Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:wont last (Score 1) 257

Clever crooks. Always finding the loopholes. This is why we can't have nice things.

Presumably walmart will immediately be limiting this to items only sold and shipped directly by amazon... or they'll drop amazon matching entirely if that's too complicated for their staff.

Walmart promises to price match any competitor, then uses their clout to get the manufacture to package the item differently, specifically for walmart, under a different SKU so the item, is in effect, unique to walmart, and they'll have no one to compete with them.

Fair game I'd say.

Comment: Re:Wait what? (Score 2) 163

The US Government routinely seizes the assets of its adversaries, even US Citizens

What you're talking about is the US Government seizing the assets its adversaries have parked in the USA.
I'm not sure why the US Government thinks it can seize foreign assets.
That's not how jurisdiction works.

Of course it does. Any court in Europe could rule that a US citizen owes them money, then apply to have assets from the US seized and sent back. It's covered under treaty and happens all the time.

Comment: Re:So close, so far (Score 1) 534

by Charliemopps (#48427403) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

I guarantee you, by the time the day is through, 2/3s of the posts here will say something along the lines of "What's the problem with the book? It's just like real life!"

That's the problem with Generalizations... they are generally true. The problem with the human brain is, we take what is generally true and assume that it is always true.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 3, Insightful) 211

by Charliemopps (#48425801) Attached to: Lessons Learned From Google's Green Energy Bust

The problem is this almost religious fanatical devotion to the idea of "Mother earth" and the idea of "Renewable technology"

Why does it have to be renewable? The actual problem is converting CO2 from a solid to a gas. Stopping that is far more important than being renewable. Fusion isn't renewable... we'd run out of Deuterium in a couple of billion years... so we should abandon that as well?

Comment: Re:Wait what? (Score 2) 163

"a hold over money from bank accounts around the world, luxury cars, big televisions, watches, artwork"

These assets are not even held in the USA, how can they possibly have jurisdiction on these assets? (such as a watch presumably taken from his home address).

Lets assume you're right and they can't... he has to show up in court to challenge it... see the what they are doing now?

Comment: Re:Wait what? (Score 3, Informative) 163

The US Government routinely seizes the assets of its adversaries, even US Citizens in order to force them to appear in court. Just like this... They take your money, knowing full well they have no right to... but, to dispute it, you have to show up in court or testify about yourself in such a way that could lead to further prosecution.

Remember how they busted Al Capone? Tax evasion? They knew for a fact how he got his money, but they also knew that to prove he was innocent he'd have to admit to how he got his money. So, despite violating his rights, the spirit of the law, and perverting the justice system. they got him anyway. Win at all costs...

Comment: Re:Damned if you do damned if you don't (Score 1) 211

by Charliemopps (#48422653) Attached to: Congress Suggests Moat, Electronic Fence To Protect White House

Dude, a guy with a knife and a limp ran several hundred yards, unhindered, into the most secure building on earth. They were Lucky he was mentally deranged and not really actually out to hurt anyone. Had he been, he could have easily taken out half the building with an ied.

The secret service isn't being criticized for failing to do the impossible.
They are being criticized for failing to stop just about the easiest to stop assailant you could imagine.
They guy should have had a bullet in his chest before his feet even touched the ground on the other side of the fence.

Comment: Re:don't tax alternative energy and transportation (Score 1) 494

by Charliemopps (#48419571) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

You are so very wrong.

Solar IS cost competitive. And with in a very short period, if current manufacturing price drops continue, it will be the cheapest source of power. But sure, ignore the real numbers the real reality of the situation if you wish. These numbers have been the talk of wall street for more than 2 years. Solar companies are turning down investment right now because there is too much being offered. But feel free to continue to display your ignorance. Even a fool could verify the real numbers with Google.

Ok, first, you're a moron.
Yes, if you read some nonsense put out by a "Green energy" group... it's easy to get confused... if you're a moron.

Coal has an average btu of 20,000,000
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...

It takes 10,107 BTU of coal for a power plant to produce 1 kilowatt of power.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

Basic math is 20 million / 10,107 = 1979 killwats per short ton of coal

The price of coal per short ton: $56.30
http://www.eia.gov/coal/news_m...

$56.30 / 1979 = Coal costs 3 cents per kilowatt

If you exclude taxes, regulation and infrastructure.

Now you're going to say "Solar's free!"
No it's not. You need a solar panel. Just like coal needs a mine and equipment.
The average price of a solar panel system for your home is $10,000... I'm even including federal subsidies. The real price is almost double.
http://www.wholesalesolar.com/...
and it lasts about 20yrs.

The average us household uses 11,000 kilowatts per year
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...
So in 1yr, that's $313 worth of coal.
Over 20yrs, they'll use $6000 worth of coal.

That's production of the energy source, compared.
Solar is almost twice the cost.
The rest of the money you pay for coal power is going to the government, who will still want their money after coal is gone.
We're still need the electrical grid. I doubt the panels will be on your home, they will likely be somewhere else, and there will be batteries.

Comment: Re:don't tax alternative energy and transportation (Score 1) 494

by Charliemopps (#48419253) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

Let's also bring up the fact that everyone's paying for the cost of pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, and if not today, then definitely in the future. If we factor that one in, they're anything but free. Sure, you can hide who has to pay for it in the end (or even when), but there is a huge price associated with burning them. Again - let's not lie.

Which I brought up, in my post. Read it. Solar is not cheaper. But price is not our only concern.

It's idiot talk like that that leads us down the wrong path in the first place. If environmental concerns should be considered, solar should be out. Look up what the environmental impact of building solar cells. Specifically the silver used for the mirrors... It's terrible. Coal is worse, to be sure... but there are other, better alternatives than solar.

Comment: Re:don't tax alternative energy and transportation (Score 1) 494

by Charliemopps (#48419221) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

If you gave fossil fuels the same advantage of not charging [...] government regulations on production etc... like you do with solar,

There's no government regulations on production of solar?
You can't even install solar panels without a licensed electrician to certify that your house isn't going to burn down.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts about the lack of regulation for solar.

You're talking about local ordinances, which are kind of a joke. Where I live I can literally buy a solar panel at home depot and install it. Any local ordinance that requires you to have an electrician on site during construction is going to cover changes to coal based electrical changes as well. They, in fact, don't care where the power came from.

The price of coal itself is, in effect, dictated by the federal government. They limit coal production to keep the price steady in the same way they regulate other commodities. There are coal taxes, gas taxes, etc... All of which are designed to pay for the infrastructure used to deliver those services as well as hold the price steady. If the government lifted restrictions on Oil and Coal production, and removed taxes, the price of coal and oil would be like it was at the turn of the century... pennies. You drill a hole in the ground and the stuff comes out. You can't beat that. I'm not suggesting that's a good idea, but to say Solar is cheaper? That's laughable. If we were to replace fossil fuels with solar entirely, we would still need to pay for all of the power lines, distrobution, the batteries that'd keep the system working at night... the environmental impact of over 300 million new solar cells and batteries intruduced...

Even if you consider the impact of each source on the environment, solar is a big loser. Nuclear is far better for the environment provided your reactors aren't 40yrs old (like most of ours are) But hey, lets not let logic get in the way of our 1980s TV mini-series induced fear of things we don't understand.

Comment: Re:If Facebook gave people $10 for their vote... (Score 2) 71

by Charliemopps (#48416535) Attached to: How Facebook Is Influencing Who Will Win the Next Election

Not even $10, imagine if Facebook gave people a new wanted feature (I have no examples because I don't use FB) for their votes.

How many users would accept? What portion of the population would sell their vote for an iphone?

I would. I currently get nothing out of it anyways, and have no real choice in the election. So why not get free stuff at least?

Comment: Re:don't tax alternative energy and transportation (Score 5, Interesting) 494

by Charliemopps (#48414533) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

The price of electricity is not just the price of generation.
The price of transportation is not just the price of fuel.

If you gave fossil fuels the same advantage of not charging infrastructure costs, taxes, government regulations on production etc... like you do with solar, you'd find that they are virtually free. There is no conceivable way solar is even remotely comparable until the government steps in and starts manipulating the numbers for the public good. You can argue that the CO2 issue is important enough to justify that interference, but lets not lie to ourselves about the numbers.

Innovation is hard to schedule. -- Dan Fylstra

Working...