Standard batteries for such a use are good for going off the grid but don't make financial sense for what you suggest. One we were investigating was a geo-sink for longer/larger storage but it was borderline due to the drilling costs for the size of our grid. Batteries would have to come down in price by 1/3rd or more for that idea to be viable (or an increase in rates).
Obviously the panels should be motorized so that they are always facing the most optimal direction. A system that moves the panels shouldn't add that much to the cost and will probably pay for itself very quickly with the extra energy collected.
The energy benefit for small/mid-scale systems is minimal. Panels are heavy and it takes a lot of energy to rotate them (even slowly). It's also a LOT more maintenance making sure the systems are optimal/aligned accurately. Then there's the computational costs. Finally, the cost for the installation skyrockets with those systems. Passive systems without obstructions on an optimal angle/orientation will be very efficient overall and are very simple in comparison to moving systems and can be installed easily. Back when we priced it out about 4 years ago going to a moving system would have added 50-60% to the costs above and beyond building a custom barn to achieve the angle/orientation. (~$80k vs $120-130k)
hedge your bets and go 50/50 south and west. Maybe 50% southwest, 25% west, 25% south and setup a water wheel and perhaps an agrarian society.
The direction you point it depends on where in the world you are. Further north you are the more you want it pointed south rather than west. In any case, while the $/watt calculation may be higher for capturing the western sun you'll lose a LOT of watts by pointing west (esp further north).
What most people don't know about solar panels is that their efficiency goes up the cooler they are. We make more money in winter on our solar projects despite the reduction in hours/intensity of the sun simply because it's usually -10C or lower where we have our installations.
One option that might be financially viable is to point south but store it in small salt-water geo-sinks to pump into the grid during peak times. Otherwise, I can guarantee that you'll be further ahead pointing south rather than west unless you're in Texas or some other hot/southern climate.
$200K for an executive director actually sounds on the reasonable side for California. I lived in San Diego for a short time in a ~$750,000 home that wouldn't be worth $250,000 in most of the country (4 bed, 2 bath, 0.1 ac). Cost of living in CA can be pretty crazy.
That's a non-starter argument. San Diego average home price (2014) is $476,790. That's comparable to Toronto, Calgary, LA, etc. San Fran is more at $682,410, however, even at those prices that only explains ~$50,000. Lets say you add $50,000 to the max salary ($110,000) they're still $90,000 above that. Pay them $150,000 and there's a jr. developer's salary.
I don't take issue with 100k devs, but management absolutely. Look up the data on non-profit executive director compensation - it's over double the high end and nearly quadruple the median.
Can you do the job of those people (any position)? Are you willing to do it as well as, and for less money than, the people currently in those positions? If so, why aren't you doing it?
Yes. Yes. Because I'm not an American citizen and have zero desire to become one. In fact I'd go to great lengths to avoid living/working in the US.
You don't like reality so you attack the messenger? lol
As to taking less money as part of a promotion, people do it ALL the time. My brother in law just did it to get a promotion to a VP position at Amex, he traded salary for job security. My father did it when he was CFO of a sizable company - he actually recommended that he be fired and the salary for the position he was in be reduced as they were paying more than the company could afford. His re-structuring kept the company from going bankrupt and they are now the largest company of their type in Canada.
As to donating, I don't. I'm fighting to disconnect myself from them - they won't allow you to delete your account/no longer agree to their policy changes. Once signed up you're signed up for life in their opinion.
I get having to have talent equal to the task, however, there are two aspects: first, non-profit board members have traditionally taken significantly less than comparable positions in the for profit sector. The a good chunk of the staff that make over 100,000 have zero technical skills, they are management. Second, the HIGH end for those positions is $110,000 not $200,000+. At the ~30% premium for silicon valley, you're still under $150,000.
I always thought that transparency should be right there in the banner. "Hey guys, we have 60M worth of assets but we need more because $REASON".
The reason is simple, they over pay their staff significantly. Even for being in silicon valley which is about 29% higher salaries they fail to understand they are a non-profit. Over 20% of WMF staff get paid over $100,000 per year. The executive director makes over $200,000 while the median salary for a non-profit executive director in the US is closer to $60,000.
This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.
On the other hand, this is twenty-five years after the Alliance victory. The Empire should be the underdogs now, so a bit less Goliath treatment for them might be appropriate.
That's a very good point. However, if that were the case I would have expected the rebel scenes to feature new equipment instead of beat up X-Wings and the Stormtroopers to have scuffs and dents in their equipment, not looking pristine.
I was referring to the group of Stormtroopers - with the closeups, floor angles, etc. There's a very distinct difference in the shooting style of the originals, whether intentional or not, the shots with the empire tended to be wide/mid shots and very few closeups or low shots, with the exception of Darth Vader and the Emperor. They were also often in larger sets/environments. The rebel shots on the other hand tended to be mid/close shots on smaller sets or low shots. They were often in smaller sets. This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.
You can go off about SW nerds all you want but there's a reason they exist. They may not be able to illiterate why or go too far in trying to do so but there are reasons why those films stand the test of time and have such a fanbase.
Sitting here, watching it, I'm reminded of how awesome the trailer was for Episode 1 a long time ago and the reaction it got.
I thought the trailer from Episode 1 was crap, this one is a mixed bag. For this trailer, some of the scenes look like classic Star Wars and give me some hope... some looks like Star Wars meets Game of Thrones. Other parts like the overly "artistic" storm trooper shot are just stupid and don't fit Star Wars at all.
I read the comments, seemed questionable to me so I did one better: I read the source code.
The addon's worst feature is that it re-enables marketing 10 days after you turn it off... this is easily defeated by changing the extensions.quickdrag.disableperiod to 2999-01-01 so it never re-enables itself. It's also defeated by adblock.
As to the tracking, I could find no such evidence. The "offending" file is located here:
What it appears to be doing, unless I'm missing something, is creating an iframe that allows it to track ads displayed therein. It also only does so on yahoo.com and youtube.com so there's no "tracking" of your browsing. Even with this, the simple date change above will permanently disable the marketing so the iframe is never created.
Drag and drop uses a separate, non-permanent, buffer from C&P, it also shows you graphically what text you're holding so if it's incorrect you can drag it to the taskbar to cancel
I never copy/paste a URL into a browser or anything for that matter. That's what Quickdrag is for - highlight text or click hold a URL, drag/drop it to a white space (ie: 1 or 2 px away from where it is) and it performs the search or opens the link in a new tab. You can also drag drop from other programs for the same effect.
A search engine is a web page. Google (without the auto-suggestions) is my home page. The first thing I do after installing a browser is remove the useless "search box", leaving nothing but the actual address bar.
Yup, me too. I go one step farther - I turn off search from the address bar. If there's text in the address bar, and the text isn't a URL, the browser should do nothing. It's called an address bar for a reason.
Interesting. I did something very different, I use the address bar (with the oldbar addon) as an "I'm feeling lucky" search in current tab and the search box as a general search in new tab. I rarely ever use the about:home or search pages.
I have to say though if it was not for the addons & about:config I would have ditched Firefox long ago. Classic Theme Restorer, oldbar, Adblock Plus/Popup/Element Hiding, Quickdrag, Snap links plus, Switch to tab no more - just to get the interface into a useable form. 6 different addons for security/privacy fixes and a good 40+ about:config changes to keep Mozilla's data collection from reporting various details about me.
Toronto doesn't have poor taxi service, just crazy expensive. Vancouver was also rated as one of the easiest cities to get around in thanks to public transit.
There's Uber's motto: Hey, we've gotta be safer than driving under the influence.
Problem is that doesn't hold up in Toronto - we have designated driver services for them. I have to say, this is one particular case where I have to side with the city. The reasons they give are reasonable and justified with the exception of the protectionist crap for taxis. The insurance aspect is particularly important - I would not want to be in an accident with someone who only has a million dollars liability that has to cover themselves, the other driver, you, and anyone else injured.
Slashdot Mirror
It will *eventually* pay for the extra costs, it increases the payback period by 4-5 years excluding any maintenance costs.
Standard batteries for such a use are good for going off the grid but don't make financial sense for what you suggest. One we were investigating was a geo-sink for longer/larger storage but it was borderline due to the drilling costs for the size of our grid. Batteries would have to come down in price by 1/3rd or more for that idea to be viable (or an increase in rates).
Obviously the panels should be motorized so that they are always facing the most optimal direction. A system that moves the panels shouldn't add that much to the cost and will probably pay for itself very quickly with the extra energy collected.
The energy benefit for small/mid-scale systems is minimal. Panels are heavy and it takes a lot of energy to rotate them (even slowly). It's also a LOT more maintenance making sure the systems are optimal/aligned accurately. Then there's the computational costs. Finally, the cost for the installation skyrockets with those systems. Passive systems without obstructions on an optimal angle/orientation will be very efficient overall and are very simple in comparison to moving systems and can be installed easily. Back when we priced it out about 4 years ago going to a moving system would have added 50-60% to the costs above and beyond building a custom barn to achieve the angle/orientation. (~$80k vs $120-130k)
hedge your bets and go 50/50 south and west. Maybe 50% southwest, 25% west, 25% south and setup a water wheel and perhaps an agrarian society.
The direction you point it depends on where in the world you are. Further north you are the more you want it pointed south rather than west. In any case, while the $/watt calculation may be higher for capturing the western sun you'll lose a LOT of watts by pointing west (esp further north).
What most people don't know about solar panels is that their efficiency goes up the cooler they are. We make more money in winter on our solar projects despite the reduction in hours/intensity of the sun simply because it's usually -10C or lower where we have our installations.
One option that might be financially viable is to point south but store it in small salt-water geo-sinks to pump into the grid during peak times. Otherwise, I can guarantee that you'll be further ahead pointing south rather than west unless you're in Texas or some other hot/southern climate.
$200K for an executive director actually sounds on the reasonable side for California. I lived in San Diego for a short time in a ~$750,000 home that wouldn't be worth $250,000 in most of the country (4 bed, 2 bath, 0.1 ac). Cost of living in CA can be pretty crazy.
That's a non-starter argument. San Diego average home price (2014) is $476,790. That's comparable to Toronto, Calgary, LA, etc. San Fran is more at $682,410, however, even at those prices that only explains ~$50,000. Lets say you add $50,000 to the max salary ($110,000) they're still $90,000 above that. Pay them $150,000 and there's a jr. developer's salary.
I don't take issue with 100k devs, but management absolutely. Look up the data on non-profit executive director compensation - it's over double the high end and nearly quadruple the median.
So, in other words, you are not willing to do the job.
If I could telecommute 100% of the time, sure I'd do it. :P
Can you do the job of those people (any position)? Are you willing to do it as well as, and for less money than, the people currently in those positions? If so, why aren't you doing it?
Yes. Yes. Because I'm not an American citizen and have zero desire to become one. In fact I'd go to great lengths to avoid living/working in the US.
You don't like reality so you attack the messenger? lol
As to taking less money as part of a promotion, people do it ALL the time. My brother in law just did it to get a promotion to a VP position at Amex, he traded salary for job security. My father did it when he was CFO of a sizable company - he actually recommended that he be fired and the salary for the position he was in be reduced as they were paying more than the company could afford. His re-structuring kept the company from going bankrupt and they are now the largest company of their type in Canada.
As to donating, I don't. I'm fighting to disconnect myself from them - they won't allow you to delete your account/no longer agree to their policy changes. Once signed up you're signed up for life in their opinion.
Most of them are management or lawyers, not devs.
lol
I get having to have talent equal to the task, however, there are two aspects: first, non-profit board members have traditionally taken significantly less than comparable positions in the for profit sector. The a good chunk of the staff that make over 100,000 have zero technical skills, they are management. Second, the HIGH end for those positions is $110,000 not $200,000+. At the ~30% premium for silicon valley, you're still under $150,000.
I always thought that transparency should be right there in the banner. "Hey guys, we have 60M worth of assets but we need more because $REASON".
The reason is simple, they over pay their staff significantly. Even for being in silicon valley which is about 29% higher salaries they fail to understand they are a non-profit. Over 20% of WMF staff get paid over $100,000 per year. The executive director makes over $200,000 while the median salary for a non-profit executive director in the US is closer to $60,000.
This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.
On the other hand, this is twenty-five years after the Alliance victory. The Empire should be the underdogs now, so a bit less Goliath treatment for them might be appropriate.
That's a very good point. However, if that were the case I would have expected the rebel scenes to feature new equipment instead of beat up X-Wings and the Stormtroopers to have scuffs and dents in their equipment, not looking pristine.
Not the word I was looking for actually. Elucidate was the word. My brain's autocorrect screwed up ;)
I was referring to the group of Stormtroopers - with the closeups, floor angles, etc. There's a very distinct difference in the shooting style of the originals, whether intentional or not, the shots with the empire tended to be wide/mid shots and very few closeups or low shots, with the exception of Darth Vader and the Emperor. They were also often in larger sets/environments. The rebel shots on the other hand tended to be mid/close shots on smaller sets or low shots. They were often in smaller sets. This gave contrast and really supported the david vs goliath feel. When you apply "gritty" mid/close shots in a small environment with Stormtroopers then it obliterates that contrast and just doesn't feel right.
You can go off about SW nerds all you want but there's a reason they exist. They may not be able to illiterate why or go too far in trying to do so but there are reasons why those films stand the test of time and have such a fanbase.
Sitting here, watching it, I'm reminded of how awesome the trailer was for Episode 1 a long time ago and the reaction it got.
I thought the trailer from Episode 1 was crap, this one is a mixed bag. For this trailer, some of the scenes look like classic Star Wars and give me some hope... some looks like Star Wars meets Game of Thrones. Other parts like the overly "artistic" storm trooper shot are just stupid and don't fit Star Wars at all.
I read the comments, seemed questionable to me so I did one better: I read the source code.
The addon's worst feature is that it re-enables marketing 10 days after you turn it off... this is easily defeated by changing the extensions.quickdrag.disableperiod to 2999-01-01 so it never re-enables itself. It's also defeated by adblock.
As to the tracking, I could find no such evidence. The "offending" file is located here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
What it appears to be doing, unless I'm missing something, is creating an iframe that allows it to track ads displayed therein. It also only does so on yahoo.com and youtube.com so there's no "tracking" of your browsing. Even with this, the simple date change above will permanently disable the marketing so the iframe is never created.
Drag and drop uses a separate, non-permanent, buffer from C&P, it also shows you graphically what text you're holding so if it's incorrect you can drag it to the taskbar to cancel
I never copy/paste a URL into a browser or anything for that matter. That's what Quickdrag is for - highlight text or click hold a URL, drag/drop it to a white space (ie: 1 or 2 px away from where it is) and it performs the search or opens the link in a new tab. You can also drag drop from other programs for the same effect.
A search engine is a web page. Google (without the auto-suggestions) is my home page. The first thing I do after installing a browser is remove the useless "search box", leaving nothing but the actual address bar.
Yup, me too. I go one step farther - I turn off search from the address bar. If there's text in the address bar, and the text isn't a URL, the browser should do nothing. It's called an address bar for a reason.
Interesting. I did something very different, I use the address bar (with the oldbar addon) as an "I'm feeling lucky" search in current tab and the search box as a general search in new tab. I rarely ever use the about:home or search pages.
I have to say though if it was not for the addons & about:config I would have ditched Firefox long ago. Classic Theme Restorer, oldbar, Adblock Plus/Popup/Element Hiding, Quickdrag, Snap links plus, Switch to tab no more - just to get the interface into a useable form. 6 different addons for security/privacy fixes and a good 40+ about:config changes to keep Mozilla's data collection from reporting various details about me.
Toronto doesn't have poor taxi service, just crazy expensive. Vancouver was also rated as one of the easiest cities to get around in thanks to public transit.
Las Vegas:
City 583,736
That's only if you look at CMAs - in reality the GTA or GTHA would be #5 or $6 with 6 to 6.5 million people
Toronto is Canada's largest city, the fourth largest in North America, and home to a diverse population of about 2.8 million people.
4th largest? Somehow I doubt that.
New York is big, but I imagine that Las Vegas, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, and DC are bigger than Toronto.
New York is #2, Chicago is #5, San Francisco is #36... the rest don't even make the top 50.
There's Uber's motto: Hey, we've gotta be safer than driving under the influence.
Problem is that doesn't hold up in Toronto - we have designated driver services for them. I have to say, this is one particular case where I have to side with the city. The reasons they give are reasonable and justified with the exception of the protectionist crap for taxis. The insurance aspect is particularly important - I would not want to be in an accident with someone who only has a million dollars liability that has to cover themselves, the other driver, you, and anyone else injured.