Not when it can be done more efficiently, no. Storing electricity in pumped storage/batteries is ~90% efficient. Carbon sequestering systems, combined with carbon burning production is substantially less efficient than that.
Because the electricity providers typically have deals with large users of electricity (like aluminium smelters for example) that give them preferential rates, but require them to use electricity exactly when the generators want them to.
Better yet, have "plants" brought online to do something useful, like pump that energy into batteries, pump water high up a hill, pump gas into high pressure chambers, pull trains up hills, etc, so that the energy can be used later when the pendulum swings the other way.
No, this really is talking about negative energy prices. The suppliers are paying people to use electricity in order to keep the grid voltage stable, since production has to match demand.
Really this is a symptom of not having enough energy storage on the grid. They were generating so much energy that they could no longer store it, and needed to pay someone to burn the energy off.
It's not about subsidy, it's about keeping the grid voltage constant.
You're paying people for the service of using up energy, and keeping the grid stable. Negative electricity prices are really a symptom of not having enough storage capacity on the grid.
It's almost like if you made a bunch of drugs legal you'd solve these problems...
1) You'd improve the quality and consistency of the supply, allowing people to properly measure how much they're taking, making overdoses less common
2) You'd make safer drugs legal, making it rarer that people went for the less safe drugs, and hence rarer that they overdosed.
3) You'd remove control of the sale of drugs from dealers with a vested interest in addicting you to something ever worse for you, and put it into sensibly regulated hands, again, making overdose less likely.
4) You'd legitimise sales, killing the market for illegitimate dealers, and stopping turf wars.
Most of the problems you highlight are either solved, or improved by legalising drugs, and made worse by cracking down on them.
The thing that doesn't add up is the salaries, and the size of the administration departments at said collages. In the last 30 years the size of admin departments has increased 10 fold relative to academic staff, and the salaries have increased at a 10 times greater rate than the salaries of the academic staff.
No, he's suggesting that California's prisons wouldn't be filled with people costing us $75,000 a year if we had only spent $10,000 a year giving them a better education when they were 10, and $10,000 a year making sure that they had a bed, clothes that fit, food on the table, and a stable enough environment to take advantage of said education.
A smog test tells you nothing at all about whether the bumper is missing; the brakes are fucked; the lights don't work; the chassis was welded together after a crash; the crumple zones are all already collapsed;...
Now if only CA would figure out that they should require vehicles to be inspected every once in a while. It's pretty common to see vehicles litterally held together with string and duct tape here, because there's no legally mandated inspection.
There are many places where there simply is no open alternative, and the closed alternative was funded by a company that would never open its source, and shouldn't be forced to (after all, they paid for the research and development and should be able to profit from it)
No one is proposing forcing them to open source their code, they're simply proposing not using their code, and letting the market do the rest.
Companies don't have the right to make a profit just because they spent money on research. They only get to make a profit if their product is actually something useful. In this case, the parent poster argues that it's not useful since you can't verify any of the determinations it makes.
Whether the value proposition of getting to see it at a similar time to your friends, and talk about it at work over lunch vs $50 is a good one is entirely up to you. The point is that there are people who can't "just go to the theatre".
Personally, if this were priced at $30, and the 2 theatre tickets thrown out, this would be well worth it for anything my wife and I might have gone to the cinema for in the past. At $50 it's steep, but it might be worth it for the occasional mega blockbuster.
Believe it or not, when you have children, you do actually need to look after them. That means if you have a child between the ages of 0 and 1, you simply can not go and see a movie; and between 1 and 12, you can not go and see a movie without going through a complex planning rig-ma-roll involving finding someone to look after the sprog.
This isn't about not showing kids movies, it's about whether it's reasonably possible for you to turn up at a cinema without either endangering the life of your crotch fruit, or annoying everyone else there.
You are not ever going to be able to force people to accept things they find disgusting.
Sure you are - that was the entire point of the black rights movement in the 50s, the anti slave movement a century before, and the women's rights movement.
The key is that there's nearly unlimited ways to solve a problem incorrectly, but when the exact same incorrect solutions keep coming up within the same sets of students it becomes very obvious to the teaching assistant what's going on.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when it can be done more efficiently, no. Storing electricity in pumped storage/batteries is ~90% efficient. Carbon sequestering systems, combined with carbon burning production is substantially less efficient than that.
Because the electricity providers typically have deals with large users of electricity (like aluminium smelters for example) that give them preferential rates, but require them to use electricity exactly when the generators want them to.
Better yet, have "plants" brought online to do something useful, like pump that energy into batteries, pump water high up a hill, pump gas into high pressure chambers, pull trains up hills, etc, so that the energy can be used later when the pendulum swings the other way.
No, this really is talking about negative energy prices. The suppliers are paying people to use electricity in order to keep the grid voltage stable, since production has to match demand.
Really this is a symptom of not having enough energy storage on the grid. They were generating so much energy that they could no longer store it, and needed to pay someone to burn the energy off.
It's not about subsidy, it's about keeping the grid voltage constant.
You're paying people for the service of using up energy, and keeping the grid stable. Negative electricity prices are really a symptom of not having enough storage capacity on the grid.
It's almost like if you made a bunch of drugs legal you'd solve these problems...
1) You'd improve the quality and consistency of the supply, allowing people to properly measure how much they're taking, making overdoses less common
2) You'd make safer drugs legal, making it rarer that people went for the less safe drugs, and hence rarer that they overdosed.
3) You'd remove control of the sale of drugs from dealers with a vested interest in addicting you to something ever worse for you, and put it into sensibly regulated hands, again, making overdose less likely.
4) You'd legitimise sales, killing the market for illegitimate dealers, and stopping turf wars.
Most of the problems you highlight are either solved, or improved by legalising drugs, and made worse by cracking down on them.
The thing that doesn't add up is the salaries, and the size of the administration departments at said collages. In the last 30 years the size of admin departments has increased 10 fold relative to academic staff, and the salaries have increased at a 10 times greater rate than the salaries of the academic staff.
No, he's suggesting that California's prisons wouldn't be filled with people costing us $75,000 a year if we had only spent $10,000 a year giving them a better education when they were 10, and $10,000 a year making sure that they had a bed, clothes that fit, food on the table, and a stable enough environment to take advantage of said education.
The only test is a smog test.
A smog test tells you nothing at all about whether the bumper is missing; the brakes are fucked; the lights don't work; the chassis was welded together after a crash; the crumple zones are all already collapsed; ...
Now if only CA would figure out that they should require vehicles to be inspected every once in a while. It's pretty common to see vehicles litterally held together with string and duct tape here, because there's no legally mandated inspection.
They already have a docking station - it's called a Thunderbolt port, you just chose not to buy a dock.
There are many places where there simply is no open alternative, and the closed alternative was funded by a company that would never open its source, and shouldn't be forced to (after all, they paid for the research and development and should be able to profit from it)
No one is proposing forcing them to open source their code, they're simply proposing not using their code, and letting the market do the rest.
Companies don't have the right to make a profit just because they spent money on research. They only get to make a profit if their product is actually something useful. In this case, the parent poster argues that it's not useful since you can't verify any of the determinations it makes.
Whether the value proposition of getting to see it at a similar time to your friends, and talk about it at work over lunch vs $50 is a good one is entirely up to you. The point is that there are people who can't "just go to the theatre".
Personally, if this were priced at $30, and the 2 theatre tickets thrown out, this would be well worth it for anything my wife and I might have gone to the cinema for in the past. At $50 it's steep, but it might be worth it for the occasional mega blockbuster.
Believe it or not, when you have children, you do actually need to look after them. That means if you have a child between the ages of 0 and 1, you simply can not go and see a movie; and between 1 and 12, you can not go and see a movie without going through a complex planning rig-ma-roll involving finding someone to look after the sprog.
This isn't about not showing kids movies, it's about whether it's reasonably possible for you to turn up at a cinema without either endangering the life of your crotch fruit, or annoying everyone else there.
Because people with children exist, and want to watch movies without disturbing a whole cinema full of people, or having to hire a baby sitter.
Also, because home movie setups are a lot more comfortable than typical theatre setups.
Also, because people with older children exist, and 5 cinema tickets costs more than $50.
You are not ever going to be able to force people to accept things they find disgusting.
Sure you are - that was the entire point of the black rights movement in the 50s, the anti slave movement a century before, and the women's rights movement.
Why would I care then? Are you implying that transgender people are in some way dangerous to my child?
It's an issue because people are trying to restrict usages. No one cared, until someone tried to take the transgender people's freedom away.
Well, I used to be said TA, so... yeh :P. It was really fucking obvious when people plagiarised. Not always easy to prove it, but very easy to tell.
The key is that there's nearly unlimited ways to solve a problem incorrectly, but when the exact same incorrect solutions keep coming up within the same sets of students it becomes very obvious to the teaching assistant what's going on.
1) cite, not sight
2) neither of these is even close to I/O bound with basically any SSD.
None - this is for people who want to compile code, or edit videos, or ... you know, useful stuff.
No, that, in the US, is the bare minimum of connecting a device to the network, and having a couple of gigs of data available to you.
Sure, and along with $60 a month on even the most basic of phone plans, that's $820 in a year.
$1000 in a year is not really an expensive smart phone though.
That's $60 a month on your phone plan, plus a $300 phone.