Apple has enough cash and equivalents on-hand in the US to buy about 4% of Microsoft. Hardly enough to buy them... Yes, Apple has about $18 billion in cash and equivalents on-hand; it has close to $200 billion in overseas funds and long-term investments, but those would be subject to a 40% tax load if repatriated/converted to buy Microsoft, meaning it would have - at most - $140 billion to use. And that would buy about 30% of Microsoft (which is close to $500 billion in value - not too far behind Apple's $700 billion in value).
So your point is that coal does not beat solar as bad as his numbers show, but that coal still beats solar by a solid 50% in terms of realizable energy per dollar?
Renewable, maybe in Nevada. California doesn't consider hydro a renewable resource so that share of the Gigafactory's power wouldn't be renewable. At least in Tesla's home state...
"Alternative energy is always better so we should shut down everything else right now"
No, subsidizing dirty sources of energy instead of investing in clean ones is idiotic and short sighted.
Investing in "dirty" sources of energy instead of subsidizing "clean" ones is idiotic and short sighted.
One man's subsidy is usually another man's investment. When you look at subsidies per kWh output, solar and wind exceed "dirty coal" by orders of magnitude. Solar receives 4.5 times the Federal subsidies as coal and we're getting 55 times more energy from coal tha solar, meaning we're spending over 200 times as much subisidizing solar as coal, per kWh.
While I agree with you about the long term goal, I think the length of that term is highly skewed to try to favor solar and wind and others. The reality is that the US has over 250 years of proven fossil fuels (not including coal) reserves within the US, at current usage rates (just the Green River formation contains approximately 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, and we consume about 19.4 million barrels a day. The math says that's 211 years right there). Yes, we would not need to import a single drop of oil or single cubic meter of gas for the next 280 years if we so chose.
We have the time runway to do it right, we do not have to rush headlong into a wrong solution. Targeted solar works well for some places, but we would be much better off as a species and nation to pursue fusion with most of the money and jobs being spent on solar and wind. Yes, it will take a few decades - maybe a century - to achieve, but the benefits are vastly superior to either solar or wind.
But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard and ensure a way to monetize all future 3D web graphics?
You need both a base load capability (nuclear) and, if it's reasonable, addition "as you can" resources (like wind and solar). In the US, it can take 5-8 years to get a solar or wind-farm done, but that plant does not have the uptime and sustained load capability of nuclear. If you want fast, go with natural gas turbines, you can roll that out in 2-3 years. And in the US, our wind and solar is heavily subsidized (LCOE is higher for wind and solar) as compared to other sources...
It highlights the inefficiencies gained by employment in that industry. Having most of the people working on the smallest chunk of power generation seems counter-productive to me, and we'd be better off seeing if we can swing efforts towards higher efficiency. Imagine if those folks were working on nuclear plants instead; we'd have an order of magnitude more electrical output, and it would be much more stable as well. We could electrify the nation MUCH faster, much more reliably, and at a lower cost. And keep the same number of jobs.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, Turkey... Yes, a stunning list of foreign policy victories by that crew in the last several Administrations! By all means let's keep that crew...
Clinton? You mean the one who insisted that Russia interfered against her in the election, and pressed President Obama to take action against them (including booting out dozens of diplomats)? That Clinton?
This is a good example of where voice assistants can be too clever. When I ask Google questions in English it responds with Imperial units (feet, inches, pounds). I use metic. If I ask in Japanese it gives the answer in metic.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese CAN pronounce the letter "R"...
Because many times it's more convenient? When I'm cooking, I don't want to smear my phone with oils, it's easier to ask for information. I like having a SmartThings sensor on my motorcycle so the garage door opens as I approach my house, I don't have to fumble for a garage door opener or my phone. I like having my house realize when it's starting to get dark and automatically turn on lights - and turn them off when I am in bed and say "good night".
Well now, it was but 3 score and 4 years ago when mighty Everest was conquered, seems fitting that a fortnight be used to attest the mount's stature of 4,838 fathoms!
Yep, Apple doesn't sufficiently test an EXTREMELY limited number of combinations prior to releasing the product. Typically that is considered "beta testing by user". Which is what appears to be here. And you still haven't said anything back to bmimatt about your erroneous statements made on false data.
Thank you for the link. For what is listed for the US, we see that renewables are at least 2.5 times fossil fuels in terms of subsidies. And the other listed subsidies (foreign tax credit, non-conventional fuel, and exploration expenses) are analogous to credits available to ALL companies. ALL companies get 100% credit for income taxes paid overseas, and ALL companies can expense full R&D costs. The non-conventional fuel - have to look into that one. But at this point, it seems that IF there are targeted subsidies for fossil fuels, they are very small, much smaller than what is spent on renewable energy.
So, once again we see you taking extreme defense of Apple as your default position - and doing so without an ounce of knowledge of the facts. You can apologize to bmimatt for going off on him. His statement is pretty much 100% accurate; how do you roll out a product that is not compatible with a currently shipping product (being that you can still buy, brand new at the Apple store, iPhone 6s units)? It's called using your users for beta testers. You have four phones (iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus) and one pair of BT buds (airpods). It's not like it's millions of combinations...
Typically, no. What targeted subsidies do fossil fuels receive? There are many that are strictly reserved only for solar and wind, but none that I know of that are reserved only for coal, oil, or natgas.
No, the liberals are out rioting right now, burning cars, attacking the police, destroying property. They don't just talk about it - they actually do it.
Yes, better to support a woman who enforced racism, profited from and supported misogyny, and committed war crimes! Don't vote for someone who just talks, vote for someone who does!
>Give me a fucking break. The Republican party has cornered the market on being petty and petulant.
They have? I guess they forced President Obama to tell them to "get in the back of the bus" and they locked themselves out of committee rooms. I guess they used reconciliation to pass a bill with zero input from the GOP, just so we can "find out what was in it". And I guess they passed the nuclear option, too?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has enough cash and equivalents on-hand in the US to buy about 4% of Microsoft. Hardly enough to buy them... Yes, Apple has about $18 billion in cash and equivalents on-hand; it has close to $200 billion in overseas funds and long-term investments, but those would be subject to a 40% tax load if repatriated/converted to buy Microsoft, meaning it would have - at most - $140 billion to use. And that would buy about 30% of Microsoft (which is close to $500 billion in value - not too far behind Apple's $700 billion in value).
Just think of the number of people we could employ if we also hired another 50,000 to break those solar panels every year? We'd double the employment!
Wrong, you disingenuous fool.
So your point is that coal does not beat solar as bad as his numbers show, but that coal still beats solar by a solid 50% in terms of realizable energy per dollar?
Renewable, maybe in Nevada. California doesn't consider hydro a renewable resource so that share of the Gigafactory's power wouldn't be renewable. At least in Tesla's home state...
"Alternative energy is always better so we should shut down everything else right now"
No, subsidizing dirty sources of energy instead of investing in clean ones is idiotic and short sighted.
Investing in "dirty" sources of energy instead of subsidizing "clean" ones is idiotic and short sighted.
One man's subsidy is usually another man's investment. When you look at subsidies per kWh output, solar and wind exceed "dirty coal" by orders of magnitude. Solar receives 4.5 times the Federal subsidies as coal and we're getting 55 times more energy from coal tha solar, meaning we're spending over 200 times as much subisidizing solar as coal, per kWh.
While I agree with you about the long term goal, I think the length of that term is highly skewed to try to favor solar and wind and others. The reality is that the US has over 250 years of proven fossil fuels (not including coal) reserves within the US, at current usage rates (just the Green River formation contains approximately 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, and we consume about 19.4 million barrels a day. The math says that's 211 years right there). Yes, we would not need to import a single drop of oil or single cubic meter of gas for the next 280 years if we so chose.
We have the time runway to do it right, we do not have to rush headlong into a wrong solution. Targeted solar works well for some places, but we would be much better off as a species and nation to pursue fusion with most of the money and jobs being spent on solar and wind. Yes, it will take a few decades - maybe a century - to achieve, but the benefits are vastly superior to either solar or wind.
But then how can Apple gain a proprietary stranglehold on the industry? How can they force adoption of their own standard and ensure a way to monetize all future 3D web graphics?
You need both a base load capability (nuclear) and, if it's reasonable, addition "as you can" resources (like wind and solar). In the US, it can take 5-8 years to get a solar or wind-farm done, but that plant does not have the uptime and sustained load capability of nuclear. If you want fast, go with natural gas turbines, you can roll that out in 2-3 years. And in the US, our wind and solar is heavily subsidized (LCOE is higher for wind and solar) as compared to other sources...
It highlights the inefficiencies gained by employment in that industry. Having most of the people working on the smallest chunk of power generation seems counter-productive to me, and we'd be better off seeing if we can swing efforts towards higher efficiency. Imagine if those folks were working on nuclear plants instead; we'd have an order of magnitude more electrical output, and it would be much more stable as well. We could electrify the nation MUCH faster, much more reliably, and at a lower cost. And keep the same number of jobs.
Iran continues to deny the IAEA access and continues its weapons plans, even after President Obama's "historic" agreement.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, Turkey... Yes, a stunning list of foreign policy victories by that crew in the last several Administrations! By all means let's keep that crew...
Clinton? You mean the one who insisted that Russia interfered against her in the election, and pressed President Obama to take action against them (including booting out dozens of diplomats)? That Clinton?
This is a good example of where voice assistants can be too clever. When I ask Google questions in English it responds with Imperial units (feet, inches, pounds). I use metic. If I ask in Japanese it gives the answer in metic.
Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese CAN pronounce the letter "R"...
Because many times it's more convenient? When I'm cooking, I don't want to smear my phone with oils, it's easier to ask for information. I like having a SmartThings sensor on my motorcycle so the garage door opens as I approach my house, I don't have to fumble for a garage door opener or my phone. I like having my house realize when it's starting to get dark and automatically turn on lights - and turn them off when I am in bed and say "good night".
Other than the OS used to design Macs, you mean (Windows being used to run Solidworks and Altium, which design the mechanicals and electricals).
Well now, it was but 3 score and 4 years ago when mighty Everest was conquered, seems fitting that a fortnight be used to attest the mount's stature of 4,838 fathoms!
Yep, Apple doesn't sufficiently test an EXTREMELY limited number of combinations prior to releasing the product. Typically that is considered "beta testing by user". Which is what appears to be here. And you still haven't said anything back to bmimatt about your erroneous statements made on false data.
Ahh, so a nebulous expenditure that is hard to quantify, hard to categorize, and impossible to rationalize. We're not "taxing them enough" is your answer? Should we also include the costs of wind power in terms of its affect on the local climate and temperature? Or the change to the climate that comes from solar farms?
Thank you for the link. For what is listed for the US, we see that renewables are at least 2.5 times fossil fuels in terms of subsidies. And the other listed subsidies (foreign tax credit, non-conventional fuel, and exploration expenses) are analogous to credits available to ALL companies. ALL companies get 100% credit for income taxes paid overseas, and ALL companies can expense full R&D costs. The non-conventional fuel - have to look into that one. But at this point, it seems that IF there are targeted subsidies for fossil fuels, they are very small, much smaller than what is spent on renewable energy.
So, once again we see you taking extreme defense of Apple as your default position - and doing so without an ounce of knowledge of the facts. You can apologize to bmimatt for going off on him. His statement is pretty much 100% accurate; how do you roll out a product that is not compatible with a currently shipping product (being that you can still buy, brand new at the Apple store, iPhone 6s units)? It's called using your users for beta testers. You have four phones (iPhone 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus) and one pair of BT buds (airpods). It's not like it's millions of combinations...
Typically, no. What targeted subsidies do fossil fuels receive? There are many that are strictly reserved only for solar and wind, but none that I know of that are reserved only for coal, oil, or natgas.
Looking at a teardown of an iPhone 7, we see the WiFi/Bluetooth chip is a Murata device, not a W1. The W1 is in the airpods, not the iPhone.
No, the liberals are out rioting right now, burning cars, attacking the police, destroying property. They don't just talk about it - they actually do it.
Yes, better to support a woman who enforced racism, profited from and supported misogyny, and committed war crimes! Don't vote for someone who just talks, vote for someone who does!
>Give me a fucking break. The Republican party has cornered the market on being petty and petulant.
They have? I guess they forced President Obama to tell them to "get in the back of the bus" and they locked themselves out of committee rooms. I guess they used reconciliation to pass a bill with zero input from the GOP, just so we can "find out what was in it". And I guess they passed the nuclear option, too?