I'm a Brit, and I fully expect to hear how people are doing when I ask them that question directly. If I didn't want to know, I'd not ask.
If the question is always to be answered with "fine", then is the person you ask ever going to notice if you don't ask it? You don't care about what they feel either way and they know it.
In the context of this article I believe the author would say you shouldn't ask because if you don't want to hear the answer you are not being honest/authentic.
On the flip side being honest doesn't mean having to detail everything good or bad in ones life, but if things really are not fine it means saying so. "I have been better actually, but it's a new week and I'm ready to turn the page."
You might actually learn a thing or two about someone that way!
Mr. A: How was your weekend?
Mr. B: Fine. Bit of trouble with the house, though.
Mr. A: Nothing serious, I hope?
Mr. B: No, not at all. A little fire got out of control for a bit.
Mr. A: Was there much damage?
Mr. B: No, once it got down to the foundations it went right out.
Mr. A: Was anybody hurt?
Mr. B: Not much. Grandma died very gently from the smoke inhalation.
And I lost barely more than my eyebrows and 15% of my skin.
Mr. A: That's lucky.
Mr. B: Quite right. How was yours?
Mr. A: Fine. Bit of trouble with the car....
> Why would you ask if you don't want to hear the answer?
For lots of people the "How are you?" "Fine." exchange is a ritualized interaction which has become detached from the literal meanings of the words. Like the fact that even non-religious people use a contraction of "God Be With Ye" when parting.
Why ask then. Are there literally no other things you can think of saying that would satisfy the social norms? How about "Hope you had a good weekend."
I am not sure that smashing a supercapacitor (whatever that is) into the earth at twice orbital velocity will really do that much to help anything...
You could put a solar collector into earth's orbit so it would always be in the sunshine and <transfer the energy in some way>. However no one has a way of making this seem economic.
That'll be because Windows 10 is the first desktop Windows OS with support for Hyper-V.
If you didn't want to use Windows 10, perhaps you might have some more luck with a Windows Server OS. Does anyone know if the latest version of Docker will work on Windows Server 2012?
Client Hyper-V actually showed up in Windows 8 [1], but only recent versions of Windows 10 have Hyper-V with all the features needed by Docker for Windows.
A confounding factor is that there is apples in a lot of things you may not think of, and somethings use apples in their production... even if you never see the apples yourself.
And even some products which supposedly provide free apples are made with apples, and require themselves to be used beyond their serviceable lifetime to provide more apples than went into making them.
In short, we either need a radical new source of apples, or we need to find a way to use far fewer apples.
> we either need a radical new source of apples, or we need to find a way to use far fewer apples.
I'm afraid that in no way we can have the second without the first one. People switched to fossil fuels because life was way too much easier with them, and no climate change can convince us to go back unless we find another big source of cheap energy or, simply, we exhaust the oil fields.
We basically need portable fusion, or micro-hydrogen turbines powered by hydrogen formed by electrolysis of seawater from purely renewable sources. It's quite an ask, given that, as you say, fossil is cheap and easy - although not as cheap as it used to be to get at - but artificially cheap on the market in a (in my view) desperate lunge to stave off the inevitable fall, as their real production costs catch up with them. There's a reason they're investing increasingly in "alternative" energy sources, and moving branding towards energy from fossil fuels. The market will act, but I fear too late.
Pulling away from the metaphor for a moment, I was under the impression that with today's technology (not the panels of 20 years ago), solar panels take about 4 years to produce as much power as it took to manufacture them and then service lives of 25 years minimum. I'm honestly curious, do you have a source?
Most of today's renewable technologies have decent energy buy-back times - this is in part due to improvements in materials, and in part due to manufacturing infrastructure energy investment being paid off - and of course the increasing use of renewable energy for the manufacture of renewable energy production goods.
That all said, a lot of what is currently installed will probably never see energy buy-back. Rather, we have to look upon a lot of existing renewable investment as just that - investment - for this has paved the way for actually energy positive renewable energy technology, which we now have, and seem poised to squander.
If my experience is anything to go by it is 90% reading the little explanation written next to the art, then 10% looking at the painting before hurrying onto the next thing.
