It depends how much the software costs, how accessible it is and how secure it is.
It says in the article that the software is exclusive to Apple authorized repair shops. Consumers will have no access to it and it's not meant to prevent theft of new Apple products, it's meant to shut out 3rd party repair places that shine a light on how shoddy Apple's engineering really is and how overpriced it is for that. It also will reduce your ability to sue Apple for crappy design decisions because if nobody can fix it except Apple, they can just ignore it and blame you.
Yeah, and good luck to you when Apple designs a circuit board with the wrong transistor, refuses to admit the mistake exists and when they finally get sued over it they make a repair program that manages to not cover the boards produced the year you bought yours.
Let's not even pretend that choice is in any way connected to price when it comes to Apple. Apple chooses what they will let you have, period, and you will pay premium prices for it, whether it's a new product or a product line that hasn't been refreshed in 5 years. Apple will, in fact, go out of it's way to ensure you can't do the things they don't want to allow you to do. That's been Apple's MO since forever.
In one way, it's sad, I'd have liked to see the end of the story. In another way, if they were gonna kill my baby Clem I'm glad they closed down first. >.>
A small reactor outputs 125-140 megawatts of power. So lets say 140 MWh. The average cost of a small reactor is $750,000,000. Gigaom
So, to get your 11 million MW-h, you would need 78,571 small reactors. Assuming we did want to completely redo the entire US energy grid, that brings us to $58,928,250,000,000. $59 Trillion in reactors.
Change that to full size reactors and you need $110 Trillion.
1) Scale. If they were implimented in that kind of scale, production costs would drop, raw price would drop.
2) Implimentation: An SMR would be subject to the same delays and certifications that a traditional reactor would, with limited building sites, whilst a battery bank could be dropped in a much larger area of construction sites and takes far less time to construct, with far fewer regulations impacting it's construction.
3) Service: Not only can the bank keep running while cells are being replaced, they can be replaced with higher quality cells with greater capacity increasing the value of the bank as a whole.
4) Environment: Quiet, low impact, easily hidden, can be just another transformer station out in the boonies.
Regarding the AC upthread's comment that batteries don't create energy, well duh. That's not the point. Most powerplants don't run at their full potential (most economical) 24/7. They spin up and down throughout the day to keep the grid stable, a process that puts strain on the grid as the power dips and increases. It also causes some generators to sit idle costing money waiting for a spike in need.
A battery bank, as opposed to an SMR or any other power source, can sit all day soaking up extra power and return it instantly in a much gentler, faster energy curve. It boosts your grid during peak without having to switch on another generator (expensive) and you can keep the generators you do have running at a more efficient output throughout the day. So if you have some hydro, wind and solar mixed with battery banks, the question is do you *need* the reactors, and their many downsides. Or is the government just subsidizing another dinosaur industry.
Problem with SMRs is that battery banks ala Tesla's project in Australia, are cheaper, safer and have a quicker ROI. As battery technology advances they only get better.
So you can drop a few billion on a white whale hoping that it's still useful in 50 years, or you can put that into wind/solar/batteries and get immediate benefits.
I'm sure that every one of these people will demand that Brietbart allow Jezebel writers to publish their articles on their site for "equality and free speech".
Google already uses e-sims for Google Fi service. The Pixel's still have a physical slot for a physical sim though. As long as Apple leaves the option for a physical sim card nothing is really changing.
In California, there was a news report in the LA times last year about one farmer trying to hire Americans by paying $20/hr. Most quit within a week because the work was too difficult.
Because it is too difficult. One, with the drive from where people typically live to the rural farm, the cost of gas alone eats up a lot of that $20. Then there's the sunup to sundown work schedule with no bathroom facilities nearby. The only way to do that kind of work and really make money at it is to be single or okay with living separate from your spouse, young or used to hard labor, share a hotel room or some other sleeping arrangement with several people to split the costs and to travel with the harvests.
There's a reason farming has always turned to slavery of one kind or another.
Some electronics require rare earth materials to manufacture, which currently are sources from China or other countries.
A lot of those minerals can be mined in the US, it's just not economical to do so. At least until China started restricting export and the trade war got going.
Whenever people complain about waste in Government, I point to the private companies shoveling Government money into their pockets and paying off Congresscritters to keep the flow coming.
Any private company that doesn't immediately double their prices at the first whiff of a government contract should get a medal. And then be audited out the wazoo because something is going on there.
This is somewhat, but not altogether true. For one, the cable companies already had infrastructure in place for video, they just needed upgrades to backend equipment and to distribute modems. People were relatively familiar with the internet through AOL and dialup (which only became popular because the government broke up AT&T, another private corporation holding back progress for their own enrichment.) Plus they fought tooth and nail to not be labeled as utilities so the states can't control their prices.
At the same time, there was real competition as DSL was still competitive, speed wise, with early cable internet, and there were numerous baby Bell's and other 3rd party ISP's offering alternatives.
Fast forward a bit and AT&T & Verizon have bought up all of the baby bells and chosen to invest in cellular data rather than address DSL which is still languishing around 3.5mbit (if you're lucky), while half-assing fiber deployments. The cable cartels only upgrade their speeds if threatened with a municipal startup or someone like Google Fiber (It was hilarious how within 7 days of Google announcing a fiber install in my town, that TWC managed to go from 100mbit to 300mbit, for free.)
However, the cable companies do lobby quite a bit to keep the rules favorable to them.
...only matter to Republicans when the states are Republican controlled and don't fight the Republican agenda of giving to the rich and screwing everyone else, otherwise it's Federal Tyranny all the way!
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into Apple's coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
I can see why they would never in a million years do such a thing, but they could just provide a link to The site where Epic has put the installer.
Why? Do they owe Epic something? Is Epic paying them for the link? No, on both counts. Epic made their choice to cut Google out, Google doesn't have to do a damn thing that helps them.
Honestly, it's more than enough that Google is trying to do their customers a favor by filtering this rather than let Epic deal with complaints about "their" installer giving out viruses.
Apple users seem content on giving tons of money to Apple. And Apple devs seem content on lubing it up. What's the problem.
The hilarious/sad thing is Fortnite can't go around the Apple store, so they are content with Apple getting 30% of their sales, but screw Google getting any! Even though Android is a far larger platform.
No, he didn't. They said talks were ongoing and there was no firm decision, which means funding was NOT secured and not at $420, per Musk's tweet, at least with the Saudi PIF.
I agree, short selling and day trading are the antithesis of what the stock market, as a form of distributed INVESTMENT, is supposed to be. It encourages the lifestyle we have now of quarterly ROI being more important than long term company health.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends how much the software costs, how accessible it is and how secure it is.
It says in the article that the software is exclusive to Apple authorized repair shops. Consumers will have no access to it and it's not meant to prevent theft of new Apple products, it's meant to shut out 3rd party repair places that shine a light on how shoddy Apple's engineering really is and how overpriced it is for that. It also will reduce your ability to sue Apple for crappy design decisions because if nobody can fix it except Apple, they can just ignore it and blame you.
Yeah, and good luck to you when Apple designs a circuit board with the wrong transistor, refuses to admit the mistake exists and when they finally get sued over it they make a repair program that manages to not cover the boards produced the year you bought yours.
Won't be the first time!
Your whole post boils down to "Stop doing things in ways that I don't like. And get off my lawn."
Let's not even pretend that choice is in any way connected to price when it comes to Apple. Apple chooses what they will let you have, period, and you will pay premium prices for it, whether it's a new product or a product line that hasn't been refreshed in 5 years. Apple will, in fact, go out of it's way to ensure you can't do the things they don't want to allow you to do. That's been Apple's MO since forever.
In one way, it's sad, I'd have liked to see the end of the story. In another way, if they were gonna kill my baby Clem I'm glad they closed down first. >.>
Are they gonna finish Walking Dead???? Cause we need moar Clem!
Also, if you want some math:
A small reactor outputs 125-140 megawatts of power. So lets say 140 MWh. The average cost of a small reactor is $750,000,000. Gigaom
So, to get your 11 million MW-h, you would need 78,571 small reactors. Assuming we did want to completely redo the entire US energy grid, that brings us to $58,928,250,000,000. $59 Trillion in reactors.
Change that to full size reactors and you need $110 Trillion.
1) Scale. If they were implimented in that kind of scale, production costs would drop, raw price would drop.
2) Implimentation: An SMR would be subject to the same delays and certifications that a traditional reactor would, with limited building sites, whilst a battery bank could be dropped in a much larger area of construction sites and takes far less time to construct, with far fewer regulations impacting it's construction.
3) Service: Not only can the bank keep running while cells are being replaced, they can be replaced with higher quality cells with greater capacity increasing the value of the bank as a whole.
4) Environment: Quiet, low impact, easily hidden, can be just another transformer station out in the boonies.
Regarding the AC upthread's comment that batteries don't create energy, well duh. That's not the point. Most powerplants don't run at their full potential (most economical) 24/7. They spin up and down throughout the day to keep the grid stable, a process that puts strain on the grid as the power dips and increases. It also causes some generators to sit idle costing money waiting for a spike in need.
A battery bank, as opposed to an SMR or any other power source, can sit all day soaking up extra power and return it instantly in a much gentler, faster energy curve. It boosts your grid during peak without having to switch on another generator (expensive) and you can keep the generators you do have running at a more efficient output throughout the day. So if you have some hydro, wind and solar mixed with battery banks, the question is do you *need* the reactors, and their many downsides. Or is the government just subsidizing another dinosaur industry.
Problem with SMRs is that battery banks ala Tesla's project in Australia, are cheaper, safer and have a quicker ROI. As battery technology advances they only get better.
So you can drop a few billion on a white whale hoping that it's still useful in 50 years, or you can put that into wind/solar/batteries and get immediate benefits.
I'm sure that every one of these people will demand that Brietbart allow Jezebel writers to publish their articles on their site for "equality and free speech".
Google already uses e-sims for Google Fi service. The Pixel's still have a physical slot for a physical sim though. As long as Apple leaves the option for a physical sim card nothing is really changing.
In California, there was a news report in the LA times last year about one farmer trying to hire Americans by paying $20/hr. Most quit within a week because the work was too difficult.
Because it is too difficult. One, with the drive from where people typically live to the rural farm, the cost of gas alone eats up a lot of that $20. Then there's the sunup to sundown work schedule with no bathroom facilities nearby. The only way to do that kind of work and really make money at it is to be single or okay with living separate from your spouse, young or used to hard labor, share a hotel room or some other sleeping arrangement with several people to split the costs and to travel with the harvests.
There's a reason farming has always turned to slavery of one kind or another.
Some electronics require rare earth materials to manufacture, which currently are sources from China or other countries.
A lot of those minerals can be mined in the US, it's just not economical to do so. At least until China started restricting export and the trade war got going.
Yeah well, luckily for them they'd invented the Antikythera MRI Mechanism to do thorough brain scans to actually back up their suppositions.
TrumpOS loudly declares all other OSes to be enemies of the people and fake data.
Whenever people complain about waste in Government, I point to the private companies shoveling Government money into their pockets and paying off Congresscritters to keep the flow coming.
Any private company that doesn't immediately double their prices at the first whiff of a government contract should get a medal. And then be audited out the wazoo because something is going on there.
Yeah, and lifting all that to other sites in the solar system is expensive as hell. Earth to Moon, Build Infrastructure, Moon to Solar System.
This is somewhat, but not altogether true. For one, the cable companies already had infrastructure in place for video, they just needed upgrades to backend equipment and to distribute modems. People were relatively familiar with the internet through AOL and dialup (which only became popular because the government broke up AT&T, another private corporation holding back progress for their own enrichment.) Plus they fought tooth and nail to not be labeled as utilities so the states can't control their prices.
At the same time, there was real competition as DSL was still competitive, speed wise, with early cable internet, and there were numerous baby Bell's and other 3rd party ISP's offering alternatives.
Fast forward a bit and AT&T & Verizon have bought up all of the baby bells and chosen to invest in cellular data rather than address DSL which is still languishing around 3.5mbit (if you're lucky), while half-assing fiber deployments. The cable cartels only upgrade their speeds if threatened with a municipal startup or someone like Google Fiber (It was hilarious how within 7 days of Google announcing a fiber install in my town, that TWC managed to go from 100mbit to 300mbit, for free.)
However, the cable companies do lobby quite a bit to keep the rules favorable to them.
...only matter to Republicans when the states are Republican controlled and don't fight the Republican agenda of giving to the rich and screwing everyone else, otherwise it's Federal Tyranny all the way!
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into developer coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
This change is intended to keep users paying for apps "on a regular basis, putting money into Apple's coffers on a regular schedule," the report claims.
I can see why they would never in a million years do such a thing, but they could just provide a link to The site where Epic has put the installer.
Why? Do they owe Epic something? Is Epic paying them for the link? No, on both counts. Epic made their choice to cut Google out, Google doesn't have to do a damn thing that helps them.
Honestly, it's more than enough that Google is trying to do their customers a favor by filtering this rather than let Epic deal with complaints about "their" installer giving out viruses.
Apple users seem content on giving tons of money to Apple. And Apple devs seem content on lubing it up. What's the problem.
The hilarious/sad thing is Fortnite can't go around the Apple store, so they are content with Apple getting 30% of their sales, but screw Google getting any! Even though Android is a far larger platform.
No, he didn't. They said talks were ongoing and there was no firm decision, which means funding was NOT secured and not at $420, per Musk's tweet, at least with the Saudi PIF.
"Addressing" the funding is not the same as "was given detailed and confirmed solid funding plans".
I agree, short selling and day trading are the antithesis of what the stock market, as a form of distributed INVESTMENT, is supposed to be. It encourages the lifestyle we have now of quarterly ROI being more important than long term company health.