Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Limits of incremental change or other constrain (Score 1) 190

by Vaphell (#47196299) Attached to: Study: Male Facial Development Evolved To Take Punches

one obvious constraint would be the importance of facial expression in human interactions. How many facial muscles are purely mimic? I'd say most of them.
Eyeballs are not that squishy and one could argue that that deep eyesockets are actually protective - it's rather unlikely to do damage to eyes when the surrounding bone takes the hit, especially with a fist. The nose looks like a bad design though.

Comment: Re:We know why true net neutrality cannot happen (Score 4, Insightful) 282

There's always an asterick and that leads to a note that says "well, you'll get 50mbps provided the rest of your neighborhood isn't trying to hit the pipe hard at the same time."

there is nothing wrong with it in principle. Even excellent road systems get congested during rush hours, even the best cellular networks shit their pants on the new year's eve at 23:59, even the best delivery companies experience massive delays around Xmas. The reason is that having huge capacity that goes mostly unused most of the time is expensive, you pay huge maintenance costs yet there is not much going on on the revenue side.

Comment: Re:Can we not have this political bullshit on /. ? (Score 1) 769

by Vaphell (#46860577) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

it's not the same. Panel dumps power in the opposite direction and the grid is expected to redistribute it at the drop of the hat in order to stay within the spec, and it's not like your panel cares if there is demand for its output. Two way 'traffic' is more tricky to do than simple, tried and true push-only mode thus more hassle and cost.

Comment: Re:Buggy whips? (Score 2) 769

by Vaphell (#46859983) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

yeah, and they should dump their dirty clunkers and start using billion teslas while they are at it....
Investing in clean stuff means opportunity cost of less bang for the buck now, which means slower growth. Guess what, they don't give a shit about later, they want growth now, just like everybody else before them.

Comment: Re:being against subsidies.... (Score 1) 769

by Vaphell (#46859781) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

http://www.instituteforenergyr...

make it 3.5x. Either way one source is much cheaper, much more controllable, predictable and compatible with the existing infrastructure, the other requires expensive upgrades to facilitate two way flow safely, is much more expensive, volatile, unpredictable, having max potential output outside the peak demand and requiring the baseline backup just in case. Nobody in his right mind would buy the residential solar energy in these circumstances.

Comment: Re:Buggy whips? (Score 1) 769

by Vaphell (#46859195) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

Right, but if we continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate, our whole species may never recover from it.

pack your bags then because good luck convincing 2+ billion people in india and china to stop industrializing, and then there are 1billion people in africa who will want their piece of the action too.

Comment: Re:being against subsidies.... (Score 1) 769

by Vaphell (#46859019) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

I doubt there would be much lobbying if the energy was sold back at the wholesale price and the companies were not forced to eat the whole cost of increased complexity caused by erratic nature of renewables. In some states eg in Arizona the spread is 4x and the companies are forced to buy back the this ridiculously overpriced energy they don't need, with all the hassle where to direct it in order to stay within the grid specs.

Such laws way out of line with economic reality are a pure pie in the sky bullshit and fully deserve to be lobbied against. As the adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Comment: Re:being against subsidies.... (Score 2) 769

by Vaphell (#46858775) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

like the other dude said, these subsidies are only for well-off people who can afford the investment, the peons get thrown under the bus. If you ever complained about the divide between the haves and the have-nots, guess what - it's the same thing of privatizing the gains by the few, externalizing the costs to many.

Comment: Re:being against subsidies.... (Score 1) 769

by Vaphell (#46858737) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

sure, there are externalities of coal but that doesn't make solar peachy. Execution matters. These solar subsidies are not extended to the whole populace. They are not at the grid level so everybody gets to enjoy them, they are at the household level, which means their scope is localized to an already well-off people who can afford the investment. People with too much money get subsidies, then EXTERNALIZE the cost of batteries they don't need and the poor are seeing it in their bills. If you are one of people complaining about suppressed aggregate demand because the poor don't have monies, guess what - this won't help.

Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced. - John Keats

Working...