Therein, as the "Watts Up With That?" commenters point out, lies the problem. You can *only* achieve that kind of ROI if you're connected to a power grid that will pay you fixed rates for your excess power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, and guarantee availability of power in other circumstances (against base rates).

Power plants have a nasty habit of costing money every second while they're being kept in readiness, let alone when they're on standby or acting as spinning reserves. Money their operators can't recoup by selling power when there is a glut due to solar and wind generators.

As soon as you factor that cost in, the picture for alternative energy sources becomes a lot less rosy.

Not that we shouldn't try to maximise the fraction of wind and solar power, but let's be realistic and factor in the cost of keeping (conventional) power plants on standby instead of treating the power grid as a giant zero-cost battery!

Planned obsolescence and a huge vested interest in current technology.

By keeping change gradual, Detroit can make consumers pay for every step along the way by selling them model after model that's just different enough to generate sales and yet not different enough to require big investments in new technology (manufacturing or otherwise). In doing so they make sure they can write off any investments in existing technology after they have been recouped. This is known as planned obsolescence.

With revolutionary changes however, Detroit's car makers will have no chance to slip a line of intermediate models and, say, a 10 year transition period, between the current model and the future one. So they leave money on the table. Big money.

And of course they won't do that if they have anything to say in it.

Google on the other hand has no vested interest in existing car technology and is only looking to monetise their current, developing, tech. Of course they want to see it implemented asap, with as little intermediate models as possible.

Given those two positions, can anyone be surprised they didn't hit it off?

Intense research indicates that the sun doesn't usually shine at night in Germany and that solar cells operate at greatly reduced power levels in the dark. In other news, electricity production varies significantly from one day to the next, due to strange weather conditions such as clouds.

The upshot is that during some hours and on sunny days there is a glut of electric power which drives the spot-market price to zero.

This of course is bad news for companies that operate coal, gas, or oil-fired power plants because such plants are expensive to build and maintain and can't compete during the hours of abundant sunlight leaving insufficient hours during which to make enough to service debts and recoup investments.

Dirty old base-load plants powered by coal can usually continue to compete on price. Expensive modern gas-powered peak-demand plants on the other hand will operate at a loss.

Having caused a volatile energy form to gain prominence, the next thing for the Germans to do is to shift their subsidies from solar cells to storage capacity. They're already doing that, but in the mean time their conventional power plants will bleed red ink.

I'm happy to watch their experiments from afar and eager to learn how they will solve this particular problem, aren't you?

Costs that aren't reflected in the price of causing air pollution (caused e.g. by car-driving), but devolve on other parties, are known as "external costs".

External costs can however be included in the price of the product (in this case driving an internal combustion vehicle) by means of a tax, and that is often the only way for external costs.

The market that determines the demand for fuel combustion can do its work only if the "true" cost of driving is felt by the ones who actually buy that particular product, instead of other parties further down the line.

Just calculate the marginal cost of a kilogram of combusted fuel due to pollination problems and, add it to the fuel tax, and spend it on research to drive down the cost of more fuel-efficient cars and hydrogen vehicles.

It would be better to wait for good solid facts. At the very least I'd expect a press-conference by Mr. Putin himself stating that it is his policy to keep Europe from lessening their energy dependence on Russia by sponsoring anti-fracking groups.

To be quite sure we'd best wait for a signed, hand-delivered letter from Russia's government confirming the statements of the press-conference in writing.

Don't get me wrong, until a few months ago I was prepared to believe that Russia was simply out for revenue in jacking up the gas price (and why not: it's their damn gas and they're selling to the Ukraina at below market price). What changed my mind was the way they acted in the Crimea and the Ukrainian border provinces. Apparently they wish for a sphere of influence (read hegemony) around their borders in which the rights and interests of the surrounding states and their peoples is a secondary consideration.

They may have stopped short of outright invasion, but they do seem to use classical special-forces handiwork (like setting up and aiding groups that advocate secession, undercover operations by special forces) to great effect. After all ... they really really want their navy base at Sevastopol back. Well, we've seen worse. Really. Even old Gorbachev spoke out to the effect that merging the Crimea with the Ukraina was a mistake (from Russia's point of view).

Again, I don't blame them and I'm certainly not trying to demonize them, but if that's what they want, that's what they want. I'm simply saying we should take note, give due consideration to what their apparent goals are, and adjust our views and policies accordingly.

There's a big difference between the US and Germany: the US has an awful lot of territory, so it can afford to waste and pollute large tracts of it (which it still does on a regular basis), yet have sufficient clean land for other purposes. Germany is a lot smaller and more densely populated, and it has to exercise a lot more caution with its environment than the US

Besides which, Europe as a whole seems to import 33% of its oil and 48% of its gas from Russia. Now consider that Russia seems to be sponsoring environmental groups in Europe that oppose fracking. Why would that be, you think?

Given Russia's showdown with the Ukraina (annexing the Crimea and turning the screws on by jacking up the price of natural gas) and Putin's determination to err ... restore Russia's political clout and former "glory", wouldn't you do your level best to try and worm your way out of energy dependence on Russia? The Germans seem to be doing exactly that.

In other news ... China is busily overtaking the US as largest economy, and it has no oil, no gas, but loads of coal. It's also the world's manufacturing hub. And then there's India growing steadily. Population growth in Asia is still massive (in absolute terms) and its prosperity is steadily rising. With that inevitably comes an increased energy footprint.

I believe than in the coming 10-20 years energy prices will be determined by what happens in Asia, not in the US or Europe. And the only way I see oil prices go in that period is up. Way up. Solar seems to be a pretty solid investment from that point of view.

So on balance I'd say that Germany's investment in solar energy is not a stupid move and should probably continue.

Your average GOP voter greatly values his privacy where the Government is involved. We all know that.

When it comes to private corporations however, your average GOP voter doesn't seem to worry overmuch. Even better, he/she tends to hold little sympathy towards attempts to restrict corporations in any way whatsoever.

As such, he/she takes a positively hostile position versus people who propose to regulate what data corporations can collect on you (and what they can do with it). Because that smacks of "expanding government". The number one red-flag issue for them.

So err does that mean that GOP voters will refrain from protesting as long as it's only honest for-profit corporations doing the data-mining? If only because for-profit corporations will be just as happy to profile/target the other side? Thereby evening the playing field as it were.

Of course GOP voters won't like the idea of being profiled with the express purpose of countering the political position they wish to see adopted any more than anybody else.

The rub is: what do they propose to do about it? Somehow I feel that they won't necessarily endorse additional legislation to that effect. Let alone government enforcement of the same. And by banning such practices, they would deprive themselves of the opportunity to use the same techniques.

What I think will happen is that GOP voters will ask themselves: will we benefit more from this technique than the opposition? If so, they'll oppose it only insofar and for as long as they feel they are currently lagging the opposition, and endorse it in every other respect.

What I do know is that I got exasperated at yet another stupid conspiracy-theory post when an obvious answer is so close to hand, especially when it's rated above '1'.

Without a shred of or thought, Oracle and Cisco are lumped together. Throw in the mention of Satan separating them at birth and I lost my patience.

So for that reason I used the header "Conspiracy-theory rubbish ...". I stand by this particular choice of words. I think they are appropriate to the context and the parent post, and will use them again.

You're probably right I should have omitted the sneer about the author of the parent post being arithmetically challenged. I'll think more carefully before including such designations in future.

Before you lose yourself in flights of fancy, consider this. Cisco sells network gear, i.e. the stuff you need to implement multiple tiers of traffic. Only the more advanced, expensive, and high-margin gear will do that of course. Think: deep-packet inspection.

And you were actually wondering why Cisco is in favour of an Internet that needs advanced kit and against an Internet that doesn't need special gear to implement multiple tiers?

A bit slow at arithmetic, are you?.

(1) Establish how many personalities can be distinguished within the defendant's mind.

(2) Try to identify the personality who was in charge at the time, and do him/her for pointing the laser.

(3) Prosecute all the other personalities for being accessory and/or accomplice to the act of pointing the laser.

(4) Depending on how tightly the personalities are linked, you may optionally prosecute each of them for conspiracy to commit a crime, or even taking part in a criminal organisation.

(5) Add all sentences together. This is how long the body pointing the laser should go behind bars.

I suspect that the defense of "multiple personalities" will lose its popularity very quickly.

I see a lot of people stating their opinions and arbitrarily deciding that people who use 'swear words' are bad at communicating, have weaknesses, or are lazy, but I've yet to see anything objective.

And I think that you've yet to start looking. And I don't mean on Slashdot.

It will surprise you to know that there is a branch of science dealing with questions like: "what makes people better or worse at being listened to and influencing others?". It's called Psychology, and it's about objective study of the human mind. Including personal effectiveness.

Now something tells me that you aren't about to read (much less absorb) anything about Psychology. So I won't bother you with references to the literature (you may use Google if you want to contend that you do).

So I'll try to couch my argument in terms that may be inside your personal sphere of experience. We'll start with advertising. Advertisements are there to make people buy something. They're worth big money because they *work*. Now ... how many swearwords (directed squarely at the viewer) do you see in advertising? And in sales pitches?

That's right: none at all. Reason: they don't work. People would use them if they did ... but they don't.

The same holds for lawyer's briefs, politician's speeches,

If in addition the plain fact that you won't hear any successful managers, professors, lawyers, salespeople, or politicians swear in their official capacity isn't "objective" enough for you, what is?

I would choose the one that's best at the job at hand. At random, if need be. This would be on principle.

You might be getting there. Now lets focus on what you mean by "best at the job", shall we?

There seems to be some romantic notion floating about of the "irksome in manners but super-competent maverick". Most jobs (apart from code monkey or assembly-line worker or data-entry professional) require some measure of interaction. With colleagues. With management. With clients. With prospects. With the public. Being able to do that without needlessly antagonizing people is part of being good at your job.

The vast majority of people I've met professionally (in academe and business) were both extremely good at their work and quite articulate, if not eloquent. I almost never spotted someone with a clear trade-off.

And I also never spotted anyone who was such a prize (professionally speaking) that we had to put up with him/her being a pain to listen to (there was always someone who could do the job just about as well without the theatrics).

So whoever told you that being good at some job correlates with being a potty-mouth? Less fanciful romantic assumptions on your part, and more real-world experience please.

All things considered, using crude language (and especially swearwords) is typically a sign of weakness in people. As in: being unable to get their point across without being vulgar and being frustrated at their own inability to do so. Or simply being too lazy to care.

Suppose you're in charge of hiring engineers and you can get someone who (being equally competent on the engineering side) has the added benefit of polishing their shoes, not looking like some bum from the slums, and being able to convince people to adopt their views (as in collaborating with e.g. customers, prospects, colleagues) and to get their thinking across clearly, effectively, and without needlessly antagonising their audience (as in making presentations to e.g. management, prospects, competitors).

Would you choose someone who comes across as a potty-mouth, a bum, a Neanderthaler or someone more sophisticated?

I suppose it depends. If you want a small corporate cog that you'll never have to worry about reaching management levels himself (and perhaps turning into competition), by all means: go for the one lacking polish (or even the potty-mouth). Your only worry will be to pay said cog market value (for their technical competence only: they have no other qualities) and keep them fully booked.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for someone who might be suitable to represent your company externally (after you verified that their head is screwed on right of course) and who's promotable in due time, go for the one with a few extra qualities. Such as politeness and articulateness. You'll find yourself paying extra for such people. They're scarcer and more in demand because they're more useful.

Children would be much better served by teaching them concentration, a systematic approach to problem-solving, a good command of language (natural language) and teaching them how to solve problems that require a focused effort or even a team effort.

And yes, programming can be so much fun that you might succeed in getting children so absorbed in the problem at hand that they actually focus and make an effort. But I see it as a means. not an end.

Teaching children about programming in secondary school is plenty good enough, provided they aren't semi-illiterates (as is so often the case), can actually formulate their thoughts in a way that makes sense (instead of the usual incoherent rambling), and know what it means to make an effort.

With that in mind, would you bet against his ability to manoeuver for a jury that will be swayed by rethoric about the ickiness of drinking pee?

I'm afraid the grandparent post has nailed it: it's cheaper to waste a few million gallons of perfectly good drinking water than to risk a lawsuit.