Recognizing sounds and phrases isn't new. Executing a control action based on that input is not new. Noise cancellation is not new. If it were me I'd laugh loudly when rejecting this patent.
Now, if you could just allow that phrase only to pass through in real time, or even with some delay, that would be quite a technology to patent.
Synergies don't require acquisitions to work. In fact, one could argue that Tesla has restricted their supplier options by this move. What does Solar City really bring to the table that they could just get as needed?
If you think it is all about synergies and not about shareholder value you are fooling yourself. Solar City has been struggling due to tight margins in that competitive industry, and the future doesn't look any better with reductions in subsidies and tax assistance going forward. Its a remarkably convenient time to be getting a premium price for such a company. I am sure that Solar City shareholders unanimously support the move, whilst some Tesla shareholders will have concerns.
Or maybe Musk is a better entrepreneur than you are. Naaah - can't be! We all know you are way better at making electric cars and rockets.
And what does that personal speculation of yours have to do with anything? If you'd like to offer a deeper explanation of your take of the transaction, I'm all ears.
In a different article it was called "ride-sharing".
Why don't you just call it what it really is - an unlicensed, unregulated taxi company.
That would be a better description. The passenger hails the ride, the company responds to the hail with a driver. So its neither a ride-hailing nor a ride-sharing company, it is a ride-selling company.
How about selective exposure to a blue light source at the right time to minimize jet lag? But alas, with a test population of only 23 people, and what appears to be a subjective results analysis, this is all pretty meaningless discussion.
So there you go, as I said good luck.You have described a ridiculously oversized costly system that makes no sense, yet still need to live for a week in a barely habitable home, just above freezing for a week, and that does not appear to cover driving your Tesla for that period as you originally proposed. Also, you are evidently living in the most optimal solar region if you are averaging 4.8 hrs/day in mid winter, a place like Arizona, you must know that such a solution for a majority of people on the planet would require even a much larger system than what you described.
Cost twice of what? I said what would it take to get you through a cloudy mid-winter week, you said you'd store up on the sunny days which means at a best the week before...that means two weeks, one sunny winter week, then then next cloudy one.
If you did that math for this case, then you must have looked up the lowest solar isolation average day of your specific winter. What was that? Nothing you said tells me you appreciate what it would take.
PV panels generate very little power on an overcast, winter day. In fact, in Germany, even on a good day they average under 1 full sun hour equivalent and that includes sunny days. It varies depending on where you live. You need to calculate the amount of overcapacity ijn panels you'd need to cover a weeks worth of home and car usage first, then you can start talking about battery sizes. A fridge size battery won't keep you going for a week even if you're energy use is half of the average home. A battery can only hold so much energy, you can't carry over for multiple weeks unless you buy a battery that is five or maybe even ten times the size you need just manage daily usage during sunnier seasons.
Saying it sounds easy till you do the math. Calculate the panels and battery capacity required, the cost will be a lot higher than you seem to think. Most people significantly underestimate the cost of such a system until they do the math.
Read it, the blog post is an interview with a scientist and includes results of his study.
I did. He did what he called a 'meta-study' which we all know nowadays is code word for data manipulation. But he did not scientific study. He had no premise, no method. He just went looking for things he could claim are caused by radiation without the first bit of rational. He's making associative claims that have not scientific basis whatsoever, and he didn't even have a control or comparison group. Please don't tell me you fall for this kind of crap.
I didn't say anything about this study. In fact in another post here I specifically stated I have not looked at this study so i don't have an opinion on it. Why did you assume I did? Must one have some bias in order to make an observation?
I stand by my statement that the previous study is an abhorrent abuse of the data. I also think, if it helps you, that Uber very possibly could be reducing drnk driving. That doesn't change my opinion of the ametuerish attempt at proving it, nor should it yours.
As I recall the soil fungi and other microbial life are having a hard time of it, but the rest of the ecosystem is doing pretty well, especially considering the trouble in the foundations.
Your recollection is incorrect regarding fungi and microbial life. Only in very small patches of highly contaminated earth near the plant has that type of impact been observed, and even that impact has long since passed.
Since Uber hit the streets I can't remember the last time I drove even a little bit tipsy. There's just no need for it when for $5-6 bucks I can get home at a moments notice with zero risk of a DUI. Its incredibly affordable "insurance".
Before Uber you didn't use this same logic and take a cab?
The so callee study that was posted here a while back claiming uber reduced drunk driving had so many statistical abuses that it was basically a waste of time. I haven't had a chance to check if this one is any better, but such correlations are hard to prove or disprove if you just use publicly available data.
They live about 2/3rd of their natural life span and die to cancer (longer living ones, rabbits which die after 4 or 6 years probably die to early anyway to have a measurable effect besides birth defects) or unknown reasons, sudden immune system collapse etc. The rate of birth deformations and still borns is very high.
This is a complete fabrication. You are just making things up.... Typical and expected.
There is no science that backs up your contention. Species that rapidly reproduce and/or have lower order biological complexity are most susceptible to radiation health impacts.
There are no studies that show or indicate that humans living in the exclusion zone today would have shorter life expectancies. In fact the body of data tells us there would be an extremely small increase in cancer risk, smaller than say, getting a few bad sunburns.
True, it would be hard to find well educated people who have a grasp on radiation risks to staff a solar plant far from anywhere. Solar plants mostly need low skilled workers, who are often less educated and more susceptible to the FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
Recognizing sounds and phrases isn't new. Executing a control action based on that input is not new. Noise cancellation is not new. If it were me I'd laugh loudly when rejecting this patent.
Now, if you could just allow that phrase only to pass through in real time, or even with some delay, that would be quite a technology to patent.
Synergies don't require acquisitions to work. In fact, one could argue that Tesla has restricted their supplier options by this move. What does Solar City really bring to the table that they could just get as needed?
If you think it is all about synergies and not about shareholder value you are fooling yourself. Solar City has been struggling due to tight margins in that competitive industry, and the future doesn't look any better with reductions in subsidies and tax assistance going forward. Its a remarkably convenient time to be getting a premium price for such a company. I am sure that Solar City shareholders unanimously support the move, whilst some Tesla shareholders will have concerns.
Or maybe Musk is a better entrepreneur than you are. Naaah - can't be! We all know you are way better at making electric cars and rockets.
And what does that personal speculation of yours have to do with anything? If you'd like to offer a deeper explanation of your take of the transaction, I'm all ears.
Tesla has a cult like investor following, Solar City no longer does, so making it all Tesla keeps the share price propped up.....for now.
In a different article it was called "ride-sharing".
Why don't you just call it what it really is - an unlicensed, unregulated taxi company.
That would be a better description. The passenger hails the ride, the company responds to the hail with a driver. So its neither a ride-hailing nor a ride-sharing company, it is a ride-selling company.
How about selective exposure to a blue light source at the right time to minimize jet lag? But alas, with a test population of only 23 people, and what appears to be a subjective results analysis, this is all pretty meaningless discussion.
So there you go, as I said good luck.You have described a ridiculously oversized costly system that makes no sense, yet still need to live for a week in a barely habitable home, just above freezing for a week, and that does not appear to cover driving your Tesla for that period as you originally proposed. Also, you are evidently living in the most optimal solar region if you are averaging 4.8 hrs/day in mid winter, a place like Arizona, you must know that such a solution for a majority of people on the planet would require even a much larger system than what you described.
Like I said, good luck for a week in mid-winter.
Cost twice of what? I said what would it take to get you through a cloudy mid-winter week, you said you'd store up on the sunny days which means at a best the week before...that means two weeks, one sunny winter week, then then next cloudy one.
If you did that math for this case, then you must have looked up the lowest solar isolation average day of your specific winter. What was that? Nothing you said tells me you appreciate what it would take.
PV panels generate very little power on an overcast, winter day. In fact, in Germany, even on a good day they average under 1 full sun hour equivalent and that includes sunny days. It varies depending on where you live. You need to calculate the amount of overcapacity ijn panels you'd need to cover a weeks worth of home and car usage first, then you can start talking about battery sizes. A fridge size battery won't keep you going for a week even if you're energy use is half of the average home. A battery can only hold so much energy, you can't carry over for multiple weeks unless you buy a battery that is five or maybe even ten times the size you need just manage daily usage during sunnier seasons.
Saying it sounds easy till you do the math. Calculate the panels and battery capacity required, the cost will be a lot higher than you seem to think. Most people significantly underestimate the cost of such a system until they do the math.
Good luck on an overcast week in mid winter.
Read it, the blog post is an interview with a scientist and includes results of his study.
I did. He did what he called a 'meta-study' which we all know nowadays is code word for data manipulation. But he did not scientific study. He had no premise, no method. He just went looking for things he could claim are caused by radiation without the first bit of rational. He's making associative claims that have not scientific basis whatsoever, and he didn't even have a control or comparison group. Please don't tell me you fall for this kind of crap.
Try Chernobyl and Fukushima Radiation Reduces Animal and Plant Numbers, Diversity, Lifespan, Fertility, Brain Size, Increases Deformities and Abnormalities.
Lol. That is a blog post, not a study.
So then we have two bs studies that tell us nothing.
I didn't say anything about this study. In fact in another post here I specifically stated I have not looked at this study so i don't have an opinion on it. Why did you assume I did? Must one have some bias in order to make an observation?
I stand by my statement that the previous study is an abhorrent abuse of the data. I also think, if it helps you, that Uber very possibly could be reducing drnk driving. That doesn't change my opinion of the ametuerish attempt at proving it, nor should it yours.
Its considered discriminatory against those with PIN Retention Deficit Disorder.
There are also plenty of Sasquatch movies.
As I recall the soil fungi and other microbial life are having a hard time of it, but the rest of the ecosystem is doing pretty well, especially considering the trouble in the foundations.
Your recollection is incorrect regarding fungi and microbial life. Only in very small patches of highly contaminated earth near the plant has that type of impact been observed, and even that impact has long since passed.
We've seen an increase in drunk driving incidents since Uber and Lyft left Austin a couple of months ago. http://keyetv.com/news/local/d...
That "study" is an abhorrent abuse of statistics. It tells us nothing.
Since Uber hit the streets I can't remember the last time I drove even a little bit tipsy. There's just no need for it when for $5-6 bucks I can get home at a moments notice with zero risk of a DUI. Its incredibly affordable "insurance".
Before Uber you didn't use this same logic and take a cab?
The so callee study that was posted here a while back claiming uber reduced drunk driving had so many statistical abuses that it was basically a waste of time. I haven't had a chance to check if this one is any better, but such correlations are hard to prove or disprove if you just use publicly available data.
Posts like this makes one sad.
First it is focused around money. Secondly all dangers and options again are: around money
But when Musk talks money and promises great financial reward its OK? Maybe you should just donate your money to "the cause".
No, even the base of the ecosystem has been disrupted. https://www.thestar.com/news/w...
Your track record of providing facts and/or credible sources is pretty abysmal
They live about 2/3rd of their natural life span and die to cancer (longer living ones, rabbits which die after 4 or 6 years probably die to early anyway to have a measurable effect besides birth defects) or unknown reasons, sudden immune system collapse etc. The rate of birth deformations and still borns is very high.
This is a complete fabrication. You are just making things up.... Typical and expected.
There is no science that backs up your contention. Species that rapidly reproduce and/or have lower order biological complexity are most susceptible to radiation health impacts.
There are no studies that show or indicate that humans living in the exclusion zone today would have shorter life expectancies. In fact the body of data tells us there would be an extremely small increase in cancer risk, smaller than say, getting a few bad sunburns.
True, it would be hard to find well educated people who have a grasp on radiation risks to staff a solar plant far from anywhere. Solar plants mostly need low skilled workers, who are often less educated and more susceptible to the FUD.