I would think that legitimate callers could work with their local phone company to certify that they were legitimate. Of course, this would require time and effort which is why they don't want to do it. (It would also cut down call volume and their profits... so another reason there.)
Seriously, if you read TFA, you'll find out that: 1. It's more reflective than plain white paint 2. It emits IR which can actually bring the surface temperature BELOW ambient.
Well, they do have ads in my search results so I assume they are making some money from me... probably not as much as Google gets for dishing out "personalized" ads targeted to my anarchist view of the world.
I've been using DuckDuckGo for about a year as the search on my main computer. I've found it always gives me good results...i.e. what I'm looking for... It's fast. I've never felt the need to switch to a different search engine. It does have ads but these are clearly labeled. The ads seem to be targeted to my search terms which is appropriate.
If only nuclear could get its act together, it might be viable. As it is, it's just too expensive to matter. The latest nuclear fiasco is the Votgle plant in Georgia which is on the precipice of being cancelled. It started as a $7 billion project and is now up to $32 billion with no end in sight (and, of course, many years late). The latest nuclear darling NuScale, is thinking it might be able to start producing electricity ten years from now (and no word on costs). We can't wait ten years to start producing clean energy. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal are all available now, can be installed and running in less than a year and produce cheaper energy than anything else. Cheaper than coal, NG, (and especially) nuclear.
If you are familiar with that hit piece from people funded by Exxon, Ford Motors, and other fossil and nuclear fuel advocates, etc. then you should also be familiar with Jacobsons reply. http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
Nuclear is 100% clean if you don't count the nuclear waste. It's not just Australia, batteries pay for themselves everywhere. Nobody needs 100% grid storage anywhere. Nuclear is proven to be very expensive. Long lead times, overruns on costs. Even old nuclear plants can't compete with wind and solar. Climate change is real. Wind, solar and batteries are proven technologies which can be installed in less than a year. Why waste money on nuclear (Votgle, I'm looking at you) when you can have a solution this year, not sometime in the future.
Solar and wind are about $1000/kilowatt so much cheaper (and getting cheaper every day). Solar and wind energy costs about $20/MWh so much cheaper (and getting cheaper every day). Batteries to smooth production and protect the grid pay for themselves so no extra cost. Solar and wind are proven technologies which can be installed in running in less than a year compared to nuclear research projects which may or may not produce electricity decades from now. Why even try?
I've done a lot of development work and I always though the most effective money spent was what I put into the local economy paying people for food, stuff, drivers, etc.
Really? Why is this even news that Amazon wants to sell you stuff? It's not some secret plot. It's their whole raison d'etre. If you don't want to buy stuff, don't go there. Is that hard to understand?
Education is not the same as consumer goods. You don't seem like the kind of person who would be interested in reading or learning but here is an opinion piece that explains the difference... Others might be interested. The Guardian view on education: some things money should not buy
A few problems with your "logic". Yes, K-12 education is free to the students but, of course taxpayers have been paying for this for several hundred years in all civilized countries since they recognize the value of education. I'm just saying that college should be free of charge (as it is in may more enlightened countries) since a college education is considered a minimum requirement for most decent jobs. It is laughably preposterous to apply demand charges to education since it is required for a job and it benefits society to have well educated workers. You don't want to exclude anyone from access to college education by financial or other barriers.
Only assholes would put up barriers to education. Only assholes would think to limit access to education based on wealth. Only assholes would think that there is superfluous demand for education that should be driven out by financial barriers.
The US doesn't have two phase. It has single phase (residential use) which is center tapped so you can get 120/240 volts. 240 volts for high power items (hot water, heating, etc.) and 120v for everything else (safer and more efficient). Electrical code in the US requires a safety shutter on 120v sockets. Fuse at central box is more efficient than located on each socket and has the same functionality. English plugs are a joke. Massive enough to power the Frankenstein monster but waste of space, weight and materials for most loads. Those little switches on each socket also drive me crazy.
The problem is not the availability of student loans. It's the cost of education. We already have State schools which are cheaper... why not free college? K-12 has been free for hundreds of years... now that more education is required to get a job, it's time to make college free.
So, it's a stupid decision to go to college? All colleges are expensive (some more than others). Not everyone has a rich uncle to pay for their college. Maybe the problem is greedy colleges.
The fossil fuel industry put out a hit piece a week ago saying tha California didn't have enough land for renewables. (Published in the LA Times which as usual, didn't do any real journalism, just printed the hit piece.) The usual garbage stats. Quickly debunked.
First, California has its own grid so it's easy to keep out fossil fuel electricity. Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example. (Lithium batteries are very easy to recycle into safe non-toxic components and even new batteries.) There is also geothermal, hydro and pumped storage which can easily be controlled to fill in gaps. Renewable electricity is cheaper than fossil fuel electricity (the "fuel" for renewables is free) and it just keeps getting cheaper. States which rely on fossil fuel electricity will be at a high cost disadvantage.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that legitimate callers could work with their local phone company to certify that they were legitimate. Of course, this would require time and effort which is why they don't want to do it. (It would also cut down call volume and their profits... so another reason there.)
You can be net zero carbon emissions.
You could Googleit but here, I've done the hard work for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://fortune.com/2018/10/08/...
https://croakingcassandra.com/...
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
http://www.onlyzerocarbon.org/...
You'll have to actually read these and you may have to change some habits but I know you can do it if you're at all interested.
Here's an explanation of what's going on... same method used by tobacco industry.
https://thinkprogress.org/sena...
Maybe.
It emits IR
Seriously, if you read TFA, you'll find out that:
1. It's more reflective than plain white paint
2. It emits IR which can actually bring the surface temperature BELOW ambient.
Well, they do have ads in my search results so I assume they are making some money from me... probably not as much as Google gets for dishing out "personalized" ads targeted to my anarchist view of the world.
I've been using DuckDuckGo for about a year as the search on my main computer. I've found it always gives me good results...i.e. what I'm looking for... It's fast. I've never felt the need to switch to a different search engine.
It does have ads but these are clearly labeled. The ads seem to be targeted to my search terms which is appropriate.
If only nuclear could get its act together, it might be viable. As it is, it's just too expensive to matter. The latest nuclear fiasco is the Votgle plant in Georgia which is on the precipice of being cancelled. It started as a $7 billion project and is now up to $32 billion with no end in sight (and, of course, many years late).
The latest nuclear darling NuScale, is thinking it might be able to start producing electricity ten years from now (and no word on costs).
We can't wait ten years to start producing clean energy. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal are all available now, can be installed and running in less than a year and produce cheaper energy than anything else. Cheaper than coal, NG, (and especially) nuclear.
If you are familiar with that hit piece from people funded by Exxon, Ford Motors, and other fossil and nuclear fuel advocates, etc. then you should also be familiar with Jacobsons reply.
http://www.pnas.org/content/11...
https://news.stanford.edu/2018...
Nuclear is 100% clean if you don't count the nuclear waste.
It's not just Australia, batteries pay for themselves everywhere. Nobody needs 100% grid storage anywhere.
Nuclear is proven to be very expensive. Long lead times, overruns on costs. Even old nuclear plants can't compete with wind and solar.
Climate change is real. Wind, solar and batteries are proven technologies which can be installed in less than a year. Why waste money on nuclear (Votgle, I'm looking at you) when you can have a solution this year, not sometime in the future.
When I have to shit, my gut has no problem communicating with my brain. Who are these geniuses?
Wind and solar power sources are cheaper than nuclear, coal, NG, etc. Try telling people they need to pay more for nuclear and fossil fuel power.
Solar and wind are about $1000/kilowatt so much cheaper (and getting cheaper every day).
Solar and wind energy costs about $20/MWh so much cheaper (and getting cheaper every day).
Batteries to smooth production and protect the grid pay for themselves so no extra cost.
Solar and wind are proven technologies which can be installed in running in less than a year compared to nuclear research projects which may or may not produce electricity decades from now. Why even try?
Reading these responses, I can see that Apple users have no sense of humor.
Relax and enjoy your free gift.
I've done a lot of development work and I always though the most effective money spent was what I put into the local economy paying people for food, stuff, drivers, etc.
I think it's naive to believe that Amazon has ever been about anything other than crass commercialization.
Really?
Why is this even news that Amazon wants to sell you stuff?
It's not some secret plot. It's their whole raison d'etre.
If you don't want to buy stuff, don't go there.
Is that hard to understand?
Education is not the same as consumer goods.
You don't seem like the kind of person who would be interested in reading or learning but here is an opinion piece that explains the difference... Others might be interested.
The Guardian view on education: some things money should not buy
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
A few problems with your "logic".
Yes, K-12 education is free to the students but, of course taxpayers have been paying for this for several hundred years in all civilized countries since they recognize the value of education. I'm just saying that college should be free of charge (as it is in may more enlightened countries) since a college education is considered a minimum requirement for most decent jobs.
It is laughably preposterous to apply demand charges to education since it is required for a job and it benefits society to have well educated workers. You don't want to exclude anyone from access to college education by financial or other barriers.
Only assholes would put up barriers to education. Only assholes would think to limit access to education based on wealth. Only assholes would think that there is superfluous demand for education that should be driven out by financial barriers.
The US doesn't have two phase. It has single phase (residential use) which is center tapped so you can get 120/240 volts. 240 volts for high power items (hot water, heating, etc.) and 120v for everything else (safer and more efficient).
Electrical code in the US requires a safety shutter on 120v sockets. Fuse at central box is more efficient than located on each socket and has the same functionality. English plugs are a joke. Massive enough to power the Frankenstein monster but waste of space, weight and materials for most loads. Those little switches on each socket also drive me crazy.
The problem is not the availability of student loans. It's the cost of education.
We already have State schools which are cheaper... why not free college? K-12 has been free for hundreds of years... now that more education is required to get a job, it's time to make college free.
So, it's a stupid decision to go to college?
All colleges are expensive (some more than others). Not everyone has a rich uncle to pay for their college.
Maybe the problem is greedy colleges.
The fossil fuel industry put out a hit piece a week ago saying tha California didn't have enough land for renewables. (Published in the LA Times which as usual, didn't do any real journalism, just printed the hit piece.) The usual garbage stats. Quickly debunked.
First, California has its own grid so it's easy to keep out fossil fuel electricity.
Batteries are proven. Australia is a good example.
(Lithium batteries are very easy to recycle into safe non-toxic components and even new batteries.)
There is also geothermal, hydro and pumped storage which can easily be controlled to fill in gaps.
Renewable electricity is cheaper than fossil fuel electricity (the "fuel" for renewables is free) and it just keeps getting cheaper. States which rely on fossil fuel electricity will be at a high cost disadvantage.