I've used Uber Pool about half a dozen times in the SF area. I think they offer it in places where the driver to passenger ratio isn't high enough to cover all the trips they want to do. And/or where there are large events that can slam the service from a single location.
Actually I think it's more clever than that. I think it stores "a reasonable amount" on your local devices. The stuff you listen to most or something like that.
Again, it's not a service I use. But I understand why folks do.
It does not imply in any way that something gets deleted from my laptop. You know: store in cloud means "store" not "delete" and my laptop should be completely unaffected.
Actually, it kind of does.
There is a bag of peaches on the counter. "I'm going to store these peaches in the basement." Where do you expect the peaches to be?
And the point here is not that stuff got deleted and stored in the cloud. The fact is: Apple is actually not storing anything in the cloud. If 1000 people "store" Song XYZ, there is only one single copy in the cloud. And Apple has a list of who "owns" what.
"I'm going to store this file at this URL." Do you expect to be able to access that file at that URL? Do you know anything about how that file is stored or how many copies there are or how many people have access to it? None of those things matter - because that file is at that URL and you have access to it.
The problem is in this case: Apple deleted stuff from which they had no copy, as they were original works of the original owner.
Which is pretty much what they said they would do - so no surprise. And he had a backup - so no big deal.
Wait - what was the problem?
The whole Apple idea how clouds work/should work is nonsense.
And why people use clouds is beyond me. A single 1 Terabyte drive is cheaper than a one year subscription to a cloud service.
You have 5 devices. 3 of them are mobile and only have a few GB space. Hey! Wouldn't it be convenient to be able to access your TB of music from all of them and have all the data and metadata be sync'd no matter which device or where in the world you are?
Some people dig that. I am not one. But I understand why they do.
Same goes for music. They didn't steal it, they torched it.
But seriously (http://www.apple.com/itunes/music/): iTunes Match With iTunes Match, we store your music collection in iCloud — even songs you’ve imported from CDs. So you can access it from any of your devices and listen to your library wherever you are. Subscribe to iTunes Match on your Mac, PC, or iOS device for just $24.99 per year.
How did you not know that 'storing your music in the cloud' means that it ain't gonna be stored on your PC? That's kind of the whole point.
I think there are plenty of asshole things you could do to a driverless car that isn't illegal.
For instance, just get in front of it and drive 10 mph under the limit. Unless these things have a routine for that, the user will have to go manual to pass.
A couple of points: * Who is going to be more annoyed - the person who is driving 10 below the limit or the person that isn't driving at all? * Driving 10 below the posted limit can be illegal https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Ya...just search youtube for Road Rage and see all the fun things that people do.
Just about anything you could do to annoy a driverless car would amount to impeding the normal flow of traffic - which is generally illegal. http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Yeah, there's no way that someone doing this would be caught - since all these vehicles will be recording everything that goes on around them for insurance/legal purposes. What could go wrong?
Panels just aren't all that expensive. Yeah, they aren't free, but a lot of the cost of putting panels on the roof is: * Design/engineering time * Planning costs (city/county registration, review, etc) * Grid integration (registration with local electrical utility, inspection, etc) * Construction time (getting a crew out there with all the materials, etc)
When doing new construction you're going to be doing all those things already. Yes, there will be incremental increases in all those things, but they will be smaller increases than doing the entire process from scratch. So the cost of adding solar to a building as it's being built will be less than the cost of the building plus the cost of solar. And there are already companies that will install solar for net free in much of the US, including San Francisco.
A good friend of mine lives in the city. His one story house is down the north slope from his neighboring two story row-house. His roof doesn't get any sun much of the year, and when it does it ain't much.
That said, adding panels during new construction adds very little to the cost. This is a building regulation. Exemptions from building regulations aren't that uncommon.
Wow. $.10/kwh is pretty cheap power. Here it's $.18/ - but I don't pay it any more:-)
As the price of panels continues to drop, it'll make more sense to install in more places. And once that happens, efficient installers will move in and drop the cost of install because the time of install will go down so much. My panels (a bit over 10kw) took about 4 hours to install for a team of 6ish guys. All those non-panel costs are going down as companies become more efficient at all the other parts (design, paper work, etc).
It'll come to you. Maybe not in 2 years - $.10/kwh really is low. But it'll happen.
I don't know where you live that there is net metering, 250K people, and you can't get panels installed for a reasonable amount. Maybe you have really cheap power? $35K for 10KW certainly seems high. I happen to live in San Luis Obispo, CA. Lots fewer people (50K) and lots cheaper installs.
You're right - folks aren't gonna install until it makes sense, and it sure doesn't sound like it does for you. Check back in 2018.
Oh - and for Net Metering - if/when it goes away, existing users USUALLY get grandfathered in. That's not always the case, but it usually is.
I think you are underestimating the past decade's tremendous drop in cost of solar. In much of the US, solar is less expensive right now. And that trend is going to continue.
The grid is going to continue to be required/useful - but more of the energy (which usually peaks during the day) is going to come from rooftop solar and less and less is going to come from coal.
Two points: * He's building a really big battery factory to drive down battery cost. * Grid scale salt storage (or similar) is probably a much better way to go, but you have to convince the utilities to do that.
But each of those networks is someone paying something on the order of $50/month for internet, right? You're talking about $10K/mo for the networks you can see. Doesn't it make sense for the entire building to get wired using something industrial and cooperative instead of competing for RF?
Slashdot Mirror
We know. Look who we're gonna be voting for.
I wonder if they are going to beta test self driving cars in a country that can instantly change/implement self-driving laws that suit them.
I've used Uber Pool about half a dozen times in the SF area. I think they offer it in places where the driver to passenger ratio isn't high enough to cover all the trips they want to do. And/or where there are large events that can slam the service from a single location.
Actually I think it's more clever than that. I think it stores "a reasonable amount" on your local devices. The stuff you listen to most or something like that.
Again, it's not a service I use. But I understand why folks do.
It does not imply in any way that something gets deleted from my laptop.
You know: store in cloud means "store" not "delete" and my laptop should be completely unaffected.
Actually, it kind of does.
There is a bag of peaches on the counter.
"I'm going to store these peaches in the basement."
Where do you expect the peaches to be?
And the point here is not that stuff got deleted and stored in the cloud. The fact is: Apple is actually not storing anything in the cloud. If 1000 people "store" Song XYZ, there is only one single copy in the cloud. And Apple has a list of who "owns" what.
"I'm going to store this file at this URL."
Do you expect to be able to access that file at that URL? Do you know anything about how that file is stored or how many copies there are or how many people have access to it? None of those things matter - because that file is at that URL and you have access to it.
The problem is in this case: Apple deleted stuff from which they had no copy, as they were original works of the original owner.
Which is pretty much what they said they would do - so no surprise. And he had a backup - so no big deal.
Wait - what was the problem?
The whole Apple idea how clouds work/should work is nonsense.
And why people use clouds is beyond me. A single 1 Terabyte drive is cheaper than a one year subscription to a cloud service.
You have 5 devices. 3 of them are mobile and only have a few GB space. Hey! Wouldn't it be convenient to be able to access your TB of music from all of them and have all the data and metadata be sync'd no matter which device or where in the world you are?
Some people dig that. I am not one. But I understand why they do.
Same goes for music. They didn't steal it, they torched it.
But seriously (http://www.apple.com/itunes/music/):
iTunes Match
With iTunes Match, we store your music collection in iCloud — even songs you’ve imported from CDs. So you can access it from any of your devices and listen to your library wherever you are. Subscribe to iTunes Match on your Mac, PC, or iOS device for just $24.99 per year.
How did you not know that 'storing your music in the cloud' means that it ain't gonna be stored on your PC? That's kind of the whole point.
http://economictimes.indiatime...
How it works is you underbid a bunch of stuff, build half of it, then go bankrupt.
It's a proven model.
No, the trick is to ride horses because the beams are so smart they don't send false positives every 10 minutes when animals walk through.
I think there are plenty of asshole things you could do to a driverless car that isn't illegal.
For instance, just get in front of it and drive 10 mph under the limit. Unless these things have a routine for that, the user will have to go manual to pass.
A couple of points:
* Who is going to be more annoyed - the person who is driving 10 below the limit or the person that isn't driving at all?
* Driving 10 below the posted limit can be illegal https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Ya...just search youtube for Road Rage and see all the fun things that people do.
Just think of Norman.
Just about anything you could do to annoy a driverless car would amount to impeding the normal flow of traffic - which is generally illegal.
http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Yeah, there's no way that someone doing this would be caught - since all these vehicles will be recording everything that goes on around them for insurance/legal purposes. What could go wrong?
Panels just aren't all that expensive. Yeah, they aren't free, but a lot of the cost of putting panels on the roof is:
* Design/engineering time
* Planning costs (city/county registration, review, etc)
* Grid integration (registration with local electrical utility, inspection, etc)
* Construction time (getting a crew out there with all the materials, etc)
When doing new construction you're going to be doing all those things already. Yes, there will be incremental increases in all those things, but they will be smaller increases than doing the entire process from scratch. So the cost of adding solar to a building as it's being built will be less than the cost of the building plus the cost of solar. And there are already companies that will install solar for net free in much of the US, including San Francisco.
A good friend of mine lives in the city. His one story house is down the north slope from his neighboring two story row-house. His roof doesn't get any sun much of the year, and when it does it ain't much.
That said, adding panels during new construction adds very little to the cost.
This is a building regulation. Exemptions from building regulations aren't that uncommon.
In general the [potential] wind velocities on the roof of very tall buildings make installing solar impractical.
It's not a conspiracy.
Wow. $.10/kwh is pretty cheap power. Here it's $.18/ - but I don't pay it any more :-)
As the price of panels continues to drop, it'll make more sense to install in more places. And once that happens, efficient installers will move in and drop the cost of install because the time of install will go down so much. My panels (a bit over 10kw) took about 4 hours to install for a team of 6ish guys. All those non-panel costs are going down as companies become more efficient at all the other parts (design, paper work, etc).
It'll come to you. Maybe not in 2 years - $.10/kwh really is low. But it'll happen.
I don't know where you live that there is net metering, 250K people, and you can't get panels installed for a reasonable amount. Maybe you have really cheap power? $35K for 10KW certainly seems high. I happen to live in San Luis Obispo, CA. Lots fewer people (50K) and lots cheaper installs.
You're right - folks aren't gonna install until it makes sense, and it sure doesn't sound like it does for you. Check back in 2018.
Oh - and for Net Metering - if/when it goes away, existing users USUALLY get grandfathered in. That's not always the case, but it usually is.
I think you are underestimating the past decade's tremendous drop in cost of solar. In much of the US, solar is less expensive right now. And that trend is going to continue.
The grid is going to continue to be required/useful - but more of the energy (which usually peaks during the day) is going to come from rooftop solar and less and less is going to come from coal.
Two points:
* He's building a really big battery factory to drive down battery cost.
* Grid scale salt storage (or similar) is probably a much better way to go, but you have to convince the utilities to do that.
Check back in two years.
Not cheapness, but storage.
Actually, for a long time price was a very real issue. It's still a factor, but less and less as manufacturing and automation improve.
Have a cheap, easy way to store energy for days without leakage? You just became the next Rockefeller / Carnegie/ Vanderbilt / Gates.
I think the name you're looking for is Musk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I was gonna mark the parent as a troll, but really it's just uninformed.
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
Elon Musk says it takes $60 million to build the Falcon 9, and $200,000 to fuel it.
Steve Poulus, a former NASA project manager, suspects final costs could be driven below a million dollars.
So it's looking like a stunt that could be worth more than 95% of the first stage's $60M. That seems like a big deal.
Firewalls and VPNs.
Poll indicates that 9/10 people have no idea how technology works.
Thanks for YHO.
Compare and contrast ipad and the various actual computer lines.
Of course there was a product and a sale.
Product: launching stuff into space.
Sale: M launches/N time for P $/flight/mass/whatever
The customer was the US/congress.
Yeah - I wonder if Apple has even done any research on how much space their users' devices have free.
OK, that sucks.
But each of those networks is someone paying something on the order of $50/month for internet, right? You're talking about $10K/mo for the networks you can see. Doesn't it make sense for the entire building to get wired using something industrial and cooperative instead of competing for RF?