It doesn't mean it costs $90M per copy either. Much of the original $90M was likely NRE.

The government is not writing checks out of the general fund to pay people to drill for oil.

So, the trillions of taxpayer dollars we've spent on wars to protect energy interests just don't count? The hundreds of thousands of lives that were spent in these wars, counting the civilian casualities?

You might have an answer to that question if you weren't one of the "people who don't really understand this stuff".

And you're worried about 30% of the cost of solar panels. You're a special kind of person, you are.

Is there any other mainstream technology that repeatedly makes outlandish claims, and just shrugs it off as if it never happen when those claims don't deliver, and yet gets massive taxpayer-sponsored support?

Coal, hydraulic fracturing, the pharmaceutical industry. The defense industry.

Shall I go on?

> 5% of the total energy use is still

The 5% neither of total energy, nor of use.

It's 5% of electricity generated within the state.
Most of the energy isn't electricity, and a large percentage of the electricity they use is generated in Arizona, where regulation has allowed new power plants that generate reliable electricity to be built.

In other words, it's really just how many new electric plants were built in California (only solar ones) as a percentage of the plants that California already had prior to them shutting down development and forcing any new plants capable of providing reliable electricity to be built across the state line in Arizona.

Given that the population of California has increased by 10% in the last 15 years, the fact that their electric capacity hasn't kept up, that they've become more dependent on power from Arizona, isn't actually a good thing.

I'll mention to the IT department that they could save $30 by buying a generic stick from a random Chinese guy rather than buying a popular product form the third-largest company in the world.

If you're a hobbiest playing around, seeing what you can do with your new toy, you might want to save that $30. If you're a business spending $100 / hour to employ someone to set it up and maintain it, that Chinese stick is much more expensive. It's much less expensive to get something well documented and supported by the world's third-largest company than to choose something with instructions that read "Push of button the power electric to on".

Also, the headline is wrong, to put it mildly. As they normally do, the solar-electric propagandists came up with that 5% number by doing math that makes no sense - using POWER USED for the numerator and ELECTRICITY GENERATED for the denominator. Most power isn't electricity, so the number is bogus. Also, California uses a lot more power (and electricity) than they generate, so it's double bogus.

I say the number is "wrong", but MOST solar-electric stories on Slashdot make the exact same "mistake". When someone making an argument consistently screws up the math in the same way, after the error has been pointed out the them many times, that could be called "lying".

The useful number is "how much of the power we use can be generated from ________?" In the case of solar-electric in California, it's less than 2%. That's good in the sense that it's about the correct amount to generate in terms of resources used vs power generated. More would wasteful and hurt people's standard of living. For example:
It would be silly to use the sun to heat water, in order to drive a turbine, in order to generate electricity, in order heat a coil, in order to heat water for your shower. If you want hot water for a shower and you have bright sun, just pipe the water for the shower through a large black pipe and heat it directly. That's much more efficient than the Rube Goldberg approach of adding turbines, generators, etc. to it. If you want hot water and have hot water, just use the hot water - it's wasteful to convert it into electricity and back again. Under that kind of analysis, solar electric SHOULD be about 2%. Other sources are better for most of the needs of most of the people in most places, for most of the year.

I think it is the government subsidy part that upsets so many.

But every single form of energy is subsidized by the government. So why are we singling out solar again?

Do you feel the same way about nuclear?

No, probably modded down for being a twat.

Someone isn't a schmuck for highlighting that 5% isn't terribly good, even if you have a better reference demonstrating why.

I am missing mine as well. I don't think any of these are funny. A good April Fools joke should be plausible enough that gullible people believe it, and even normal people should have to read it twice to be sure. The funniest part is not the joke itself, but the overreaction, and hopefully even outrage, from the people that fall for it. None of these stories are plausible in the least.

The Germans are sending money to Spain anyway. They might as well get something in return.

Not just north, but also cloudy. But that is not impressive, it is dumb. Reducing CO2 is a global problem. They could have got that much reduction at half the cost if they had subsidized solar panels in Spain and then imported the energy. Or build solar plants in Egypt or Ethiopia, and then sold the carbon credits.

Japan announced it was cancelling Christmas today. I was so happy until I remembered what the date is. Damn you, April Fools, for getting my hopes up.

It's not so much sequels, it's a desire to see the story played out to conclusion and then ended without pointless cash-ins. Trek was cancelled too early, many of the sequel/remake movies are pointless.

The guy who plays Kirk in Continues is a better Shatner than Shatner is. He has all the mannerisms and speech patterns down perfectly. I could believe it was the same character, the same person. Only, he's actually slightly better, slightly less camp and with a more expressive face.