This is certainly useful advice, other than the fact that it is highly unlikely it will ever be needed. It is quite rare that a by-standing citizen who is exercising common sense finds himself/herself at odds with the police, even if filming. Yes, there are instances and there always will be, but as most of us know you will much (much x 10) more likely be put in a situation where you require and get the assistance of a police officer.
Given this advice or not, I think the wise person will make the right choice at the time, and the dim-wit might not. If you think you may be at odds, only you can judge the risk vs the benefit for the particular situation at hand. Its not always (and hardly ever) a beat-down or shooting situation.
Either you didn't list all your assumptions, or you missed a ton or critical ones.
,
You don't even have a factor for the cost of producing the hydrogen. How much hydrogen do you assume it takes to make one gallon of the fuel? If you don't know that, you can't even begin to make a reasonable guess.
You need to know how to deal with raw data, the author doesn't. Look at the adjusted charts and you get a different picture.
Kalkata, as can be seen from the charts, is a city with a lot of people not even connected to the grid, or even basic sewer facilities for that matter. If you want to make the comparison, make note of the significant factors that drive the differences, its not that hard. How about the industrialization factor? You think that should just be ignored by the author?
Also from the study itself;
-Energy consumption data were scaled by population (from 20,314,077 people to 266 22,214,518 people
-New Jersey energy consumption data for 2006 were used in the total energy
268 consumption calculation for New York Metropolitan region for 2011
So it is clear that they didn't have actual numbers, and used consumption numbers from a higher energy use period (2006) for a lower energy use time-frame (2011) (energy use decline some during the recession).
Again, it only take a few minutes for me to find all these relevant things the author so eagerly dismisses. Its his job to back up his point, not mine.
I am not criticizing the study or the numbers in it. Don't conflate the two. I am criticizing the author of the posted article and his apparent mis-use of the data, lack of thoroughness in explaining his conclusions, and lack of critical analysis. I think my point stands quite well. I would guess if you read the study in detail, you will find notations of factors that can account for some of the big variances.
No, he did not present a single per capita comparison. Read it again. You tell me how NYC compares per capita to other major cities, not just Tokyo. And who cares about Kolkata, that was probably chosen because it is uniquely low. And while you are at it, tell me how the data was collected that provided an apples to apples comparison. Conveniently ignored.
I wasn't trying to explain it, just pointing out how poorly the author did making his case or explaining the basis. When there is such a huge discrepancy, it is wise to double check and validate they are reasonable comparisons, which it appears this guy didn't even attempt to do.
Critical thinking is a valuable skill.... try it sometime.
On the other hand, we find that various mooks make spurious brutality claims, the vast majority of which are complete bullshit.
The only evidence uncovered is that the PD has a robust system for reporting and investigating claims. That a small percentage find any real misdeeds could be an indication the the bar for accepting complaints is too low, as much as it could mean they don't follow through or dismiss real misdeeds. I am not saying it is one or the other, but the information presented is not enough to go on.
LPs also sell because they are less for the music value, as opposed to the large surface for album art, which isn't nearly as relevant when on a postage-stamp sized screen on a MP3 player.>
Album art is the lost gem in the transition to online/digital/portable.
I could buy used CDs, cheaper than buying downloads. But the artist doesn't make any money on used CDs (and they never did). I will often buy a new CD of stuff I really like as a gift. Other than that I try to go to the shows and recommend to others.
There is a great free distribution path for music now, but artists haven't figured out how to take advantage yet. If I could buy personal rights to an album directly from the artist, I'd happily pay $5 (or more or less depending on quality) and they wouldn't have to do anything.
Boy, the author is really mad, that's the only fact that clear here. Why he can't show the trash and energy usage per capita? Probably because he really doesn't have that data.
NYC is one of the most visited cities in the world. Much energy is used, and much trash produced, by large numbers of people that don't live there. How about at least considering the number of people that commute into the city every day for work as well. I'm sure there are a list of other considerations as well, like how the data is collected for each city and if it represents the city proper or its metropolitan area, or if you can even trust data from some countries.
Its fine to be mad, but if one can't get past it enough to even think about the 'why' then maybe one needs to take a breather.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, however your self confidence doesn't enhance mine, particularly when your calculation doesn't pass the gut test at all. Since you can't seem to lay out a single calculation factor you used, or specific assumption, and just generalize, I can safely assume you really have no basis for the result.
I have learned one thing and that is when a result looks within reason and when it doesn't. Yours doesn't come close to a reasonable result.
Your simple mistake of not considering the scale of the solar facility in comparison to the scale of the processing facility is quite glaring in your description of your approach, without even providing a factor.
The problem there is that when the well is contaminated, it's WAY too late to do anything. Even if the responsible company immediately stops fracking completely, the well will continue to provide polluted water until the aquifer gets cleaned out somehow. That may be anytime from years to millenia.
Might want to check on the particular chemical in question;
2-Butoxyethanol biodegrades in soils and water, with a half life of 1–4 weeks in aquatic environments.[6]
What's their evidence it came from fracking and not, say Windex?
Interesting list of uses from wkpda;
2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives.[6]
And the environmental impact;
2-Butoxyethanol usually decomposes in the presence of air within a few days by reacting with oxygen radicals.[12] It has not been identified as a major environmental contaminant, nor is it known to bio-accumulate.[13] 2-Butoxyethanol biodegrades in soils and water, with a half life of 1–4 weeks in aquatic environments.[6]
This isn't a gift. It's an investment. Also, the fund is going to a single company called AltSchool.
It is what is called a 'loss leader', giving away a product for future sales. Of course, It also looks like he may not be giving away $100M at all, but rather arbitrarily placing a high value on the software he is giving away. But he may also be paying people to build and implement the systems, in which case it would appear to be more than just giving away software.
The standard inverter produces 60 cycle AC. but you are right it does not necessarily sync with the grid. What you are referring to is a synchronizing inverter which matches the two, allowing for a smooth transfer. Transferring without synchronization causes a transient on the home system which is not good for your electrical stuff, or requires you to disconnect from one before connecting to the other, resulting in a short period of power interruption, also problematic.
And yest, a synchronizing grid tie setup is much more expensive than a simple inverter and transfer switch.
Yes, you need an inverter regardless if you have a solar and/or DC battery system. What may cost significantly more for this battery system, if used for rate shifting as the article describes, is the transfer/disconnect and charge controls that automatically charge at certain times, and then discharge at certain times. Its not as straightforward as some might think, if you are still connected to the grid, the battery will not discharge fully, and if you disconnect from the grid, you are limited in how much power you can use, and must reconnect if household demand goes up.
It is not clear to me what controls and transfer/disconnect equipment is delivered with the battery, or what you have to pay for on top of the battery.
It is a shame that the patent office views patents applications as a source of income, so they don't want to discourage patent applications by rejecting them.
It would be interesting to see the percent rejections over time.
A full 10KW hr charge on a good summer day in the southwest would require about 2 to 3 KW of solar panel capacity, that is if nothing else is drawing power at the same time. On cloudy rainy days they would not charge it fully.
In the winter, in northern cloudy climates, more like 5-8KW of solar panel capacity for a full charge, again, on bad weather days that may not be enough, and assuming nothing else drawing power at the same time.
Adoption studies show both genetic and environment have an impact. , and those studies have their own purposes that you must consider. There is more than enough evidence that people adapt the ideals of their community.
We can't make an excuse to not deal with the environmental side just because genetics is a factor. A support structure that starts at birth and continues through young adulthood is very important. Yes, genetics is a player that we can't talk about, and its not a racial thing but applies all societies at all levels. Take two intelligent people of any race (or different races) and their kids are more likely to be intelligent, take two people of any race (or different races) that are less intelligent and their kids are likely to be less intelligent also. That goes for other traits as well. But its nowhere near 100%. That element falls in to my 'reduce the number of kids in that environment' point...but we can't talk about that....about not having so many kids there to start with.
Just saying jobs is the answer is misguided or at least greatly oversimplifies the problem. People have to be prepared for a job, want a job, and have enough sense of responsibility to hold a job. Those come from the home and community environment. A stronger community can support more job producing businesses. If you don't take care of the front end, the jobs thing is irrelevant. The problem is not people who held good jobs and no longer have them, its young people not even trying, or not willing to take a low end job to start with. They are told good jobs are on the way, so why not just wait for those. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but I'm talking about the overall problem in general.
I have no problems with jobs programs to help keep youth on track, but there is little evidence they are the solution on their own...........and there are plenty of books available, it sure helps if someone reads them to the toddlers every day.
The way the US treats its poor reminds me a lot of the colonialism of earlier times. Patronizing, without any real care or concern and so far detached from the real problems that one has to wonder whether they are just stupid or whether their motives ain't what they claim to be.
The motives are clear. Getting votes. They make promises, ask for votes, and blame others. Keep reminding the poor its no fault of theirs and they should sit and wait until someone comes in and saves them. And in our all our 'political correctness' nobody is willing to talk about the primary elements of the problem, which are kids being brought up in broken homes or no home at all with no family or community support structure. All the schools, teachers, & Ipads in the world won't do anything to help most of them. But hey, as long they'll vote for you, tell them what they want to hear. As long as you look like you are doing something, you'll get the votes.
Unfortunately, the vicious cycle can only be broken by taking kids out of the environment, or limiting the number of kids in it. But if you propose solutions that try to do either, you will be branded as hateful, intolerant, racist, or whatever other slanderous accusation that can be thrown because your messing with guaranteed votes.
Slashdot Mirror
He who sees the world through the lens of race........
This is certainly useful advice, other than the fact that it is highly unlikely it will ever be needed. It is quite rare that a by-standing citizen who is exercising common sense finds himself/herself at odds with the police, even if filming. Yes, there are instances and there always will be, but as most of us know you will much (much x 10) more likely be put in a situation where you require and get the assistance of a police officer.
Given this advice or not, I think the wise person will make the right choice at the time, and the dim-wit might not. If you think you may be at odds, only you can judge the risk vs the benefit for the particular situation at hand. Its not always (and hardly ever) a beat-down or shooting situation.
Either you didn't list all your assumptions, or you missed a ton or critical ones.
,
You don't even have a factor for the cost of producing the hydrogen. How much hydrogen do you assume it takes to make one gallon of the fuel? If you don't know that, you can't even begin to make a reasonable guess.
You need to know how to deal with raw data, the author doesn't. Look at the adjusted charts and you get a different picture.
Kalkata, as can be seen from the charts, is a city with a lot of people not even connected to the grid, or even basic sewer facilities for that matter. If you want to make the comparison, make note of the significant factors that drive the differences, its not that hard. How about the industrialization factor? You think that should just be ignored by the author?
Also from the study itself;
-Energy consumption data were scaled by population (from 20,314,077 people to 266 22,214,518 people
-New Jersey energy consumption data for 2006 were used in the total energy 268 consumption calculation for New York Metropolitan region for 2011
So it is clear that they didn't have actual numbers, and used consumption numbers from a higher energy use period (2006) for a lower energy use time-frame (2011) (energy use decline some during the recession). Again, it only take a few minutes for me to find all these relevant things the author so eagerly dismisses. Its his job to back up his point, not mine.
I am not criticizing the study or the numbers in it. Don't conflate the two. I am criticizing the author of the posted article and his apparent mis-use of the data, lack of thoroughness in explaining his conclusions, and lack of critical analysis. I think my point stands quite well. I would guess if you read the study in detail, you will find notations of factors that can account for some of the big variances.
No, he did not present a single per capita comparison. Read it again. You tell me how NYC compares per capita to other major cities, not just Tokyo. And who cares about Kolkata, that was probably chosen because it is uniquely low. And while you are at it, tell me how the data was collected that provided an apples to apples comparison. Conveniently ignored.
I wasn't trying to explain it, just pointing out how poorly the author did making his case or explaining the basis. When there is such a huge discrepancy, it is wise to double check and validate they are reasonable comparisons, which it appears this guy didn't even attempt to do.
Critical thinking is a valuable skill.... try it sometime.
Why was Sanders the Colonel that succeeded?
NASA says that must not be your finest idea.
good points.
On the other hand, we find that various mooks make spurious brutality claims, the vast majority of which are complete bullshit.
The only evidence uncovered is that the PD has a robust system for reporting and investigating claims. That a small percentage find any real misdeeds could be an indication the the bar for accepting complaints is too low, as much as it could mean they don't follow through or dismiss real misdeeds. I am not saying it is one or the other, but the information presented is not enough to go on.
LPs also sell because they are less for the music value, as opposed to the large surface for album art, which isn't nearly as relevant when on a postage-stamp sized screen on a MP3 player.>
Album art is the lost gem in the transition to online/digital/portable.
I could buy used CDs, cheaper than buying downloads. But the artist doesn't make any money on used CDs (and they never did). I will often buy a new CD of stuff I really like as a gift. Other than that I try to go to the shows and recommend to others.
There is a great free distribution path for music now, but artists haven't figured out how to take advantage yet. If I could buy personal rights to an album directly from the artist, I'd happily pay $5 (or more or less depending on quality) and they wouldn't have to do anything.
Boy, the author is really mad, that's the only fact that clear here. Why he can't show the trash and energy usage per capita? Probably because he really doesn't have that data.
NYC is one of the most visited cities in the world. Much energy is used, and much trash produced, by large numbers of people that don't live there. How about at least considering the number of people that commute into the city every day for work as well. I'm sure there are a list of other considerations as well, like how the data is collected for each city and if it represents the city proper or its metropolitan area, or if you can even trust data from some countries.
Its fine to be mad, but if one can't get past it enough to even think about the 'why' then maybe one needs to take a breather.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, however your self confidence doesn't enhance mine, particularly when your calculation doesn't pass the gut test at all. Since you can't seem to lay out a single calculation factor you used, or specific assumption, and just generalize, I can safely assume you really have no basis for the result.
I have learned one thing and that is when a result looks within reason and when it doesn't. Yours doesn't come close to a reasonable result.
Your simple mistake of not considering the scale of the solar facility in comparison to the scale of the processing facility is quite glaring in your description of your approach, without even providing a factor.
The problem there is that when the well is contaminated, it's WAY too late to do anything. Even if the responsible company immediately stops fracking completely, the well will continue to provide polluted water until the aquifer gets cleaned out somehow. That may be anytime from years to millenia.
Might want to check on the particular chemical in question;
2-Butoxyethanol biodegrades in soils and water, with a half life of 1–4 weeks in aquatic environments.[6]
What's their evidence it came from fracking and not, say Windex?
Interesting list of uses from wkpda;
2-Butoxyethanol is a solvent for paints and surface coatings, as well as cleaning products and inks. Products that contain 2-butoxyethanol include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants, degreaser applications, photographic strip solutions, whiteboard cleaners, liquid soaps, cosmetics, dry cleaning solutions, lacquers, varnishes, herbicides, latex paints, enamels, printing paste, and varnish removers, and silicone caulk. Products containing this compound are commonly found at construction sites, automobile repair shops, print shops, and facilities that produce sterilizing and cleaning products. It is the main ingredient of many home, commercial and industrial cleaning solutions. Since the molecule has both non-polar and polar ends, butoxyethanol is useful for removing both polar and non-polar substances, like grease and oils. It is also approved by the U.S. FDA to be used as direct and indirect food additives, which include antimicrobial agents, defoamers, stabilizers, and adhesives.[6]
And the environmental impact;
2-Butoxyethanol usually decomposes in the presence of air within a few days by reacting with oxygen radicals.[12] It has not been identified as a major environmental contaminant, nor is it known to bio-accumulate.[13] 2-Butoxyethanol biodegrades in soils and water, with a half life of 1–4 weeks in aquatic environments.[6]
This isn't a gift. It's an investment. Also, the fund is going to a single company called AltSchool.
It is what is called a 'loss leader', giving away a product for future sales. Of course, It also looks like he may not be giving away $100M at all, but rather arbitrarily placing a high value on the software he is giving away. But he may also be paying people to build and implement the systems, in which case it would appear to be more than just giving away software.
The standard inverter produces 60 cycle AC. but you are right it does not necessarily sync with the grid. What you are referring to is a synchronizing inverter which matches the two, allowing for a smooth transfer. Transferring without synchronization causes a transient on the home system which is not good for your electrical stuff, or requires you to disconnect from one before connecting to the other, resulting in a short period of power interruption, also problematic.
And yest, a synchronizing grid tie setup is much more expensive than a simple inverter and transfer switch.
Yes, you need an inverter regardless if you have a solar and/or DC battery system. What may cost significantly more for this battery system, if used for rate shifting as the article describes, is the transfer/disconnect and charge controls that automatically charge at certain times, and then discharge at certain times. Its not as straightforward as some might think, if you are still connected to the grid, the battery will not discharge fully, and if you disconnect from the grid, you are limited in how much power you can use, and must reconnect if household demand goes up.
It is not clear to me what controls and transfer/disconnect equipment is delivered with the battery, or what you have to pay for on top of the battery.
I was flabbergasted when I read of his astonishment.
I am going to patent a method for detecting incompetent patent reviewers.
It is a shame that the patent office views patents applications as a source of income, so they don't want to discourage patent applications by rejecting them.
It would be interesting to see the percent rejections over time.
Yeah, 4KW draw is nothing. Run a couple heat pumps/air conditioners and a hair dryer and you are at 4KW easy.
A full 10KW hr charge on a good summer day in the southwest would require about 2 to 3 KW of solar panel capacity, that is if nothing else is drawing power at the same time. On cloudy rainy days they would not charge it fully.
In the winter, in northern cloudy climates, more like 5-8KW of solar panel capacity for a full charge, again, on bad weather days that may not be enough, and assuming nothing else drawing power at the same time.
Adoption studies show both genetic and environment have an impact. , and those studies have their own purposes that you must consider. There is more than enough evidence that people adapt the ideals of their community.
We can't make an excuse to not deal with the environmental side just because genetics is a factor. A support structure that starts at birth and continues through young adulthood is very important. Yes, genetics is a player that we can't talk about, and its not a racial thing but applies all societies at all levels. Take two intelligent people of any race (or different races) and their kids are more likely to be intelligent, take two people of any race (or different races) that are less intelligent and their kids are likely to be less intelligent also. That goes for other traits as well. But its nowhere near 100%. That element falls in to my 'reduce the number of kids in that environment' point...but we can't talk about that....about not having so many kids there to start with.
Just saying jobs is the answer is misguided or at least greatly oversimplifies the problem. People have to be prepared for a job, want a job, and have enough sense of responsibility to hold a job. Those come from the home and community environment. A stronger community can support more job producing businesses. If you don't take care of the front end, the jobs thing is irrelevant. The problem is not people who held good jobs and no longer have them, its young people not even trying, or not willing to take a low end job to start with. They are told good jobs are on the way, so why not just wait for those. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions, but I'm talking about the overall problem in general.
I have no problems with jobs programs to help keep youth on track, but there is little evidence they are the solution on their own...........and there are plenty of books available, it sure helps if someone reads them to the toddlers every day.
The way the US treats its poor reminds me a lot of the colonialism of earlier times. Patronizing, without any real care or concern and so far detached from the real problems that one has to wonder whether they are just stupid or whether their motives ain't what they claim to be.
The motives are clear. Getting votes. They make promises, ask for votes, and blame others. Keep reminding the poor its no fault of theirs and they should sit and wait until someone comes in and saves them. And in our all our 'political correctness' nobody is willing to talk about the primary elements of the problem, which are kids being brought up in broken homes or no home at all with no family or community support structure. All the schools, teachers, & Ipads in the world won't do anything to help most of them. But hey, as long they'll vote for you, tell them what they want to hear. As long as you look like you are doing something, you'll get the votes.
Unfortunately, the vicious cycle can only be broken by taking kids out of the environment, or limiting the number of kids in it. But if you propose solutions that try to do either, you will be branded as hateful, intolerant, racist, or whatever other slanderous accusation that can be thrown because your messing with guaranteed votes.