No. Currently the solar energy industry is in the neighborhood of "statistical anomaly". Nobody's threatened by a statistical anomaly.
But trying to compare growth in the solar industry at this point, to something entrenched (and nearly peaked, as coal is in the US), it's like comparing baseball statistics between MLB and and the Poughkipsie Pee Wee League.
In other words, would it change how you look at the data if I told you:
"We sold 10 home sausage grinders last quarter, this quarter, we did 11. In this same quarter last year, we did 7 installs. While GrindCo, who only makes industrial-plant-sized grinders the size of a 4 story building, only had one install this quarter and none at the same time last year."
That's, essentially, what's being said here.
Again, I don't mind that the solar industry is growing. I just dislike the deceptive wording that makes the industry appear larger and attempts to magnify the contribution it provides.
The US is also 37x the total land area, has 5x the populace, and isn't anywhere CLOSE to as uniform in the sense of general climate as the UK is.
Remember, you can't simply install wind turbines "anywhere". Wind conditions have to be right. Too little, as your turbine sits idle most of the time. Too much, and it sits idle all the time as you don't want excessive wear on the turbine. And there's an area in the US known as "Tornado Alley" It's roughly the size of the entire UK. Installing wind turbines down in that region would be insanity.
Also, the sheer size of the country introduces logistical problems in terms of power transmission. Sure, it's all well and good to set up a wind farm in BFE. But what do you do when your nearest grid tie-in is several hundred miles away?
It's not like they can put casts on and keep the animal off them for 12-16 weeks.
Even then, likely the filly would have been in unbearable pain for the rest of her life.
They didn't euthanize her because they were being dicks.
They did it because a qualified veterinarian ruled that she was damaged in such a way as to preclude ANY sort of quality of life.
Think of being in a car crash and being broken up so bad you'll never walk again and simply being a live every day is agony which no amount of painkillers will fix.
As distasteful as destroying a horse is, it was a humane decision.
They don't destroy horses because they're no longer useful.
They destroy them because they're injured in a way that simply won't heal and will leave the animal in agonizing pain for the rest of its life.
Imagine being in a car crash, breaking both legs, an arm, a bunch of ribs and your back. Then being told by the doctor "we can't operate on you, just live with it".
Microfractures happen in ALL horses when they run. PERIOD. It's a function of physics (force being applied in a certain area) and material engineering (bone strength).
Horses out, charging around a paddock, develop microfractures. Just not at the rate they can develop them during a race.
The thing is, they heal. They just need time. Hence why horses aren't running races day after day.
The races, are independent business entities. It's just that, over time, they've become the definitive races for the US Triple Crown. But that doesn't stop each individual race from being open to all qualifiers.
And, because of myriad factors, like recovery, track preference, etc, owners can't guarantee they won't pull an entrant. Indeed, it'd be irresponsible to race a horse that wasn't ready. You can ruin an animal like that.
If these people are "perfectly capable", let them apply like any other prospective employee.
I have zero issue with capable people filling positions. I don't care WHAT their background is. I'm just concerned with "can they do the job", and "can they convince me they'll do it *better* than the other 500 applicants"? Whether it's some Ivy League schmuck or a guy who put himself through a vo-tech. Black, white red, yellow, green, blue, whatever. Man/woman/???, whatever.
I simply think that the positions ought to go to the people best able to fill it. Instead of "settling" someone who is less capable, just because someone of their approximate dermal hue or gender was disadvantaged 200 years ago and someone feels they're "owed" something.
And hey, if, at some point, that means someone out-competes me for a job? Kudos for them. I just object to being screened out of a job because my parents happened to birth a WASPish boy baby and the job goes to a halfwit who's incapable because they're conveniently placed on some ethnic or gender quota.
What color a person's skin is, or what equipment they keep between their legs isn't as important as the knowledge they have in their head and their skill at utilizing it.
Slotting someone into a position ahead of a worthier candidate, simply because they're a certain race/gender, rather than because they're the best candidate is idiocy of the highest order.
It's not Google/Apple/whoever's problem that a given race or gender has historically been downtrodden. Google/Apple/Whoever didn't do the treading, so why should they be guilt-tripped into settling for mediocrity for some lie about "equality"?
Because what's being pushed here is not about "equal" treatment. It's about "special" treatment.
Seriously. We're doing this in a lab environment right? To bits of tissue or mice?
That's still a LONG way away from doing:
A) To a human B) Affecting their entire body C) In a clinical/outpatient setting D) Without side effects E) In a controlled manner
A) Being able to rejuvenate a mouse spleen helps Joe Everyguy out not at all.
B) Rejuvenating someone in a piecemeal fashion can be pointless or even dangerous.
C) There's a HUGE difference between a lab procedure and actually mass producing this so that anyone (with sufficient money) could come in and receive a treatment (or series of treatments).
D) What happens if you run rejuvenation on precancerous or cancerous tissue? What happens to the older tissues? And what sort of effect does that have on the body's mechanisms for cleaning itself up?
E) How do you control how MUCH you're rejuvenating someone? Or is it "catch as catch can"? Sure, it'd be nice to revert to a 20-something. What if Person A reverts only into something equivalent to their mid 30's? While person B reverts to something approximating prepubesence?
This doesn't even get into the social ethics and bioethics of the situation.
They are controlled by radio which can be detected.
Yes and no.
Some higher end models and drones allow you to record and re-execute a series of maneuvers. That pretty much destroys any possibility of interference with a remote controller.
So, you get measurements of the area you're going to attack.
Ah. I kinda don't see this happening anytime soon.
There are millions (perhaps tens of millions) of buildings across the country. All running AC.
Tesla's batteries are somewhat attractive, but still a *VERY* niche product.
I really don't see them gaining a realistically large enough foothold to force this sort of transition and the type of power system infrastructure changes it would require.
Careful! You're get foo-foo'ed by someone reward-seeking professional paper-pusher who can't even tell you what a confidence score is or why it's important in their data..
I wonder what the legal cost of even attempting this merger is above and beyond the cost of acquiring assets/debt. Though I guess it's not nearly as much as a they gain by grabbing the huge monopoly if it goes though.
Doesn't matter. The consumer ends up paying for it in the end.
I honestly wish these mega-mergers in cable would just be stopped. Flat out.
And before someone starts quoting combined numbers of Comcast+TWC vs Charter+TWC, understand this. The final number of subscribers is largely irrelevant due to geographic monopoly.
We have enough of these mega-monopoly ISPs as it is. And all the mergers do is concentrate the money so they can afford bigger and bigger bribes to buy a permissive atmosphere in which the best interests of consumers/constituencies are not looked after.
And the only recourse? Try to vote out these money-grubbing incumbents with their newly marble-lined solid platinum warchests...
Slashdot Mirror
No. Currently the solar energy industry is in the neighborhood of "statistical anomaly".
Nobody's threatened by a statistical anomaly.
But trying to compare growth in the solar industry at this point, to something entrenched (and nearly peaked, as coal is in the US), it's like comparing baseball statistics between MLB and and the Poughkipsie Pee Wee League.
In other words, would it change how you look at the data if I told you:
"We sold 10 home sausage grinders last quarter, this quarter, we did 11. In this same quarter last year, we did 7 installs. While GrindCo, who only makes industrial-plant-sized grinders the size of a 4 story building, only had one install this quarter and none at the same time last year."
That's, essentially, what's being said here.
Again, I don't mind that the solar industry is growing. I just dislike the deceptive wording that makes the industry appear larger and attempts to magnify the contribution it provides.
Capacity installs.
Basically it's talking about new installs versus already installed capacity.
Not overall capacity or utilization in the overall power budget.
Never mind that solar installs tend to be smaller and MUCH lower capacity than a coal burning plant.
Also, there's the fact that coal provides more power in the US by more than an order of magnitude.
So yay. We went from half a percent to 0.51% total power input.
And oh darn. We maybe stayed around 20% at coal.
Basically this is a "Rah Rah" article. Kind of like a small company that puts on big, slick productions and appears bigger than they are.
Never mind that the damn XBox One can't output the resolution and framerate necessary to keep people from barfing their brains out.
Idiots.
Way to take interesting technology and turn it into an utterly useless joke.
Why not just announce compatibility with the Phantom Console while you're at it!
"If people imagine that we’ve got the resources to do as much intrusion as they worry about, I would reassure them that it’s impossible.”
Basically this is dancing around actually answering "Is your department doing this?" and "Do you know who is setting these up?"
We know he pretty much ALWAYS comes back...
Oh wait!
RIP Sir Christopher.
The US is also 37x the total land area, has 5x the populace, and isn't anywhere CLOSE to as uniform in the sense of general climate as the UK is.
Remember, you can't simply install wind turbines "anywhere". Wind conditions have to be right. Too little, as your turbine sits idle most of the time. Too much, and it sits idle all the time as you don't want excessive wear on the turbine. And there's an area in the US known as "Tornado Alley" It's roughly the size of the entire UK. Installing wind turbines down in that region would be insanity.
Also, the sheer size of the country introduces logistical problems in terms of power transmission. Sure, it's all well and good to set up a wind farm in BFE. But what do you do when your nearest grid tie-in is several hundred miles away?
Again, that's for the owner and trainer to decide.
Not the race organizers. Their only concern is "did the horse qualify?"
As soon as a horse asks me "Pppplease Massah! Can I not run the bad race?", I'll look into it.
Old news. And, as has been said. Horses can't spell.
What are they supposed to do?
The horse was irretrievably crippled.
It's not like they can put casts on and keep the animal off them for 12-16 weeks.
Even then, likely the filly would have been in unbearable pain for the rest of her life.
They didn't euthanize her because they were being dicks.
They did it because a qualified veterinarian ruled that she was damaged in such a way as to preclude ANY sort of quality of life.
Think of being in a car crash and being broken up so bad you'll never walk again and simply being a live every day is agony which no amount of painkillers will fix.
As distasteful as destroying a horse is, it was a humane decision.
They don't destroy horses because they're no longer useful.
They destroy them because they're injured in a way that simply won't heal and will leave the animal in agonizing pain for the rest of its life.
Imagine being in a car crash, breaking both legs, an arm, a bunch of ribs and your back. Then being told by the doctor "we can't operate on you, just live with it".
They're euthanized for humane reasons.
It's not "being made to run so hard".
Microfractures happen in ALL horses when they run. PERIOD. It's a function of physics (force being applied in a certain area) and material engineering (bone strength).
Horses out, charging around a paddock, develop microfractures. Just not at the rate they can develop them during a race.
The thing is, they heal. They just need time. Hence why horses aren't running races day after day.
That's the thing. You can't do that.
The races, are independent business entities. It's just that, over time, they've become the definitive races for the US Triple Crown.
But that doesn't stop each individual race from being open to all qualifiers.
And, because of myriad factors, like recovery, track preference, etc, owners can't guarantee they won't pull an entrant. Indeed, it'd be irresponsible to race a horse that wasn't ready. You can ruin an animal like that.
Bingo.
I'm sure SOME people get off on "getting over" and "milking the system".
In the long run, it makes for inferior employment opportunities.
If these people are "perfectly capable", let them apply like any other prospective employee.
I have zero issue with capable people filling positions. I don't care WHAT their background is. I'm just concerned with "can they do the job", and "can they convince me they'll do it *better* than the other 500 applicants"? Whether it's some Ivy League schmuck or a guy who put himself through a vo-tech. Black, white red, yellow, green, blue, whatever. Man/woman/???, whatever.
I simply think that the positions ought to go to the people best able to fill it. Instead of "settling" someone who is less capable, just because someone of their approximate dermal hue or gender was disadvantaged 200 years ago and someone feels they're "owed" something.
And hey, if, at some point, that means someone out-competes me for a job? Kudos for them. I just object to being screened out of a job because my parents happened to birth a WASPish boy baby and the job goes to a halfwit who's incapable because they're conveniently placed on some ethnic or gender quota.
Pretty much.
What color a person's skin is, or what equipment they keep between their legs isn't as important as the knowledge they have in their head and their skill at utilizing it.
Slotting someone into a position ahead of a worthier candidate, simply because they're a certain race/gender, rather than because they're the best candidate is idiocy of the highest order.
It's not Google/Apple/whoever's problem that a given race or gender has historically been downtrodden. Google/Apple/Whoever didn't do the treading, so why should they be guilt-tripped into settling for mediocrity for some lie about "equality"?
Because what's being pushed here is not about "equal" treatment. It's about "special" treatment.
If it helps expand their content roster, I could put up with 120 seconds of ad or less before a movie.
If they go mid-content ads, a'la Hulu? I'm fucking gone faster than John Moschita could say "Eat a dick."
Oh boy! Now we get to pay for him to sit on his ass and eat for the rest of his natural life!
WOO!
Seriously. We're doing this in a lab environment right? To bits of tissue or mice?
That's still a LONG way away from doing:
A) To a human
B) Affecting their entire body
C) In a clinical/outpatient setting
D) Without side effects
E) In a controlled manner
A) Being able to rejuvenate a mouse spleen helps Joe Everyguy out not at all.
B) Rejuvenating someone in a piecemeal fashion can be pointless or even dangerous.
C) There's a HUGE difference between a lab procedure and actually mass producing this so that anyone (with sufficient money) could come in and receive a treatment (or series of treatments).
D) What happens if you run rejuvenation on precancerous or cancerous tissue? What happens to the older tissues? And what sort of effect does that have on the body's mechanisms for cleaning itself up?
E) How do you control how MUCH you're rejuvenating someone? Or is it "catch as catch can"? Sure, it'd be nice to revert to a 20-something. What if Person A reverts only into something equivalent to their mid 30's? While person B reverts to something approximating prepubesence?
This doesn't even get into the social ethics and bioethics of the situation.
Exactly.
And good luck actually tracking it. It's not as if they can send a missile into an urban area to intercept and destroy.
They are controlled by radio which can be detected.
Yes and no.
Some higher end models and drones allow you to record and re-execute a series of maneuvers. That pretty much destroys any possibility of interference with a remote controller.
So, you get measurements of the area you're going to attack.
Head out to a field and mark off a route.
Get a viable flight pattern down and record it.
Go out, setup, let the drone loose.
Execute the arranged flight flight path.
Walk away.
Ah. I kinda don't see this happening anytime soon.
There are millions (perhaps tens of millions) of buildings across the country. All running AC.
Tesla's batteries are somewhat attractive, but still a *VERY* niche product.
I really don't see them gaining a realistically large enough foothold to force this sort of transition and the type of power system infrastructure changes it would require.
Blocking of ad content on the internet is a problem that the internet advertising community brought upon itself.
Huge, messy, obnoxious high bandwidth, sometimes even dangerous ads.
If the entire playing field of internet advertising wasn't as toxic as it is, we'd see a wider array of people running without adblockers.
Careful! You're get foo-foo'ed by someone reward-seeking professional paper-pusher who can't even tell you what a confidence score is or why it's important in their data..
I wonder what the legal cost of even attempting this merger is above and beyond the cost of acquiring assets/debt. Though I guess it's not nearly as much as a they gain by grabbing the huge monopoly if it goes though.
Doesn't matter. The consumer ends up paying for it in the end.
I honestly wish these mega-mergers in cable would just be stopped. Flat out.
And before someone starts quoting combined numbers of Comcast+TWC vs Charter+TWC, understand this. The final number of subscribers is largely irrelevant due to geographic monopoly.
We have enough of these mega-monopoly ISPs as it is. And all the mergers do is concentrate the money so they can afford bigger and bigger bribes to buy a permissive atmosphere in which the best interests of consumers/constituencies are not looked after.
And the only recourse? Try to vote out these money-grubbing incumbents with their newly marble-lined solid platinum warchests...