Apparently communities and groups of individuals have zero rights according to you. Just the single individual.
So the communities of people who fight for municipal broadband are all wrong. Because it comes between the right for an individual to choose Comcast. (Because that's his only choice.)
I'm libertarian myself and these 3rd grade libertarian fantasies regularly spouted embarass the fuck out of me.
Your are mixing a discussion about 'rights' with market principles, hence your confusion.
If you are open to allowing market principles, communities are free to get together and decide not to buy from dollar stores which in the end results in their shutdown or lack of desire to expand in those communities. If enough individuals still shop there, the market will know. However, using legislation to determine who can sell in a community would not be market driven result.
As to who has 'rights', that is defined constitutionally, and communities do have the 'right' to create such legislation, even if it does not follow market principles.
Should communities have the 'right' to limit shopping choices for individuals in the community, some or many of who may want to shop at dollar stores?
Striking the right balance between both can be a challenge, different people will have different opinions on to where that balance line should be.
Yes, there are deadly levels of radiation inside the containment structures. That; is why people don't go in there. And since nobody needs to go in there, you don't need to worry about it.
There are other deadly areas on the planet, both man-made and natural. Some of those are even related to renewable manufacturing.
Its amazing how many people are still surprised that it is perfectly safe to live in these areas. Its highly dissappointing that many of these are reporters.
Years of FUD still has its power over established science.
The numbers say you're wrong, this saved over half its cost in 1 year. Even at a 5 year payback it still makes both market and grid logistical sense. It comes online way faster than new plants, and it's clean. Jobs.
It's literally a win in every direction pretty much anywhere power is being used, because it helps regulate the peaks and valleys, that's all it needs to do. You're being stupid to oppose such a basic solution. You are.
You are to stupid to read English. I never opposed anything, just describing facts and where that payback presently exists, something you seem to not comprehend.
On top of battery specs, you need to know the frequency and depth of charge/recharge cycles to estimate lifetime. Average discharge rate would help refine it as well.
Simply buying these and operating them could bring a large investment return for whoever first approaches the local utilities for a contract. All over the world.
They only bring these returns in specific places where fast response ancillary support is needed. Anciallary pricing can be hundreds or even thousands times normal pricing, for short periods (which batteries can serve).
There is a limited number of these situations around the glove. They don't even have use for another one in South Australia, this one solved the problem.
Why do old dirty fossils pretend the only solution is more old dirty fossils? And then think nobody notices? Seriously. Gasoline doesn't need cheerleaders, put your tits away. You're done here. Cheesus.
The batteries were charged in part by dirty old fossil fuel generators, to allow them to serve there ancillary support function.
This battery has nothing to do with green. Its a specific ancillary service that batteries are well suited for. Its has basically solved their problem and therefore they don't even need another.
No, 99% are not yet approved (according to that article), but number of rejected is not stated. Timing is everything, and content. Need to look at why.
If you don't have a good case because the technology is not ready, then the technology is not ready.
Drones have issues beyond safety, including privacy and nuisance.
They are inherently less safe than drones, but are allowed nonetheless.
That is irrelevant as well. Cars and drones are very different things, with very different risks and benefits. There are limits on autonomous vehicles, there are limits on drones. Those limits take into account risk vs benefits. Drone operators are free to get special permits to demonstrate safety, just as car opeartors can.
The reason there are FAA regulatory limits is that the technology hasn't proven safe. Prove it safe and, as I said, the regulatory problem will be corrected. The technology unfortunately hasn't proven its case yet, nor have they proven a benefit so great as to push the changes with risk.
Driverless cars are irrelevant to the state of readiness of drones, which present a different set of issues.
Regulatory problems aren't a reason. When the technology is ready and benefit is clear, the "regulatory problems" disappear. They are just an excuse. If all regulatory burden were lifted today we still wouldn't have anything more than niche application of drone delivery.
For those that actually believed we'd have drone delivery by now, just wait a few years. Its coming.
For those that knew better, there is still only a niche benefit atm, and individual copter style deliver is energy intenstive vs. rolling on wheels. Not even to mention other challenges. Plus, who wants drones flying all over the place?
Natural Gas has depressed prices so much, coal can't compete. Intentionally reduced capacity factors, using more gas instead, makes it even harder for coal.
Biomass is renewable in that you can generate more biomass...
If your criteria is wether a source produces co2 or not, then replace biomass with nuclear.
CO2 doesn't seem to matter to/. editors, who never post an article on actual CO2/kwh reductions. They love to count windmills and solar panels, that is what is most important to them.
Yup, next time I see someone homeless in my area, instead of giving them $5. I'll take them to the bus station and buy them a ticket to San Fran.
Although you joke; New York has done just that. They've paid to have homeless people shipped elsewhere. Other than government intrusion though- homeless people don't tend to wander much- they're not going to go to SF unless someone does buy them a bus ticket.
I wonder what they'd do if there were a caravan of homeless from NY headed to SF.
There is nothing complicated about a cable box. Comparable electronics with a tuner and an HDD for DVR storage would likely run in the $35 to $55 range wholesale. Maybe lower.
So if the DA thinks I might have robbed the liquor store but isn't sure, the best approach is to give me 10 years pay and moving expenses if I agree to go live somewhere else?
Maybe you missed the obvious.........The DA is not your employer.
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money. It chose to do that and treat the whole thing as a normal amicable parting. They had the option to do the whole you come in to work and find your desk and a security guard out on the lawn.
But, of course, that treatment is for peons.
I'm sure they had other options as well. The most important thing was to remove the person in a reasonable amount of time (once they established the charge was credible) to prevent recurrence. Any option that did not include paying the contracted obligation would naturally result in a lengthy, costly, and ugly legal battle, possibly even bringing the victim back into the mix. So they cut bait and ran.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently communities and groups of individuals have zero rights according to you. Just the single individual.
So the communities of people who fight for municipal broadband are all wrong. Because it comes between the right for an individual to choose Comcast. (Because that's his only choice.)
I'm libertarian myself and these 3rd grade libertarian fantasies regularly spouted embarass the fuck out of me.
Your are mixing a discussion about 'rights' with market principles, hence your confusion. If you are open to allowing market principles, communities are free to get together and decide not to buy from dollar stores which in the end results in their shutdown or lack of desire to expand in those communities. If enough individuals still shop there, the market will know. However, using legislation to determine who can sell in a community would not be market driven result.
As to who has 'rights', that is defined constitutionally, and communities do have the 'right' to create such legislation, even if it does not follow market principles.
Should communities have the 'right' to limit shopping choices for individuals in the community, some or many of who may want to shop at dollar stores?
Striking the right balance between both can be a challenge, different people will have different opinions on to where that balance line should be.
Yes, there are deadly levels of radiation inside the containment structures. That; is why people don't go in there. And since nobody needs to go in there, you don't need to worry about it. There are other deadly areas on the planet, both man-made and natural. Some of those are even related to renewable manufacturing.
Its amazing how many people are still surprised that it is perfectly safe to live in these areas. Its highly dissappointing that many of these are reporters. Years of FUD still has its power over established science.
When in a hurry, I often find the stairs are faster than the crowded escalator.
Every once is a while, someone who appears to be perfectly healthy just suddenly dies. Film at 11.
Is there some reason we would should be surprised that Google employees are not exempt from this possibility?
The numbers say you're wrong, this saved over half its cost in 1 year. Even at a 5 year payback it still makes both market and grid logistical sense. It comes online way faster than new plants, and it's clean. Jobs.
It's literally a win in every direction pretty much anywhere power is being used, because it helps regulate the peaks and valleys, that's all it needs to do. You're being stupid to oppose such a basic solution. You are.
You are to stupid to read English. I never opposed anything, just describing facts and where that payback presently exists, something you seem to not comprehend.
Yes, ancillary prices are indeed hundred or even thousand times normal, but such pricing lasts a few minutes.
But that is where these batteries are 'saving' money.
Yes, if batteries continue to get cheaper, there will be more financially sound use cases.
On top of battery specs, you need to know the frequency and depth of charge/recharge cycles to estimate lifetime. Average discharge rate would help refine it as well.
Simply buying these and operating them could bring a large investment return for whoever first approaches the local utilities for a contract. All over the world.
They only bring these returns in specific places where fast response ancillary support is needed. Anciallary pricing can be hundreds or even thousands times normal pricing, for short periods (which batteries can serve).
There is a limited number of these situations around the glove. They don't even have use for another one in South Australia, this one solved the problem.
Why do old dirty fossils pretend the only solution is more old dirty fossils? And then think nobody notices? Seriously. Gasoline doesn't need cheerleaders, put your tits away. You're done here. Cheesus.
The batteries were charged in part by dirty old fossil fuel generators, to allow them to serve there ancillary support function.
This battery has nothing to do with green. Its a specific ancillary service that batteries are well suited for. Its has basically solved their problem and therefore they don't even need another.
No, 99% are not yet approved (according to that article), but number of rejected is not stated. Timing is everything, and content. Need to look at why.
If you don't have a good case because the technology is not ready, then the technology is not ready.
Drones have issues beyond safety, including privacy and nuisance.
They are inherently less safe than drones, but are allowed nonetheless.
That is irrelevant as well. Cars and drones are very different things, with very different risks and benefits. There are limits on autonomous vehicles, there are limits on drones. Those limits take into account risk vs benefits. Drone operators are free to get special permits to demonstrate safety, just as car opeartors can.
The reason there are FAA regulatory limits is that the technology hasn't proven safe. Prove it safe and, as I said, the regulatory problem will be corrected. The technology unfortunately hasn't proven its case yet, nor have they proven a benefit so great as to push the changes with risk.
Driverless cars are irrelevant to the state of readiness of drones, which present a different set of issues.
Regulatory problems aren't a reason. When the technology is ready and benefit is clear, the "regulatory problems" disappear. They are just an excuse. If all regulatory burden were lifted today we still wouldn't have anything more than niche application of drone delivery.
For those that actually believed we'd have drone delivery by now, just wait a few years. Its coming.
For those that knew better, there is still only a niche benefit atm, and individual copter style deliver is energy intenstive vs. rolling on wheels. Not even to mention other challenges. Plus, who wants drones flying all over the place?
Natural Gas has depressed prices so much, coal can't compete. Intentionally reduced capacity factors, using more gas instead, makes it even harder for coal.
I have never heard of this device. Someone explain?
Its like a really large tablet you hang on your wall. Multiple people can use it simultaneously.
Biomass is renewable in that you can generate more biomass... If your criteria is wether a source produces co2 or not, then replace biomass with nuclear.
CO2 doesn't seem to matter to /. editors, who never post an article on actual CO2/kwh reductions. They love to count windmills and solar panels, that is what is most important to them.
Yup, next time I see someone homeless in my area, instead of giving them $5. I'll take them to the bus station and buy them a ticket to San Fran.
Although you joke; New York has done just that. They've paid to have homeless people shipped elsewhere. Other than government intrusion though- homeless people don't tend to wander much- they're not going to go to SF unless someone does buy them a bus ticket.
I wonder what they'd do if there were a caravan of homeless from NY headed to SF.
^I should have said manufacture cost, not wholesale.
There is nothing complicated about a cable box. Comparable electronics with a tuner and an HDD for DVR storage would likely run in the $35 to $55 range wholesale. Maybe lower.
I call it a very poor attempt at an analogy.
So if the DA thinks I might have robbed the liquor store but isn't sure, the best approach is to give me 10 years pay and moving expenses if I agree to go live somewhere else?
Maybe you missed the obvious.........The DA is not your employer.
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money. It chose to do that and treat the whole thing as a normal amicable parting. They had the option to do the whole you come in to work and find your desk and a security guard out on the lawn.
But, of course, that treatment is for peons.
I'm sure they had other options as well. The most important thing was to remove the person in a reasonable amount of time (once they established the charge was credible) to prevent recurrence. Any option that did not include paying the contracted obligation would naturally result in a lengthy, costly, and ugly legal battle, possibly even bringing the victim back into the mix. So they cut bait and ran.