No one is a victim here. He's told them what he's going to build, and he's offered them a certain price. As long as he delivers what he said for the price he claimed, no one is being victimized.
Really? I would have thought that if they're struggling with peak load some trivial high school maths would make it clear that buying a power wall is worth while.
At least here in CA, if you're on the EV rates electricity costs 3 times as much during peak times as it does during off peak. You gain $0.34 for every kWh you can time shift from off peak to peak. That's $1240 a year on the 10kWh model. Given that a PowerWall only costs $4000 after rebates, it's pretty trivial to see that that's well worth while.
For me at least, HBO has more quality programming than Netflix (or in fact, all other channels combined), so it's well worth the $15 a month. Even if it's not to you, you can always wait for GoT to finish, pay $15 for one month, binge watch it all, and then cancel.
The thing is, HBO has more good quality original content than pretty much all the other channels combined. I agree that $15 a month would be a lot for most channels, but for HBO I'm just fine paying it.
For a senior position near Silicon Valley (admittedly Sacramento is a bit cheaper, but still), they should be looking at around $150-200k. $70k is way out.
My fear is that the move towards mild hybrids will de-emphasize the importance of good traffic management in cities (e.g. synchronized lights to reduce the number of red lights you'll hit). Most of the fuel savings for hybrids comes in city driving, where they can recoup about 1/3 of the kinetic energy whenever the car brakes. So they decrease the fuel wasted from poor traffic management.
Not a problem in Europe where Volvo mostly sells their cars - Europe doesn't use giant light controlled junctions in 99% of cases.
No, straight up hybrids are not allowed in the car pool lane any more. Only full on EVs, and plug in hybrids, and they'll only be allowed in until jan 1st 2019.
He didn't actually lie - Tesla sued TopGear for libel and defamation, the outcome of the case was that the judge found that top gear had been truthful, and that Tesla defamed TopGear, and were liable for £100,000 damages against TopGear.
Or, alternatively... In Europe, we actually have pretty strong protections on our privacy, where companies aren't allowed to just grab all the data they can and run with it. Facebook tries to grab all our data and run with it, and unsurprisingly are being found to be outside the law.
The market wasn't free in the first place - in order for a free market to function correctly every player needs perfect information. That isn't possible.
That's why regulation is necessary - it enforces that the market behaves somewhere close to what would happen if people actually had perfect information.
It only makes sense if you simplify economic theory to a closed system containing only one transaction.
If you actually model everything (for example, workers having more income resulting in more money going to the poorer, in turn resulting in more money being spent in the local economy, in turn resulting in businesses doing more business, and having more money to pay their employees), then it becomes much less clear what the outcome is going to be. In all states that have introduced higher minimum wages so far the economy has got substantially better since doing so.
The fact that we're trying to model a complex system, and not just a simple single transaction means is why studies (and good quality ones that don't ignore half the economy) are needed to determine the actual effects.
I'm pretty sure that that comment simply points out that most of the aggressive anti-trump rhetoric you see around here (and probably most of the aggressive pro trump rhetoric) is just bots astroturfing.
You seem to be operating under a weird delusion that the managers of entities like the met police have free reign over what the money they're given is spent on.
In practice, the government will send down orders like "we must find efficiency savings, without cutting front line policing services". Successive governments use this drive for "more efficiency" to get into office, and put successive pressure on these organizations to cut everything that is not absolutely 100% essential to the doors staying open right this moment. At some point "non essential" maintenance ends up on the chopping block.
Once again - the cause of this kind of thing is not some fundamental mismanagement, or people at the top who don't think that making sure the computer systems are maintained is important - instead, it's that "we found lots of efficiency savings, and saved the tax payer billions" plays much better when trying to get elected than "you know, the police don't have a 20 year out of date computer system now".
Private companies upgrade regularly, realizing it improves security/productivity. Government agencies never upgrade, then bitch that their anti-terrorism agencies are using 10 year old HW/SW cuz they can't afford to upgrade.
The problem is that while the government fully recognises that upgrading is worthwhile, convincing tax payers that spending millions on upgrading computers is a valid thing to do is nigh on impossible.
You and I can see that in the long run it'll cost less, but some conservative will always tell you that short term tax cuts are worth more than long term stability.
You may not realize it, but wages in many areas of the US are around the $30,000 mark. 3 times $30,000 plus overheads is of the order of $150,000. That leaves $100,000 for other expenses.
In that time, you can start actually making money.
$250k is going to cover two full time people for a year if you don't run your startup in Silicon Valley. In that year, you can then start you know... bringing in some money, so you can pay them more, or you can prove that your product is worthwhile and get hold of more funding.
I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.
I don't understand what's good about this step. The argument against H1Bs is that companies like Infosys and Tata abuse them to bring in tons of unskilled workers at low wages and displace a bunch of US jobs in doing so.
That argument doesn't apply to this scheme. This scheme in fact involves creating US jobs, so why on earth would you want to shut it down?
Yeh, this is really sad - WholeFoods for all that it is pricy as hell also sells a bunch of really good quality things that you can't easily get elsewhere. Turning it into yet another Safeway is a real shame.
Slashdot Mirror
The cells are made in Reno, Nevada.
No one is a victim here. He's told them what he's going to build, and he's offered them a certain price. As long as he delivers what he said for the price he claimed, no one is being victimized.
Really? I would have thought that if they're struggling with peak load some trivial high school maths would make it clear that buying a power wall is worth while.
At least here in CA, if you're on the EV rates electricity costs 3 times as much during peak times as it does during off peak. You gain $0.34 for every kWh you can time shift from off peak to peak. That's $1240 a year on the 10kWh model. Given that a PowerWall only costs $4000 after rebates, it's pretty trivial to see that that's well worth while.
So only pay for one month in three, and binge watch during the month you have it.
For me at least, HBO has more quality programming than Netflix (or in fact, all other channels combined), so it's well worth the $15 a month. Even if it's not to you, you can always wait for GoT to finish, pay $15 for one month, binge watch it all, and then cancel.
The thing is, HBO has more good quality original content than pretty much all the other channels combined. I agree that $15 a month would be a lot for most channels, but for HBO I'm just fine paying it.
Oh wait, the tax bit was meant to be a joke? o.O
For a senior position near Silicon Valley (admittedly Sacramento is a bit cheaper, but still), they should be looking at around $150-200k. $70k is way out.
Censorship is something that the government practices. This, if it's anything is blackmail.
My fear is that the move towards mild hybrids will de-emphasize the importance of good traffic management in cities (e.g. synchronized lights to reduce the number of red lights you'll hit). Most of the fuel savings for hybrids comes in city driving, where they can recoup about 1/3 of the kinetic energy whenever the car brakes. So they decrease the fuel wasted from poor traffic management.
Not a problem in Europe where Volvo mostly sells their cars - Europe doesn't use giant light controlled junctions in 99% of cases.
No, straight up hybrids are not allowed in the car pool lane any more. Only full on EVs, and plug in hybrids, and they'll only be allowed in until jan 1st 2019.
He didn't actually lie - Tesla sued TopGear for libel and defamation, the outcome of the case was that the judge found that top gear had been truthful, and that Tesla defamed TopGear, and were liable for £100,000 damages against TopGear.
Or, alternatively... In Europe, we actually have pretty strong protections on our privacy, where companies aren't allowed to just grab all the data they can and run with it. Facebook tries to grab all our data and run with it, and unsurprisingly are being found to be outside the law.
The market wasn't free in the first place - in order for a free market to function correctly every player needs perfect information. That isn't possible.
That's why regulation is necessary - it enforces that the market behaves somewhere close to what would happen if people actually had perfect information.
It only makes sense if you simplify economic theory to a closed system containing only one transaction.
If you actually model everything (for example, workers having more income resulting in more money going to the poorer, in turn resulting in more money being spent in the local economy, in turn resulting in businesses doing more business, and having more money to pay their employees), then it becomes much less clear what the outcome is going to be. In all states that have introduced higher minimum wages so far the economy has got substantially better since doing so.
The fact that we're trying to model a complex system, and not just a simple single transaction means is why studies (and good quality ones that don't ignore half the economy) are needed to determine the actual effects.
Because storing it in a battery is much more efficient.
I'm pretty sure that that comment simply points out that most of the aggressive anti-trump rhetoric you see around here (and probably most of the aggressive pro trump rhetoric) is just bots astroturfing.
You seem to be operating under a weird delusion that the managers of entities like the met police have free reign over what the money they're given is spent on.
In practice, the government will send down orders like "we must find efficiency savings, without cutting front line policing services". Successive governments use this drive for "more efficiency" to get into office, and put successive pressure on these organizations to cut everything that is not absolutely 100% essential to the doors staying open right this moment. At some point "non essential" maintenance ends up on the chopping block.
Once again - the cause of this kind of thing is not some fundamental mismanagement, or people at the top who don't think that making sure the computer systems are maintained is important - instead, it's that "we found lots of efficiency savings, and saved the tax payer billions" plays much better when trying to get elected than "you know, the police don't have a 20 year out of date computer system now".
Private companies upgrade regularly, realizing it improves security/productivity. Government agencies never upgrade, then bitch that their anti-terrorism agencies are using 10 year old HW/SW cuz they can't afford to upgrade.
The problem is that while the government fully recognises that upgrading is worthwhile, convincing tax payers that spending millions on upgrading computers is a valid thing to do is nigh on impossible.
You and I can see that in the long run it'll cost less, but some conservative will always tell you that short term tax cuts are worth more than long term stability.
The law doesn't require you to have a monopoly to be guilty of abusing a monopoly position. It requires you to be dominant.
You may not realize it, but wages in many areas of the US are around the $30,000 mark. 3 times $30,000 plus overheads is of the order of $150,000. That leaves $100,000 for other expenses.
In that time, you can start actually making money.
$250k is going to cover two full time people for a year if you don't run your startup in Silicon Valley. In that year, you can then start you know... bringing in some money, so you can pay them more, or you can prove that your product is worthwhile and get hold of more funding.
I don't deny that $250k is a small number, but arguing that you can't start a company with quarter of a million dollars is ridiculous. Not all startups have to be unicorns.
What on earth do you think that raised capitol was going to be spent on?
Hint - when people raise capitol for a startup, it's because they need to employ people to do work to get the company moving.
I don't understand what's good about this step. The argument against H1Bs is that companies like Infosys and Tata abuse them to bring in tons of unskilled workers at low wages and displace a bunch of US jobs in doing so.
That argument doesn't apply to this scheme. This scheme in fact involves creating US jobs, so why on earth would you want to shut it down?
Yeh, this is really sad - WholeFoods for all that it is pricy as hell also sells a bunch of really good quality things that you can't easily get elsewhere. Turning it into yet another Safeway is a real shame.