In solar panels, only a narrow portion of the spectrum of solar radiated energy is converted to electricity. After that, some gets reflected, some heats up the surface. With the huge lens the surface will certainly heat up a lot more than just a solar panel. Touch a panel that's sitting in direct sunlight, its hot just like any dark surface.
No, its the fresnel lens carport focusing sunlight on the car that makes the difference we are talking about..............maybe if you'd RTFA before you spout off calling others stupid, you wouldn't come off as such an idiot yourself.
It won't let much light through, but solar panels are dark and they get hot. They'll need some really good insulation under that panel to keep the interior from heating up when its under the lens. Better have a good & efficient AC unit in there.
Not quite 10 times, if it is 10 times the amount of light that would normally hit a horizontal panel, mirrors that track the sun through different angles will provide a longer exposure time as well as increase area. Maybe you could do it with 5-7 times the area. However, the article shows the car 'moving' during the day to stay in the focal point. If this is true, then it would only work on driveways that are oriented in the right direction, and the effectiveness would be greatly diminished at certain times of the year. So you might get a full charge on long summer day, but don't expect it in winter.
OK, I missed that...should have gone back and checked what you actually wrote. But even those rural areas you are referring to... do you know of any specific books that are not available? My point is the same regardless.
I grew up in the countryside, both parents worked minimum wage for quite some time, my Dad worked two jobs. They could not transport me but I could find ways to get places if I needed to. Kids are resourceful. A few books difference in the school library would have had zero effect on me, or any other kid I can think of, and there were a lot of underprivileged kids. I really don't agree with your fundamental argument that select censorship of a few books is a real problem for these kids. I don't agree with censorship of most of these books, but that is a different point. Almost everyone will agree there is some published content that has no business in schools, so it really comes down to specific books, specific content, in specific schools.
I am glad you care about these kids, I do as well. We can agree that they need any help we can give them. I do what I can, I probably should do more. I just hate to lose the war because folks want to make a battle about everything. That's how I feel, don't expect you to agree.
Lets get to the details then. I agree we are not having a fruitful discussion with generalization.
How many of cases have we seen of a book being censored and removed from an inner city school (the example you put forth) where you would generally agree that it deprives kids in that school? Seems that most of the censorship requests happen in rural America or those areas that see a growing progressive shift and a pushback from conservative Christians. Is it really a problem in those schools? Do we have any evidence? I don't know, but if its those details that really concern you, then maybe check it out. I would back you on the argument to keep any book in these schools that would provide educational nourishment to these kids. But my fear is that most of these books aren't even there to start with, and there would be a greater benefit to increasing the number of books in general.
I am not defending banning books in general, but unless you agree that blatant pornography is acceptable content in public school libraries, or any other content, then you have to agree that censorship is acceptable. Then we must consider each request to censor content on its own. To generalize it as a Christian only thing doesn't really help at all. I realize a lot of the requests are Christian based, but that is the dominant religion in our country so it is to be expected.
Many folks would argue that books about guns should not be in schools. Its not always a religious thing. I doubt I would agree to censor most of these books, but I will respect the voice of others and try to keep the line drawn in a reasonable place.
But if you will notice, there was no attack of anyone denying book censorship in any of my posts. Go ahead and be a victim anyhow, if that's what makes you feel better.
You are pointing to an irony, but then mixing it with an assertion. If your assertion is that Christians have no business attempting to censor what you consider relatively 'benign' books because wars and persecution were fought on the basis of Christian beliefs, then I'd say that no group that fought wars or persecuted based on any belief has any right to censor anything even if they don't want their kids exposed to it, including those that fought for democracy. If you think a modern day Christians and their beliefs should be marginalized based on the fact that wars were fought with Christianity, as well as other religions, as an excuse, then so be it. I see Christians do some very good things all the time, and raise some very good, smart, productive, and socially valuable kids. Those are things that should be respected, IMO.
FWIW - I personally don't think we should be censoring most of these books, but these articles tend to seek out and make a big deal about the most questionable calls. We'd all disagree on where to draw the line. Blatant pornography most would agree should be censored. Everything between that and Curious George is up for debate in our society by one group or another.
I am glad you feel that your 'rightness' is so 'obvious'. Seems like a trait you might share with Christian Evangelicals in their efforts to censor some books.
Yeah, I expected the "kids don't even have access to public libraries" response. It proves my point, there are way bigger problems these particular kids face.
I think that is part of it. I also think there is a social evolutionary element, where the "group" benefits from cohesive beliefs.
Fast forward to what we have today, and religion has a complex interweaving with our social structure. To assign just 'good' or 'bad' judgements to religious elements becomes fruitless and short sighted. The real question becomes....what are our present needs for religion, considering our global social structures and all the diversities within, and what will our future needs be? Many interesting things to ponder from an anthropological perspective.
Since none of these books is banned from the public library, I'd say its a bit of a needless side-track to the discussion. Kids that are brought up in challenged environments have a wide number of factors that will limit their ability to succeed in life. Ready access to a few particular books in the school library is very low on the list of things to worry about for those kids.
So, in your opinion, everything bad a person does is based on religion, and everything good is human nature? I think there is plenty of "evil" in human nature as well as "good". I am athiest, so I could care less if we are talking Christians or Buddhists, or assigning blame to one religion or another, but to choose to only assign the negative to religious influence seems to be more a matter of convenience to your own arguments.
Religions have cropped up in almost all societies. There is a reason for that, and its not "evil". It is because there was a need. Its an interesting exercise to think about that societal need. Much more interesting than just blindly casting fault on religions for many of our problems.
If you think I grew up in "privilege" then you could not be more wrong. Your assumption tells me more about you than any point you tried to make. Maybe there are some cases where a kid can't get the books he or she desires, but that does not impact the argument made.
There is a difference. Its a shame the words are interchanged just to outrage the reader.
Lots of books should be censored from our public schools for a variety of inappropriate content. More books are being published every year, so that list should grow. Kids can get any of those books via their parents if they want. As for the particular books on the list, well, each case must be discussed separately.
So, you also completely missed the point of the discussion,.....let me recap it FOR YOU. One poster stated in so many words that only idiots would still use incandescent bulbs. I clearly stated some very sensible use cases to show that they do indeed make sense. The case that they are only marginally better than some other bulbs is irrelevant to that point, and you have said nothing that makes my point any less valid.
I read TFA. There was not one advancement I would consider to be "remarkable". I would argue that some were really developed before 2013 as well. Of course, throw something about Snowden or the NSA in there, you'll get a few folks to read it. The NSA headlines also overshadowed everything else not worth reporting on.
Slashdot Mirror
In solar panels, only a narrow portion of the spectrum of solar radiated energy is converted to electricity. After that, some gets reflected, some heats up the surface. With the huge lens the surface will certainly heat up a lot more than just a solar panel. Touch a panel that's sitting in direct sunlight, its hot just like any dark surface.
No, its the fresnel lens carport focusing sunlight on the car that makes the difference we are talking about..............maybe if you'd RTFA before you spout off calling others stupid, you wouldn't come off as such an idiot yourself.
It won't let much light through, but solar panels are dark and they get hot. They'll need some really good insulation under that panel to keep the interior from heating up when its under the lens. Better have a good & efficient AC unit in there.
Not quite 10 times, if it is 10 times the amount of light that would normally hit a horizontal panel, mirrors that track the sun through different angles will provide a longer exposure time as well as increase area. Maybe you could do it with 5-7 times the area. However, the article shows the car 'moving' during the day to stay in the focal point. If this is true, then it would only work on driveways that are oriented in the right direction, and the effectiveness would be greatly diminished at certain times of the year. So you might get a full charge on long summer day, but don't expect it in winter.
OK, I missed that...should have gone back and checked what you actually wrote. But even those rural areas you are referring to... do you know of any specific books that are not available? My point is the same regardless.
I grew up in the countryside, both parents worked minimum wage for quite some time, my Dad worked two jobs. They could not transport me but I could find ways to get places if I needed to. Kids are resourceful. A few books difference in the school library would have had zero effect on me, or any other kid I can think of, and there were a lot of underprivileged kids. I really don't agree with your fundamental argument that select censorship of a few books is a real problem for these kids. I don't agree with censorship of most of these books, but that is a different point. Almost everyone will agree there is some published content that has no business in schools, so it really comes down to specific books, specific content, in specific schools.
I am glad you care about these kids, I do as well. We can agree that they need any help we can give them. I do what I can, I probably should do more. I just hate to lose the war because folks want to make a battle about everything. That's how I feel, don't expect you to agree.
Happy New Year to you!
Lets get to the details then. I agree we are not having a fruitful discussion with generalization.
How many of cases have we seen of a book being censored and removed from an inner city school (the example you put forth) where you would generally agree that it deprives kids in that school? Seems that most of the censorship requests happen in rural America or those areas that see a growing progressive shift and a pushback from conservative Christians. Is it really a problem in those schools? Do we have any evidence? I don't know, but if its those details that really concern you, then maybe check it out. I would back you on the argument to keep any book in these schools that would provide educational nourishment to these kids. But my fear is that most of these books aren't even there to start with, and there would be a greater benefit to increasing the number of books in general.
I am not defending banning books in general, but unless you agree that blatant pornography is acceptable content in public school libraries, or any other content, then you have to agree that censorship is acceptable. Then we must consider each request to censor content on its own. To generalize it as a Christian only thing doesn't really help at all. I realize a lot of the requests are Christian based, but that is the dominant religion in our country so it is to be expected.
Many folks would argue that books about guns should not be in schools. Its not always a religious thing. I doubt I would agree to censor most of these books, but I will respect the voice of others and try to keep the line drawn in a reasonable place.
OK, that is a wonderful point. Very useful. Thanks
But if you will notice, there was no attack of anyone denying book censorship in any of my posts. Go ahead and be a victim anyhow, if that's what makes you feel better.
You are pointing to an irony, but then mixing it with an assertion. If your assertion is that Christians have no business attempting to censor what you consider relatively 'benign' books because wars and persecution were fought on the basis of Christian beliefs, then I'd say that no group that fought wars or persecuted based on any belief has any right to censor anything even if they don't want their kids exposed to it, including those that fought for democracy. If you think a modern day Christians and their beliefs should be marginalized based on the fact that wars were fought with Christianity, as well as other religions, as an excuse, then so be it. I see Christians do some very good things all the time, and raise some very good, smart, productive, and socially valuable kids. Those are things that should be respected, IMO.
FWIW - I personally don't think we should be censoring most of these books, but these articles tend to seek out and make a big deal about the most questionable calls. We'd all disagree on where to draw the line. Blatant pornography most would agree should be censored. Everything between that and Curious George is up for debate in our society by one group or another.
I am glad you feel that your 'rightness' is so 'obvious'. Seems like a trait you might share with Christian Evangelicals in their efforts to censor some books.
Yeah, I expected the "kids don't even have access to public libraries" response. It proves my point, there are way bigger problems these particular kids face.
I wasn't so much arguing against your point, just the underlying basis you stated when making it. Your point, right or wrong, was not well made.
I think that is part of it. I also think there is a social evolutionary element, where the "group" benefits from cohesive beliefs.
.what are our present needs for religion, considering our global social structures and all the diversities within, and what will our future needs be? Many interesting things to ponder from an anthropological perspective.
Fast forward to what we have today, and religion has a complex interweaving with our social structure. To assign just 'good' or 'bad' judgements to religious elements becomes fruitless and short sighted. The real question becomes...
Since none of these books is banned from the public library, I'd say its a bit of a needless side-track to the discussion. Kids that are brought up in challenged environments have a wide number of factors that will limit their ability to succeed in life. Ready access to a few particular books in the school library is very low on the list of things to worry about for those kids.
So, in your opinion, everything bad a person does is based on religion, and everything good is human nature? I think there is plenty of "evil" in human nature as well as "good". I am athiest, so I could care less if we are talking Christians or Buddhists, or assigning blame to one religion or another, but to choose to only assign the negative to religious influence seems to be more a matter of convenience to your own arguments.
Religions have cropped up in almost all societies. There is a reason for that, and its not "evil". It is because there was a need. Its an interesting exercise to think about that societal need. Much more interesting than just blindly casting fault on religions for many of our problems.
Or were the books just the excuse?
If you think I grew up in "privilege" then you could not be more wrong. Your assumption tells me more about you than any point you tried to make. Maybe there are some cases where a kid can't get the books he or she desires, but that does not impact the argument made.
I generally agree, just providing balance.
It would be a different story if they banned gun books.
And more good, kind deeds have been spurred by this book than any other document in human history.
(Just helping to present the full picture.)
There is a difference. Its a shame the words are interchanged just to outrage the reader.
Lots of books should be censored from our public schools for a variety of inappropriate content. More books are being published every year, so that list should grow. Kids can get any of those books via their parents if they want. As for the particular books on the list, well, each case must be discussed separately.
In America, we don't want our homeless working. We want them dependent and we want them voting. Jobs...for homeless....HOW HORRID!
So, you also completely missed the point of the discussion,.....let me recap it FOR YOU. One poster stated in so many words that only idiots would still use incandescent bulbs. I clearly stated some very sensible use cases to show that they do indeed make sense. The case that they are only marginally better than some other bulbs is irrelevant to that point, and you have said nothing that makes my point any less valid.
I read TFA. There was not one advancement I would consider to be "remarkable". I would argue that some were really developed before 2013 as well. Of course, throw something about Snowden or the NSA in there, you'll get a few folks to read it. The NSA headlines also overshadowed everything else not worth reporting on.