This is fallacious, as capacity is consumed and is a limited capacity.
So, if I understand you correctly, if I download 1GB, then for the rest of that month, the routers can only handle their normal traffic minus 1GB? And so on for every user?
No, your explanation is flawed because it assumes that, at a given time, one individual can consume all the bandwidth, locking out other users. In reality, of course, what happens is that everyone's Internet service slows down so that the sum total matches the capacity. But the network capacity for the rest of the month is unaffected. Even if no one downloads anything, the network capacity for the rest of the month is unchanged
Network capacity has an instantaneous limit, and capacity is not "consumed" in any meaningful use of the word.
What ISPs are really selling is speed. But this ISP only offers low speeds. It's offering a sub-par product and would like to hide that in ridiculous monthly caps.
And now, you are confusing the issues also. The point about residential solar is that, when all those A/C units kick in, so does the output of the solar systems. Moreover, that electricity doesn't have to be delivered over the grid. Residential solar has a greater impact than just the generation cost.
Utilities have a perverse incentive: since they generally operate both generation and end-user sales, with prices set through a regulatory body, these utility companies actually benefit when the base cost of generation increases. Solar threatens their profit and that's why utilities oppose it.
As for Hawaii, the story is clearly not finished there. Hawaii has some of the the highest electricity costs in the nation, so the opportunity for solar is greatest there.
Finally, the argument initially was about solar in general, not specifically rooftop solar. As I pointed out above, even if utility-grade solar offer the possibility to provide cheaper electricity than the alternatives, utility companies benefit from the status quo, and that is why solar has had such a small impact on US generation.
If it is financially viable for an oil state to use utility grade solar, it's financially viable for most southern states in the USA.
Yes, because other energy sources don't receive subsidies? This is the biggest lie that the fossil fuel lobby puts out. The subsidies are both direct and indirect, in not making fossil fuel extraction and use pay the real costs -- costs including the destruction of the environment, clean water, etc..
But still, assume a 30% subsidy to the Dubai contract and then find alternatives that are as cost effective.
Utilities have killed solar in the USA.
Yes, it is intermittent, but solar production is greater when electricity usage is greater. There are also new technologies for energy storage coming on line that will eliminate the issues from intermittent solar production. Thermal solar, for example, can store heat and produce electricity when needed. In many US states, sunlight is very consistent during 3 seasons.
Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation
You will find that this is because utilities in many states have been able to push anti-net-metering changes, making residential solar uneconomic. On the other hand, CA residential solar capacity recently hit 5% of peak capacity, triggering a change from one net metering plan to another.
As for the idea that Solar cannot be economic, let me destroy that idea by asking what technology can provide power at 2.99c per kWh? Answer: Solar
Solar is only failing because regulators and politicians have been bought off by utility companies who are heavily invested in fossil fuels.
Let me get this straight--if you have (limited liability) companies, you need regulation because they will take actions that externalize their real costs.
Exactly right. Take the example of a mining company that pollutes a nearby river or the groundwater in the region.
In the Libertarian world, there is absolutely nothing to stop this happening. Libertarian ideals mean that, even if the company were prosecuted, the mining company would simply fold up and another company (owned by the same people) would start up in its place. A simple arrangement whereby the mining company owned nothing (it rents all equipment and the mine from other companies) would ensure that there are no assets for the company to forfeit.
Let's look at another example, which is related.
Many Libertarians would think that people should not be required to have car insurance. But what happens when a poor person without insurance crashes into and wrecks your car? They don't have the money to pay you.
Similarly, banks can easily get into a situation whereby they owe far more than the value of the bank. Economies and personal wealth were hampered in the times before governments would provide guarantees to ordinary bank deposits and because governments provide these guarantees, regulation is required to reduce the possible impact of this.
Obviously, the possibility of companies going bankrupt with large debts cannot be eliminated with regulation, but it will happen far more often without it.
The simple fact is that we have seen what happens in a Libertarian world. You just have to look at history to see that the Libertarian ideal is bad for the economy.
Libertarianism is the political approach of the simple minded. It sounds good, but if you actually look at the consequences, it only benefits the very few ultra-ultra wealthy.
Those who are untrustworthy will fail in a free market. Security is a non-issue if you believe failing at it can be so easily manipulated away. The argument defeats itself.
History (numerous recent examples) proves you wrong.
But what is wrong with your argument is that, in order to fail, you have to be worse than your competitors. When everyone is untrustworthy, there is no downside to it.
Also, there is the very real problem posed by the concept of a limited liability company. We know that the absence of limited liability prevents investment, but the very real effect of limited liability is that, without regulation, people will take actions that externalize their real costs.
Or, to summarize: to have a healthy economy, you need limited liability companies. If you have limited liability companies, then you need regulation.
A 2000sqft house covered in solar panels will generate 73kwh/day in 4 hours
As long as the roof moves so that all the roof area faces the sun directly.
In the real world, the usable area of a roof is much lower and factors such as weather, shading, etc. mean that 8% efficiency isn't going to be useful in most installations.
The real problem with the Libertarian ideal is that markets need accurate information in order to function properly. Accurate information is very hard to get in certain fields. Accurate information is hard to get when the major media outlets are controlled by a small number of people.
For example, what percentage of security breaches become public knowledge? I would doubt that it is as high as 10%.
You think Trump will nominate judges who will preserve individual rights if elected? Wow, I have this really nice bridge to sell you. Also some fine land in Florida.
Trump already indicated what sort of justice he wants: someone like Peter Thiel, who doesn't care about free speech if it might offend someone wealthy. In fact, that would obviously be the theme of all of any of Trump's nominations: allow the wealthy to do what they want, screw over ordinary people.
Let me suggest that you do a little more reading about the "shouting fire in a theatre" claim, since this is not as settled as many people think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am not sure that *this* judge is an activist judge, so much as he is relying on other activist rulings.
And just because it is settled does not mean that it is right. At one time, it was settled knowledge that the sun orbits the earth. "settled" in this context merely means "current situation".
You know that Piaget has been largely discredited, right?
But, yes, education policy is dominated by know-nothings whose only strategy is "fire the bad teachers". Where the good replacement teachers come from with the pitiful salaries that most teachers earn is never discussed. Also not discussed: how to identify the "bad teachers".
EU is going to want to punish UK severely as a warning to others to not leave.
I am sure that there is a desire to do this, but the simple fact is that such punishment would harm the EU more than the UK: the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to the EU.
Um, I don't think that you read the second paragraph of the article. Oregon got unlimited use of Oracle software for 6 years and some amount of support.
What do you think those Oracle support people are going to be doing for the next 6 years? Do you think that they are going to be promoting alternative solutions? Or do you think they might be promoting more dependence on Oracle, which, remember, is free for the next 6 years?
Slashdot Mirror
What if I operate an unlimited buffet and suddenly, customers start coming in and eating more than before?
So, if I understand you correctly, if I download 1GB, then for the rest of that month, the routers can only handle their normal traffic minus 1GB? And so on for every user?
No, your explanation is flawed because it assumes that, at a given time, one individual can consume all the bandwidth, locking out other users. In reality, of course, what happens is that everyone's Internet service slows down so that the sum total matches the capacity. But the network capacity for the rest of the month is unaffected. Even if no one downloads anything, the network capacity for the rest of the month is unchanged
Network capacity has an instantaneous limit, and capacity is not "consumed" in any meaningful use of the word.
What ISPs are really selling is speed. But this ISP only offers low speeds. It's offering a sub-par product and would like to hide that in ridiculous monthly caps.
And now, you are confusing the issues also. The point about residential solar is that, when all those A/C units kick in, so does the output of the solar systems. Moreover, that electricity doesn't have to be delivered over the grid. Residential solar has a greater impact than just the generation cost.
Utilities have a perverse incentive: since they generally operate both generation and end-user sales, with prices set through a regulatory body, these utility companies actually benefit when the base cost of generation increases. Solar threatens their profit and that's why utilities oppose it.
As for Hawaii, the story is clearly not finished there. Hawaii has some of the the highest electricity costs in the nation, so the opportunity for solar is greatest there.
Finally, the argument initially was about solar in general, not specifically rooftop solar. As I pointed out above, even if utility-grade solar offer the possibility to provide cheaper electricity than the alternatives, utility companies benefit from the status quo, and that is why solar has had such a small impact on US generation.
If it is financially viable for an oil state to use utility grade solar, it's financially viable for most southern states in the USA.
But still, assume a 30% subsidy to the Dubai contract and then find alternatives that are as cost effective.
Utilities have killed solar in the USA.
Yes, it is intermittent, but solar production is greater when electricity usage is greater. There are also new technologies for energy storage coming on line that will eliminate the issues from intermittent solar production. Thermal solar, for example, can store heat and produce electricity when needed. In many US states, sunlight is very consistent during 3 seasons.
You will find that this is because utilities in many states have been able to push anti-net-metering changes, making residential solar uneconomic. On the other hand, CA residential solar capacity recently hit 5% of peak capacity, triggering a change from one net metering plan to another.
As for the idea that Solar cannot be economic, let me destroy that idea by asking what technology can provide power at 2.99c per kWh? Answer: Solar
Solar is only failing because regulators and politicians have been bought off by utility companies who are heavily invested in fossil fuels.
Possible causes:
Spammers think Trump supporters more likely to fall for scam?
Trump actually spamming?
Clinton spamming and using Trump name in spam to alienate possible voters?
Exactly right. Take the example of a mining company that pollutes a nearby river or the groundwater in the region. In the Libertarian world, there is absolutely nothing to stop this happening. Libertarian ideals mean that, even if the company were prosecuted, the mining company would simply fold up and another company (owned by the same people) would start up in its place. A simple arrangement whereby the mining company owned nothing (it rents all equipment and the mine from other companies) would ensure that there are no assets for the company to forfeit.
Let's look at another example, which is related. Many Libertarians would think that people should not be required to have car insurance. But what happens when a poor person without insurance crashes into and wrecks your car? They don't have the money to pay you.
Similarly, banks can easily get into a situation whereby they owe far more than the value of the bank. Economies and personal wealth were hampered in the times before governments would provide guarantees to ordinary bank deposits and because governments provide these guarantees, regulation is required to reduce the possible impact of this.
Obviously, the possibility of companies going bankrupt with large debts cannot be eliminated with regulation, but it will happen far more often without it.
The simple fact is that we have seen what happens in a Libertarian world. You just have to look at history to see that the Libertarian ideal is bad for the economy.
Libertarianism is the political approach of the simple minded. It sounds good, but if you actually look at the consequences, it only benefits the very few ultra-ultra wealthy.
Hah! We are so much better. We don't use Word to store passwords.
We use LibreOffice!
No chance in hell. Apple is going to make a fortune selling replacement AirPods.
History (numerous recent examples) proves you wrong.
But what is wrong with your argument is that, in order to fail, you have to be worse than your competitors. When everyone is untrustworthy, there is no downside to it.
Also, there is the very real problem posed by the concept of a limited liability company. We know that the absence of limited liability prevents investment, but the very real effect of limited liability is that, without regulation, people will take actions that externalize their real costs.
Or, to summarize: to have a healthy economy, you need limited liability companies. If you have limited liability companies, then you need regulation.
As long as the roof moves so that all the roof area faces the sun directly.
In the real world, the usable area of a roof is much lower and factors such as weather, shading, etc. mean that 8% efficiency isn't going to be useful in most installations.
The real problem with the Libertarian ideal is that markets need accurate information in order to function properly. Accurate information is very hard to get in certain fields. Accurate information is hard to get when the major media outlets are controlled by a small number of people.
For example, what percentage of security breaches become public knowledge? I would doubt that it is as high as 10%.
Yes, but did they change the air in your tires? Air wears out, don't you know?
Very few residential solar panels are installed in a configuration other than parallel to the roof.
You think Trump will nominate judges who will preserve individual rights if elected? Wow, I have this really nice bridge to sell you. Also some fine land in Florida.
Trump already indicated what sort of justice he wants: someone like Peter Thiel, who doesn't care about free speech if it might offend someone wealthy. In fact, that would obviously be the theme of all of any of Trump's nominations: allow the wealthy to do what they want, screw over ordinary people.
Let me suggest that you do a little more reading about the "shouting fire in a theatre" claim, since this is not as settled as many people think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am not sure that *this* judge is an activist judge, so much as he is relying on other activist rulings.
And just because it is settled does not mean that it is right. At one time, it was settled knowledge that the sun orbits the earth. "settled" in this context merely means "current situation".
Those people who are always worrying about "activist" judges should look at this case.
It appears to me that the court has used a completely made-up "national security exception" to override a clear constitutional right.
https://teachingbattleground.w...
You know that Piaget has been largely discredited, right?
But, yes, education policy is dominated by know-nothings whose only strategy is "fire the bad teachers". Where the good replacement teachers come from with the pitiful salaries that most teachers earn is never discussed. Also not discussed: how to identify the "bad teachers".
I am sure that there is a desire to do this, but the simple fact is that such punishment would harm the EU more than the UK: the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to the EU.
Damn, where is the delete button, when you need it?
I was mislead by the way posts are hidden. My apologies to Mark-t.
Oh really?
Obviously it is easy to claim other people are making stuff up, when you can't be bothered to search for it.
It was even reported here on /. just a couple of months ago.
Um, I don't think that you read the second paragraph of the article. Oregon got unlimited use of Oracle software for 6 years and some amount of support.
What do you think those Oracle support people are going to be doing for the next 6 years? Do you think that they are going to be promoting alternative solutions? Or do you think they might be promoting more dependence on Oracle, which, remember, is free for the next 6 years?
Those people who put their phones in a fat extended battery case? </sarcasm>
I don't know if they were in their "right mind", but the state of Oregon just did