(12-12-2016 05:30 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 09:35 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:41 PM)I45owl Wrote:  What is the compelling reason to have producers of ineffective technologies here rather than Germany?

It's a tough sell to classify PV as ineffective technology.

If it's economically viable, then why would it need to be subsidized?

Solyndra - Wikipedia

Quote:Although the company was once touted for its unusual technology, plummeting silicon prices led to the company's being unable to compete with conventional solar panels made of crystalline silicon.

That statement really isnt an accurate economic portrayal. Solyndra couldnt compete with Chinese manufacturers of PV panels, and the root cause was not the massive plummet in silicon prices. It was a massive plummet in the price of Chinese silicon based PV panels.

Look at the Solyndra dumping lawsuit filings for a really good background on what the Chinese did as a whole to fundamentally preempt the PV world.

So in context, yes, it was inefficient when compared to the efficacies resulting from the Chinese government building state of the art fabs and executing lease to buy deals on them to their companies for literally pennies on the dollar for actual return.

And inefficient from the perspective of the direct grants measured in billions of dollars in straight cash that enabled the Chinese companies to not just to sell massively deflated product, but allowed them to directly finance them and reap all the secondary benefits like a solar GMAC. (btw the big roadblock to selling the big rooftop projects, which are a massive proportion of the solar sales, is based not on the want of the customer, but the upfront price tag, and the associated legal gyrations needed to bring in third-party financing for a a project the size of a big box store. The Chinese direct grant basically ground the problem down to one stop shopping and financing -- and provided a massive secondary boost to the bottom line of the companies that got the direct grant gift from the Chinese government.)

Much, much easier to be effective running with those tailwinds..... and much, much easier to be ineffective facing those headwinds..... Just saying there is a lot more that happened in the PV market than the Wikipedia sentence you researched.

Wait, wait. Seven years ago Obama was your bogeyman on photovoltaics -- everyone was telling you that US projects were being dropped because investors were afraid how much Obama was going to tax them. But it turns out that it really was the PV glut after all?

I think that I related that ALL across Silicon Valley and irrespective of the area deal money was rushing to the sidelines (i.e. the comment 7 years ago.) And in hindsight, in Jan 2009 money was frozen in SV for investment purposes in every segment. Jan 2009 was not a particularly liquid month for deals knowing what we now know about what the rest of 2009 was to bring in the money markets.

And the price of PV was starting to crash -- well ahead of where projections said that Si-based PV would. Kind of a combination of the natural fall of the price in anticipation of greatly elevated wafer production coming online, crash in demand for the wafer feedstack not just for PV but in relation to depressed semi work as well, and (as we know now) the China PV dumping had just started in a major league way. (yes, dumping, in the bad legal sense....)

Btw a price dump does not necessarily equate to a "glut".... sometimes this just means the other guy can undercut the heck out of you -- sometimes legally sometimes not. But hindsight with knowledge of what the Chinese government was doing to further its own country's interests are that -- hindsight. IIRC most in the US PV industry did not have a real view just prior and in the first days the 2008 financial crisis of the magnitude of aid that the PRC sent to their PV companies. Later on we did.

(11-10-2016 11:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html

Hey, maybe this wasn't so crazy after all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...70d934629b

Word out that both FBI and CIA have now come to the conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump.

Now the question becomes, did Trump or anyone in his organization know?

(12-16-2016 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html

Hey, maybe this wasn't so crazy after all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...70d934629b

Word out that both FBI and CIA have now come to the conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump.

Now the question becomes, did Trump or anyone in his organization know?

I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Republicans if the Russians had helped elect Obama, let alone Mondale or Dukakis. But since Trump looks set to make giant tax cuts for the rich the centerpiece of his domestic policy, I guess they are going to overlook it. Credit to McCain and Graham for putting country before party on this one.

(I almost wrote "and abolishing Medicare and gutting Social Security," since the House GOP is already laying the groundwork for that, but I'm giving Donald the benefit of the doubt since he explicitly differentiated himself from the GOP on those two issues....)

It is not at all clear that "the Russians" helped elect Trump. It is not proved fact that they even tried. It is not even clear that they hacked anyone or that hacking is how any information actually got out. And if they did in fact hack dems and not reps, it's entirely possible that was because dems were careless in handling sensitive information. Kind of like Hillary was as SOS.

As for "tax cuts for the rich" (and here I'll include corporations) do you mean reducing them to European and world levels? What if that is the single best thing he could do for the economy? Jobs seem to be coming back on the promise.

(12-19-2016 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is not at all clear that "the Russians" helped elect Trump. It is not proved fact that they even tried. It is not even clear that they hacked anyone or that hacking is how any information actually got out. And if they did in fact hack dems and not reps, it's entirely possible that was because dems were careless in handling sensitive information. Kind of like Hillary was as SOS.

As for "tax cuts for the rich" (and here I'll include corporations) do you mean reducing them to European and world levels? What if that is the single best thing he could do for the economy? Jobs seem to be coming back on the promise.

Why does that have any bearing on this?

(12-19-2016 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-16-2016 05:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 11:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  When do we start calling him Comrade Trump?

Weird news story to break: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...paign.html

Hey, maybe this wasn't so crazy after all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...70d934629b

Word out that both FBI and CIA have now come to the conclusion that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump.

Now the question becomes, did Trump or anyone in his organization know?

I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Republicans if the Russians had helped elect Obama, let alone Mondale or Dukakis.

I can: They would have screamed bloody murder. But I can also imagine the Democrats' response in such a scenario: "Move on."

Move on. Trump won, or more accurately, Clinton lost. It wasn't stolen from her. She booted it. Some boring, inside-baseball emails from John Podesta or Jennifer Palmieri or anybody else that Joe Plumber doesn't know from Adam didn't make a whit of difference to a single voter in America. If a train is speeding past me, headed off a cliff, and I give it a push as it hurtles past, did I "intervene" to help it go over the cliff?

Bad candidate + bad strategy = loss to another bad candidate who had a better strategy. End of story. This entire episode proves that Russia is still a malign adversary (which is not news) and nothing more.

(12-19-2016 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is not at all clear that "the Russians" helped elect Trump. It is not proved fact that they even tried. It is not even clear that they hacked anyone or that hacking is how any information actually got out. And if they did in fact hack dems and not reps, it's entirely possible that was because dems were careless in handling sensitive information. Kind of like Hillary was as SOS.
As for "tax cuts for the rich" (and here I'll include corporations) do you mean reducing them to European and world levels? What if that is the single best thing he could do for the economy? Jobs seem to be coming back on the promise.

Why does that have any bearing on this?

You mean, other than the fact that it's the same issue?

(12-19-2016 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Republicans if the Russians had helped elect Obama, let alone Mondale or Dukakis.

I think it would depend somewhat on "how" they helped elect somebody. Actual vote tampering, without a doubt.. Publishing misinformation, of course. Outright lies, sure.

But publishing the truth, maybe not so much. No indication by anybody that the emails were false.

I thought we wanted an informed electorate. I guess we just don't want outsiders to inform us.

(12-19-2016 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is not at all clear that "the Russians" helped elect Trump. It is not proved fact that they even tried. It is not even clear that they hacked anyone or that hacking is how any information actually got out. And if they did in fact hack dems and not reps, it's entirely possible that was because dems were careless in handling sensitive information. Kind of like Hillary was as SOS.
As for "tax cuts for the rich" (and here I'll include corporations) do you mean reducing them to European and world levels? What if that is the single best thing he could do for the economy? Jobs seem to be coming back on the promise.

Why does that have any bearing on this?

You mean, other than the fact that it's the same issue?

Going with your hypothetical that preceded that statement, that Russia did hack the Dems because of weaker security, why does it matter that their security was weaker? I just don't get why the amount/quality of security around the email account of non-classified information matters. Does it mean that we shouldn't be concerned with another country trying to covertly influence our election because it wasn't difficult to obtain? Why or why not?

Like I said, I just don't understand the logic that the quality of the security should have any influence on how we react to, if your hypothetical proves to be true, Russia using information obtained illegally to try and covertly influence an election. It certainly has bearing on how future political parties should secure their electronic communications, but I don't think it should affect how we perceive the severity of the act by a foreign state.

(12-19-2016 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Republicans if the Russians had helped elect Obama, let alone Mondale or Dukakis.

I think it would depend somewhat on "how" they helped elect somebody. Actual vote tampering, without a doubt.. Publishing misinformation, of course. Outright lies, sure.

But publishing the truth, maybe not so much. No indication by anybody that the emails were false.

I thought we wanted an informed electorate. I guess we just don't want outsiders to inform us.

So you had no issue with Watergate?

(12-19-2016 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 12:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 11:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It is not at all clear that "the Russians" helped elect Trump. It is not proved fact that they even tried. It is not even clear that they hacked anyone or that hacking is how any information actually got out. And if they did in fact hack dems and not reps, it's entirely possible that was because dems were careless in handling sensitive information. Kind of like Hillary was as SOS.
As for "tax cuts for the rich" (and here I'll include corporations) do you mean reducing them to European and world levels? What if that is the single best thing he could do for the economy? Jobs seem to be coming back on the promise.

Why does that have any bearing on this?

You mean, other than the fact that it's the same issue?

Going with your hypothetical that preceded that statement, that Russia did hack the Dems because of weaker security, why does it matter that their security was weaker? I just don't get why the amount/quality of security around the email account of non-classified information matters. Does it mean that we shouldn't be concerned with another country trying to covertly influence our election because it wasn't difficult to obtain? Why or why not?

Like I said, I just don't understand the logic that the quality of the security should have any influence on how we react to, if your hypothetical proves to be true, Russia using information obtained illegally to try and covertly influence an election. It certainly has bearing on how future political parties should secure their electronic communications, but I don't think it should affect how we perceive the severity of the act by a foreign state.

Number one, that was not my hypothetical. I posted several alternatives for each of which there is at least some evidence--somebody else hacked, source was a thumb drive and not a hack.

Number two, you can bet your butt that the Russians are trying to hack us. That's a given. The problem in both cases is that somebody didn't take reasonable security precautions. It's not that I'm more bothered by one than the other. It's that I know one happens and there's nothing I can do to prevent it, so the knowingly stupid acts are the ones that I see as preventable.

(12-19-2016 03:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 02:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 10:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm trying to imagine the reaction from Republicans if the Russians had helped elect Obama, let alone Mondale or Dukakis.

I think it would depend somewhat on "how" they helped elect somebody. Actual vote tampering, without a doubt.. Publishing misinformation, of course. Outright lies, sure.

But publishing the truth, maybe not so much. No indication by anybody that the emails were false.

I thought we wanted an informed electorate. I guess we just don't want outsiders to inform us.

So you had no issue with Watergate?

I was apolitical back then, but if you are equating Russia with Deep Throat, then no.

(12-19-2016 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Going with your hypothetical that preceded that statement, that Russia did hack the Dems because of weaker security, why does it matter that their security was weaker?

Fred and Joe both store their lawn mowers in small storage buildings. Fred has a combination lock on his door. Joe has twisted some baling wire to keep his door closed.

Ralph comes by and tries both sheds, and not surprisingly, steals the lawn mower that is easiest to get to - Joe's.

Joe finds out about Ralph and accuses him of being in cahoots with Fred, since he didn't steal Fred's lawn mower.

That is why the level of security matters.

(12-19-2016 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Going with your hypothetical that preceded that statement, that Russia did hack the Dems because of weaker security, why does it matter that their security was weaker?

Umm, because they got hacked.

There are actually three elements to the situation.

One, that the Russians hacked them in an attempt to influence our political elections, which is totally unproved, and the fact that our intel agencies may have bought off on this one doesn't mean a lot. These are the same intel agencies that assured us that Saddam had nuc/bio/chem weapons.

Two, that the democrats had shoddy security procedures that did not protect them from hacking. Res ipsa loquitur.

Three, that democrats were routinely discussing the matters that the emails revealed. Unless there is some refutation of the accuracy of the emails, this one stands uncontroverted.

I would say that one concerns me, but it exists regardless of my concern. There is nothing we can do except improve our security. Two and three both concern me, probably three greater than two.

(12-19-2016 05:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Going with your hypothetical that preceded that statement, that Russia did hack the Dems because of weaker security, why does it matter that their security was weaker?

Fred and Joe both store their lawn mowers in small storage buildings. Fred has a combination lock on his door. Joe has twisted some baling wire to keep his door closed.

Ralph comes by and tries both sheds, and not surprisingly, steals the lawn mower that is easiest to get to - Joe's.

Joe finds out about Ralph and accuses him of being in cahoots with Fred, since he didn't steal Fred's lawn mower.

That is why the level of security matters.

That's a big jump you're making there. I've yet to see anyone credible even suggest that there was anything coordinated between the Republican party and Russia.

The issue, which McCain has gotten on board with, is that Ralph went into Joe's shed and used the lawn mower to mow Fred's neighbors lawn. Whether that benefits Fred doesn't matter to Joe or anyone else, because Ralph still broke the law.

I am more on board with Owl69 who is skeptical of the report because, as he says, we have had the same intelligence agencies get things wrong before. But I find it a bit unnerving how easily some people will try and basically victim blame the DNC. That, in essence, the ends justify the means when it relates to a foreign adversary.

I guess my question for you is, if it comes out that there unquestionable evidence that Putin played a direct role in this hacking and information dissemination campaign, why are you OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?

(12-19-2016 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I am more on board with Owl69 who is skeptical of the report because, as he says, we have had the same intelligence agencies get things wrong before. But I find it a bit unnerving how easily some people will try and basically victim blame the DNC. That, in essence, the ends justify the means when it relates to a foreign adversary.

That's not the argument being made. It's a given that "the Russians" are trying to hack whatever they can. It's also a given that we are trying to hack them. And China. And pretty much every other country in the world.

In that known environment, it is appropriate to blame the democrats for not taking adequate precautions. That's not that the Russians are not to blame. But so are the democrats.

Quote:I guess my question for you is, if it comes out that there unquestionable evidence that Putin played a direct role in this hacking and information dissemination campaign, why are you OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?

I would say there is no question that foreign adversaries who do not have our best interests in mind are trying to influence everything they can, including how we govern. And we're doing the same to them. That's how the game is played. They're not going to stop, no matter how outraged we become. We're not gong to stop either. That's why Hillary's private server was a problem, and that's why this was a problem. Do we want people running our country who are that cavalier about information security?

While this in no way invalidates any valid concerns the US has with Russia potentially being involved in hacking of our institutions for any reason, or with Russia potentially attempting to influence the election . . . .

I find it somewhat ironic the Democrats are incensed over the possibility the Russians were attempting to favor Trump (Assange pretty much said that they didn't release any Republican materials because Trump was doing plenty to embarrass the Republicans on his own, IIRC, i.e., it was the process they were trying to discredit) . . . . . . . .

when some of the emails issued by the DNC / Hillary's Team early on in the nomination process seemed to lay out a strategy of "legitimizing" the campaigns of one or two of the potential Republican nominees based on the fact they would be the opponents she would have the best chance of beating, and of course chief 'legitimization' target on that list was Donald Trump.

Obviously we don't know how far that strategy played out, and clearly a strategy is different than stealing information . . . .

But evidently the DNC/Hillary campaigns were not too worried about the appropriateness of Democrats trying to influence the outcome of the Republican nomination process.

Hacking/stealing information is wrong . . .

but let's not pretend the HRC campaign wasn't doing everything they could to marginalize Bernie and admitted to strategizing how to impact the Republican nomination process.

Had they focused on running a campaign on the issues and a viable message, and not engaged in the kind of crap for which the emails provided such an unflattering picture - - - there wouldn't have been anything for Assange to leak in the first place.

(12-19-2016 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='13923902' dateline='1482186745']
[quote='RiceLad15' pid='13923222' dateline='1482177606']
why are you OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?

comes back to truth, which is not the decision of the foreign adversary. Why are you OK with "dirty tricks" being kept secret?

If somebody reveals the truth, does it really matter who it is or their goal? do you have a problem with the truth?

When a jailhouse snitch testifies, the important thing is whether or not it is the truth - not his moral character or his agenda. Those things can be used to put doubt on what he is saying. But here there is no doubt. Nobody is saying the emails were lies or fabrications.

If the Republicans or a renegade Democrat (maybe a Bernie supporter) had released the emails, would your outrage disappear?

To put it another way, if another team was stealing our signals, who would you be mad at? The other team, or our coach for the sloppiness of the signaling system?

(12-19-2016 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess my question for you is, if it comes out that there unquestionable evidence that Putin played a direct role in this hacking and information dissemination campaign, why are you OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?

Why is there this insinuation that anybody is "OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?" I've seen no indication that anybody is OK with that. What I have seen is an understanding that such activities are the norm, and therefore we should expect our leaders to take appropriate precautions with sensitive information. Hillary did not as SOS. We do not know what info may have been hacked there. Hillary's party did not. We do know at least some of what info was hacked there.

That argument that anybody is OK with that is to my mind a pretty shameful effort at deflection.

(12-20-2016 06:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 06:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess my question for you is, if it comes out that there unquestionable evidence that Putin played a direct role in this hacking and information dissemination campaign, why are you OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?

Why is there this insinuation that anybody is "OK with a foreign adversary, that does not have our nation's best interest in mind, trying to influence how we govern?" I've seen no indication that anybody is OK with that. What I have seen is an understanding that such activities are the norm, and therefore we should expect our leaders to take appropriate precautions with sensitive information. Hillary did not as SOS. We do not know what info may have been hacked there. Hillary's party did not. We do know at least some of what info was hacked there.

That argument that anybody is OK with that is to my mind a pretty shameful effort at deflection.

Wait, I'm deflecting?

Hahahahahahaha