was averaging ~$700/month over the year; my May bill this year was $49. I estimate payback for my system to be ~10 years or so. There's a few things to consider if you're thinking of doing it yourself:
We use a lot of electricity. This is a nice, green way to offset that and still have the toys I like (heated swimming pool, air-conditioning, pond in the back yard, server-room in the garage,...). Example: last month (1st May -> 31st May), the power production (I have the monitoring system all set up :) was 1,260 kWH. That matches nicely with our average 40 kWH/day with air-conditioning on. And if it's not being soaked up by your solar panels, it's just warming the roof and causing your air-con to go into overdrive... :)
:)
The payback calculation is pretty easy. Maintenance is essentially zero, so total cost including permits, installation, etc. was ($78k - $2k - $15k) = $61k. Savings per year are ~$6000. Payback in ~10 years, assuming electricity costs are static (unlikely) and after that it's all gravy
Simon
Ok, that just ended this discussion for me. You just seriously compared enslaving people with not being able to install a program on a phone. You clearly have a political agenda (which sounds nuts to me, btw!) Goodbye.
Simon
I hope so too. I'm not defending Apple here as much as defending the rightness of enforcing a contract. As I point out above, I don't believe he contacted Apple Europe anyway, because if he did he'd have something in writing along the lines of "Yes, you can develop your emulator and we will let you load it onto the iPhone".
Talking to someone from Apple marketing over the phone and getting a verbal "hey that sounds cool" is completely and utterly worthless. Getting written permission as above would give him a fully justifiable case (and probably a lawsuit). He's probably somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately unless you have the written permission, you have nothing.
Simon
On the contrary, I've owned and sold companies even. I have a *lot* of experience with contracts at a reasonably high level, which is why I stressed the importance of getting something in writing.
In my dim and distant youth, one large company (which shall remain nameless) strung us along for years before finally buying us. I'm well aware of the dangers of nods-and-winks, and I'm well aware that they're completely and utterly worthless. Get it in writing or you don't have anything.
What I don't have any sympathy for is agreeing to X then complaining it means you can't do Y, when the initial agreement specifically pointed out you can't do Y. It's not as though it's some unexpected corollary of a sub-clause hidden in the fine-print - it's right out there in the open. You cannot load executable code. End of story.
Simon.
[Turns politeness gauge down a notch to reply in the same fashion as the parent post]
And I'm sick and tired of this entitlement meme. Here's another quote "Just because you can doesn't mean you ought to".
Look, you (and (s)he) haven't got a legal leg to stand on, so you want to claim some sort of moral or ethical stance instead - fuck off yourself.
If the iPhone doesn't do what you want it to do, or restricts you in any way that you don't like, then just don't fucking use it. How hard is that to understand ? What you don't get to do is agree to a contract and subsequently say "oh, but not for this little area here that means I can make a metric butt-load of cash because Apple's worked hard to make the device really popular".
Still sounds a lot (to me) like toys exiting a pram at high velocity.
Simon.
Not a troll, just an opinion.
If indeed he really contacted Apple, he ought to have something in writing. If he has something in writing, he has a case. I see nothing in writing or any claim of such. Basically I think he's lying.
Which brings us back to the original statement. He did something specifically against the terms of an agreement he made, and then complained when that agreement was enforced. Tough.
Simon.
It's not an "excuse", it's clearly against the terms of the *agreement* the developer *agreed* to *before* starting work on it.
You can argue that Sega ought to be treated the same way (and I'd agree with that), but to call it an "excuse" when the terms specifically and explicitly forbid it smacks of throwing one's toys out of the pram and screaming "waaaaaaaahhhh"! "I want, I want, I want!" is such an ugly character flaw when it's seen in "adults"...
Simon
Take a look at Anandtech's MBP review. The tagline 'Battery life to die for' sort of gives away the tale though.
Apple claim 5-8 hours. Anand got 4.92 (heavy downloading + XVid + Web browsing) to 8.13 hours (Wireless web browsing) with the screen at half-brightness ("completely useable") and no funny optimisations.
Maybe, just maybe, there's something to this "our batteries are better" thing they've got going; if someone comes out with a spare-battery-attached-to-a-magsafe-connector for those die-hards who absolutely *need* it, angels may sing in the treetops. Personally I've never needed to change the battery in my portable (whatever portable I've had) so it's no big deal to me. Yadda yadda, one datapoint not a trend...
Simon.