We cant remove the human from the link until we are 100% certain that the computer can make decisions better than a very good driver.
So if there was proof that if replacing all human drivers with computers saved 90% of fatalities, you'd find 3000 fatalities by computer accident unacceptable, but 30,000 fatalities from human error perfectly acceptable and preferable?
That logic confuses me. We need some pretty stupid AI to beat the average driver.
They outsource the low-profit labor intensive work elsewhere, not the "good stuff". In the race to the bottom, the US outsourced *everything*. There's a difference.
I worked with a ship that needed a year delay for a trip. We just missed the "good weather" for going around South Africa, and the Suez has height restrictions that prevented the ship from going that way (what idiot put low power lines over a canal?). So a nice long wait to go from China to Europe. Had there been another route, we could have gone east, but the weather is still an issue going around capes, and the Panama Canal is slow and expensive. But it was at least physically capable of handling the load, just not cost effective, compared with waiting for a good weather season for a run around the cape.
Obviously the Chinese think differently. Tankers from Nigera to China have to go the other way, or down past the cape.
The Panama Canal was built to get US goods from the east coast to the west coast. The new canal is to connect China with Europe/Africa. They have different goals.
Yes, the comunist country China is making billions and spending them investing in 3rd world countries, while the USA is out to prevent capitalistic competition. The USA has been more communistic than China for 20 years now. Maybe a few more projects like this and someone will notice.
The US's push west in the 1800s wasn't imperialistic. It was expansionistic. That's what China did (or is doing). That you are too dumb to see a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. And China isn't going outside the bounds of areas that were previously China (yes, some debate exists on those points)
Re do that with R&D as a percent of profit, and the R&D for pharma drops, comparitively. Cars and electronics are lower margin, so greater sales is needed for the same profit. Toyota spends more on R&D in both real numbers, and as a percent of profit. Apple is still in last place.with R&D being only 12% of profit.
But most people who sell back get paid at the higher 25 cent price, not the 8 cent price. If you went nuts and put a 100 kW setup at your house and had no other agreements, you'd get paid at 8 cents. But the general user pays 25 cents for power used or is paid 8 cents for power generated, on a monthly basis. So if you use 10 kWh over night, and generate 20 kWh the next day, then use 10 kWh that night, you are net 0, so you'd pay 0, and get 0. Do your ROI is from the 25 cent number. Only if, at the end of the month, you fed back in more than you used, would you get paid the 8 cent number. That'd only happen if you went out of town for a month in the middle of summer or other unusual case.
Yeah, 5% cashflow profit and 10-20% principle growth just sucks. What stocks grow like real estate? And real estate pays dividends too, called "rent". Look it up.
The sad fact here is that Photovoltaic power generation is not yet cost effective and only recently went "Power positive" (where over their useful life a cell can generate more power than it took to make it in the first place.)
They are cost effective. $5k in panels (closer to $10k installed) will save you $1500 per year in electricity. Better than 7 year pay back. And they've been "power positive" since the 70s. It's just that the solar haters lie about longevity of them to make them look worse.
Then, when you start load shifting using batteries to store and release power for later, things get even worse.
Peak power is more expensive to produce. Solar peaks around peak usage. Thus, until we have more solar power than peak usage, we don't need a single battery. Batteries are a red herring. Once we have 100% of our peak generated by solar, we can start to look at batteries. We aren't there yet because of the massive anti-solar lobby that keeps repeating the same lies you do.
Not until we produce more power than peak usage. Until then, we have a generation problem. Lets solve one problem at a time. Start with the only problem we have, generation.
Around here, they are selling 8kVA systems for about $5k. So by using local pricing, he's closer to right than you. If the government bought all the panels and regulated the installs, a $20k system would cost more like $2k. Here, $5k will buy you a system that will pay back about $1500 a year. Under 4 year pay-back (excepting cost of capital). $20k sounds like a 5-year-ago price.
We human have become to dependent on gadgets - it is not that using gadgets is bad, but our over-reliance on the use of gadgets on our daily lives mean we are wasting unnecessary power and those wasted power adds up
A dishwasher uses less water and power than washing them by hand. A cell phone uses less power than going to visit the person in person to talk to them.
Many of the gadgets are net gains. It's not the gadgets that are the problem, but the manner in which we use them.
China is not imperialistic. It never has been. When's the last time China sent an army to the other side of the globe?
England did, quite often. The USA does today, quite often. The USSR did often as well. But China has never been imperialistic. They don't care what happens in the USA, except so far as it affects them.
When I was in CS in the early '90s, we had assembly (full year) and C (half a year) as the only required programming languages. But we learned how to build a CPU from NAND gates (and use machine code to build our own OS for our own CPU, then do it again in Assembly, and again in C).
"Programming" at the time was theory of instructions. How to do something in the fewest instructions possible, how to do it in the fewest lines of code possible, and why the two would never meet. Most of the programming was language independent, but used a pseudo-code that assumed you knew C, and diverged from that pseudo-code enough that you needed an understanding of assembly and/or machine code.
Yes. Any private sector company that fails to deliver should be banned from contracts for 1 year. But the joke is that people push for the government to outsource, then when outsourcing doesn't work, they blame the government. When the government insources, they aren't that bad. The major efficiency complaints about government insourcing are about what they are doing, not how. e.g. SS is inefficient because it shouldn't exist, even though hiring ADP or other contractors to perform the same collection/distribution done by the SSA would cost 10x as much and have 1,000,000x the number of errors.
Slashdot Mirror
We cant remove the human from the link until we are 100% certain that the computer can make decisions better than a very good driver.
So if there was proof that if replacing all human drivers with computers saved 90% of fatalities, you'd find 3000 fatalities by computer accident unacceptable, but 30,000 fatalities from human error perfectly acceptable and preferable?
That logic confuses me. We need some pretty stupid AI to beat the average driver.
They outsource the low-profit labor intensive work elsewhere, not the "good stuff". In the race to the bottom, the US outsourced *everything*. There's a difference.
Africa is already getting some cheap labor sent to it. Reality proves you wrong.
I worked with a ship that needed a year delay for a trip. We just missed the "good weather" for going around South Africa, and the Suez has height restrictions that prevented the ship from going that way (what idiot put low power lines over a canal?). So a nice long wait to go from China to Europe. Had there been another route, we could have gone east, but the weather is still an issue going around capes, and the Panama Canal is slow and expensive. But it was at least physically capable of handling the load, just not cost effective, compared with waiting for a good weather season for a run around the cape.
And Africa is where the next cheap labor is. China is already outsourcing to India, they want to be able to do the same with Africa more easily.
Obviously the Chinese think differently. Tankers from Nigera to China have to go the other way, or down past the cape.
The Panama Canal was built to get US goods from the east coast to the west coast. The new canal is to connect China with Europe/Africa. They have different goals.
Yes, the comunist country China is making billions and spending them investing in 3rd world countries, while the USA is out to prevent capitalistic competition. The USA has been more communistic than China for 20 years now. Maybe a few more projects like this and someone will notice.
The US's push west in the 1800s wasn't imperialistic. It was expansionistic. That's what China did (or is doing). That you are too dumb to see a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. And China isn't going outside the bounds of areas that were previously China (yes, some debate exists on those points)
About a week of crashes in the US. A few hours of world crashes, about 4400 a day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Because the USPS is more efficient at what it does, but must, by law, do inefficient things.
Re do that with R&D as a percent of profit, and the R&D for pharma drops, comparitively. Cars and electronics are lower margin, so greater sales is needed for the same profit. Toyota spends more on R&D in both real numbers, and as a percent of profit. Apple is still in last place.with R&D being only 12% of profit.
So you generate solar and feed it to the grid, without "using" it locally, then buy back all used power from the grid? That sounds insane.
But most people who sell back get paid at the higher 25 cent price, not the 8 cent price. If you went nuts and put a 100 kW setup at your house and had no other agreements, you'd get paid at 8 cents. But the general user pays 25 cents for power used or is paid 8 cents for power generated, on a monthly basis. So if you use 10 kWh over night, and generate 20 kWh the next day, then use 10 kWh that night, you are net 0, so you'd pay 0, and get 0. Do your ROI is from the 25 cent number. Only if, at the end of the month, you fed back in more than you used, would you get paid the 8 cent number. That'd only happen if you went out of town for a month in the middle of summer or other unusual case.
cheap solar panels made in China.
Why would you buy the most expensive solar panels, then complain about the price?
Yeah, 5% cashflow profit and 10-20% principle growth just sucks. What stocks grow like real estate? And real estate pays dividends too, called "rent". Look it up.
The sad fact here is that Photovoltaic power generation is not yet cost effective and only recently went "Power positive" (where over their useful life a cell can generate more power than it took to make it in the first place.)
They are cost effective. $5k in panels (closer to $10k installed) will save you $1500 per year in electricity. Better than 7 year pay back. And they've been "power positive" since the 70s. It's just that the solar haters lie about longevity of them to make them look worse.
Then, when you start load shifting using batteries to store and release power for later, things get even worse.
Peak power is more expensive to produce. Solar peaks around peak usage. Thus, until we have more solar power than peak usage, we don't need a single battery. Batteries are a red herring. Once we have 100% of our peak generated by solar, we can start to look at batteries. We aren't there yet because of the massive anti-solar lobby that keeps repeating the same lies you do.
Yeah, but we still have the battery problem.
Not until we produce more power than peak usage. Until then, we have a generation problem. Lets solve one problem at a time. Start with the only problem we have, generation.
Yes.
Around here, they are selling 8kVA systems for about $5k. So by using local pricing, he's closer to right than you. If the government bought all the panels and regulated the installs, a $20k system would cost more like $2k. Here, $5k will buy you a system that will pay back about $1500 a year. Under 4 year pay-back (excepting cost of capital). $20k sounds like a 5-year-ago price.
We human have become to dependent on gadgets - it is not that using gadgets is bad, but our over-reliance on the use of gadgets on our daily lives mean we are wasting unnecessary power and those wasted power adds up
A dishwasher uses less water and power than washing them by hand. A cell phone uses less power than going to visit the person in person to talk to them.
Many of the gadgets are net gains. It's not the gadgets that are the problem, but the manner in which we use them.
Works fine. There are places where that's happened, but if the industrial complex knows PV is involved, they complain.
China is not imperialistic. It never has been. When's the last time China sent an army to the other side of the globe?
England did, quite often. The USA does today, quite often. The USSR did often as well. But China has never been imperialistic. They don't care what happens in the USA, except so far as it affects them.
When I was in CS in the early '90s, we had assembly (full year) and C (half a year) as the only required programming languages. But we learned how to build a CPU from NAND gates (and use machine code to build our own OS for our own CPU, then do it again in Assembly, and again in C).
"Programming" at the time was theory of instructions. How to do something in the fewest instructions possible, how to do it in the fewest lines of code possible, and why the two would never meet. Most of the programming was language independent, but used a pseudo-code that assumed you knew C, and diverged from that pseudo-code enough that you needed an understanding of assembly and/or machine code.
Yes. Any private sector company that fails to deliver should be banned from contracts for 1 year. But the joke is that people push for the government to outsource, then when outsourcing doesn't work, they blame the government. When the government insources, they aren't that bad. The major efficiency complaints about government insourcing are about what they are doing, not how. e.g. SS is inefficient because it shouldn't exist, even though hiring ADP or other contractors to perform the same collection/distribution done by the SSA would cost 10x as much and have 1,000,000x the number of errors.
But quite easy to order and have delivered for testing purposes. And much cheaper than a similar phone in a major retail chain.