"Scott, The price of PV modules has come down in the last year, although not quite as much as the Times article suggests. I don't think there has been any significant drop in the cost of inverters, racks, cable, or installation labor.
My first PV module cost me $8.33 per watt in 1980. I paid $3.97 per watt in 2004, and $3.99 per watt in April 2009. Current PV module prices can be as low as $3 a watt, but only if you buy a whole pallet of modules. Otherwise you're still liable to pay $3.50 to $3.96 a watt"
So, since the year 1979 which the GP references, prices to the consumer have dropped more than 50%, even without adjusting for inflation. After accounting for inflation, you are looking at solar being 5 times cheaper than 30 years ago. Not bad.
I know it is poor form to extrapolate like this, but if we had a similar improvement over the next thirty years, then solar would easily become the number one source of energy worldwide. that may or many not come to pass, but the overall point is that despite the jaded responses from folks, we are seeing dramatic improvement in the price/performance of solar.
And prices have been dropping. I am only a casual observer, but have seen that manufacturing costs have dropped to under one dollar per watt. I'd really be curious to see a chart of the price drop over the past twenty years, but my google-fu has yet to uncover the information.
Density is not the issue. Otherwise, we would go with lead. The nanotubes are, apparently, better able to spread an impact over a wider surface. This is the reason Kevlar is used and why nanotubes are being looked at.
1) Data from a study which has been going on for 60 years is analyzed. Researchers reach certain conclusions. 2) Poster who admittedly did not even read the article, much less the study says this is a prime example of correlation is not causation. 3) You support #2 as some studies are flawed. 4) You admit you have not looked at the study
So, my question... what study could possibly EVER make it past your lack of rigor? Seriously. Please answer this question. No matter how well designed, you and other like you will criticize it. There is no way to defend as you won't take the time to properly analyze the methodology. Yet, despite not taking the time, you feel qualified to discount it.
"Hi, I don't believe in global warming cuz last winter was so cold (or maybe it was the year before). No, I don't care about global data for 50 years, cuz those guys are pointy haired, librul, academics".
This is NOT a waste of money. This study began in 1948 to discover causes of cardiovascular disease. The data was very broad and included health habits, diet, and sociological information. This "study" simply poured through the already existing data to find other interesting bit of information.
So, while some money might have been spent, this was more of an anlysis of existing information. In some ways, it is a money savings as no new study needed to be conducted to glean this information.
If you are interested, Google the study. There is a lot information out there, and the study added a lot to our body of knowledge.
No, dipshit. I am making fun of your research skills. You didn't even bother reading the article, much less the original research, yet you see yourself fit to "debunk" it.
You can't even read the criticism against you correctly. How do you think you are fit to judge this study.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... the knee jerk correlation is not causation. And I am sure you read the study to see how they accounted for this, right? You looked at their methodolgy and made sure that they were not looking at how habits changed over time (for example in the article: At the time, her cigarette habit didn't seem like a problem; most of her friends also smoked socially. But in the late 1980s, a few of them began to quit, and pretty soon Eileen felt awkward holding a cigarette off to one side when out at a restaurant. She quit, too, and within a few years nobody she knew smoked anymore. ) , and other factors that could explain this. And I am sure that at the end of your research you found that a grad student just plunked some nmbers into an Excel spreasheet and used the built in statistical function.
Yup, a long-term study spends significant time and resources researching something to come to a conclusion. But with your keen perception and research skills, you have totally debunked it. And the slashtards mod it up to +5.
I'd just like to go on records as saying Numbers is painful to watch from a mathematical point of view. It most definitely does not earn you any geek points.
Nowhere do I say the NSA cannot spy on someone. What I am saying is that if "intercepted" communication is inadmissible, then it follows that normal admissible information that was retrieved because of this intercepted communication should be thrown out as well.
I preface this with the fact that I am not a lawyer. Logic does not always apply to the law.
I got drunk with my Dad and Uncle last week and we shaved our heads, now everywhere I look someone is rubbing in the fact I don't have hair anymore!!!! Like OMG!!!
I'm not a lawyer, and am especially not a British lawyer... but if intercepted communication is not legal, then isn't getting information from a warrant based on intercepted communication not legal? I mean if a cop illegally searches my house, finds pot, then uses that as a basis for a warrant, it would be thrown out.
The only complication is the arms length relationship between the two governments. But overall, I doubt the validity of this process.
Care to explain what you mean here? Sounds like Apple is simply going the way of UNIX/Microsoft (I *think* UNIX used file extensions or part of the file itself). So how is Apple off base here?
Or were you just trying to make a snarky first post?
What does your tweezers and removing atoms have to do with combinations? It is trivial to come up with a situation where there are more possible combinations that atoms of the universe. The number of possible chess games starts to get close (magnitude of 50 versus 80 for the atoms in the universe. Slightly more complex scenarios would easily go past 10^80. The trick is to find a way to model the complexity with a much simpler algorithm.
An animal that can not feel pain would be very likely to injure itself. People who have conditions where they cannot feel pain are having to constantly check themselves for broken bones, sores, scrapes, etc. You might think it would be wonderful to live in a world without pain, but it would truly be awful.
Pain is there for a reason.... unlike this freaking 1.5" wide text area I am typing in.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is an anecdote I found in my search
"Scott,
The price of PV modules has come down in the last year, although not quite as much as the Times article suggests. I don't think there has been any significant drop in the cost of inverters, racks, cable, or installation labor.
My first PV module cost me $8.33 per watt in 1980. I paid $3.97 per watt in 2004, and $3.99 per watt in April 2009. Current PV module prices can be as low as $3 a watt, but only if you buy a whole pallet of modules. Otherwise you're still liable to pay $3.50 to $3.96 a watt"
So, since the year 1979 which the GP references, prices to the consumer have dropped more than 50%, even without adjusting for inflation. After accounting for inflation, you are looking at solar being 5 times cheaper than 30 years ago. Not bad.
I know it is poor form to extrapolate like this, but if we had a similar improvement over the next thirty years, then solar would easily become the number one source of energy worldwide. that may or many not come to pass, but the overall point is that despite the jaded responses from folks, we are seeing dramatic improvement in the price/performance of solar.
And prices have been dropping. I am only a casual observer, but have seen that manufacturing costs have dropped to under one dollar per watt. I'd really be curious to see a chart of the price drop over the past twenty years, but my google-fu has yet to uncover the information.
I bet she kept the secret for 47 hours.
Density is not the issue. Otherwise, we would go with lead. The nanotubes are, apparently, better able to spread an impact over a wider surface. This is the reason Kevlar is used and why nanotubes are being looked at.
There is very little energy wasted in copper wiring
Weight is decreased, saving the fuel, not energy conduction.
No, you noob. 0's are fat while 1's are skinny. When formatting a disk, make sure to use a utility to fill it with 1's instead of the 0's.
Let's recap
1) Data from a study which has been going on for 60 years is analyzed. Researchers reach certain conclusions.
2) Poster who admittedly did not even read the article, much less the study says this is a prime example of correlation is not causation.
3) You support #2 as some studies are flawed.
4) You admit you have not looked at the study
So, my question... what study could possibly EVER make it past your lack of rigor? Seriously. Please answer this question. No matter how well designed, you and other like you will criticize it. There is no way to defend as you won't take the time to properly analyze the methodology. Yet, despite not taking the time, you feel qualified to discount it.
"Hi, I don't believe in global warming cuz last winter was so cold (or maybe it was the year before). No, I don't care about global data for 50 years, cuz those guys are pointy haired, librul, academics".
Hi Seumas,
This is NOT a waste of money. This study began in 1948 to discover causes of cardiovascular disease. The data was very broad and included health habits, diet, and sociological information. This "study" simply poured through the already existing data to find other interesting bit of information.
So, while some money might have been spent, this was more of an anlysis of existing information. In some ways, it is a money savings as no new study needed to be conducted to glean this information.
If you are interested, Google the study. There is a lot information out there, and the study added a lot to our body of knowledge.
No, dipshit. I am making fun of your research skills. You didn't even bother reading the article, much less the original research, yet you see yourself fit to "debunk" it.
You can't even read the criticism against you correctly. How do you think you are fit to judge this study.
Go read this comment that was pointed out by another reader: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1306647&cid=28734109
It does a better job than I did of why your post is intellectually void.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... the knee jerk correlation is not causation. And I am sure you read the study to see how they accounted for this, right? You looked at their methodolgy and made sure that they were not looking at how habits changed over time (for example in the article: At the time, her cigarette habit didn't seem like a problem; most of her friends also smoked socially. But in the late 1980s, a few of them began to quit, and pretty soon Eileen felt awkward holding a cigarette off to one side when out at a restaurant. She quit, too, and within a few years nobody she knew smoked anymore.
) , and other factors that could explain this. And I am sure that at the end of your research you found that a grad student just plunked some nmbers into an Excel spreasheet and used the built in statistical function.
Yup, a long-term study spends significant time and resources researching something to come to a conclusion. But with your keen perception and research skills, you have totally debunked it. And the slashtards mod it up to +5.
Try reading his comment again. He says 1% chance of a school seeing a case. Not 1% of all kids die each year.
I'd just like to go on records as saying Numbers is painful to watch from a mathematical point of view. It most definitely does not earn you any geek points.
I think you miss the point:
Nowhere do I say the NSA cannot spy on someone. What I am saying is that if "intercepted" communication is inadmissible, then it follows that normal admissible information that was retrieved because of this intercepted communication should be thrown out as well.
I preface this with the fact that I am not a lawyer. Logic does not always apply to the law.
that must have been a fun trail to take part in. . . . .
Trying to determine if "trail" was meant as a joke, or if this is the height of irony.
I got drunk with my Dad and Uncle last week and we shaved our heads, now everywhere I look someone is rubbing in the fact I don't have hair anymore!!!! Like OMG!!!
So, how's life in your trailer park?
I'm not a lawyer, and am especially not a British lawyer... but if intercepted communication is not legal, then isn't getting information from a warrant based on intercepted communication not legal? I mean if a cop illegally searches my house, finds pot, then uses that as a basis for a warrant, it would be thrown out.
The only complication is the arms length relationship between the two governments. But overall, I doubt the validity of this process.
Talk about an abundant national resource! Sucks to be one of you skinny Frenchies!
Apparently Slashdot is not tech-savvy enough for this website.
I wonder if 'fantasy boarding school fiction' will soon become a genre of its own?
This genre already exists. I would point you to a link, but I am at work and it might violate company policy.
*whoosh*
Care to explain what you mean here? Sounds like Apple is simply going the way of UNIX/Microsoft (I *think* UNIX used file extensions or part of the file itself). So how is Apple off base here?
Or were you just trying to make a snarky first post?
What does your tweezers and removing atoms have to do with combinations? It is trivial to come up with a situation where there are more possible combinations that atoms of the universe. The number of possible chess games starts to get close (magnitude of 50 versus 80 for the atoms in the universe. Slightly more complex scenarios would easily go past 10^80. The trick is to find a way to model the complexity with a much simpler algorithm.
Here ya go. About 59.
Why would I want to install a hack to make a tech website work properly?
Udderly Stupid (sorry, couldn't help myself).
An animal that can not feel pain would be very likely to injure itself. People who have conditions where they cannot feel pain are having to constantly check themselves for broken bones, sores, scrapes, etc. You might think it would be wonderful to live in a world without pain, but it would truly be awful.
Pain is there for a reason.... unlike this freaking 1.5" wide text area I am typing in.