one obvious constraint would be the importance of facial expression in human interactions. How many facial muscles are purely mimic? I'd say most of them. Eyeballs are not that squishy and one could argue that that deep eyesockets are actually protective - it's rather unlikely to do damage to eyes when the surrounding bone takes the hit, especially with a fist. The nose looks like a bad design though.
There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."
there is nothing wrong with it in principle. Even excellent road systems get congested during rush hours, even the best cellular networks shit their pants on the new year's eve at 23:59, even the best delivery companies experience massive delays around Xmas. The reason is that having huge capacity that goes mostly unused most of the time is expensive, you pay huge maintenance costs yet there is not much going on on the revenue side.
dont use xterm then. Other terminals support ctrl+shift+c/ctrl+shift+v or ctrl+ins/shift+ins. Btw shift-ins works in xterm. Also clipboard managers are a thing.
it's not the same. Panel dumps power in the opposite direction and the grid is expected to redistribute it at the drop of the hat in order to stay within the spec, and it's not like your panel cares if there is demand for its output. Two way 'traffic' is more tricky to do than simple, tried and true push-only mode thus more hassle and cost.
ungodly rich brothers with libertarianish leanings who became favorite boogeymen of the left in the US. They are literally Hitler, any perceived problem with the US is on them.
yeah, and they should dump their dirty clunkers and start using billion teslas while they are at it.... Investing in clean stuff means opportunity cost of less bang for the buck now, which means slower growth. Guess what, they don't give a shit about later, they want growth now, just like everybody else before them.
make it 3.5x. Either way one source is much cheaper, much more controllable, predictable and compatible with the existing infrastructure, the other requires expensive upgrades to facilitate two way flow safely, is much more expensive, volatile, unpredictable, having max potential output outside the peak demand and requiring the baseline backup just in case. Nobody in his right mind would buy the residential solar energy in these circumstances.
Right, but if we continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate, our whole species may never recover from it.
pack your bags then because good luck convincing 2+ billion people in india and china to stop industrializing, and then there are 1billion people in africa who will want their piece of the action too.
what about the exotic elements that find their way into panels and wind turbine magnets? Are they infinite? Don't they require mining and processing too?
I doubt there would be much lobbying if the energy was sold back at the wholesale price and the companies were not forced to eat the whole cost of increased complexity caused by erratic nature of renewables. In some states eg in Arizona the spread is 4x and the companies are forced to buy back the this ridiculously overpriced energy they don't need, with all the hassle where to direct it in order to stay within the grid specs.
Such laws way out of line with economic reality are a pure pie in the sky bullshit and fully deserve to be lobbied against. As the adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
like the other dude said, these subsidies are only for well-off people who can afford the investment, the peons get thrown under the bus. If you ever complained about the divide between the haves and the have-nots, guess what - it's the same thing of privatizing the gains by the few, externalizing the costs to many.
sure, there are externalities of coal but that doesn't make solar peachy. Execution matters. These solar subsidies are not extended to the whole populace. They are not at the grid level so everybody gets to enjoy them, they are at the household level, which means their scope is localized to an already well-off people who can afford the investment. People with too much money get subsidies, then EXTERNALIZE the cost of batteries they don't need and the poor are seeing it in their bills. If you are one of people complaining about suppressed aggregate demand because the poor don't have monies, guess what - this won't help.
do you realize that main producers of energy get wholesale rates and grid resells it with a markup to pay maintenance, invest and make a profit? Grid companies DON'T WANT the solar energy from consumers if there is a much cheaper, more reliable, hassle free alternative. Laws forcing to buy unneeded energy at full retail prices are pure unadulterated economic bullshit.
Bullshit, in this they are against stupid laws trying to handwave the economic reality because "hurrr durrr green energy!!".
These subsidies for solar mean higher prices for everybody else. Solar users using 0 net energy and getting retail prices for their output are a net loss and it's not like maintenance and protecting the grid from sudden surges in panel output is free. Think about it, they are using the grid as their personal battery for $0 which would set them back thousands of dollars otherwise, drawing and pushing energy when it's convenient. All the baseline capacity, all the gear required to stabilize erratic flow - it's all on the energy company and the solar users don't pay for it in their bills, dirty peons who can't afford teslas and panels on the roof do.
ther e is nothing wacky in it. The difference stems from the local tech level/productivity. Long story short you have it baked in the price of everything, including wages.
That also means that even exact same job with exact same productivity (eg artists) can be paid differently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
care to elaborate how on earth are corporations directly responsible for hundreds of millions deaths required to beat the score of the 20th century govts?
Appliances don't change the characteristics of the grid. Energy is pushed in one direction and all the energy provider needs to do is to fine tune the output. Solar panels pushing energy upstream means high degree of unpredictability. In the span of minutes the direction can change several times. This requires more specialized hardware in order to stay within the specs if not prevent frying the grid in extreme cases.
If these solar panels didn't send surplus to the grid, there would be no difference between energy saving appliances and panels, but they do. If your net usage is 0 you've just externalized the cost of batteries you would have to have otherwise - grid becomes your battery for next to nothing and other people have to pay for it. It's a double whammy against poorer people who can't afford the panels and see their costs rise.
are you certain that average non-(libertarian retard neckbeards) want to deal with the followup? Imo most people pay lip service but if you told them what measures would have to be taken to even make a dent in emissions they would not be amused. And it's not like India and China give a shit, with Africa following. That's 3 billion people who want a piece of the action too, even if it means some CO2.
Bottom line: keep your social opinions to a personal level and keep them out of a professional environment.
Eich did exactly what you promote here. He kept his private life and opinions separate from the work, he was never heard saying eg "being gay is unprofessional" from a position of authority that made employees uneasy and influenced their behavior. Some longtime coworkers were actually very surprised to find out he supported prop8 because he never let himself slip in his professional conduct. Apparently he even supported company-granted bennies that extended to employees' partners no matter the orientation.
The only reason for this shitstorm are the disclosure laws, as the donation was on a private time and dime.
Can you name a pro-gay group that's also a hate campaign?
so disagreeing on the definition of some word on religious grounds is hate?
Either way I don't have a name, but the disclosed data about donations was used to create a google maps overlay with names, employers and amounts. People who supported prop8 were harassed, received death threats, envelopes with white powder, etc. Doesn't that fall under terrorism (fear and violence used for ideological or political goals)?
> However, I do not, nor do I think most people, support everyone's *legal* rights.
Are you sure most people support let's polyamoric marriages? I wouldn't be so sure and all these marriages would do is to remove yet another arbitrary constraint, this time not on sex of people involved but on a number.
Either way, by harassing people like Eich who always kept a strict separation between private and proffesional life, perpetually offended busybodies legitimize the opposite, like hounding gay rights supporters in backwards places. Long story short, if your stance on how to conduct business between 2 sides of the issue doesn't survive multiplying by -1, it fucking sucks and is hypocritical. Half the progressive state of California VOTED for it, ffs.
And it's not like you will change people's minds when your politically correct zeal pushes them underground. They feel wronged and the persecution only fossilizes their worldview.
Slashdot Mirror
one obvious constraint would be the importance of facial expression in human interactions. How many facial muscles are purely mimic? I'd say most of them.
Eyeballs are not that squishy and one could argue that that deep eyesockets are actually protective - it's rather unlikely to do damage to eyes when the surrounding bone takes the hit, especially with a fist. The nose looks like a bad design though.
There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."
there is nothing wrong with it in principle. Even excellent road systems get congested during rush hours, even the best cellular networks shit their pants on the new year's eve at 23:59, even the best delivery companies experience massive delays around Xmas. The reason is that having huge capacity that goes mostly unused most of the time is expensive, you pay huge maintenance costs yet there is not much going on on the revenue side.
cheaper one
dont use xterm then. Other terminals support ctrl+shift+c/ctrl+shift+v or ctrl+ins/shift+ins. Btw shift-ins works in xterm.
Also clipboard managers are a thing.
it's not the same. Panel dumps power in the opposite direction and the grid is expected to redistribute it at the drop of the hat in order to stay within the spec, and it's not like your panel cares if there is demand for its output. Two way 'traffic' is more tricky to do than simple, tried and true push-only mode thus more hassle and cost.
ungodly rich brothers with libertarianish leanings who became favorite boogeymen of the left in the US. They are literally Hitler, any perceived problem with the US is on them.
yeah, and they should dump their dirty clunkers and start using billion teslas while they are at it....
Investing in clean stuff means opportunity cost of less bang for the buck now, which means slower growth. Guess what, they don't give a shit about later, they want growth now, just like everybody else before them.
http://www.instituteforenergyr...
make it 3.5x. Either way one source is much cheaper, much more controllable, predictable and compatible with the existing infrastructure, the other requires expensive upgrades to facilitate two way flow safely, is much more expensive, volatile, unpredictable, having max potential output outside the peak demand and requiring the baseline backup just in case. Nobody in his right mind would buy the residential solar energy in these circumstances.
http://www.instituteforenergyr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
an awful lot of 'retail rate' in that table
Right, but if we continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate, our whole species may never recover from it.
pack your bags then because good luck convincing 2+ billion people in india and china to stop industrializing, and then there are 1billion people in africa who will want their piece of the action too.
what about the exotic elements that find their way into panels and wind turbine magnets? Are they infinite? Don't they require mining and processing too?
I doubt there would be much lobbying if the energy was sold back at the wholesale price and the companies were not forced to eat the whole cost of increased complexity caused by erratic nature of renewables. In some states eg in Arizona the spread is 4x and the companies are forced to buy back the this ridiculously overpriced energy they don't need, with all the hassle where to direct it in order to stay within the grid specs.
Such laws way out of line with economic reality are a pure pie in the sky bullshit and fully deserve to be lobbied against. As the adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
like the other dude said, these subsidies are only for well-off people who can afford the investment, the peons get thrown under the bus. If you ever complained about the divide between the haves and the have-nots, guess what - it's the same thing of privatizing the gains by the few, externalizing the costs to many.
sure, there are externalities of coal but that doesn't make solar peachy. Execution matters. These solar subsidies are not extended to the whole populace. They are not at the grid level so everybody gets to enjoy them, they are at the household level, which means their scope is localized to an already well-off people who can afford the investment. People with too much money get subsidies, then EXTERNALIZE the cost of batteries they don't need and the poor are seeing it in their bills. If you are one of people complaining about suppressed aggregate demand because the poor don't have monies, guess what - this won't help.
do you realize that main producers of energy get wholesale rates and grid resells it with a markup to pay maintenance, invest and make a profit? Grid companies DON'T WANT the solar energy from consumers if there is a much cheaper, more reliable, hassle free alternative. Laws forcing to buy unneeded energy at full retail prices are pure unadulterated economic bullshit.
Bullshit, in this they are against stupid laws trying to handwave the economic reality because "hurrr durrr green energy!!".
These subsidies for solar mean higher prices for everybody else. Solar users using 0 net energy and getting retail prices for their output are a net loss and it's not like maintenance and protecting the grid from sudden surges in panel output is free.
Think about it, they are using the grid as their personal battery for $0 which would set them back thousands of dollars otherwise, drawing and pushing energy when it's convenient. All the baseline capacity, all the gear required to stabilize erratic flow - it's all on the energy company and the solar users don't pay for it in their bills, dirty peons who can't afford teslas and panels on the roof do.
ther e is nothing wacky in it. The difference stems from the local tech level/productivity. Long story short you have it baked in the price of everything, including wages.
That also means that even exact same job with exact same productivity (eg artists) can be paid differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
care to elaborate how on earth are corporations directly responsible for hundreds of millions deaths required to beat the score of the 20th century govts?
Appliances don't change the characteristics of the grid. Energy is pushed in one direction and all the energy provider needs to do is to fine tune the output.
Solar panels pushing energy upstream means high degree of unpredictability. In the span of minutes the direction can change several times. This requires more specialized hardware in order to stay within the specs if not prevent frying the grid in extreme cases.
If these solar panels didn't send surplus to the grid, there would be no difference between energy saving appliances and panels, but they do. If your net usage is 0 you've just externalized the cost of batteries you would have to have otherwise - grid becomes your battery for next to nothing and other people have to pay for it. It's a double whammy against poorer people who can't afford the panels and see their costs rise.
true that, and then there is another billion souls in the queue, this time in Africa.
are you certain that average non-(libertarian retard neckbeards) want to deal with the followup?
Imo most people pay lip service but if you told them what measures would have to be taken to even make a dent in emissions they would not be amused. And it's not like India and China give a shit, with Africa following. That's 3 billion people who want a piece of the action too, even if it means some CO2.
Bottom line: keep your social opinions to a personal level and keep them out of a professional environment.
Eich did exactly what you promote here. He kept his private life and opinions separate from the work, he was never heard saying eg "being gay is unprofessional" from a position of authority that made employees uneasy and influenced their behavior. Some longtime coworkers were actually very surprised to find out he supported prop8 because he never let himself slip in his professional conduct. Apparently he even supported company-granted bennies that extended to employees' partners no matter the orientation.
The only reason for this shitstorm are the disclosure laws, as the donation was on a private time and dime.
Can you name a pro-gay group that's also a hate campaign?
so disagreeing on the definition of some word on religious grounds is hate?
Either way I don't have a name, but the disclosed data about donations was used to create a google maps overlay with names, employers and amounts. People who supported prop8 were harassed, received death threats, envelopes with white powder, etc. Doesn't that fall under terrorism (fear and violence used for ideological or political goals)?
> However, I do not, nor do I think most people, support everyone's *legal* rights.
Are you sure most people support let's polyamoric marriages? I wouldn't be so sure and all these marriages would do is to remove yet another arbitrary constraint, this time not on sex of people involved but on a number.
Either way, by harassing people like Eich who always kept a strict separation between private and proffesional life, perpetually offended busybodies legitimize the opposite, like hounding gay rights supporters in backwards places. Long story short, if your stance on how to conduct business between 2 sides of the issue doesn't survive multiplying by -1, it fucking sucks and is hypocritical.
Half the progressive state of California VOTED for it, ffs.
And it's not like you will change people's minds when your politically correct zeal pushes them underground. They feel wronged and the persecution only fossilizes their worldview.