Can anyone comment on Bezo's claim that there will be so much more energy in Space via Solar Power. Based on what I'm reading the acre of solar power panels the ISS has generates less energy than what could equivalently be generated on the Earth's surface. I cannot imagine the lack of night/day cycle overcoming the amount of energy it takes to send an acre of solar panels into orbit in the first place.
Atmosphere reduces solar flux by 1/10 or so. That's a greater advantage than the day/night benefit. Can't speak to the ISS panels - are they old tech? Ultralight design limited their efficiency?
The panels must be old tech but that in itself would be a problem unless we see solar panels leveling off in their efficiency in the near future. Whatever you put into orbit is going to become outdated quickly. This is the source for the amount of power generated for the ISS if you are interested.
Someone needs to figure out why the Grand Jury chose not to indict. This man was murdered in front of multiple witnesses. There must have been incredible extenuating circumstances if a Grand Jury chose not to indict.
Edit:
Come to think of it, the likely reason why the Grand Jury chose not to indict could have been self defense.
The population of Pittsburgh City proper peaked in the 1950's. It then depopulated significantly as people left the region and the city center. There is an abundance of extra housing at a reasonable rate close to the city center because of this excess supply. It used to house 650k people and currently only holds 300k. It won't last forever but by no means is it on the verge of becoming an expensive city.
Not sure if anyone else has noticed this pattern but I've seen it in a number of NYT articles that I would like to aggregate. There are seemingly offhanded paragraphs that ignore the issue at hand and insert something pro-NSA/pro-weak crypto.
From this article take the second to last paragraph.
At the least, readers of “Chaos Monkeys” will think twice before taking at face value tech leaders’ high-minded arguments for refusing to assist our national security apparatus in fighting terrorist threats. Even in the area of advertising, important social and public policy questions are implicated.
This comment hardly fits into the theme and flow of the rest of the review.
Yep, I noticed that. A completely biased view to a very important matter. Completely overlooking the dangers of weak crypto, government invasion of privacy and safe control of access to information.
That must be related to the publicity of "Flash Boys" and the fact that some entities are rallying the public to send comment letters.
BATS when it became an exchange was nothing but a vanilla competitor marketed as a Better Automated Trading System. It didn't have anything like a speed bump.
Sounds like you are describing the NBBO (National Best Bid and Offer) which literally requires everyone to execute at the best price (or better) to buy or sell in the market.
If you send an order to an exchange (say NYSE) and they don't have the Best Bid then they will route your order to the other exchanges (NASDAQ/BATS/etc). Is this what you are getting at?
In my experience a lot of people don't realize you can get network TV in HD with an antenna. The cost of cable is just way too high to stomach given other available options, the best option being watching less TV.
Do people in your area skew towards a younger demographic?
Here, widespread cable tv became dominant in the early 80s. A lot of us had to use antennas to watch local tv on the main or secondary television sets in our homes.
I haven't polled anyone but I can't imagine that most people aren't aware that network tv can still be watched over the air.
This strategy only works because its so expensive and time consuming to bring a competitor drug to market. If it was a lot easier to get a competitor drug approved and to market then this strategy wouldn't work. Alex Tabarrok has some enlightening opinions on the FDA:
Most of these went off patent years ago though. Why is it so hard to bring a generic drug to market? The drugs already have studies proving their efficacy, so the only issue should be a clean manufacturing process.
In some cases, the generics have to prove that they have the same effectiveness/bioavailabilty as the brand name. The brand names have been restricting the distribution of the drugs to prevent this from happening easily.
Because the red tape is fairly extreme. For proof, look at the prices a company like this will pay to "buy up" a generic drug. You'd think it wouldn't really be possible to sell rights to a generic drug for millions of dollars, but apparently you'd be wrong.
I guarantee there are manufacturers in the world who would be happy to have the business and could rapidly drive the price down to competitive generic levels again. But they are locked out by the bureaucracy.
