> You mean the model where developers keep developing clones of the same > apps over and over because the new shit gets promoted? That's the model you want?
Are you talking about app stores, or *everything in the world*?
Because it sounds like you're talking about cars, hair dryiers, "New, Improved" loops, and every other thing for sale on the planet earth.
Indeed, there are more unexplained losses per square mile in the Great Lakes than the Bermuda Triangle, but I've yet to see the book on the Great Lakes Triangle.
There was a book that went into all of this in excruciating detail. All the author did was go and get the official reports of the various "mysterious" losses. In many cases, there was no loss in the first place. For instance, one ship that was claimed to have disappeared forever was actually working the east coast of Africa and never ventured into the triangle in its entire life. The various triangle proponents would simply copy each other's lists, add a few of their own, and never bother to actually check any of them.
Even the more famous examples, like Flight 19, are explained in depth if one simply goes and looks. The Wiki article is a great place to start.
> . I had to give up before completing my multi-engine rating even back in the 1980s because of the cost.
Me too, albeit in the 90's. I recently went over to the local regional airport and noticed that the hourly wet price on a C150 rental had well over doubled since I was doing my license. Inflation during that period was about 50%. Older planes, higher insurance and gas costs are killing the low end of the industry.
I realize I'm replying very late, but for the record:
> schwit1 shared this article from Energy Central News:
No, it's not from Energy Central News. Energy Central News is a news scraper. If you actually look at the link, the very first line clearly states its from the "Valley Morning Star". If you Google that, you'll find its a very small regional paper in Texas.
> said Lisa Linowes, executive director of WindAction Group, a nonprofit which > studies landowner rights and the impact of the wind energy industry
Ummm, no. As the article points out;
"Its funding, according to its website, comes from environmentalists, energy experts and public donations and not the fossil fuel industry."
Which is funny. This statement is what they say, you can go to the web site and find it. But when you do, you will find that this same page also states that the entire purpose of the group is...
"to counteract the misleading information promulgated by the wind energy industry and various environmental groups."
Ah. And when you poke about a bit more, you'll learn that the Group was formed "by Jonathan S. Linowes, a self-proclaimed Tea Party activist and climate change denier."
Linowes, as in the husband of the person writing the article, as in the founder and co-founders.
So yeah, once again total BS gets onto the front page of/. Thanks fact checkers!
The design youâ(TM)re referring to is a spherical tokamak. We have good data on them from a number of experimental machines like START and MAST. That data tells us it is extremely unlikely the ST will work. Ever.
The problem is the scaling law. ST reactors work great when you make small ones, so you get all excited and think that if you just make it twice as big youâ(TM)re good to go. Then you make a larger one based on the same tech and itâ(TM)s only a tiny bit better.
So they think that they can basically scale up the ST40 with superconducting magnets and theyâ(TM)re done. They donâ(TM)t mention the scaling seen in the past, nor outline the problems in the design. That is worrying.
Read the wiki article on spherical tokamaks. Itâ(TM)s good.
"Every version of iOS will get the updated maps eventually and they will be more responsive to changes in roadways and construction, more visually rich depending on the specific context they're viewed in and feature more detailed ground cover, foliage, pools, pedestrian pathways and more"
That's great and all, but the real problem with Maps is its endemic PoI database. It knows half the Tim Horton's and Canadian Tire's in the area. If you're Canadian, you'll understand what that means.
What? How can you possibly believe that? Have you ever looked at a solar spectrum? Gebus:
http://www.coseti.org/atmosphe.htm
Yes, there's some rather large holes, but there's also some rather larger areas that are even more transparent than visible. The key ~5 micron area is indeed blocked, but that doesn't stop all sorts of IR work here on the ground - you know, like the "NASA Infrared Telescope Facility"
> It is important for India to not have their future energy production dependent on a country like China.
Why? Most of the system comes from other countries. Everything from the copper to the aluminium to the quartz. So why should the panel as a whole be different?
Canada has lots of power. Most of it is built out using parts from the US. I'm trying to understand what problem this caused because I can't see one.
Plus the actual number for 2017 in the US was closer to 5 cents, and the outside low-end was 2.99. That makes it, inflation adjusted, the cheapest form of electricity in history.
Its worth pointing out the EIA numbers are two-years trailing, meaning their predictions for 2017 are based on numbers from 2015. They are something of a running joke:
> FAR more expensive because we'd have to build a massive man-made reservoir
Really?
Do you *really* think a man-made reservoir costs more than a battery?
Because a man-made reservoir is literally a pile of dirt. I suspect they have dirt where you are.
As the OP noted, once you hit 22m the energy density is the same. I think you can build a 70 foot high berm for very little indeed. I think batteries covering the same area will cost a whole lot more than DIRT.
> This 'report' comes from BNEF, who stand to make money as advisors and funneling investments
BS. They are a news organization. I'm guessing you're the same know-nothing as on Ars?
> Primarily because solar panel costs lowered due to mass production. > We have already been mass producing batteries for decades and are already approaching the baseline for LI technology
Pfft, and a techno-illiterate too.
Bell released the first PV cells commercially in 1954. The first commercial li-ion was sold in 1991. NMC did not exist until 2001.
We're not even close to the bottom of batteries yet, *especially* in price:
One of the things I learned while researching the Excalibur article is just how true this is.
The whole idea of SDI was that your defensive systems would be cheaper than the ICBMs, so you could afford to win any possible arms race. And this was true at first glance - the Smart Rocks interceptor, for instance, was basically a big Sidewinder. The problem is that they were housed in a "garage" that contained all the power, comms and detectors, and those could be shot down with a missile the size of a Sidewinder (appropriately delivered) which meant the Soviets would win any possible arms race.
But then there was the killer stroke. Excalibur was an x-ray laser, and throughout its testing, there were questions whether it could actually generate enough energy to destroy a missile. The answer turned out to be "no". But it turns out that the sensors on the platforms, of any sort, are *fantastically* susceptible to damage or blinding by *much* less energetic lasers. So the Soviets could basically blind the entire fleet of SDI sats by deploying a couple of gas-dynamic lasers across the country. And there was nothing anyone ever figured out to address this, one physicist concluded it was "impossible".
Things haven't changed much. ASATs remain very low-cost solutions to taking out an opponent's assets, and because they're so small they can be lofted by really inexpensive launchers. In comparison, the satellite you're attacking is huge and in some cases required an entire Space Shuttle to put it up there.
> Its consolidating what they are already doing in other branches so there is not really any new expenditures.
Riiiiiight. Because there's no way creating an entirely new bureaucracy would ever lead to enormous new overhead, nor the demand for "their own stuff".
Trump ran on the promise of draining the swamp, but now he's creating an entirely new one.
> Canada(Ontario) our 'old' nuclear power plant is guaranteed at $0.05/kWh
I assume by old you mean Pickering, which is outside my window. It currently gets about 8.5 cents, if you factor in other payments that are not done on a generation (per kWh) basis. In fact, it's latest I
> That's more then hydroelectric $0.02/kWh, more then coal $0.03/kWh, but less then natural gas $0.0650/Mwh. And far less then wind $0.30-0.55/kWh and far less then solar at $0.20-1.20kWh.
The 20th century called, they want their numbers back.
SMALL systems are 19 cents for PV and 12.5 for wind. Larger systems, which in this case is anything with 1/3rd or more of a turbine, are not listed here as they are done on a conventional PPA basis and are around 7 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
> And a lot of people I know bought occulus for the cross platform support
There are dozens of us. DOZENS!
> You mean the model where developers keep developing clones of the same
> apps over and over because the new shit gets promoted? That's the model you want?
Are you talking about app stores, or *everything in the world*?
Because it sounds like you're talking about cars, hair dryiers, "New, Improved" loops, and every other thing for sale on the planet earth.
Indeed, there are more unexplained losses per square mile in the Great Lakes than the Bermuda Triangle, but I've yet to see the book on the Great Lakes Triangle.
There was a book that went into all of this in excruciating detail. All the author did was go and get the official reports of the various "mysterious" losses. In many cases, there was no loss in the first place. For instance, one ship that was claimed to have disappeared forever was actually working the east coast of Africa and never ventured into the triangle in its entire life. The various triangle proponents would simply copy each other's lists, add a few of their own, and never bother to actually check any of them.
Even the more famous examples, like Flight 19, are explained in depth if one simply goes and looks. The Wiki article is a great place to start.
"a way to fully immerse yourself in other worlds"
Oh for sure, it's that realistic.
"and it's seeing unprecedented applications."
Yeah, sure.
"some industry groups estimating a $60 billion global market by 2022."
Sigh.
> So, the Egypt killing him part is speculation
Yeah, let's feed into that because the internet definitely needs more bogus speculation.
"It will single-handedly put Egypt on the clean energy map"
Right, because Aswan doesn't exist.
> . I had to give up before completing my multi-engine rating even back in the 1980s because of the cost.
Me too, albeit in the 90's. I recently went over to the local regional airport and noticed that the hourly wet price on a C150 rental had well over doubled since I was doing my license. Inflation during that period was about 50%. Older planes, higher insurance and gas costs are killing the low end of the industry.
> Please send me all your copper that is in plastic insulation. Bet I can make some serious money from it.
You don't have to bet, ask any electrician.
Or any cop, who's had to investigate yet another house or job site where someone came in and stripped the wires (and pipes).
I realize I'm replying very late, but for the record:
> schwit1 shared this article from Energy Central News:
No, it's not from Energy Central News. Energy Central News is a news scraper. If you actually look at the link, the very first line clearly states its from the "Valley Morning Star". If you Google that, you'll find its a very small regional paper in Texas.
> said Lisa Linowes, executive director of WindAction Group, a nonprofit which
> studies landowner rights and the impact of the wind energy industry
Ummm, no. As the article points out;
"Its funding, according to its website, comes from environmentalists, energy experts and public donations and not the fossil fuel industry."
Which is funny. This statement is what they say, you can go to the web site and find it. But when you do, you will find that this same page also states that the entire purpose of the group is...
"to counteract the misleading information promulgated by the wind energy industry and various environmental groups."
Ah. And when you poke about a bit more, you'll learn that the Group was formed "by Jonathan S. Linowes, a self-proclaimed Tea Party activist and climate change denier."
Linowes, as in the husband of the person writing the article, as in the founder and co-founders.
So yeah, once again total BS gets onto the front page of /. Thanks fact checkers!
https://checksandbalancesproject.org/lisa-linowes-and-the-disinformation-of-industrial-wind-action-group/
> Admin conduct hasn't changed since, Wikipedia's a joke.
Wow, Wiki bashing. How 2010.
The design youâ(TM)re referring to is a spherical tokamak. We have good data on them from a number of experimental machines like START and MAST. That data tells us it is extremely unlikely the ST will work. Ever.
The problem is the scaling law. ST reactors work great when you make small ones, so you get all excited and think that if you just make it twice as big youâ(TM)re good to go. Then you make a larger one based on the same tech and itâ(TM)s only a tiny bit better.
So they think that they can basically scale up the ST40 with superconducting magnets and theyâ(TM)re done. They donâ(TM)t mention the scaling seen in the past, nor outline the problems in the design. That is worrying.
Read the wiki article on spherical tokamaks. Itâ(TM)s good.
"Every version of iOS will get the updated maps eventually and they will be more responsive to changes in roadways and construction, more visually rich depending on the specific context they're viewed in and feature more detailed ground cover, foliage, pools, pedestrian pathways and more"
That's great and all, but the real problem with Maps is its endemic PoI database. It knows half the Tim Horton's and Canadian Tire's in the area. If you're Canadian, you'll understand what that means.
> There is no Earth-based telescope that can do it, nor will there ever be
That will be a great surprise to the many people with IR telescopes.
Use Google.
> Our atmosphere is opaque to infrared
What? How can you possibly believe that? Have you ever looked at a solar spectrum? Gebus:
http://www.coseti.org/atmosphe.htm
Yes, there's some rather large holes, but there's also some rather larger areas that are even more transparent than visible. The key ~5 micron area is indeed blocked, but that doesn't stop all sorts of IR work here on the ground - you know, like the "NASA Infrared Telescope Facility"
> It is important for India to not have their future energy production dependent on a country like China.
Why? Most of the system comes from other countries. Everything from the copper to the aluminium to the quartz. So why should the panel as a whole be different?
Canada has lots of power. Most of it is built out using parts from the US. I'm trying to understand what problem this caused because I can't see one.
> Do you think you can get 3 good meals and a roof over your head anywhere for 50 cents?
No, that's why it's called "poverty".
Duh.
> What do you mean by "Lucas electrics", the only Lucas I can think of is motor industry based.
http://www.mez.co.uk/lucas.html
They made all sorts of things, but are worst known for their motoring products, yes.
> solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh
Plus the actual number for 2017 in the US was closer to 5 cents, and the outside low-end was 2.99. That makes it, inflation adjusted, the cheapest form of electricity in history.
Its worth pointing out the EIA numbers are two-years trailing, meaning their predictions for 2017 are based on numbers from 2015. They are something of a running joke:
https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/03/13/renewable-energy-growth-again-blows-eia-forecasts-out-water
Because of the rapidly falling costs, the market continually beats their estimates by about 4 to five years.
> Agreed, but how much of the cost is wrapped up in legal/regulatory costs? I
About 15%. Look at the price breakdowns on the WNA web site, they have it all detailed.
> FAR more expensive because we'd have to build a massive man-made reservoir
Really?
Do you *really* think a man-made reservoir costs more than a battery?
Because a man-made reservoir is literally a pile of dirt. I suspect they have dirt where you are.
As the OP noted, once you hit 22m the energy density is the same. I think you can build a 70 foot high berm for very little indeed. I think batteries covering the same area will cost a whole lot more than DIRT.
> This 'report' comes from BNEF, who stand to make money as advisors and funneling investments
BS. They are a news organization. I'm guessing you're the same know-nothing as on Ars?
> Primarily because solar panel costs lowered due to mass production.
> We have already been mass producing batteries for decades and are already approaching the baseline for LI technology
Pfft, and a techno-illiterate too.
Bell released the first PV cells commercially in 1954.
The first commercial li-ion was sold in 1991. NMC did not exist until 2001.
We're not even close to the bottom of batteries yet, *especially* in price:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017125/figures/1
> US space assets are easy targets
One of the things I learned while researching the Excalibur article is just how true this is.
The whole idea of SDI was that your defensive systems would be cheaper than the ICBMs, so you could afford to win any possible arms race. And this was true at first glance - the Smart Rocks interceptor, for instance, was basically a big Sidewinder. The problem is that they were housed in a "garage" that contained all the power, comms and detectors, and those could be shot down with a missile the size of a Sidewinder (appropriately delivered) which meant the Soviets would win any possible arms race.
But then there was the killer stroke. Excalibur was an x-ray laser, and throughout its testing, there were questions whether it could actually generate enough energy to destroy a missile. The answer turned out to be "no". But it turns out that the sensors on the platforms, of any sort, are *fantastically* susceptible to damage or blinding by *much* less energetic lasers. So the Soviets could basically blind the entire fleet of SDI sats by deploying a couple of gas-dynamic lasers across the country. And there was nothing anyone ever figured out to address this, one physicist concluded it was "impossible".
Things haven't changed much. ASATs remain very low-cost solutions to taking out an opponent's assets, and because they're so small they can be lofted by really inexpensive launchers. In comparison, the satellite you're attacking is huge and in some cases required an entire Space Shuttle to put it up there.
> Its consolidating what they are already doing in other branches so there is not really any new expenditures.
Riiiiiight. Because there's no way creating an entirely new bureaucracy would ever lead to enormous new overhead, nor the demand for "their own stuff".
Trump ran on the promise of draining the swamp, but now he's creating an entirely new one.
> Maybe the Pentagon was directed to work on some options
Aren't they too busy planning the invasion of Canada?
> Canada(Ontario) our 'old' nuclear power plant is guaranteed at $0.05/kWh
I assume by old you mean Pickering, which is outside my window. It currently gets about 8.5 cents, if you factor in other payments that are not done on a generation (per kWh) basis. In fact, it's latest I
> That's more then hydroelectric $0.02/kWh, more then coal $0.03/kWh, but less then natural gas $0.0650/Mwh. And far less then wind $0.30-0.55/kWh and far less then solar at $0.20-1.20kWh.
The 20th century called, they want their numbers back.
Actual 2013 numbers:
https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/presentations/real-cost-electrical-energy.pdf
Note that the wind and PV numbers are at 2013 FIT prices. At that time, utility PV was 28.8 cents and wind was 13.1. At the current rates:
http://www.ieso.ca/-/media/files/ieso/document-library/fit/2017-fit-price-schedule.pdf?la=en
SMALL systems are 19 cents for PV and 12.5 for wind. Larger systems, which in this case is anything with 1/3rd or more of a turbine, are not listed here as they are done on a conventional PPA basis and are around 7 cents.