We in Québec salt our highways, and that salt leaves a salt-dust deposit on the surface. Ergo, the panels must have great efficiency.
They will either have to have great efficiency or just not use this technology there. As I said, problems specific to a local area do not mean the entire technology is a flop.
I can't tell how many times I've gone up to watch a "how to" video and have the video maker yak for 10 minutes or longer as an intro.
It's worse when they interject personal crap throughout the video. That isn't as simple to skip as a big, long intro.
When I watch ANY Youtube video, the first thing I do is change the speed to 1.25x. After a few seconds I can then decide if 1.50x speed will suit the vocal style of the Youtuber. I just can't stand to watch videos at normal speed now that I am used to speeding it up in an attempt to get closer to speed that I could read the same information. But given that the information in a 10 minute video can usually be written as one or two paragraphs, even a sped up video can never actually reach my reading speed.
They could very well demand you provide the power to the streetlight in front of your home.
Governments could do that, but in all the years that we have street lights they have not done this. They could also mandate that solar panels be placed on houses to run the lights, but that would be an inefficient use of space. Why let the roads sit baking in the sunlight while the solar panels are installed in places that use far more power than a few street lights? Those houses would be better off having their own solar panels servicing their own needs while the street lights are powered from somewhere else. Like, for example, the roads they sit besides.
You do know that you can light street lights without using solar roadways, right?
Considering that the title of this article is "World's First 'Solar Panel Road' Opens in France" then it is fucking obvious that the street lights can be lit without a solar roadway. Otherwise none of the lights in the world would have worked up until now. Seriously, what was the point of posting such an asinine comment?
Um, no. According to the article the main driver was Natural Gas and Nuclear. Solar/Wind barely budged. Another mdsolar deceptive article.
How can gas be a main driver of low carbon energy sources reaching 50% if it isn't considered part of that 50% by the government statistics that are being reported?
I take it you haven't heard of solar panels being mounted on house roofs?
As I said elsewhere, the government doesn't own the houses. They can't go installing solar panels on houses to power the street lights because the home owners may want to install their own panels to power the house.
That's true, and I'm sure that one day the building codes will mandate those things. However, that still doesn't light up the street lights, which is what this project is all about, so the solar roads are still a good idea.
Roads are a consumable item, they don't last decades and they don't consume enough earth surface to ever have it make sense to put fucking solar panels in them.
The thing is that the places that they tend to need the power are close to the roads, and those roads are often surrounded by houses and other things that prevent solar panels from being installed.
Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment.
That would be true in rural areas, but closer to the cities there is an awful lot of real estate taken up by roads. If they can make multiple use of the land then it makes sense. And it's not as if the solar panels could only be in one place or the other. If there are other places for the panels then install two lots and generate even more electricity.
Considering the problems we have along sections of the 401? Unless the material is both strong and flexible, it'll never catch on.
Considering how many companies are working on embedding solar panels, I'm sure enough work has been done to take this sort of thing into account. And even if there are specific problems in those sections of road that you mentioned, it doesn't mean that all roads will be as problematic and therefore mean that this technology is a flop.
If it doesn't work in the real world, then tests like this one will find the problems.
Microsoft haven't changes since they tried to take over the world wide web with IE only websites and forsing people to pay for windows when they only wanted a pc without windows so that they could install linux or anything else
The problem with that is that Microsoft never made website developers make sites that only worked with Internet Explorer; that was just laziness by the developers. As for making people pay the Microsoft Tax, there has never been a time when you haven't been able to buy a computer that didn't come with Windows. That doesn't mean that every PC maker had that option, just that there was always some way for people to buy a system to run Linux.
And besides, that was a VERY long time ago. If Microsoft haven't changed, then why didn't you pick more recent examples? Not that I really care, because the fact that they DID open source.NET, the C# language and other projects does show that they are not the same Microsoft anymore.
The fact that you're saying this *is*, in fact, the problem.
Only in your imagination. In the real world, that makes no sense at all. Microsoft have committed themselves to their patent promise and this would undermine any attempt to take legal action that was in violation of that promise.
I don't think that you realise just how many standards are out there that are covered by patents, but have been accompanied by a covenant not to sue. This isn't just an idea that Microsoft made up.
When Microsoft rewrites Office in.Net, give us all a call.
That would be a huge undertaking, and a waste of time if it was just to satisfy some Internet argument. The fact that they haven't rewritten all that existing code is not evidence that the original statement was wrong.
Have you been saying that for over 12 years? That's a long time to keep calling that the sky is falling. In that time, Microsoft have made good on their promise not to sue regarding patents and Mono. They have also acquired Xamarin and then contributed the Mono Project to the.NET Foundation (the independent organisation incorporated by Microsoft to foster OSS development with.NET).
What more can they do to shut up the nay-sayers who keep crying that the big bad wolf is going to sue us if we use Mono?
Are you saying some greater purpose is being served by not releasing all data and methodology on climate change?
I'm saying that the greater purpose of bringing up this different topic was to draw attention away from this claim:
"Deniers"... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
Someone asked for an example of this peer-reviewed scientific work and all we got was an off-topic rant about seeing the raw temperature data. That was not the example that was requested which would prove the original assertion. I believe that the only reason why this irrelevant and sudden change of subject was posted here was because the alternative would be to admit that deniers aren't producing anything remotely like science. The original statement was a lie, and this business of climate model source code is just your attempt to distract us from the original question.
It is the usual denier tactic of rapidly switching to the next bullet point on their favorite denier website the moment anyone picks a hole in their crazy theories, or indeed actually answers their question. I have no doubt that if I posted a link to the raw data that you think is so important that you would quickly jump to the next prepackaged denier post.
May I suggest for the next leap in the discussion that we haven't see the old "they have fogotten about about the sun" line for a while. It's a shame that you can't point to 1998 anymore to "prove" that the climate is actually getting colder; that was always a good one. Don't you think that being a denier would be so much easier if it just would stop getting hotter?
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
That sounds fair until you rephrase it as giving equal funding to those who accept over 100 years of accumulated scientific research and those who think that it is all wrong. You would have to make a pretty compelling case of why you think that way if you wanted to be taken seriously when making a proposal for a new study.
The problem is that science doesn't work like an internet troll. Just because you make an assumption doesn't mean that you have to stick with it in the conclusions of your paper. In fact, you would be far more likely to get your paper cited by others (a metric used by some to determine the worth of a published work) if you can prove your own assumptions to be wrong. For example, you might make a study that poses: "Assuming X, then in theory Y must be true - so let's see if that is the case". If you find that Y is not true, then you can conclude that there is the need for more studies to find whether the theory of Y is false or the assumption of X is false. And more studies means more grants, so the financial imperative is not to follow the company line but actually to be controversial.
That is why this notion of equal funding is unnecessary. It also makes no difference, as the Koch brothers found when they funded (in part) a study that ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus. And boy, did the deniers suddenly turn against Richard Muller, who they thought was their "tame scientist"!
"Deniers"... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
For example?
I'm personally waiting to see all the climate model source code - and RAW data.
Ah yes, it's the usual "peer-reviewed scientific work" that is actually just going on a tangent to rant about something else when asked to provide proof of the original claim. I'm afraid that sort of thing wouldn't pass any peer review, unless by peers you mean other ill-informed deniers.
If it's science, it can withstand the scrutiny.
But if that scrutiny can't withstand a single follow-up question then I think the science is still pretty solid.
Powershell's OOP scripting language is pretty neat, at least on the surface. But it basically breaks down any time you want to do something complex, while bash/sed/awk/piping holds up strong in Linux.
In what way does it break down? I'm weaning myself off Microsoft products, but PowerShell is a hard habit to kick because it works so well and is made with a different mindset from the everything-is-text approach of virtually all other solutions. Once you get used to everything being an object, it feels so archaic to go back to the old ways.
I would say that bash/sed/awk would be better for text processing (since it has to really). I still occasionally use awk for that sort of thing, but mostly that's because I know it so well that I haven't felt the need to explore PowerShell's text processing beyond the basic Select-String (sls) and the standard where, sort, etc.
Oh how sweet. You're still around. And you're still trying to peddle that evidence argument.
The point is your "definition" of evidence is base completely in emotion.
Really? Perhaps you can provide some non-emotional evidence for that assertion. You see, I have quoted you before. I have quoted the articles that we are (supposed to be) discussing. I have also linked to other sources to back up my claims.
You have done none of this. You don't quote anything. you don't cite anything. You make off-topic claims that get more fanciful all the time. My "emotional" evidence for my claim is this entirely unrelated tangent you are going on now about the definition of a word. You just keep changing the subject all the time because you can't actually back up your original rant and are desperate to move the topic elsewhere.
You are obviously and seriously mentally ill and probably illiterate.
I addressed and refuted every point you tried to make.
That is obviously not true if you admit that you haven't even read some of what I have written. But even then, your so-called refutations tend to be just generalisations. I have quoted the article to you where they explain their reasons, cited an OECD report and U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics demonstrating the need to tackle the issue of female representation in computer science education, and given my cynical analysis of Microsoft's motives based on their self-interest (none of which had anything to do with affirmative action), and this was your refutation of all that:
The fact that you are making such an effort to deny it and ignore my criticism of your argument could be taken as proof that I am correct on all counts. ... You are totally ignoring that affirmative action exists everywhere and is totally unjustifiable.
Wow! That is your idea of you refuting my every point? Colour me unimpressed.
For anything I say against you, you then get the idea to say the exact same against me.
Yes, of course I do. That is because you keep saying stupid things that really apply to you. For example:
You are obsessed with quibbling over this specific article when its only significance is in a bigger picture. And you have absolutely NO POINT about the article itself. When your points are refuted you turn to taking things out of context and twisting meanings to fit your point of view, and above all cherry-picking an appropriate scope of things to fit your point of view regardless of any rationale.
So in one paragraph you say that I spend too much time talking about the article and yet I don't talk about the article. Also, you say I should look at the bigger picture instead and then claim that I am the one who wants to change the scope of things to fit my point of view! But ignoring your logical incongruities, naturally I have to reflect what you said back at you.
Because it is you, and not me, who has absolutely no point about the article. Because it is you, and not me, who wants to change the scope from the article to "the big picture". Because it is you, and not me, who uses emotion rather than logic and evidence. Because it is you, and not me, who doesn't read things and then claims that the other person is illiterate. Because it is you, and not me, who gives the lesson "when you become this obsessed over a simple thing, you are wrong and
The true troll is the one who diverts the discussion off topic by fixating on the gender of the researchers rather than the predictions they made. And all this because of one single word in the summary! I have to admit you were very successful in doing this.
Thus, I don't need a snotty left-wing punk to "educate" me about women in IT.
And yet clearly you do. Otherwise, why else would you have felt the need to post on this subject and been so riled up enough to start slinging around insults?
Slashdot Mirror
Well if simply uttering a three-word meme was the only proof of any wrongdoing then it deserved to be "punish-modded" then as it does now.
We in Québec salt our highways, and that salt leaves a salt-dust deposit on the surface. Ergo, the panels must have great efficiency.
They will either have to have great efficiency or just not use this technology there. As I said, problems specific to a local area do not mean the entire technology is a flop.
I can't tell how many times I've gone up to watch a "how to" video and have the video maker yak for 10 minutes or longer as an intro.
It's worse when they interject personal crap throughout the video. That isn't as simple to skip as a big, long intro.
When I watch ANY Youtube video, the first thing I do is change the speed to 1.25x. After a few seconds I can then decide if 1.50x speed will suit the vocal style of the Youtuber. I just can't stand to watch videos at normal speed now that I am used to speeding it up in an attempt to get closer to speed that I could read the same information. But given that the information in a 10 minute video can usually be written as one or two paragraphs, even a sped up video can never actually reach my reading speed.
They could very well demand you provide the power to the streetlight in front of your home.
Governments could do that, but in all the years that we have street lights they have not done this. They could also mandate that solar panels be placed on houses to run the lights, but that would be an inefficient use of space. Why let the roads sit baking in the sunlight while the solar panels are installed in places that use far more power than a few street lights? Those houses would be better off having their own solar panels servicing their own needs while the street lights are powered from somewhere else. Like, for example, the roads they sit besides.
You do know that you can light street lights without using solar roadways, right?
Considering that the title of this article is "World's First 'Solar Panel Road' Opens in France" then it is fucking obvious that the street lights can be lit without a solar roadway. Otherwise none of the lights in the world would have worked up until now. Seriously, what was the point of posting such an asinine comment?
Um, no. According to the article the main driver was Natural Gas and Nuclear. Solar/Wind barely budged. Another mdsolar deceptive article.
How can gas be a main driver of low carbon energy sources reaching 50% if it isn't considered part of that 50% by the government statistics that are being reported?
I take it you haven't heard of solar panels being mounted on house roofs?
As I said elsewhere, the government doesn't own the houses. They can't go installing solar panels on houses to power the street lights because the home owners may want to install their own panels to power the house.
That's true, and I'm sure that one day the building codes will mandate those things. However, that still doesn't light up the street lights, which is what this project is all about, so the solar roads are still a good idea.
Roads are a consumable item, they don't last decades and they don't consume enough earth surface to ever have it make sense to put fucking solar panels in them.
The thing is that the places that they tend to need the power are close to the roads, and those roads are often surrounded by houses and other things that prevent solar panels from being installed.
Cover every rooftop with solar shingles before laying the first solar road.
The problem is that the government doesn't own the rooftops, but it does own a lot of roads.
Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment.
That would be true in rural areas, but closer to the cities there is an awful lot of real estate taken up by roads. If they can make multiple use of the land then it makes sense. And it's not as if the solar panels could only be in one place or the other. If there are other places for the panels then install two lots and generate even more electricity.
Considering the problems we have along sections of the 401? Unless the material is both strong and flexible, it'll never catch on.
Considering how many companies are working on embedding solar panels, I'm sure enough work has been done to take this sort of thing into account. And even if there are specific problems in those sections of road that you mentioned, it doesn't mean that all roads will be as problematic and therefore mean that this technology is a flop.
If it doesn't work in the real world, then tests like this one will find the problems.
But that would affect more than just the use of .NET, and doesn't achieve anything that their covenant won't do
.
Microsoft haven't changes since they tried to take over the world wide web with IE only websites and forsing people to pay for windows when they only wanted a pc without windows so that they could install linux or anything else
The problem with that is that Microsoft never made website developers make sites that only worked with Internet Explorer; that was just laziness by the developers. As for making people pay the Microsoft Tax, there has never been a time when you haven't been able to buy a computer that didn't come with Windows. That doesn't mean that every PC maker had that option, just that there was always some way for people to buy a system to run Linux.
And besides, that was a VERY long time ago. If Microsoft haven't changed, then why didn't you pick more recent examples? Not that I really care, because the fact that they DID open source .NET, the C# language and other projects does show that they are not the same Microsoft anymore.
The fact that you're saying this *is*, in fact, the problem.
Only in your imagination. In the real world, that makes no sense at all. Microsoft have committed themselves to their patent promise and this would undermine any attempt to take legal action that was in violation of that promise.
I don't think that you realise just how many standards are out there that are covered by patents, but have been accompanied by a covenant not to sue. This isn't just an idea that Microsoft made up.
When Microsoft rewrites Office in .Net, give us all a call.
That would be a huge undertaking, and a waste of time if it was just to satisfy some Internet argument. The fact that they haven't rewritten all that existing code is not evidence that the original statement was wrong.
Mono is still a patent trap
Have you been saying that for over 12 years? That's a long time to keep calling that the sky is falling. In that time, Microsoft have made good on their promise not to sue regarding patents and Mono. They have also acquired Xamarin and then contributed the Mono Project to the .NET Foundation (the independent organisation incorporated by Microsoft to foster OSS development with .NET).
What more can they do to shut up the nay-sayers who keep crying that the big bad wolf is going to sue us if we use Mono?
Are you saying some greater purpose is being served by not releasing all data and methodology on climate change?
I'm saying that the greater purpose of bringing up this different topic was to draw attention away from this claim:
Someone asked for an example of this peer-reviewed scientific work and all we got was an off-topic rant about seeing the raw temperature data. That was not the example that was requested which would prove the original assertion. I believe that the only reason why this irrelevant and sudden change of subject was posted here was because the alternative would be to admit that deniers aren't producing anything remotely like science. The original statement was a lie, and this business of climate model source code is just your attempt to distract us from the original question.
It is the usual denier tactic of rapidly switching to the next bullet point on their favorite denier website the moment anyone picks a hole in their crazy theories, or indeed actually answers their question. I have no doubt that if I posted a link to the raw data that you think is so important that you would quickly jump to the next prepackaged denier post.
May I suggest for the next leap in the discussion that we haven't see the old "they have fogotten about about the sun" line for a while. It's a shame that you can't point to 1998 anymore to "prove" that the climate is actually getting colder; that was always a good one. Don't you think that being a denier would be so much easier if it just would stop getting hotter?
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
That sounds fair until you rephrase it as giving equal funding to those who accept over 100 years of accumulated scientific research and those who think that it is all wrong. You would have to make a pretty compelling case of why you think that way if you wanted to be taken seriously when making a proposal for a new study.
The problem is that science doesn't work like an internet troll. Just because you make an assumption doesn't mean that you have to stick with it in the conclusions of your paper. In fact, you would be far more likely to get your paper cited by others (a metric used by some to determine the worth of a published work) if you can prove your own assumptions to be wrong. For example, you might make a study that poses: "Assuming X, then in theory Y must be true - so let's see if that is the case". If you find that Y is not true, then you can conclude that there is the need for more studies to find whether the theory of Y is false or the assumption of X is false. And more studies means more grants, so the financial imperative is not to follow the company line but actually to be controversial.
That is why this notion of equal funding is unnecessary. It also makes no difference, as the Koch brothers found when they funded (in part) a study that ended up agreeing with the scientific consensus. And boy, did the deniers suddenly turn against Richard Muller, who they thought was their "tame scientist"!
"Deniers" ... are still producing peer-reviewed scientific work; it's not their fault if you choose to disregard their work.
For example?
I'm personally waiting to see all the climate model source code - and RAW data.
Ah yes, it's the usual "peer-reviewed scientific work" that is actually just going on a tangent to rant about something else when asked to provide proof of the original claim. I'm afraid that sort of thing wouldn't pass any peer review, unless by peers you mean other ill-informed deniers.
If it's science, it can withstand the scrutiny.
But if that scrutiny can't withstand a single follow-up question then I think the science is still pretty solid.
Powershell's OOP scripting language is pretty neat, at least on the surface. But it basically breaks down any time you want to do something complex, while bash/sed/awk/piping holds up strong in Linux.
In what way does it break down? I'm weaning myself off Microsoft products, but PowerShell is a hard habit to kick because it works so well and is made with a different mindset from the everything-is-text approach of virtually all other solutions. Once you get used to everything being an object, it feels so archaic to go back to the old ways.
I would say that bash/sed/awk would be better for text processing (since it has to really). I still occasionally use awk for that sort of thing, but mostly that's because I know it so well that I haven't felt the need to explore PowerShell's text processing beyond the basic Select-String (sls) and the standard where, sort, etc.
Oh how sweet. You're still around. And you're still trying to peddle that evidence argument.
The point is your "definition" of evidence is base completely in emotion.
Really? Perhaps you can provide some non-emotional evidence for that assertion. You see, I have quoted you before. I have quoted the articles that we are (supposed to be) discussing. I have also linked to other sources to back up my claims.
You have done none of this. You don't quote anything. you don't cite anything. You make off-topic claims that get more fanciful all the time. My "emotional" evidence for my claim is this entirely unrelated tangent you are going on now about the definition of a word. You just keep changing the subject all the time because you can't actually back up your original rant and are desperate to move the topic elsewhere.
You are obviously and seriously mentally ill and probably illiterate.
That's funny, especially the part about me being illiterate. Remind me again which of us was able to actually read the article? Which of us refused to read what the other posted because it was a "wall of text"?
I addressed and refuted every point you tried to make.
That is obviously not true if you admit that you haven't even read some of what I have written. But even then, your so-called refutations tend to be just generalisations. I have quoted the article to you where they explain their reasons, cited an OECD report and U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics demonstrating the need to tackle the issue of female representation in computer science education, and given my cynical analysis of Microsoft's motives based on their self-interest (none of which had anything to do with affirmative action), and this was your refutation of all that:
Wow! That is your idea of you refuting my every point? Colour me unimpressed.
For anything I say against you, you then get the idea to say the exact same against me.
Yes, of course I do. That is because you keep saying stupid things that really apply to you. For example:
So in one paragraph you say that I spend too much time talking about the article and yet I don't talk about the article. Also, you say I should look at the bigger picture instead and then claim that I am the one who wants to change the scope of things to fit my point of view! But ignoring your logical incongruities, naturally I have to reflect what you said back at you.
Because it is you, and not me, who has absolutely no point about the article.
Because it is you, and not me, who wants to change the scope from the article to "the big picture".
Because it is you, and not me, who uses emotion rather than logic and evidence.
Because it is you, and not me, who doesn't read things and then claims that the other person is illiterate.
Because it is you, and not me, who gives the lesson "when you become this obsessed over a simple thing, you are wrong and
The true troll is the one who diverts the discussion off topic by fixating on the gender of the researchers rather than the predictions they made. And all this because of one single word in the summary! I have to admit you were very successful in doing this.
Oh good. I'm glad that it's not just women in IT that you have a problem with.
Thus, I don't need a snotty left-wing punk to "educate" me about women in IT.
And yet clearly you do. Otherwise, why else would you have felt the need to post on this subject and been so riled up enough to start slinging around insults?