Well, it's more for prospective installs where someone says "I can't do solar because my roof is shit, and I can't put panels over a shitty roof."
Now, when you're replacing the shitty roof, you put these on instead. That's the idea here.
Thats a shitty idea. Why not just replace your shitty roof with one of the many very low cost options available, and put cheaper, standardized, more easily replaceable solar panel array on just the parts with good exposure?
Sure, it's very smart from the perspective of business and profits -- so far, it's catering to the majority of customers. The question is -- just how much is it worth to people to watch "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black" or whatever? How much will people put up with in dropping of other content and still pay prices for just a few shows?
It depends on how many of those series are available and how good they are. You say 'just a few shows' but that is hardly what NF describes as its plan. The nice thing about original content is that the license does not expire, the more you make the more you accumulate. So at some point the scales tilt back to content increasing.
Anyhow, what Netflix was is history. The entire world around them has changed. The competition, the market, and the supply chain. They could not survive on their original model. They can't afford to keep paying license fees for content that few people are watching.
This won't even be reported by most mainstream news, unless of course it gets so much attention they simply can't avoid it . Those that do will minimize it or repeat whatever response lines the Clinton campaign puts forth.
That is a valid point, but consider that religion can be a strong communal factor, and so making a community stronger by virtue of religious ties or beliefs is a societal benefit. I don't argue if it was needed or not, or there could be other means. that's irrelevant to my point. I never said it was the only way, not sure why you keep going there.
Your contention that because there are different practices described as religions, different strains or offshoots of religions or practices similar to religions that are described as such, and that they impact people differently does not relate to a general contention that religion may have benefited societies. Its like saying because there are different tools with different uses that tools in general don't benefit society. I'm not sure how I could address it in any other context.
I'm not tap dancing around your point. I pretty much am dismissing it.
As far as the extent of profoundness of my statement, well I really don't care much about that either. Does a statement need to be profound to make a point? It may be quite simple and basic a point, not profound at all, yet still completely missed by some.
I certainly didn't, and wouldn't argue that religions solely were beneficial and had no socially negative impacts. But that does not mean overall societies have not benefited from the emergence of religion during their development.
There are examples of technology hurting society, but that does not mean technology has not benefited society overall.
It is not required that we believe in false gods before we discover penicillin, etc, even if that's how it actually happened.
I would never try to make the claim that it was a required path, so you kind of went there on your own. If you want to use that as a personal way to discount the potential link between religion and science, so be it. Your points come across as arguments to discount any potential social benefits of religion. Maybe we could have arrived where we are today via a different path, that does not mean religion did not play a role in moving things along, or was not part of a very human natural progression. Hypothesizing an imaginary atheistic folk mythology, as you suggest, seems not far from hypothesizing imaginary gods.
Diseases are not something societies elected to bring forth, so that's a really bad example.
As for art or music, I never said anything about music not existing were it not for religion. I don't know how you read that. I simply remarked that there is great religions music. One can appreciate great music that was religiously inspired, if you choose not to appreciate it for whatever reason, that is your choice.
Regarding 'based on false information'. I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything I said.
Art is great when it is inspired. Religion serves as great inspiration for some. I never tried to say other great music or art doesn't exist. I think its obvious that it does. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate what was inspired by religion. Of course, if you don't want to you don't have to.
Nope, because there a a large swath or religions, and even 'ways of living' that would be called religions, and within each of those there are many degrees of participation, strength of belief, and personal fulfillment. To point to a few as some to make some kind of point is, IMHO, pointless. That there are great differences doesn't negate my original point at all. Your interpretation of what those difference means are your own.
Oh, and I would add that religion could be considered the mother of science, as a common element of religions is an attempt to explain the world around us. It served as a means to bring people together to try and understand and interpret the world.
People like to attribute human behaviors, both good and bad, to religion when it is convenient. I'm not religious, but I don't understand the religiphobes (or would that be theophobes?). It is too simpleminded a thing to blame what people do on their religion alone when we see that same bad behaviors by non-religious. People do use religion as an excuse, but that's not the only excuse out there for bad behavior.
From a scientific perspective, I think the emergence or religion in societies is quite a fascinating topic. Virtually all societies have independently birthed religions. That doesn't happen by chance, or by virtue of a scheme. That happens because there is a real social benefit. Of course, that does not mean there are no negatives.
On a lighter note, religion has provide us with some really awesome music, and a great excuse for extra holidays.
What is scary is if Musk has already decided they will resume so quickly even if they have not determined the cause. With his own admission that they are struggling, I find it hard to believe they can conclude a proper root cause analysis so soon. I have performed much simpler root cause analysis on failures that we had pretty good idea what the cause was, and just to go through the process of properly validating and making sure nothing was missed took a good month. What Space-X is facing is much more difficult.
If they were to resume quickly without knowing the cause, another failure could be devastating to the company. I think he is just being his usual overly optimistic self on the timeline, and trying to tell investors what they want to hear.
The Tesla may look nicer, but the Bolt's body style looks a lot more functional and space efficient.
As far as Tesla quality, we really don't know what they will deliver when mass producing a much cheaper vehicle. And from what I've read on some financial reviews, there is a good chance that the Tesla will cost more than initially suggested.
I suppose a flywheel could also be used to store up energy from a small ICE engine, that would provide an acceleration boost but not help much with range.
Flywheels don't serve the right purpose for a common car. They act more like regenerative brakes that store a small amount of energy that is re-used in a short amount of time. So if you are accelerating and decelerating rapidly, you might be able to conserve fuel and get an acceleration boost which might make sense in certain race situations. But for a normal consumer vehicle, you want more power stored to be used over a longer period of time, and to retain its energy even while the vehicle is not in use for long periods of time. Batteries make more sense for that purpose.
Hydro is claimed in renewable counts when making claims about performance. But when making claims about progress, its almost always credited to wind and solar expansion. Here we have very high perentage of electricity considered renewable, but almost none of that is wind or solar. So some will downplay the headline for that reason.
In reality, hydro is great for those countries that have the option, but its not a production growth capable technology as it gets harder and harder to get approvals to sequester the land and alter the water flow.
Its not even a plan to eliminate cable boxes. It is a plan to have an alternative and foster competition. Calling it a plan to eliminate them actually helps the cable companies make their case against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's more for prospective installs where someone says "I can't do solar because my roof is shit, and I can't put panels over a shitty roof."
Now, when you're replacing the shitty roof, you put these on instead. That's the idea here.
Thats a shitty idea. Why not just replace your shitty roof with one of the many very low cost options available, and put cheaper, standardized, more easily replaceable solar panel array on just the parts with good exposure?
That seems far better than trying to store electricity in huge batteries.
It may not seem that way if you do the cost comparison.
Sure, it's very smart from the perspective of business and profits -- so far, it's catering to the majority of customers. The question is -- just how much is it worth to people to watch "House of Cards" and "Orange is the New Black" or whatever? How much will people put up with in dropping of other content and still pay prices for just a few shows?
It depends on how many of those series are available and how good they are. You say 'just a few shows' but that is hardly what NF describes as its plan. The nice thing about original content is that the license does not expire, the more you make the more you accumulate. So at some point the scales tilt back to content increasing.
Anyhow, what Netflix was is history. The entire world around them has changed. The competition, the market, and the supply chain. They could not survive on their original model. They can't afford to keep paying license fees for content that few people are watching.
This is finished.
This won't even be reported by most mainstream news, unless of course it gets so much attention they simply can't avoid it . Those that do will minimize it or repeat whatever response lines the Clinton campaign puts forth.
That is a valid point, but consider that religion can be a strong communal factor, and so making a community stronger by virtue of religious ties or beliefs is a societal benefit. I don't argue if it was needed or not, or there could be other means. that's irrelevant to my point. I never said it was the only way, not sure why you keep going there.
Your contention that because there are different practices described as religions, different strains or offshoots of religions or practices similar to religions that are described as such, and that they impact people differently does not relate to a general contention that religion may have benefited societies. Its like saying because there are different tools with different uses that tools in general don't benefit society. I'm not sure how I could address it in any other context.
I'm not tap dancing around your point. I pretty much am dismissing it.
As far as the extent of profoundness of my statement, well I really don't care much about that either. Does a statement need to be profound to make a point? It may be quite simple and basic a point, not profound at all, yet still completely missed by some.
I certainly didn't, and wouldn't argue that religions solely were beneficial and had no socially negative impacts. But that does not mean overall societies have not benefited from the emergence of religion during their development.
There are examples of technology hurting society, but that does not mean technology has not benefited society overall.
It is not required that we believe in false gods before we discover penicillin, etc, even if that's how it actually happened.
I would never try to make the claim that it was a required path, so you kind of went there on your own. If you want to use that as a personal way to discount the potential link between religion and science, so be it. Your points come across as arguments to discount any potential social benefits of religion. Maybe we could have arrived where we are today via a different path, that does not mean religion did not play a role in moving things along, or was not part of a very human natural progression. Hypothesizing an imaginary atheistic folk mythology, as you suggest, seems not far from hypothesizing imaginary gods.
Diseases are not something societies elected to bring forth, so that's a really bad example.
As for art or music, I never said anything about music not existing were it not for religion. I don't know how you read that. I simply remarked that there is great religions music. One can appreciate great music that was religiously inspired, if you choose not to appreciate it for whatever reason, that is your choice.
Regarding 'based on false information'. I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything I said.
Art is great when it is inspired. Religion serves as great inspiration for some. I never tried to say other great music or art doesn't exist. I think its obvious that it does. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate what was inspired by religion. Of course, if you don't want to you don't have to.
Care to explain how you look at it?
Nope, because there a a large swath or religions, and even 'ways of living' that would be called religions, and within each of those there are many degrees of participation, strength of belief, and personal fulfillment. To point to a few as some to make some kind of point is, IMHO, pointless. That there are great differences doesn't negate my original point at all. Your interpretation of what those difference means are your own.
The affect Christianity has on your average American has very little in common with the affect Buddhism or Shinto has on your average Japanese person.
That all depends on how you look at it, and who you look at.
Great, thoughtful reply. Thanks.
Oh, and I would add that religion could be considered the mother of science, as a common element of religions is an attempt to explain the world around us. It served as a means to bring people together to try and understand and interpret the world.
People like to attribute human behaviors, both good and bad, to religion when it is convenient. I'm not religious, but I don't understand the religiphobes (or would that be theophobes?). It is too simpleminded a thing to blame what people do on their religion alone when we see that same bad behaviors by non-religious. People do use religion as an excuse, but that's not the only excuse out there for bad behavior.
From a scientific perspective, I think the emergence or religion in societies is quite a fascinating topic. Virtually all societies have independently birthed religions. That doesn't happen by chance, or by virtue of a scheme. That happens because there is a real social benefit. Of course, that does not mean there are no negatives.
On a lighter note, religion has provide us with some really awesome music, and a great excuse for extra holidays.
What is scary is if Musk has already decided they will resume so quickly even if they have not determined the cause. With his own admission that they are struggling, I find it hard to believe they can conclude a proper root cause analysis so soon. I have performed much simpler root cause analysis on failures that we had pretty good idea what the cause was, and just to go through the process of properly validating and making sure nothing was missed took a good month. What Space-X is facing is much more difficult.
If they were to resume quickly without knowing the cause, another failure could be devastating to the company. I think he is just being his usual overly optimistic self on the timeline, and trying to tell investors what they want to hear.
The Tesla may look nicer, but the Bolt's body style looks a lot more functional and space efficient.
As far as Tesla quality, we really don't know what they will deliver when mass producing a much cheaper vehicle. And from what I've read on some financial reviews, there is a good chance that the Tesla will cost more than initially suggested.
Lends new meaning to 'click-bait'.
I suppose a flywheel could also be used to store up energy from a small ICE engine, that would provide an acceleration boost but not help much with range.
Flywheels don't serve the right purpose for a common car. They act more like regenerative brakes that store a small amount of energy that is re-used in a short amount of time. So if you are accelerating and decelerating rapidly, you might be able to conserve fuel and get an acceleration boost which might make sense in certain race situations. But for a normal consumer vehicle, you want more power stored to be used over a longer period of time, and to retain its energy even while the vehicle is not in use for long periods of time. Batteries make more sense for that purpose.
Don't forget to remove it with a bit of acetone before reselling the unit..
Dry Erase markers work pretty good as well, and you can just wipe it off at any time.
I just use a black marker to darken the surface. You can essentially black them out or leave a little light passing through.
Hydro is claimed in renewable counts when making claims about performance. But when making claims about progress, its almost always credited to wind and solar expansion. Here we have very high perentage of electricity considered renewable, but almost none of that is wind or solar. So some will downplay the headline for that reason.
In reality, hydro is great for those countries that have the option, but its not a production growth capable technology as it gets harder and harder to get approvals to sequester the land and alter the water flow.
Its not even a plan to eliminate cable boxes. It is a plan to have an alternative and foster competition. Calling it a plan to eliminate them actually helps the cable companies make their case against it.