Slashdot Mirror

Why do you want to put them on a cornfield instead of letting them swim in the ocean or placing them into the desert

Desert (n): Any area in which few forms of life can exist because of lack of water, permanent frost, or absence of soil.

You didn't really think that one through very well, did you?

Who didn't think what through very well? Oh, I guess that was you.

As for your former concept, well, there's quite a few reasons why most companies are trying to grow them in enclosed vats.

Yes, because the BLM will grant a permit to mine coal or drill for oil, but not to build a solar plant, or to use the technology that we developed at Sandia NREL in the 1980s. It's not because it's necessary or even desirable, it's because they've been forced into a corner because our government pays subsidies to big oil but actively prevents alternative energy technologies... which is also basically a subsidy for big oil.

How long they are 'guaranteed' for is completely and utterly irrelevant. In the first place, trusting in that means trusting the company offering the guarantee will be around and will honor it, and in the second place that the owner will remember to invoke the 'guarantee' and obtain replacements.

If people don't stand up for thenselves nothing is relevant, people usually have to stand up for themselves, no matter what it's over. This is no different. People need to investigate installers and the products they use if they are not specified. Plenty of people have built off the grid and share information and their experiences. There are a number of publications, magazines, touching on various things these people do or are interested in. I've personally been reading magazines like Homepower, Backwoods Home, and Solar Today for 10 or 20 years if not more.

Even if the 'guarantee' exists, and is honored, that still doesn't change what I said. Panels that need replacement for whatever reason mean new panels need to be manufactured.

This doesn't change the fact that old panels can be recycled and that new one have better efficiency so less are needed to supply the same amount of power if not more.

Learn to think, rather than parroting.

I suggest you do the same, PV Panel Disposal and Recycling, The Value and Feasibility of Proactive Recycling.

Falcon

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/arnet82.html ...Judges who are hostile to jury nullification have even used their power of "contempt of court" to jail jurors, without a trial, if they believe in or discuss jury nullification with other jurors. An informed jury scares the court like nothing else. ...

Home Power is what you want to look at.

Yea, I was going to mention it but not wanting to repeat it I found your post when I searched. I've been reading "Home Power" for years, along with "Solar Today" and "Backwoods Home".

Speak to a solar installer who has experience with battery backed systems and you will be told not to discharge below 50%

What I've heard is that battery banks should be oversized by 20%. An "extra" couple of batteries won't add much to the cost of a system.

Someone who lives off-grid and ignores their battery bank is in big trouble.

I agree, that's why most people should inter tie into the power system and not use batteries, it's also why most shouldn't use a composting toilet.

you might want to pick up a copy of HomePower magazine

Oh, I read "Homepower" along with "Backwoods Home", "Solar Today", and others.

I wouldn't call the parent offtopic just because he suggested the "average man" might want to be guided in building his own house and the topic was about a woman being guided in building computer for her ownself. Many women and men used to do lots more for themselves then they do now and when they didn't know how they often seeked the instructional aid of a friend or family member that was knowledgeable in the area. It hasn't been that long ago since the business of Home Depot was built on the return of being a do-it-youselfer. There was a real market then for such as well as how-to books. Real Estate boon running up the cost of materials might have dampened that a bit. Back around the 70s there seemed to be a effort by many to go back to the land and this series of books was quite popular: The Foxfire Books.

I used to know a young woman that rebuilt antigue bicylcles, classical cars and trucks as well as having built her own house, shop and barn. She also raised livestock and once invited a "city slicker" who had been feeding her a line about wanting to have an oyster dinner with her cause oysters enhanced sex out for some mountain oysters. He asked what those were she invited him out to her ranch for some. When he showed up at the appointed time she took him out to the corral and handed him a knife and a bucket, then pointing at the calves said "there they are, gather you some mountain oysters". He just stood there while she grabbed another bucket, got her own knife out and went to work. She looked around after the second one and the "city slicker" was long gone. Never underestimate the females of the world.

A good reference is the American Jury Institute and Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)

Some states get it right:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact (Maryland)

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. (Indiana)

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law (Oregon)

the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts (Georgia)

Chances of the federal government willingly accepting the concept that the lowly pee-ons of the citizenry are smart enough to spot a bad law when they see it? None to rolling of the floor laughing. And even in states where the juries have the right to judge the law the juries are often kept in the dark regarding the true nature of their position.

Other related takes can be found here and here.

Home defense requires different tools. Massad Ayoob is an excellent resource for setting up multiple lines of defense, of which lethal force is the last one. If you feel that you need a firearm for home defense, shotguns and handguns are usually what are recommended in most home situations, due to the danger of overpenetration and need to maneuver in close quarters. Extremely rural areas, where your nearest neighbor is miles away, are an exception to this. (An XM109 would be a nice addition to your personal armory if you ever needed it, assuming: #1 they'll sell you one, #2 you can find ammo for it, #3 you can survive the massive recoil produced upon shooting it and, #4 if you could get the Class III license needed to posess a "Destructive Device", since it chambers a round larger than .50 cal - although I think it's safe to say it would be mega-overkill in most situations, not to mention extremely expensive to maintain the license.)

Shooting is not only fun (although it can be expensive in terms of ammo and range time), but also a practical skill of benefit to everyone. Why use taxpayer money to (infrequently) train and qualify police and military snipers/shooters, when you can let them go out and buy their own rifles and ammo, and do extra training on their own time that the mandated government budget won't allow? Why restrict these firearms (and hence the ability to train with them) to government agencies only, when in time of dire need, you have to draw upon all able bodied men and women (ie the average citizen.) Why reduce the market for private companies to produce needed firearms and components by destroying the civilian market for their products?

I just wonder if you would be thinking "who is this guy", checking to make sure your shooter is handy. I wouldn't like to think like that myself.

Why not? I live in the city, and believe me, you want to maintain situational awareness at all times, ESPECIALLY if you're not armed. Instead of keeping your gunhand and holster clear (since you're not armed), you'd look for available escape routes, and maybe decide you'd rather cross the street than walk past that groups of punks spoiling for some entertainment.

Or, if some guy shows up at your doorstep at 10pm at night - is he just looking for a phone (because he left his cell at home), or is he looking for a target?

The police cannot protect you - they protect society, not necessarily individuals. This is a reasonable thing - elsewise you'd have lawsuits every time the police failed to show up quickly enough to prevent injury/death after a 911 call. In parts of the US, the authorities believe that the armed citizen is the best deterrent to crime and mayhem. In other parts, the authorities believe that citizens are too dangerous to entrust firearms to, and that force of any kind fails the test of a "civilized" society, and that you, as a lowly citizen, must refrain from doing anything to antagonize your attacker, and entrust all actions relating to protecting yourself and the community to authorized law enforcement.

In any case, being armed is a personal choice, and only part of a larger strategy for safeguarding your home. If you're interested in reading a good article that lays everything out (ie, secure the house, add an alarm, a dog, and if you feel you can handle it, a gun), Massad Ayoob is the man.

Perhaps, but not serious enough to find an author for the quote. There are other serious hobbyists as well, astrologists for instance, whose inegrity towards their pastime I wouldn't doubt. Whether they are correct or not, I wouldn't use their newsgroup discussions as final authority on their subject matter. I'd much rather use them as a source of clues for further research.

Well, thats kind of tricky without showing you every recorded statement by Franklin.

No, only where it is correctly attributed to someone else would be sufficient. Also, keep in mind that it may simply be something that Franklin had said to someone in conversation and he didn't write it down himself. And, the person who it may have been said to documented it, but may not have correctly dated the quote and placed it in the proper context. On the other hand, it may be an identical situation, but Jefferson being the speaker, rather than Franklin. The point is, until the quote's author is identified, to claim that Franklin didn't say it is as invalid as saying he did.

With that said, the sentiment of the quote has me leaning towards the idea that it may be a Founding Father, or one of their close contemporaries, as the original author. However, I suppose the phrasing could lead someone to believe that the original quote, sentiment, or phrase may have been altered by someone else at a later time.

Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Washington, or any other Founding Father could have easily said it, or something like it. As students of ancient societies, including Rome, they were aware of the single danger in a democracy (that a populist vote will place a tyrant in charge who will then turn to oppress the people, whether a minority or the majority), and the second amendment indicates the necessity to protect against that danger. This is not to say that Jefferson and Franklin weren't for the populist view, they were as they were also students of American Indians and their ways (where morals were controlled by society without codified laws, but with what the majority considered appropriate).

Alternatively, if you can find either (i) a constitutional scholar who believes that Franklin did say it or (ii) a citation from Franklins writings where it, or anything like it appears, I'll concede.

No need to concede as we're not in contention. I can't claim he did say it. I just pointed out that no one seems to be able to prove he didn't. Without that proof, such as finding an instance of it prior to Franklin's birth, he may or may not have said it. I think it would be safe to say that if he wrote it, someone would've eventually dug it up if the matter was of great importance to that person and if he had the resources to do so. Whether such an attempt and circumstance has occured is also a mystery.

As for finding sources, it may be beyond either of our abilities. However, I can point out that the sentiment of protecting the populace from the single danger in a Democracy can be traced to the Founding Fathers in this chapter from Johansen's scholarly work and this well written allegory. Notice how wolves and sheep appear important to Jefferson as metaphors and simile for the populace and their governments in the sixth chapter from the Forgotten Founders. This may be a more recent edition of that book.

This is not to say that Franklin or Jefferson did say the words of the quote, only that they, and their friends probably wouldn't have disagreed with it. However, it doesn't vindicate associating those words with a person unless the person actually said them.

Notice how easy it is to find an at

Fresh, Ontario grown apples are very difficult to find in the winter.

Actually the wonderful thing about apples is that you can store them for a pretty long time.

You seem to be saying that the liberal welfare programs will bankrupt us all. According to a quick Google search, in 1994 there were 14.2 million welfare recipients, including 5.0 million families and 9.6 million children, and they spent, 2.8% of the federal budget. In 1999, there were 7.2 million, including 2.6 million families and 5.1 million children. This doesn't seem like a particularly worrying trend.

Meanwhile, the government spends something like twice as much on corporate welfare.

If you're talking about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, who the hell can say with any certainty. There's this and this. But let's tackle a macro-scale assumption first: in the event that the economic equation is truly as you say it is, why would they allow the entire global economic order to collapse instead of simply reducing benefits and/or cutting costs? Americans are not particularly slaves to a welfare state. Why wouldn't politicians, being nothing if not self-interested, vote to save their own jobs and curtail benefits and maybe lose a few votes, instead of losing everything in a total economic collapse?

This is one of the most fascinating discussions I've seen on /. in a while. I really had no idea that this was part of the "geek culture." I thought it was just me.

If you are interested in the idea of learning how to live off the land or "get off the grid," I would highly recommend this site. There is some political discussion there that some of you might not agree with, but the common theme of the site is living a completely self-sufficient life.

I will shamelessly admit that this next is, in part, whoring to promote a friend's web site, but it's not off-topic and you may just find it interesting:

I have a best friend that has never been a computer geek per se, but is the only person that has ever REALLY seemed to understand me. (I'm more left-brained and got into computers. He's more right-brained and artistic. But we get along so well because we both have at least a mild interest in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING; how it works and how it's done.)

Anyway, he taught himself, from very old books, a lot of practice and trial and error, metal working techniques from the turn of the century that so-called "experts" told him were just myths.

He now makes his living in metal works, with NO formal education or real "training" at all. On the side, he designs and builds functional art with wood and metal. He has some very unique (and all hand-crafted) furniture and stuff for sale on his web site.

(Please check out the site if you're at all intrigued. I admitted I was whoring for traffic, after all. Also, don't critique the site construction: I threw it together in a couple of hours, planning to go back and "do it right" and never got around to the latter.)

He's even been kicking around the idea of building a computer *into* a desk so that the computer is completely invisible and doesn't interfere wth the aesthetics of the room. Probably not an idea so appealing to present company, but a great idea nonetheless, IMHO.

Look here

"We're different, now. Different from the guys who founded this country. You know, if you ever get around to reading about the actual events that led up to the Revolutionary War, the things that led farmers to take to the heights of Bunker Hill to fight the British and which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence and the War itself, they will seem, by today's standards, to be almost nothing. It was just a few unfair taxes, curtailment of some of our natural rights, and an unresponsive government. Americans today bear oppression hundreds of times worse with nary a protest. We've gotten used to it. And as we become accustomed to the abuses and incursions into our rights, what may be outrageous and unbearable today will become the norm tomorrow and new incursions will be made."

"And anyone who complains, or points out that our federal government is illegal by the terms of the Constitution, is stereotyped and branded as a right wing extremist, a carper, or a complainer."

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira77. html

Probably offtopic but I like the subject.

You have some valid concerns. If you are working hard at a career and trying to make ends meet, then it can be difficult to have free time to pursue beliefs that appear to be non-profitable (hobbies).

In some ways, it seems that land is a priviledge that not enough of us seem to have. If you own land, you have a gift and shelter that gives you more choices for a lifestyle.

There are a lot of places to get "undeveloped land for sale". However you have to get water, gas, electricity, food, medical, dental, auto, mail, phone, laundry.. etc.. -- the benefits of modern society. My old boss got fed up with the suburbs and bought lots of acres of redwood land (using a loan), would spend time each week building a house on it, and loves it up there.
Homepower magazine often has similar stories of people who want to do their own thing.

I've been reading an article called the 13 steps to freedom and it looks interesting:
1. No unimportant things
2. Don't borrow
3. No animals
4. No expensive autos
5. No useless toys
6. Downsize
7. No kids (if possible)
8. No full-time job
9. Avoid complicated systems (I interpreted)
10. No clocks, radios, phones, TVs
11. Cherish every moment
12. Marry a best friend
13. Avoid being someone else's notion of success

If you go to any park, you can see what the animals are doing all day long.. trying to survive. That's how they got there and it's what they're good at (maybe even their destiny). Why should humans be any different? It would take a truly smart individual to transcend survival.

The 2nd Amendment says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The definitions of "regulated" in the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary includes this definition:

Of troops: Properly disciplined; obs. Rare.

The definition of people is pretty obvious (OK, perhaps not to the Roe v. Wade debaters but the rest of us can probably find a working definition for our purposes here).

Therefore, the 2nd Amendment can be paraphrased as "in order to maintain the freedom we have won, we must have an available pool of people who are disciplined in the use of weapons, therefore the people shall be allowed to keep weapons".

This is very much like the mandatory longbow training in England during the Middle Ages (cite). At that time, longbow practice was mandatory after church on Sundays.

There is a law that is still on the books in South Carolina that says that every adult male must bring a weapon to church on Sundays. These people are part of the militia being referred to in the Constitution. At the time that law was enacted it seems clear that the average adult male had a weapon available to him.

The statements that attempt to tar me with the brush of the poorly regarded pseudo-military organizations sensationalized by the media and the brush of the flat earthers are purely red herrings.

The founding fathers indicated their intentions in more places than just the Constitution.

• Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. - George Washington.
• If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government. - George Washington.
• The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams.
• The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. - Thomas Jefferson.
• No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson.
• The people will not understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment until it is too late. - Thomas Jefferson.
• Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. - Thomas Paine.
• I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. - George Mason.
• To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. - George Mason.
• A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms ...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... - Richard Henry Lee.
• The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . .(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - James Madison.
• What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. - Alexander Hamilton.

Then of course, there's The Militia Act of 1792, passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia which also makes clear that the word "militia" did not mean a standing army but instead meant that each citizen should own and understand his own weapon:

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and esontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

While it might be argued that today we don't do these things, the point is to prove what the founding fathers meant by the word "militia": the majority of males of fighting age and their privately owned weapons.

My final point was to observe that, according to the founding fathers themselves, in the U.S. we the people are the most qualified to interpret the Constitution, not some political appointees.

There is a good article on all of this here .

Readers should also note the posting here by ScuzzMonkey who makes several good points.

...this is totally un-Constitutional BULLSHIT!!! If we ever decide to move back from the brink (or back up from OVER the brink) of a police state, we have to scrap ALL the federal laws and start over. If a bill does not meet STRICT observance of the Constitution, it does NOT become law. PERIOD. If only the founding fathers had listened (fully) to George Mason .