A company tries to get their product to be more popular. Sounds like a good strategy..
Or in other words, of course they are trying to be king of internet search. And its not a 'covert' attempt, nor is Cortana a 'Trojan Horse" as called in the article. Its clearly Microsoft. In fact, I think this is an intentionally "in your face" strategy, not covert.
But some writers like the idea of secretive strategies, enough to invent them.
This might be more useful in reverse. Set it for 10 feet and really loud. If someone steals your phone, an alarm goes off when they get a certain distance away.
Two renewable energy resources, both focal points to today's green energy planning, both subsidized in similar manners. Neither can stand on its own due to intermittent.
Nope, I can't think of one single reason they can be compared against each other.
I guess you are wondering why it is done all the time.
I've noticed exactly where both technologies stand after the last decade of significant investment, and I've noticed that realistic projections show their development trend continuing relative to each other.
And sorry, but your analogy is a complete fail on every level. Did you just pick two unrelated things at random?
People like to play around with rates of capacity installation but that is just a PR game. What really matters is results and kilowatt-hours generated. Wind generates a much greater amount of power each year than solar, despite similar investments over the last decade. Its not even close.
I think 4 percent is significant, and while I agree its not a central factor, it is a move away from an already sub optimal return on investment compared to commercial.
As for energy to construct the mount, there is good data out there on EROI, energy return on investment. As a whole, solar does not fair very well. It is one key reason I prefer a heaver portfolio of wind over solar in a diverse energy supply scheme.
If you can't deal with a commonly used term such as "common sense", then you probably should avoid any discussion of actions that require general social awareness or experienced based delusional wisdom, as they can often fall into your "unverifiable" category, leaving you with an easy basis to simply dismiss a point.
If you are not able to even think of one reason why it may not be wise to mix a personal email account with a federal business one, then I question your ability to apply logical and analytical skills as you claim.
Destroy big chunks of desert? I see the hyperbole has kicked in.
I have no problem with folks installing residential panels. It makes sense for some. Go for it, we're all proud of you. But if tax money is going to subsidize it, is it too much to ask for getting the most for our money? Isn't the goal to maximizing clean air/carbon free generation?
Also, consider that residential panels are often not installed at the most optimal orientation as it is common to align with a roof plane, whereas commercial installations typically are installed at the optimal orientation, so you get more production per panel as well....minimizing panel area.
You are certainly missing the point completely. I care nothing about the server, nor its security. I am talking about using a private email account for government business. It is common sense to keep them separate, it is irresponsible practice to mix them particularly when you are doing high level government business. That entire account should now be accessible by the appropriate government authorities, and subject to Freedom on Info.
If you don't get the common sense part, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this discussion.
As is typical, this submission ignores the actual energy that can be produced from these new installations in a year and focuses on the much less meaningul "installed capacity". As we all know, 1 KW of installed gas generation can generate a lot more (3 to 8 times) electricity that 1 KW of solar in a year. Also, the total added generation really is small compared to national energy usage, so the scales have not tilted that much overall.
Why subsidize residential PV?
But what is very interesting in the source article is that residential solar installations cost more the twice as much as commercial ones. Given that fact, why in the heck would we subsidize residential solar? If the goal is to build as much as possible, and generate as much solar as possible, we should eliminate residential subsidies and build much more cost effective commerical ones. That way we get more clean energy, and everyone benefits, not just the wealthy to middle class demographic that typically installs residential solar.
Too much focus on the server. Using a home server or a contract server makes no difference from a legal/ethical standpoint. You don't conduct federal business on a private email account. That seems to clearly have been violated If you do, then that private account should be subject to access from the appropriate authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't do something unless you have plans to use it. I call bullshit.
No necessarily true. If you are investing in hardware for a fleet, some future proofing can make sense even if you don't have a specific use in mind.
A company tries to get their product to be more popular. Sounds like a good strategy. .
Or in other words, of course they are trying to be king of internet search. And its not a 'covert' attempt, nor is Cortana a 'Trojan Horse" as called in the article. Its clearly Microsoft. In fact, I think this is an intentionally "in your face" strategy, not covert.
But some writers like the idea of secretive strategies, enough to invent them.
This might be more useful in reverse. Set it for 10 feet and really loud. If someone steals your phone, an alarm goes off when they get a certain distance away.
Two renewable energy resources, both focal points to today's green energy planning, both subsidized in similar manners. Neither can stand on its own due to intermittent.
Nope, I can't think of one single reason they can be compared against each other.
I guess you are wondering why it is done all the time.
So, you think it is ironic that radios and cars are in no way analogous to wind and solar....OK, whatever tickles you. I guess I did miss that one.
Compared to what other source? If you have one with historically better projections please share.
I've noticed exactly where both technologies stand after the last decade of significant investment, and I've noticed that realistic projections show their development trend continuing relative to each other.
And sorry, but your analogy is a complete fail on every level. Did you just pick two unrelated things at random?
Let's hope it's devastating.
Hmmm. Think that through. Destruction of the pharmaceutical industry......what could possibly be bad about that?
Don't carve it up regionally, and please don't pick a single day, that is worthless.
Look at total generation MWh nationally over a year's time.
The latest EIA 2014 projections for growth. Hardly exponential, and they've been pretty close to reality in those projections.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/a...
People like to play around with rates of capacity installation but that is just a PR game. What really matters is results and kilowatt-hours generated. Wind generates a much greater amount of power each year than solar, despite similar investments over the last decade. Its not even close.
Wind is kicking solar's ass. And there is good reason.
Professor Geoffrey Alpert = Captain Obvious
I think 4 percent is significant, and while I agree its not a central factor, it is a move away from an already sub optimal return on investment compared to commercial.
As for energy to construct the mount, there is good data out there on EROI, energy return on investment. As a whole, solar does not fair very well. It is one key reason I prefer a heaver portfolio of wind over solar in a diverse energy supply scheme.
If you can't deal with a commonly used term such as "common sense", then you probably should avoid any discussion of actions that require general social awareness or experienced based delusional wisdom, as they can often fall into your "unverifiable" category, leaving you with an easy basis to simply dismiss a point.
If you are not able to even think of one reason why it may not be wise to mix a personal email account with a federal business one, then I question your ability to apply logical and analytical skills as you claim.
Have a nice evening.
I think what you have is the ability to rationalize what you like.
To know what I mean by "common sense" takes common sense.
Destroy big chunks of desert? I see the hyperbole has kicked in.
I have no problem with folks installing residential panels. It makes sense for some. Go for it, we're all proud of you. But if tax money is going to subsidize it, is it too much to ask for getting the most for our money? Isn't the goal to maximizing clean air/carbon free generation?
Also, consider that residential panels are often not installed at the most optimal orientation as it is common to align with a roof plane, whereas commercial installations typically are installed at the optimal orientation, so you get more production per panel as well....minimizing panel area.
You are certainly missing the point completely. I care nothing about the server, nor its security. I am talking about using a private email account for government business. It is common sense to keep them separate, it is irresponsible practice to mix them particularly when you are doing high level government business. That entire account should now be accessible by the appropriate government authorities, and subject to Freedom on Info.
If you don't get the common sense part, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this discussion.
As is typical, this submission ignores the actual energy that can be produced from these new installations in a year and focuses on the much less meaningul "installed capacity". As we all know, 1 KW of installed gas generation can generate a lot more (3 to 8 times) electricity that 1 KW of solar in a year. Also, the total added generation really is small compared to national energy usage, so the scales have not tilted that much overall.
Why subsidize residential PV?
But what is very interesting in the source article is that residential solar installations cost more the twice as much as commercial ones. Given that fact, why in the heck would we subsidize residential solar? If the goal is to build as much as possible, and generate as much solar as possible, we should eliminate residential subsidies and build much more cost effective commerical ones. That way we get more clean energy, and everyone benefits, not just the wealthy to middle class demographic that typically installs residential solar.
Like I said to start with, it really has nothing to do with the server. Its all about common sense.
It takes an IT expert to understand the difference between personal and federal business email? Methinks you are looking too hard for excuses.
Ok, lets think about all that and ignore common sense. Why should we expect that from a presidential candidate?
I work for a private company and would never dream of doing business with my private email.
And in that case the private email account is subject to turnover.
Too much focus on the server. Using a home server or a contract server makes no difference from a legal/ethical standpoint. You don't conduct federal business on a private email account. That seems to clearly have been violated If you do, then that private account should be subject to access from the appropriate authorities.