If you're building a system on grid, it might not be a bad idea actually to go with two systems like you mentioned, from a practicality standpoint. IE, design a small backup system that doesn't interact with the grid, and use it to backup say your refrigerator, computer, ham radio, whatever
I know what you mean. Where I used to live, a house on a dead end road, it wasn't unusual for us to lose power. Sometimes it would only be out seconds or minutes, other tymes it's be out for hours. The power company frequently sent out repairmen but what they really needed was to replace the lines and hardware however they said it was too expensive. I just wonder how much it cost to constantly be sending out repairmen.
Then you could add on grid connected PV as you like.
If you already have a connection, that's the way to go. After adding insulation add a panel at a tyme. Some who build off the grid do that too.
I've heard stories of restaurants dumping their waste grease out in the back, right next to the dumpster. I'm not sure about the laws about that, but I'd imagine if you asked they'd be more than happy to give it to you.
Over the years I worked in more than one restaurant and they all made 55 gallon drums outside in the back where we had to pour the used grease/oil. Then a service company would come and pick them up, leaving more empty drums.
If you are looking for off-grid property, you'll really luck out if you can do microhydro.
It won't be anytime soon before I'm ready to buy some land to build on, actually I don't know if I ever will be in such a position. More than 13 years ago I survived a bad accident and have been on disability since. I was in college when I had the accident. I later started attending college again, but I had to start all over basically. Once I did I could only take a class or two at a tyme but because I wasn't able to afford it I dropped out about 5 years ago. I want to get back into college and I'm looking for financial aid. I'd file for Federal Financial Assistance but my sister handles my finances, she even does my taxes, and has previously refused to fill out the forms for me. I'm hoping I have found some aid on my own though. Americorps' VistaCorp offers aid like the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. Reading what I could find they require 2000 volunteer hours a year for assistance, 20 hours a week, and I don't know if I can work the 20 hours though. What pisses me is that when I dropped out I only had 2 more classes to finish my Associate Degree.
You can always start small, maybe enough to charge your laptop, and get a little experience.
Up above I say I had two more classes to finish my AAAS, or whatever, what I'd like to do is transfer to a university where I was thinking of studying in Electrical/Electronic Engineering as my major subject but I'm not sure. As another possible source of aid, maybe it can be arranged through VistaCorp, I've been thinking about trying to get a "Green Economy" position. Say helping to install alternative energy systems. As I see it that may be great for me, I'll get back into school, will get experience, and can decide if that is what I want to do in university.
If the boss isn't intelligent enough I wouldn't expect him or her to remain in business long
Meh. You really buy into the idea that success is determined by ability and virtue, or what? Like bad businesses never make money? If a company manages to stay afloat, it means the owner was smart and mature and professional?
No I don't, if ability and virtue determines success Microsoft would not of stayed in business. Though vaguely I recall Bill Gates issuing his open letter to hobbyist. Before he ever came on the scene programmers were sharing their software. Members of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club would hang their software listings on boards so anyone could come along and improve it. The same happened at Stanford and UC Berkeley. Berkeley Software Distribution, Berkeley Unix, using the BSD license was released a year after Gate's letter. Then the original SCO, Santa Cruz Operation, was the "first UNIX company" and was founded in 1979. Microsoft didn't even have an operating system back then. It wasn't until MS finished, yes finished because Digital Research started programming it, DOS for the IBM Personal Computer which was released in 1981 when they had an OS. And DR started DOS with CP/M.
Why then does the link the Cnet article links to say this "Not all the Wi-Fi finding apps have been removed however. There are still a couple of Wi-Fi finders, including JiWire's Free Wi-Fi Finder and WiFi Directory"?
i don't see the usefulness of this kind of app in either implementation. if you open the wifi section in the iphone settings screen, you get a list of all networks within range of your phone and whether they are secured. in my experience, MOST pay networks seem to be secured in some way, so that's a fairly accurate indicator of whether you can get free wifi.
If as you say the iPhone lists access points it detects then I don't see a use for these apps either. I don't know if they do that though, I don't have and have no interest in getting an iPhone, but whenever I'm out and I launch a browser on my Mac I am asked if I want to join any of the access points it detects.
The iPhone OS is far from crippled. It's a full UNIX running on a phone, with a full-featured Apple Objective-C runtime, with a snazzy custom multitouch UI. The sandbox and features given to developers through the official Apple program is crippled. The OS is not.
If I can not install whatever software on my equipment and instead have to use the app store then it is crippled. If I don't do what I want on it that I can do on my Mac then it is crippled.
To be pedantic, as well, you can use any framework you want that you can install on your iPhone as well. You may have to jailbreak it to get write access to the frameworks, but you can still use it once it's on there.
But I don't have to jailbreak my Mac. Heck I've even got assistance from Apple store genuses to set up my Mac to dual boot Ubuntu. What I have been told at a store though is that they can not help me with developer uses, instead I'm referred to the Apple Developer Connection.
Why inconvenience yourself? Just turn off file sharing for 30 seconds, then turn it back on. Same effect for him, no interruption for you. For extra fun, you can automate this in a couple of likes of AppleScript and run it in a cron job with osascript.
As far as I know that only works if you're an admin, as do other suggestions I've read so far. I think the best plan of action is to talk to the boss about it explaining the problems then polish your resume in case the boss isn't reasonable.
The real questions for this situation are (a) Is there any chance the owner is intelligent and reasonable enough for you to discuss the situation? and (b) If not, is your job otherwise good enough to tolerate a boss who's unprofessional enough to allow this sort of thing?
While (a) may be acceptable (b) is not. If the boss isn't intelligent enough I wouldn't expect him or her to remain in business long. Either you find a new job before the business closes or you're out of work until you do find something.
The kid is working on a share because it is more convenient than copying stuff around and worrying about a gazillion different copies on different computers. I think he has a point. Provide a centralized file server, and he can continue to work as he has, without inflicting undue loads on other peoples workstations.
It is only more convenient until two or more people working on the same document try to save their own edits. I know using CVS each person can use their own copies while they're editing it but it sounds like the employer knows nothing about that. Best would be a file server with CVS.
The iPhone has a small marketshare? HAHA! It has a 63.7% marketshare. Article linked to postulates one reason Apple slapped HTC with a lawsuit declaring patent infringement is because Android based phones are gaining on Apple's marketshare.
They might be number one now, but they were number one with the Apple II and look at how quickly they lost that lead.
In the bookstore of the school I attended in 1985, half of the computers sold were Macs. The rest were divided up by the various PC compatible OEMs. Than was 8 years after the Apple II came out. Looking now, Windows "accounted for 92.1% of the operating systems that powered machines visiting the 40,000-plus sites that NetApplications monitors for clients of its analytics service." That is up slightly from previously, but it does not break down OEMs. Now if Linux and other non-OS X OSes raised the percentage of OSes powering PCs to 93% that leaves OS X running 7%. Now how many of the rest are Dells, HPs, Levenos, or one of the dozens more OEMs? Seven percent may not seem like a lot but how does it compare to OEM sales?
It appears Apple's problem with the apps isn't with what they do but with how they do it; namely, using non-public frameworks. There probably isn't a way to do it using public frameworks, though
No, other apps that do the same thing are still allowed and available in the app store.
(on Mac OS X, you need to use the private Apple80211.framework, not sure about iPhone OS X).
No you don't. Unlike with iPhones and iPads, with their crippled phoneOS, I can use any framework I want that I can install on my MacBook Pro. Developers can even develop for X11. I have X11 installed on my Mac, it comes on OS X DVDs and can be downloaded as well.
You're probably right. I bought a MacBook last year (having used Debian for the last 9 years), and while I don't dislike it, I'm not keen to buy more Apple products given dumb shenanigans like this. So they are alienating some users.
So don't use those products you have to put up with these shenanigans. I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro, when I replace it the replacement will probably another MBP or its replacement, and if Apple were to release a bigger iPad (say 17") that runs the full OS X like my MBP does I may get one. I might also get a Mac Pro, but I do not plan on getting an iPhone or iPod.
Actually I plan on setting up my MBP to dualboot, OS X and Ubuntu, and if I were to get a Mac Pro I'd do the same with it. Now if Apple were to get as restrictive with Macs as they are with iPhones and iPads I'd move over to Linux compleatly.
When I'm trying to give a workshop to improve teachers' technical skills in the educational world, and the union blocks it, that's a direct hit to their ability to teach.
Does that happen everywhere all the tyme, or just in some places? Just because one or two unions may do that does not mean they all do. Nor does it mean they don't want teachers to improve.
Remember for it to be science it has to have reproducible effects, and if just in one case the effect isn't the same then either the hypothesis predicts it needs to be adjusted to account for different outcomes or it's false. I bet there are plenty of places with teachers' unions who don't have the effects you say, like almost every state that ranks above the below average North Carolina schools.
In any case, what Cheney said (as you quoted it) was absolutely true. "Conservation alone" does not make a "comprehensive" policy. The words "alone" and "comprehensive" basically mean the opposite things in this context.
I don't dispute that but the way conservation was talked about, only environmentalists take conservation seriously. However if it is not considered it doesn't matter what other steps are taken, there is no free energy. That is other than the negawatt there isn't. I don't recall how it went but the survivors of the Great Depression had a good saying about how important conservation was to them.
Of course Cheney was someone who had more important things to do than serve in the military and possibly get sent to Viet Nam where he could get shot.
I speak from a more pragmatic point of view (as someone who works with hundreds of teachers every year) - teachers unions are almost entirely counterproductive to the process of education.
Kuwait was "slant drilling" into an Iraqi oilfield.
This justified a complete takeover of the country?
No it doesn't. However it wasn't a matter of imperialism either, like the US did.
the Saudi Army was a bad joke and it was ONLY the U.S. intervention that kept Saddam from grabbing control of a huge percentage of the Mideast Oil exports.
If only it were so simple. People, I bet like you, blame Saddam with working with al qaeda and bin Laden yet they offered the Saudis protection against Saddam. Before the US's invasion of Iraq bin Laden told the Iraqis to ride up against both invaders and Saddam, he once said Saddam should be killed. However it's not a stretch to say US support helped Saddam stay in power, throughout the the '80 the US kept on aiding Saddam.
I believe that everywhere in the US in order to pass inspection you have to be using UL listed equipment if you want to intertie (IE, run in phase with the grid and sell your extra power back.) All modern inverters built for this have to pass all sorts of anti-islanding tests. In addition to this a lot of areas require a separate, labeled, lockable disconnect so that the utility workers can disconnect your system from the grid.
All modern inverters? Or only grid intertie inverters? Ump, something to look into... Ah there are still stand-alone inverters. So just have a stand-alone inverter supplying the building with a intertied inverter connected to the grid.
Biodiesel for backup would be pretty cool, especially if you can get grease from a restaurant to use to make it. A lot of people far off the grid will have a generator as backup, but some do without. When you don't have the grid the trick is to watch what your system produces, and adjust your load accordingly.
I don't know about now but at one tyme restaurants had to pay others to haul off the used grease. You're right about having a backup, some people demand it and others adjust. For my own home, I want a backup if not a hybrid system. Ideally I'd have geothermal, solar, wind, and maybe a micro hydro system. Of course such a system would cost a lot. But before I ever get to where I can build my home off the grid I'll log energy usage for at least a year and see where I can be more efficient.
The poster asked why a 20 year payback period is a problem for PV systems. We're not talking about systems with a payback time of less than 20 years.
The poster exhibited what many others have, the false belief PV systems are too expensive to pay back their cost.
Warranties usually specify that the system will operate at some fraction of it's rated capacity after a certain amount of time. If your PV system is warranted to 80% after 20 years, your profit is going to be quite a bit less than you might hope since it is entirely generated by the less-than-peak-performance you get later in the system's life.
That is, er should be, accounted for payback period analysis. Even if not though a lose of 1% a year, your 20% over 20 years, that only extends the payback period. For one at 7 years a loss of efficiency of 1% a year won't even add a year.
One thing you don't account for though is inflation, higher energy costs reduce the payback period. And energy prices go up all the tyme. And with the prices set by time of use, California electricity prices are higher in the middle of the day than in the morning and at night a grid connected system pays back even faster. PV produce more electricity when it's bright and sunny, precisely when demand and prices is highest. And yes CA does charge more depending on the time of use.
Amen to that. I put $400 worth of insulation in my attic last year and cut my heating and cooling effort by 30% - paid for itself in 12 months.
If only more people knew about it. Of course you run into people like Dick Cheney who said that while conservation might be a "personal virtue," conservation alone was not "a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Too many people hear stuff like that and believe it.
>>Actually efficiency/weatherizing has the fastest payback between doing nothing, installing alternative/renewable energy, and efficiency/weatherizing.
If it's a good deal, then people will do it themselves, and we don't need to drop billions into Obama's campaign donors pockets.
It is a good deal but it requires money up front, and in case you haven't heard we're in a recession where millions of people have lost their jobs. No matter how much money something can save it's irresponsible to spend money you don't have. And as I have said all along, including in this post of mine you replied to, I'd get rid of all subsidies. But since it's being done I hope it has the desired effect and creates well paying jobs.
>>Banning unions, which runs afoul of the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, protest, and seek redress, will not improve education.
You'd be surprised, actually.
Yea, let's see how well it has worked. You say North Carolina made teachers unions illegal, let's see how North Carolina's schools are... According to Local School Directory North Carolina ranks below the national average. It has improved since No Child Left Behind but it's still bad, so not allowing teachers unions there doesn't appear to have helped.
Now do you have facts to share that supports your position that banning unions and not allowing competition makes schools better, or do you only have rhetoric? Oh, wait a minute... maybe you meant I'd be surprised that courts have ruled banning unions isn't unconstitutional. I would not be surprised at all. After all even the US Supreme Court has made rulings I and others consider unconstitutional. For instance the USSC ruled the federal government had the authority to make medical marijuana illegal even though voters in California voted to make it legal. In the Gonzales v. Raich. case the court had to bend over backwards to rule that the interstate commerce clause gave the feds the power to block states' rights. Of the nine members of the court 5 ruled the feds have the power and the other 4 ruled it does not.
Fair enough. But if I was Obama (i.e. a radical progressive), then I'd toss a billion dollars at this if the science is good. Would do more than all the money spent on the weatherizing boondoggle.
Actually efficiency/weatherizing has the fastest payback between doing nothing, installing alternative/renewable energy, and efficiency/weatherizing. That is why when people go, build, off the grid the first thing they do is work on efficiency/weatherizing. Doing so can save a bundle of money. According to one graph by the Department of Energy the single largest use of energy in the US home is space heating, at 31%. Tied for number two is water heating and space cooling, at 12%. A properly designed and built building needs little if any heating or cooling.
>>About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding.
Nah. Right to Work states like North Carolina (IIRC) made unionizing in critical sectors outright illegal. So no police unions, firefighter unions, and, yeah, teacher unions.
Banning unions, which runs afoul of the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, protest, and seek redress, will not improve education. Competition between schools will. Now why is it people complain about competition when it affects their pay but like it when it drives their costs down? People complain about how Walmart drives other businesses out of business but then they're perfectly willing to shop at Walmart and Sam's. People complain about drug prices but how many liked it when Walmart lowered the price of thousands of drugs to $4? So yes, I shop at Walmart and am a member of Sam's Club. What I don't like is that I pay to be a member of Sam's whereas anyone can shop at Walmart yet by company policy Sam's can not offer a lower price on the same item as Walmart does. It only makes it worthwhile because Walmart doesn't offer the same bulk quantities as Sam's.
Yeah. But then you're talking in a certain political climate, not real prices.
You don't see the real price from the power company either. They are all subsidized. At least in the US, and I'd imagine even more in other countries. Here's where the CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here Rep Edward Markey crows "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" He doesn't tkl just about coal subsides but subsides for nuclear and other power sources. Coal, corn based ethanol, and nuclear power get billions of dollars in subsidies. Yet if you add up all the subsidies for geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources it doesn't add up to $1 Billion.
Quite simply coal, nuclear, and other energy sources individually get way more in subsidies than geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources. Without subsides nuclear power plants would not be built, and power from coal would cost way more than it does.
It's the same in germany; it's profitable for a home-owner to install solar-cells on his roof. But that's only true because there's a state-guaranteed lowest-price that he gets for the electricity produced, and this price is substantially higher than the real market-value of electricity.
Wow! A quick google and I find this: Breakthrough Deal May Eliminate German Coal Subsidies:
"After months of negotiations, politicians and leaders from the coal industry reached a breakthrough Sunday night. Government subsidies -- not jobs -- are to be cut back drastically and may be history as early as 2018." Actually that was the first result googling germany coal subsidies. Now let's substitute nuclear for coal... and the first result is Subsidies and Public Support for Energy. It doesn't have much but it does say ways in which nuclear power is assisted. BusinessWeek reports a split in Chancellor Angela Merkel's government about extending the lifespan of nuclear power. Some plants there are approaching the end of their lifespan, so some want to extend the lifespan. One member of the coalition says "The nuclear power plants are designed for 40 years -- not 60, but 40 years".
It doesn't look like business determines what exists but government in Germany too.
Right now, solar cells are so expensive, they take something like 15 or 20 years to pay for themselves, so most property owners don't see a big incentive. Lower that price to 10 years or 8 years, or even lower, and suddenly the demand for these things will skyrocket.
The payback period for solar is already under 10 years. New Jersey has a payback period of 1.5 years, "New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years." Of course, if because of this everybody went out and started buying solar energy systems, the cost could go up, higher demand drive prices up. Then again because of economy of scale and competition prices could go down even more.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're building a system on grid, it might not be a bad idea actually to go with two systems like you mentioned, from a practicality standpoint. IE, design a small backup system that doesn't interact with the grid, and use it to backup say your refrigerator, computer, ham radio, whatever
I know what you mean. Where I used to live, a house on a dead end road, it wasn't unusual for us to lose power. Sometimes it would only be out seconds or minutes, other tymes it's be out for hours. The power company frequently sent out repairmen but what they really needed was to replace the lines and hardware however they said it was too expensive. I just wonder how much it cost to constantly be sending out repairmen.
Then you could add on grid connected PV as you like.
If you already have a connection, that's the way to go. After adding insulation add a panel at a tyme. Some who build off the grid do that too.
I've heard stories of restaurants dumping their waste grease out in the back, right next to the dumpster. I'm not sure about the laws about that, but I'd imagine if you asked they'd be more than happy to give it to you.
Over the years I worked in more than one restaurant and they all made 55 gallon drums outside in the back where we had to pour the used grease/oil. Then a service company would come and pick them up, leaving more empty drums.
If you are looking for off-grid property, you'll really luck out if you can do microhydro.
It won't be anytime soon before I'm ready to buy some land to build on, actually I don't know if I ever will be in such a position. More than 13 years ago I survived a bad accident and have been on disability since. I was in college when I had the accident. I later started attending college again, but I had to start all over basically. Once I did I could only take a class or two at a tyme but because I wasn't able to afford it I dropped out about 5 years ago. I want to get back into college and I'm looking for financial aid. I'd file for Federal Financial Assistance but my sister handles my finances, she even does my taxes, and has previously refused to fill out the forms for me. I'm hoping I have found some aid on my own though. Americorps' VistaCorp offers aid like the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. Reading what I could find they require 2000 volunteer hours a year for assistance, 20 hours a week, and I don't know if I can work the 20 hours though. What pisses me is that when I dropped out I only had 2 more classes to finish my Associate Degree.
You can always start small, maybe enough to charge your laptop, and get a little experience.
Up above I say I had two more classes to finish my AAAS, or whatever, what I'd like to do is transfer to a university where I was thinking of studying in Electrical/Electronic Engineering as my major subject but I'm not sure. As another possible source of aid, maybe it can be arranged through VistaCorp, I've been thinking about trying to get a "Green Economy" position. Say helping to install alternative energy systems. As I see it that may be great for me, I'll get back into school, will get experience, and can decide if that is what I want to do in university.
Falcon
If the boss isn't intelligent enough I wouldn't expect him or her to remain in business long
Meh. You really buy into the idea that success is determined by ability and virtue, or what? Like bad businesses never make money? If a company manages to stay afloat, it means the owner was smart and mature and professional?
No I don't, if ability and virtue determines success Microsoft would not of stayed in business. Though vaguely I recall Bill Gates issuing his open letter to hobbyist. Before he ever came on the scene programmers were sharing their software. Members of MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club would hang their software listings on boards so anyone could come along and improve it. The same happened at Stanford and UC Berkeley. Berkeley Software Distribution, Berkeley Unix, using the BSD license was released a year after Gate's letter. Then the original SCO, Santa Cruz Operation, was the "first UNIX company" and was founded in 1979. Microsoft didn't even have an operating system back then. It wasn't until MS finished, yes finished because Digital Research started programming it, DOS for the IBM Personal Computer which was released in 1981 when they had an OS. And DR started DOS with CP/M.
Falcon
NO! they do not "do the same thing".
Why then does the link the Cnet article links to say this "Not all the Wi-Fi finding apps have been removed however. There are still a couple of Wi-Fi finders, including JiWire's Free Wi-Fi Finder and WiFi Directory"?
i don't see the usefulness of this kind of app in either implementation. if you open the wifi section in the iphone settings screen, you get a list of all networks within range of your phone and whether they are secured. in my experience, MOST pay networks seem to be secured in some way, so that's a fairly accurate indicator of whether you can get free wifi.
If as you say the iPhone lists access points it detects then I don't see a use for these apps either. I don't know if they do that though, I don't have and have no interest in getting an iPhone, but whenever I'm out and I launch a browser on my Mac I am asked if I want to join any of the access points it detects.
Falcon
The iPhone OS is far from crippled. It's a full UNIX running on a phone, with a full-featured Apple Objective-C runtime, with a snazzy custom multitouch UI. The sandbox and features given to developers through the official Apple program is crippled. The OS is not.
If I can not install whatever software on my equipment and instead have to use the app store then it is crippled. If I don't do what I want on it that I can do on my Mac then it is crippled.
To be pedantic, as well, you can use any framework you want that you can install on your iPhone as well. You may have to jailbreak it to get write access to the frameworks, but you can still use it once it's on there.
But I don't have to jailbreak my Mac. Heck I've even got assistance from Apple store genuses to set up my Mac to dual boot Ubuntu. What I have been told at a store though is that they can not help me with developer uses, instead I'm referred to the Apple Developer Connection.
Falcon
Why inconvenience yourself? Just turn off file sharing for 30 seconds, then turn it back on. Same effect for him, no interruption for you. For extra fun, you can automate this in a couple of likes of AppleScript and run it in a cron job with osascript.
As far as I know that only works if you're an admin, as do other suggestions I've read so far. I think the best plan of action is to talk to the boss about it explaining the problems then polish your resume in case the boss isn't reasonable.
Falcon
The real questions for this situation are (a) Is there any chance the owner is intelligent and reasonable enough for you to discuss the situation? and (b) If not, is your job otherwise good enough to tolerate a boss who's unprofessional enough to allow this sort of thing?
While (a) may be acceptable (b) is not. If the boss isn't intelligent enough I wouldn't expect him or her to remain in business long. Either you find a new job before the business closes or you're out of work until you do find something.
Falcon
The kid is working on a share because it is more convenient than copying stuff around and worrying about a gazillion different copies on different computers. I think he has a point. Provide a centralized file server, and he can continue to work as he has, without inflicting undue loads on other peoples workstations.
It is only more convenient until two or more people working on the same document try to save their own edits. I know using CVS each person can use their own copies while they're editing it but it sounds like the employer knows nothing about that. Best would be a file server with CVS.
Falcon
The iPhone has a small marketshare? HAHA! It has a 63.7% marketshare. Article linked to postulates one reason Apple slapped HTC with a lawsuit declaring patent infringement is because Android based phones are gaining on Apple's marketshare.
They might be number one now, but they were number one with the Apple II and look at how quickly they lost that lead.
In the bookstore of the school I attended in 1985, half of the computers sold were Macs. The rest were divided up by the various PC compatible OEMs. Than was 8 years after the Apple II came out. Looking now, Windows "accounted for 92.1% of the operating systems that powered machines visiting the 40,000-plus sites that NetApplications monitors for clients of its analytics service." That is up slightly from previously, but it does not break down OEMs. Now if Linux and other non-OS X OSes raised the percentage of OSes powering PCs to 93% that leaves OS X running 7%. Now how many of the rest are Dells, HPs, Levenos, or one of the dozens more OEMs? Seven percent may not seem like a lot but how does it compare to OEM sales?
Falcon
Function is the common denominator in the revoked applications
But others left in the app store have the same functionality, so if the issue is the functionality then why were they left in?
Falcon
It appears Apple's problem with the apps isn't with what they do but with how they do it; namely, using non-public frameworks. There probably isn't a way to do it using public frameworks, though
No, other apps that do the same thing are still allowed and available in the app store.
(on Mac OS X, you need to use the private Apple80211.framework, not sure about iPhone OS X).
No you don't. Unlike with iPhones and iPads, with their crippled phoneOS, I can use any framework I want that I can install on my MacBook Pro. Developers can even develop for X11. I have X11 installed on my Mac, it comes on OS X DVDs and can be downloaded as well.
Falcon
Dictionary quote:
adjective
Complex or illogical in a bizarre, surreal, or nightmarish manner.
Which describes Apple's actions.
Falcon
You're probably right. I bought a MacBook last year (having used Debian for the last 9 years), and while I don't dislike it, I'm not keen to buy more Apple products given dumb shenanigans like this. So they are alienating some users.
So don't use those products you have to put up with these shenanigans. I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro, when I replace it the replacement will probably another MBP or its replacement, and if Apple were to release a bigger iPad (say 17") that runs the full OS X like my MBP does I may get one. I might also get a Mac Pro, but I do not plan on getting an iPhone or iPod.
Actually I plan on setting up my MBP to dualboot, OS X and Ubuntu, and if I were to get a Mac Pro I'd do the same with it. Now if Apple were to get as restrictive with Macs as they are with iPhones and iPads I'd move over to Linux compleatly.
Falcon
I have the same question.
While I like some Apple products, I love my MacBook Pro I'm typing this on, I question some of Apple's and Steve Jobs' actions.
Falcon
It can be said that it is Kafkaesque when a reason isn't given but others with the same capabilities are allowed.
Falcon
When I'm trying to give a workshop to improve teachers' technical skills in the educational world, and the union blocks it, that's a direct hit to their ability to teach.
Does that happen everywhere all the tyme, or just in some places? Just because one or two unions may do that does not mean they all do. Nor does it mean they don't want teachers to improve.
Remember for it to be science it has to have reproducible effects, and if just in one case the effect isn't the same then either the hypothesis predicts it needs to be adjusted to account for different outcomes or it's false. I bet there are plenty of places with teachers' unions who don't have the effects you say, like almost every state that ranks above the below average North Carolina schools.
Falcon
In any case, what Cheney said (as you quoted it) was absolutely true. "Conservation alone" does not make a "comprehensive" policy. The words "alone" and "comprehensive" basically mean the opposite things in this context.
I don't dispute that but the way conservation was talked about, only environmentalists take conservation seriously. However if it is not considered it doesn't matter what other steps are taken, there is no free energy. That is other than the negawatt there isn't. I don't recall how it went but the survivors of the Great Depression had a good saying about how important conservation was to them.
Of course Cheney was someone who had more important things to do than serve in the military and possibly get sent to Viet Nam where he could get shot.
Falcon
I speak from a more pragmatic point of view (as someone who works with hundreds of teachers every year) - teachers unions are almost entirely counterproductive to the process of education.
As you say "Correlation is not causation."
Falcon
Kuwait was "slant drilling" into an Iraqi oilfield.
This justified a complete takeover of the country?
No it doesn't. However it wasn't a matter of imperialism either, like the US did.
the Saudi Army was a bad joke and it was ONLY the U.S. intervention that kept Saddam from grabbing control of a huge percentage of the Mideast Oil exports.
If only it were so simple. People, I bet like you, blame Saddam with working with al qaeda and bin Laden yet they offered the Saudis protection against Saddam. Before the US's invasion of Iraq bin Laden told the Iraqis to ride up against both invaders and Saddam, he once said Saddam should be killed. However it's not a stretch to say US support helped Saddam stay in power, throughout the the '80 the US kept on aiding Saddam.
He had just beaten Iran,
He beat Iran? HAHA!!! What a joke. In 1987 when the Security Council of the United Nations passed the US-sponsored Resolution 598 Iran had captured Iraqi territory. "Iraq, which had lost important pieces of land over the course of the war, accepted the resolution."
Ah I see, you're spreading revisionist rhetoric.
If you don't believe the media is biased
I didn't say the press wasn't bias, I dare you point out where I did. Or is this more revisionist history? What I did say was that it is absurd is to say the media didn't give George W Bush a free pass. Copy-and-paste easy.
Falcon
I believe that everywhere in the US in order to pass inspection you have to be using UL listed equipment if you want to intertie (IE, run in phase with the grid and sell your extra power back.) All modern inverters built for this have to pass all sorts of anti-islanding tests. In addition to this a lot of areas require a separate, labeled, lockable disconnect so that the utility workers can disconnect your system from the grid.
All modern inverters? Or only grid intertie inverters? Ump, something to look into... Ah there are still stand-alone inverters. So just have a stand-alone inverter supplying the building with a intertied inverter connected to the grid.
Biodiesel for backup would be pretty cool, especially if you can get grease from a restaurant to use to make it. A lot of people far off the grid will have a generator as backup, but some do without. When you don't have the grid the trick is to watch what your system produces, and adjust your load accordingly.
I don't know about now but at one tyme restaurants had to pay others to haul off the used grease. You're right about having a backup, some people demand it and others adjust. For my own home, I want a backup if not a hybrid system. Ideally I'd have geothermal, solar, wind, and maybe a micro hydro system. Of course such a system would cost a lot. But before I ever get to where I can build my home off the grid I'll log energy usage for at least a year and see where I can be more efficient.
Falcon
The poster asked why a 20 year payback period is a problem for PV systems. We're not talking about systems with a payback time of less than 20 years.
The poster exhibited what many others have, the false belief PV systems are too expensive to pay back their cost.
Warranties usually specify that the system will operate at some fraction of it's rated capacity after a certain amount of time. If your PV system is warranted to 80% after 20 years, your profit is going to be quite a bit less than you might hope since it is entirely generated by the less-than-peak-performance you get later in the system's life.
That is, er should be, accounted for payback period analysis. Even if not though a lose of 1% a year, your 20% over 20 years, that only extends the payback period. For one at 7 years a loss of efficiency of 1% a year won't even add a year.
One thing you don't account for though is inflation, higher energy costs reduce the payback period. And energy prices go up all the tyme. And with the prices set by time of use, California electricity prices are higher in the middle of the day than in the morning and at night a grid connected system pays back even faster. PV produce more electricity when it's bright and sunny, precisely when demand and prices is highest. And yes CA does charge more depending on the time of use.
Falcon
Amen to that. I put $400 worth of insulation in my attic last year and cut my heating and cooling effort by 30% - paid for itself in 12 months.
If only more people knew about it. Of course you run into people like Dick Cheney who said that while conservation might be a "personal virtue," conservation alone was not "a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Too many people hear stuff like that and believe it.
Falcon
>>Actually efficiency/weatherizing has the fastest payback between doing nothing, installing alternative/renewable energy, and efficiency/weatherizing.
If it's a good deal, then people will do it themselves, and we don't need to drop billions into Obama's campaign donors pockets.
It is a good deal but it requires money up front, and in case you haven't heard we're in a recession where millions of people have lost their jobs. No matter how much money something can save it's irresponsible to spend money you don't have. And as I have said all along, including in this post of mine you replied to, I'd get rid of all subsidies. But since it's being done I hope it has the desired effect and creates well paying jobs.
>>Banning unions, which runs afoul of the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, protest, and seek redress, will not improve education.
You'd be surprised, actually.
Yea, let's see how well it has worked. You say North Carolina made teachers unions illegal, let's see how North Carolina's schools are... According to Local School Directory North Carolina ranks below the national average. It has improved since No Child Left Behind but it's still bad, so not allowing teachers unions there doesn't appear to have helped.
Now do you have facts to share that supports your position that banning unions and not allowing competition makes schools better, or do you only have rhetoric? Oh, wait a minute... maybe you meant I'd be surprised that courts have ruled banning unions isn't unconstitutional. I would not be surprised at all. After all even the US Supreme Court has made rulings I and others consider unconstitutional. For instance the USSC ruled the federal government had the authority to make medical marijuana illegal even though voters in California voted to make it legal. In the Gonzales v. Raich. case the court had to bend over backwards to rule that the interstate commerce clause gave the feds the power to block states' rights. Of the nine members of the court 5 ruled the feds have the power and the other 4 ruled it does not.
Falcon
Fair enough. But if I was Obama (i.e. a radical progressive), then I'd toss a billion dollars at this if the science is good. Would do more than all the money spent on the weatherizing boondoggle.
Actually efficiency/weatherizing has the fastest payback between doing nothing, installing alternative/renewable energy, and efficiency/weatherizing. That is why when people go, build, off the grid the first thing they do is work on efficiency/weatherizing. Doing so can save a bundle of money. According to one graph by the Department of Energy the single largest use of energy in the US home is space heating, at 31%. Tied for number two is water heating and space cooling, at 12%. A properly designed and built building needs little if any heating or cooling.
>>About the only way to fight the unions is by allowing school choice with charter and private schools getting matching funding.
Nah. Right to Work states like North Carolina (IIRC) made unionizing in critical sectors outright illegal. So no police unions, firefighter unions, and, yeah, teacher unions.
Banning unions, which runs afoul of the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, protest, and seek redress, will not improve education. Competition between schools will. Now why is it people complain about competition when it affects their pay but like it when it drives their costs down? People complain about how Walmart drives other businesses out of business but then they're perfectly willing to shop at Walmart and Sam's. People complain about drug prices but how many liked it when Walmart lowered the price of thousands of drugs to $4? So yes, I shop at Walmart and am a member of Sam's Club. What I don't like is that I pay to be a member of Sam's whereas anyone can shop at Walmart yet by company policy Sam's can not offer a lower price on the same item as Walmart does. It only makes it worthwhile because Walmart doesn't offer the same bulk quantities as Sam's.
I like competition!!!
Falcon
Yeah. But then you're talking in a certain political climate, not real prices.
You don't see the real price from the power company either. They are all subsidized. At least in the US, and I'd imagine even more in other countries. Here's where the CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here Rep Edward Markey crows "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" He doesn't tkl just about coal subsides but subsides for nuclear and other power sources. Coal, corn based ethanol, and nuclear power get billions of dollars in subsidies. Yet if you add up all the subsidies for geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources it doesn't add up to $1 Billion.
Quite simply coal, nuclear, and other energy sources individually get way more in subsidies than geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources. Without subsides nuclear power plants would not be built, and power from coal would cost way more than it does.
It's the same in germany; it's profitable for a home-owner to install solar-cells on his roof. But that's only true because there's a state-guaranteed lowest-price that he gets for the electricity produced, and this price is substantially higher than the real market-value of electricity.
Wow! A quick google and I find this: Breakthrough Deal May Eliminate German Coal Subsidies :
"After months of negotiations, politicians and leaders from the coal industry reached a breakthrough Sunday night. Government subsidies -- not jobs -- are to be cut back drastically and may be history as early as 2018." Actually that was the first result googling germany coal subsidies. Now let's substitute nuclear for coal... and the first result is Subsidies and Public Support for Energy. It doesn't have much but it does say ways in which nuclear power is assisted. BusinessWeek reports a split in Chancellor Angela Merkel's government about extending the lifespan of nuclear power. Some plants there are approaching the end of their lifespan, so some want to extend the lifespan. One member of the coalition says "The nuclear power plants are designed for 40 years -- not 60, but 40 years".
It doesn't look like business determines what exists but government in Germany too.
Falcon
Right now, solar cells are so expensive, they take something like 15 or 20 years to pay for themselves, so most property owners don't see a big incentive. Lower that price to 10 years or 8 years, or even lower, and suddenly the demand for these things will skyrocket.
The payback period for solar is already under 10 years. New Jersey has a payback period of 1.5 years, "New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years." Of course, if because of this everybody went out and started buying solar energy systems, the cost could go up, higher demand drive prices up. Then again because of economy of scale and competition prices could go down even more.
Falcon