Вчера пристигнаха 2 палета със счупени слънчеви батерии, които бях поръчал от Калифорния.
Доста счупени се оказаха, но панелите са професионални и - за моя изненада - доста от тях показаха много добри параметри при директна слънчева светлина.
Ето ги: http://www.sunpowerflower.com/bobby/
http://www.sunpowerflower.com пък e сайтът на фирмата, която Теди си направи с идея да влезне в бизнеса. Аз му го хоствам в мометна и просто реших да сложа снимките там.
Този постинг пък би трябвало да се прихване от Гугъл като първият сайт в света, който ще сочи към http://www.sunpowerflower.com . Белким го индексират все пак.
Панелите дойдоха на малко над половин долар на ват и ще се опитаме да ги засилим на двойна или тройна цена. Не съм голям оптимист, ще видим какво ще се получи.
Вероятно ще се опитаме и да разработим някоя технология да сваляме PV елементите, повечето от които са всъщност здрави - само защитното термично стъкло е серопзно потрошено.
Цените на слънчевите панели падат сериозно от 2 месеца насам и аз очаквам тренда да продължи още поне няколко месеца. В условията на глобална криза няма причина да очакваме повишение на цените на каквото и да е освен вероятно храна, хазарт и църковни разходи.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Икономическият план на Обама - просто обяснение
Днес прочетох едно гениално просто обяснение на икономическия план. който беше предложен и приет от Демократите и предстои да бъде ратифициран следващия вторник.
То толкова ми хареса, че реших да го преведа на български, макар, че повечето хора, които имат интерес по темата вероятно биха предпочели оригинала.
Могат да го намерят на http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/stimulus-package-explained-qa/, един чудесен блог за икономика, политика и оригинални мисли.
И така:
По-късно тази година, данъкоплатците в САЩ ще получат Икономически Стимул под формата на чек от страна на държавата.
Това е една нова и забележителна програма на правителството на САЩ, която ще обясня накратко под формата на въпрос/отговор:
В. Какъв е този Икономически Стимул?
О. Това са пари, които държавата праща на данъкоплатците.
В. Откъде държавата взима тези пари?
О. От данъкоплатците.
В. Държавата ми връща собствените пари?!
О. Не. Държавата взема пари назаем от Китай. Децата и внуците ти ще трябва да ги връщат.
В. Каква е целта на този Стимул?
О. Планът е парите да се използват за закупуване на нов голям LCD телевизор и така да се стимулира икономиката.
В. Но така стимулът не отива ли обратно в Китай?
О. Затваряйте си устата!
Ето и някои полезни съвети за американците относно това как най-добре да разходват получения стимул за да помогнат на американската икономика:
- Ако изхарчите парите в Уолмарт те ще отидат в Китай.
- Ако ги изхарчите за бензин ще отидат при Уго Чавес, арабите и Ал-Кайда.
- Ако си купите компютър ще отидат в Тайван
- Ако поръчате плодове или зеленчуци ще отидат в Мексико, Хондурас и Гватемала (освен ако не купувате органични такива)
- Ако си купите кола ще отидат в Япония или Корея
- Ако си купите лекарства ще отидат в Индия
- Ако си купите хероин ще отидат при талибаните в Афганистан
- Ако ги дадете за благотворителност ще отидат в Нигерия
Както се вижда, в нито един от изброените случаи Стимула не отива да помогне на американската икономика. А това е целта, нали помните?
За да запазите парите в Америка, отидете на разпродажба на покъщнина на съседите, на бейзболен мач или ги изхарчете по проститутки, бира (само американска!), или за нова оригинална татуировка.
Това са ако не единствените, то основните дейности в икономиката на страната за момента.
То толкова ми хареса, че реших да го преведа на български, макар, че повечето хора, които имат интерес по темата вероятно биха предпочели оригинала.
Могат да го намерят на http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/stimulus-package-explained-qa/, един чудесен блог за икономика, политика и оригинални мисли.
И така:
По-късно тази година, данъкоплатците в САЩ ще получат Икономически Стимул под формата на чек от страна на държавата.
Това е една нова и забележителна програма на правителството на САЩ, която ще обясня накратко под формата на въпрос/отговор:
В. Какъв е този Икономически Стимул?
О. Това са пари, които държавата праща на данъкоплатците.
В. Откъде държавата взима тези пари?
О. От данъкоплатците.
В. Държавата ми връща собствените пари?!
О. Не. Държавата взема пари назаем от Китай. Децата и внуците ти ще трябва да ги връщат.
В. Каква е целта на този Стимул?
О. Планът е парите да се използват за закупуване на нов голям LCD телевизор и така да се стимулира икономиката.
В. Но така стимулът не отива ли обратно в Китай?
О. Затваряйте си устата!
Ето и някои полезни съвети за американците относно това как най-добре да разходват получения стимул за да помогнат на американската икономика:
- Ако изхарчите парите в Уолмарт те ще отидат в Китай.
- Ако ги изхарчите за бензин ще отидат при Уго Чавес, арабите и Ал-Кайда.
- Ако си купите компютър ще отидат в Тайван
- Ако поръчате плодове или зеленчуци ще отидат в Мексико, Хондурас и Гватемала (освен ако не купувате органични такива)
- Ако си купите кола ще отидат в Япония или Корея
- Ако си купите лекарства ще отидат в Индия
- Ако си купите хероин ще отидат при талибаните в Афганистан
- Ако ги дадете за благотворителност ще отидат в Нигерия
Както се вижда, в нито един от изброените случаи Стимула не отива да помогне на американската икономика. А това е целта, нали помните?
За да запазите парите в Америка, отидете на разпродажба на покъщнина на съседите, на бейзболен мач или ги изхарчете по проститутки, бира (само американска!), или за нова оригинална татуировка.
Това са ако не единствените, то основните дейности в икономиката на страната за момента.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
On Pirate Bay , torrents and [mis]use of patents and copyrights
All my life I have been related to software - using it, developing it, selling it, supporting it, criticizing and being criticized over it.
I dare say I've been on a wide range of positions on both sides of the barrier or, if you want a more visual expression, all over the playing field.
As such, the question of use and misuse of patents and copyrights has often occupied my thoughts. It still does.
Today I came across an article that a Swedish court has ordered all Swedish ISPs to cut connection to the Pirate Bay, one of the biggest torrent trackers in the world.
I am in the camp of those who find this wrong.
Maybe for different reasons than most of them - and sure with a whole lot more mixed feelings than the majority, but I still am.
You see, I make living by developing and selling software. My software is on some torrent sites and I don't like the fact, but I find it more than fair for this to be the case when the profit margins in the software business are so incredibly big.
Sure the same goes for the music business.
There is A LOT to be cut and optimized in both cases.
We just don't want to give up on what we already got - and by us I mean we who develop what we call a highly sophisticated, hard to streamline, but above all HIGHLY PROFITABLE business.
The point is well illustrated in some of the correspondences found in the legal threats section of Pirate Bay. Don't remember the name, but there was this guy from UK who first claimed he's almost broke thanks to Pirate Bay and the failing sales of his label, whatever it was and when challenged in response, asserts that he's a millionaire who can take care of himself.
This could have been faked, of course, but I seriously doubt it was. I think it was authentic and I think it well represents the level of confusion and ignorance that lots of people, particularily on the high end, have fallen into.
Rules are usually set to protect those whoever can set them and that sure applies to the copyright and patent laws.
Once guarded by the rules, one can easily start relying on them and stop being productive and useful and when the wakeup calls arrives they more often than not tend to try to rework the rules rather than fix the root of the problem - namely that they are not useful or creative anymore.
Lawsuits are not going to stop torrents because people want them.
What has to change and will hopefully change - for everyone's benefit - is the distribution models.
Software developers, film studios and music artists can offer their content directly to end users, at much lower prices than now, but to a much wider market.
The world will always need promotion companies and attorneys because performers will always need advisors and we all need to live in order....but there's sure a long way back to restoring normal levels of adding and taking value in the food chain.
My vote goes for the Pirate Bay as a force pushing for that change.
I dare say I've been on a wide range of positions on both sides of the barrier or, if you want a more visual expression, all over the playing field.
As such, the question of use and misuse of patents and copyrights has often occupied my thoughts. It still does.
Today I came across an article that a Swedish court has ordered all Swedish ISPs to cut connection to the Pirate Bay, one of the biggest torrent trackers in the world.
I am in the camp of those who find this wrong.
Maybe for different reasons than most of them - and sure with a whole lot more mixed feelings than the majority, but I still am.
You see, I make living by developing and selling software. My software is on some torrent sites and I don't like the fact, but I find it more than fair for this to be the case when the profit margins in the software business are so incredibly big.
Sure the same goes for the music business.
There is A LOT to be cut and optimized in both cases.
We just don't want to give up on what we already got - and by us I mean we who develop what we call a highly sophisticated, hard to streamline, but above all HIGHLY PROFITABLE business.
The point is well illustrated in some of the correspondences found in the legal threats section of Pirate Bay. Don't remember the name, but there was this guy from UK who first claimed he's almost broke thanks to Pirate Bay and the failing sales of his label, whatever it was and when challenged in response, asserts that he's a millionaire who can take care of himself.
This could have been faked, of course, but I seriously doubt it was. I think it was authentic and I think it well represents the level of confusion and ignorance that lots of people, particularily on the high end, have fallen into.
Rules are usually set to protect those whoever can set them and that sure applies to the copyright and patent laws.
Once guarded by the rules, one can easily start relying on them and stop being productive and useful and when the wakeup calls arrives they more often than not tend to try to rework the rules rather than fix the root of the problem - namely that they are not useful or creative anymore.
Lawsuits are not going to stop torrents because people want them.
What has to change and will hopefully change - for everyone's benefit - is the distribution models.
Software developers, film studios and music artists can offer their content directly to end users, at much lower prices than now, but to a much wider market.
The world will always need promotion companies and attorneys because performers will always need advisors and we all need to live in order....but there's sure a long way back to restoring normal levels of adding and taking value in the food chain.
My vote goes for the Pirate Bay as a force pushing for that change.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Is protectionism good or bad
I read an article today that Sarcosi, the president of France has pissed the Czech by making a remark that it makes sense for French car manufacturers to create plants in India and sell cars to Indians, but doesn't see why a [french] company would build a plant in the Czech Republic to sell cars to the french market.
Clearly a protectionist statement.
I otherwise like Sarcosi for his upfront style and generally share his views, but I disagree with this one and I think it may have been more a PR campaign in the face of the french voters than a serious remark reflecting his views.
I sure hope he understands that a business should use the most efficient resource it can get hold of and if Czech workers offer same level of productivity than their french colleagues, but at a lower cost, then the problem is in the french workers.
Forcing the business to use inefficient and expensive resources would not complicate things further, which is exactly what happened with the American auto makers, although in a slightly different form.
The results are easily visible these days.
Clearly a protectionist statement.
I otherwise like Sarcosi for his upfront style and generally share his views, but I disagree with this one and I think it may have been more a PR campaign in the face of the french voters than a serious remark reflecting his views.
I sure hope he understands that a business should use the most efficient resource it can get hold of and if Czech workers offer same level of productivity than their french colleagues, but at a lower cost, then the problem is in the french workers.
Forcing the business to use inefficient and expensive resources would not complicate things further, which is exactly what happened with the American auto makers, although in a slightly different form.
The results are easily visible these days.
Should Bank Of America be nationalized
Banks are under great pressure on the stock market lately, vastly due to the rumors that some of the big ones might be nationalized.
Among those is BofA (BAC) which took 45B from the government and had a terrible last quarter recording some 16B loss.
The question is, does taking money from the government and recoding a huge loss make you a bad bank.
As with most things in life , it depends. It depends on where you want to stop your analysis.
Bank Of America saved Merril Lynch and inherited its toxic portfolio.
Rumor has it that it didn't happen without government encouragement, which only makes sense, because if nobody was to accuire Merril they were about to go bankrupt, which spelled trouble for the government. It had to either pour even more money into it and actively engage in its management or let it bankrupt, adding to the momentum created by the Lehman Brother's bankrupcy.
Excluding the losses from Merril Lync, BAC has actually preformed reasonably well, especially considering the earlier accuisition of Countrywide. Maybe not so well for the BAC shareholders (including myself) in the short run, but most certainly not a gambling or a move I would actively object.
Kenneth Lewis' taste for growing by accuisition may be debatable, but the fact is that at a time when other giants were falling his bank was not only stable, but actually positioned for shopping.
Such bank and its management must not be nationalized.
Only time will tell whether accquiring ML was for good or bad for shareholders...and if it's bad then BofA should pay the price, starting with CEO all the way to the shareholders, but in the meantime both the government, the shareholders and even ordinary taxpayers will be better off letting the current management do what it's been doing so that it could build a stable business and cusion the crash of Merill.
Disclaimer: I own BAC at the time of writing and intend to hold on whatever it takes.
Among those is BofA (BAC) which took 45B from the government and had a terrible last quarter recording some 16B loss.
The question is, does taking money from the government and recoding a huge loss make you a bad bank.
As with most things in life , it depends. It depends on where you want to stop your analysis.
Bank Of America saved Merril Lynch and inherited its toxic portfolio.
Rumor has it that it didn't happen without government encouragement, which only makes sense, because if nobody was to accuire Merril they were about to go bankrupt, which spelled trouble for the government. It had to either pour even more money into it and actively engage in its management or let it bankrupt, adding to the momentum created by the Lehman Brother's bankrupcy.
Excluding the losses from Merril Lync, BAC has actually preformed reasonably well, especially considering the earlier accuisition of Countrywide. Maybe not so well for the BAC shareholders (including myself) in the short run, but most certainly not a gambling or a move I would actively object.
Kenneth Lewis' taste for growing by accuisition may be debatable, but the fact is that at a time when other giants were falling his bank was not only stable, but actually positioned for shopping.
Such bank and its management must not be nationalized.
Only time will tell whether accquiring ML was for good or bad for shareholders...and if it's bad then BofA should pay the price, starting with CEO all the way to the shareholders, but in the meantime both the government, the shareholders and even ordinary taxpayers will be better off letting the current management do what it's been doing so that it could build a stable business and cusion the crash of Merill.
Disclaimer: I own BAC at the time of writing and intend to hold on whatever it takes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)