That is not retail price, does not include taxes, fees, or any other local markups, and its also for gas, not diesel. There is a diesel price which shows only slightly higher. But it is a spot price and prices are historically low right now.
Eh? If I told you two thirds of Americans were found dead this weekend, would you say, "Yes, but what percentage of Americans are normally dead? Like, on a historical basis."
Well, that's a good question. There are many dead Americans, probably more than living. I would expect that the ratio of Americans who have died vs living ones is greater than 66%. But I'm not sure how that relates to my point.
Well, the article does not tell us what percentage of trees are normally dead, or historical average. They just say a lot are dead and the rate has increased. So what is the difference on a historical basis? Seems like that would be good to relay in the article.
Why do steel workers who build skyscrapers want to keep building high rise skyscrapers?
I bet a lot of steelworkers might ask why do people want to sit behind a computer screen all day typing code, or work in an office all day? Construction may be one of the most rewarding professions, as you can see the fruits of your labor every single day.
No kidding. And how about Zberg stop pretending he can solve the problem, and maybe just stop trying to be a news source to begin with. Once you try to be the one to decide what is accurate or not, you open another set of issues and controversies.
Security isn't needed if you give away too much data to process
There is something to be said for safety in numbers, or in the herd. The more different IOT devices that are out there, the risk of any one getting attacked is lowered, and the likelihood an attack is discovered before it hits your specific device is increased. Of course there is also some increase in risk of attack on a specific device type just because it is popular.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to float out that they are "cheaper than traditional roofs" and let everyone run with that generalization when he really could be intellectually honest and say it is cheaper than "some high end roofs". Two very different things, but there is no benefit to Musk to make that clear, he's drumming the investor beat.
The FTC only has the right to crack down on misleading marketing claims, and if the makers of homeopathic remedies clearly state that their products are based on no science, they can still sell them..
I can see it now; "Anecdotal evidence from scientific studies indicates the potential effectiveness of our remedy"
I think he mixes his references, and when he says 'looks better' he's comparing to a roof with traditional PV panels. Otherwise, 'looks better' is completely in the eye of the beholder.
One other thing to consider, asphalt and metal can both be recycled very cheaply. Not sure about the waste stream cost and viability for these solar shingles.
I think I'll wait for a variety of third party reviews before I get too eager though. Of course Musk is going to cheer his own product, but lets see if experts agree with him and if the price really is lower when it really hits the market.
I wonder if Musk is assuming a 30% tax subsidy for installation, thereby claiming a lower than actual price?
This is clearly a high end product for the wealthy. That's all well and good, and I wish Musk the best. But I wonder if products like this should get subsidized on total installation cost vs traditional solar panels. Certainly the cost will be much greater per KWp than a traditional panel.
As a matter of public policy, should we subsidize the wealthy with more money to install less capacity per subsidy dollar? I think most people that would install these can afford them without subsidy. Musk says they are cheaper, if so then why subsidize at all? I'd rather take every one of those dollars that would go to pay the power bills of the rich and instead install PV panels on a public school where there is the greatest public benefit.
Agreed, I still want to find out how this product works in places like Warren Ohio, Joplin, Missouri, Greensburg Kanasas (Most Damaging Tornadoes I can think of off the top of my head) Where tornadoes while not "common" also aren't "rare" and as such roofs need to be able to sustain pre-tornado weather (including hail) at least a few times a year.
Traditional shingles set a very very low bar.
Its not really the shingles that make roofs robust against high wind, its the overall construction, and in particular the rafters/trusses and sheathing and tie down methods. The shingles are basically the waterproofing element and are easily repaired/replaced.
From TFS:
Tesla's new solar roof product, he proclaimed, will actually cost less to manufacture and install than a traditional roof -- even before savings from the power bill. "Electricity," Musk said, "is just a bonus."
a traditional 'high end' expensive roof product. Not a common roof product like asphalt or metal.
Asphalt wasn't mentioned in the reveal so I doubt they can match price, yet.
He evidently cherry picked the more expensive "high end" options for comparison, and left out the more common and economical ones. Typical of Musk to gloss over the details. But he's got to hype the product to keep the shareholders at bay for the Solar City acquisition.
He may be able to sell to the very wealthy in certain locations and make good margins on this product.
You are basically saying nothing. Tell me, what do you think the increase in risk is being exposed to 1000 times background radiation constantly for, say, a week? I bet you haven't the foggiest notion.
Once again, you make things up. I never refute that ionizing radiation can cause cancer. It can. I was talking about the risks from the levels of exposure we are discussing. You cannot seem to separate risk from absolution.
Did you know that the risk of skin cancer from sunlight is much higher than health risks from radiation exposure for workers at Fukushima who've been there the entire duration of that event? In fact, it is orders of magnitude greater.
I never said the story should not have been reported. Why you claim I did is a better question. It seems people like you have to make things up to make a point. I simply said the only reason it is a big deal to many people is the greatly skewed risk perception of the public and reporters. You've said nothing to indicate your risk perception is any better.
Cancer is only one way to die from radiation exposure
Yes, but please discuss those other ways in the context of this article and discussion. Cancer is by far the most likely health impact from most types of radioactive exposure that are not massively acute. Other risks are much lower, so my point stands.
Even for ingestion or radium though, it is levels that matter. That's the part people miss. Just to say it 'causes cancer' is meaningless without levels. To say it 'makes its way to the bones' sounds scary until you realize how much is actually required to significantly increase your risk of cancer. Sunlight causes cancer as well. The point is that risk perception of the public regarding radioactivity is tremendously skewed. Mostly due to FUD and much due to ignorance.
I did not draw any equivalences, only a comparison which is valid from a risk perspective. I also did not say radioactivity is 'safe', but we all know low levels are safe relative to risks we welcome every day like crossing the street or getting some sun exposure.
I also said nothing about the nuclear industry nor would I suggest the change their practices or lower their standards. They have very conservative standards and that has served them well.
So, your attempt to twist my words and scare with sweeping statements of your own simply don't match reality;
As for the 'bit of uranium in the lunch pail' comment, you demonstrate the ignorance that many possess. Natural uranium is pretty much harmless, even ingested.
Slashdot Mirror
How thick is New Mexico?
That is not retail price, does not include taxes, fees, or any other local markups, and its also for gas, not diesel. There is a diesel price which shows only slightly higher. But it is a spot price and prices are historically low right now.
What's the MEDIAN price for a new car?
Very good question.
Eh? If I told you two thirds of Americans were found dead this weekend, would you say, "Yes, but what percentage of Americans are normally dead? Like, on a historical basis."
Well, that's a good question. There are many dead Americans, probably more than living. I would expect that the ratio of Americans who have died vs living ones is greater than 66%. But I'm not sure how that relates to my point.
Well, the article does not tell us what percentage of trees are normally dead, or historical average. They just say a lot are dead and the rate has increased. So what is the difference on a historical basis? Seems like that would be good to relay in the article.
Why do steel workers who build skyscrapers want to keep building high rise skyscrapers?
I bet a lot of steelworkers might ask why do people want to sit behind a computer screen all day typing code, or work in an office all day? Construction may be one of the most rewarding professions, as you can see the fruits of your labor every single day.
No kidding. And how about Zberg stop pretending he can solve the problem, and maybe just stop trying to be a news source to begin with. Once you try to be the one to decide what is accurate or not, you open another set of issues and controversies.
Security isn't needed if you give away too much data to process
There is something to be said for safety in numbers, or in the herd. The more different IOT devices that are out there, the risk of any one getting attacked is lowered, and the likelihood an attack is discovered before it hits your specific device is increased. Of course there is also some increase in risk of attack on a specific device type just because it is popular.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to float out that they are "cheaper than traditional roofs" and let everyone run with that generalization when he really could be intellectually honest and say it is cheaper than "some high end roofs". Two very different things, but there is no benefit to Musk to make that clear, he's drumming the investor beat.
The FTC only has the right to crack down on misleading marketing claims, and if the makers of homeopathic remedies clearly state that their products are based on no science, they can still sell them..
I can see it now; "Anecdotal evidence from scientific studies indicates the potential effectiveness of our remedy"
Maybe you could further attempt to explain what your point is. I didn't say the solar roof is not high end, nor imply it.
I think he mixes his references, and when he says 'looks better' he's comparing to a roof with traditional PV panels. Otherwise, 'looks better' is completely in the eye of the beholder.
One other thing to consider, asphalt and metal can both be recycled very cheaply. Not sure about the waste stream cost and viability for these solar shingles.
Its limited to 'high end' products. No mention of fireproof, but metal is fireproof anyhow.
If Musk is correct then... Great! Sign me up!
I think I'll wait for a variety of third party reviews before I get too eager though. Of course Musk is going to cheer his own product, but lets see if experts agree with him and if the price really is lower when it really hits the market.
I wonder if Musk is assuming a 30% tax subsidy for installation, thereby claiming a lower than actual price?
This is clearly a high end product for the wealthy. That's all well and good, and I wish Musk the best. But I wonder if products like this should get subsidized on total installation cost vs traditional solar panels. Certainly the cost will be much greater per KWp than a traditional panel.
As a matter of public policy, should we subsidize the wealthy with more money to install less capacity per subsidy dollar? I think most people that would install these can afford them without subsidy. Musk says they are cheaper, if so then why subsidize at all? I'd rather take every one of those dollars that would go to pay the power bills of the rich and instead install PV panels on a public school where there is the greatest public benefit.
Agreed, I still want to find out how this product works in places like Warren Ohio, Joplin, Missouri, Greensburg Kanasas (Most Damaging Tornadoes I can think of off the top of my head) Where tornadoes while not "common" also aren't "rare" and as such roofs need to be able to sustain pre-tornado weather (including hail) at least a few times a year.
Traditional shingles set a very very low bar.
Its not really the shingles that make roofs robust against high wind, its the overall construction, and in particular the rafters/trusses and sheathing and tie down methods. The shingles are basically the waterproofing element and are easily repaired/replaced.
From TFS: Tesla's new solar roof product, he proclaimed, will actually cost less to manufacture and install than a traditional roof -- even before savings from the power bill. "Electricity," Musk said, "is just a bonus."
a traditional 'high end' expensive roof product. Not a common roof product like asphalt or metal.
Asphalt wasn't mentioned in the reveal so I doubt they can match price, yet.
He evidently cherry picked the more expensive "high end" options for comparison, and left out the more common and economical ones. Typical of Musk to gloss over the details. But he's got to hype the product to keep the shareholders at bay for the Solar City acquisition.
He may be able to sell to the very wealthy in certain locations and make good margins on this product.
And why on earth would you assume those sores came from exposure to radiation? Any scientific basis at all for that?
You are basically saying nothing. Tell me, what do you think the increase in risk is being exposed to 1000 times background radiation constantly for, say, a week? I bet you haven't the foggiest notion.
Once again, you make things up. I never refute that ionizing radiation can cause cancer. It can. I was talking about the risks from the levels of exposure we are discussing. You cannot seem to separate risk from absolution.
Did you know that the risk of skin cancer from sunlight is much higher than health risks from radiation exposure for workers at Fukushima who've been there the entire duration of that event? In fact, it is orders of magnitude greater.
I never said the story should not have been reported. Why you claim I did is a better question. It seems people like you have to make things up to make a point. I simply said the only reason it is a big deal to many people is the greatly skewed risk perception of the public and reporters. You've said nothing to indicate your risk perception is any better.
Cancer is only one way to die from radiation exposure
Yes, but please discuss those other ways in the context of this article and discussion. Cancer is by far the most likely health impact from most types of radioactive exposure that are not massively acute. Other risks are much lower, so my point stands.
Even for ingestion or radium though, it is levels that matter. That's the part people miss. Just to say it 'causes cancer' is meaningless without levels. To say it 'makes its way to the bones' sounds scary until you realize how much is actually required to significantly increase your risk of cancer. Sunlight causes cancer as well. The point is that risk perception of the public regarding radioactivity is tremendously skewed. Mostly due to FUD and much due to ignorance.
I did not draw any equivalences, only a comparison which is valid from a risk perspective. I also did not say radioactivity is 'safe', but we all know low levels are safe relative to risks we welcome every day like crossing the street or getting some sun exposure.
I also said nothing about the nuclear industry nor would I suggest the change their practices or lower their standards. They have very conservative standards and that has served them well.
So, your attempt to twist my words and scare with sweeping statements of your own simply don't match reality;
As for the 'bit of uranium in the lunch pail' comment, you demonstrate the ignorance that many possess. Natural uranium is pretty much harmless, even ingested.