IIUC, one interpretation is that "yes, it's a particle, but it only has a probable location/velocity/momentum/etc.". So it is simultaneously both a particle (as an object) and a distribution of probabilities as characteristics of the particle. It's the probabilities that move as a wave, but it's only the particle that we can detect.
N.B.: I studied this quite a long time ago, so not only are things a bit fuzzy, the "best" way of looking at them may have changed.
Also: Please note that this is just an interpretation of the data. The data appear to be such that multiple (wierd) interprations are possible, and no-"non-wierd" interpretation is possible. My favored interpretation is a variation of the Multi-World (EGW) interpretation modified to include multiple pasts as well a multiple futures so the the universe becomes a directed graph with a (possibly unique) origin and a (unknown) limit. But most state transitions though probabilistic don't make the universe larger because the multiple pasts of each instant-instance merge an (essentially) equally large number of world-lines to the divergence towards the future. So the number of world lines stays approximately constant. Think of it as a really huge state transition table with probabilistic transitions being processed on a system with a truly huge number of independent threads. And all exits from each state are taken with a weight equal to the probability. This is already pretty messy, but then you need to start worrying about the light cones, and the fact that information transmitted via light only experiences time when and absorbtion/re-emission even occurs. (I haven't yet figured out how to handle light slowing down when not traversing a vacuum but also not being absorbed. Does it start experiencing time?)
OK. Possibly I misunderstood what was required to allow a push connection to the electrical grid. OTOH, it was a couple of decades ago that we put in solar panels (with a grid connection, and, obviously, not Solar City), so also perhaps the rules have changed.
The bank would also want security for the loan, perhaps you could get better terms from them. If the Solar City salesman you contacted said they don't do "off the grid" installations...that doesn't seem to be what the company currently says. Maybe they didn't, maybe it's flim-flam, maybe your salesman didn't want to do it. From your description he was clearly lousy at his job.
OTOH, this http://www.greentechmedia.com/... might be related to your experience. However this http://blog.solarcity.com/put-... seems to bolster your point. But this http://cleantechnica.com/2012/... disagrees with that. These were all published at different points in time, so quite possibly the position is in flux. Their site doesn't seem to address the question directly for residential customers.
So I think you are basically correct, if you want an "off the grid" solar installation you should go with someone else until they are ready to make a clear statement. But for the larger installations that they are talking about in this Press Release, attaching to the grid appears to be an afterthought. (It couldn't really be an afterthought, but it seems designed for locations where good grid connections cannot be assumed.)
Thinking of them as a utility company is actually more accurate than thinking of them as an installer. But they aren't regulated the way most utility companies are (which has both good and bad points). They are a utility company because they own the generation plant that they install on your property. You are just the only customer of that plant. I'm sorry the salesman you dealt with was unpleasant, but that's not a basis for deciding that the *company* is a bunch of hucksters. (I'm not saying they aren't, they could be. I'm saying that isn't a valid basis for deciding.)
As for your "Any electrician..." comment, yes. But most electricians don't have agreements with the power company to allow them to connect their devices to feed power into the lines. Most solar companies do. Now if you want total grid independence that shouldn't matter to you. So in that case what matters is that Solar City supplies long term financing that most electricians won't give you. If you don't want it, fine. Some people do.
Your result clearly depends on local electric costs from the grid. For others it may well not make sense. And perhaps they have more than one package to choose from...with different contracts. (Also, perhaps they offer different such packages in different areas.)
I'm glad you've been having a good experience. I hope you continue to. But realistically you're dealing with a large corporation in a monopoly situation (i.e., you're locked into that contract for a long time). So be sure you understand what the contract says, and what your remedies are if they start defaulting on their obligations.
Perhaps not, but how long will the salt stay molten without additional energy input?
(OTOH, for a city sized plant that might well be a reasonable choice. Small packages have a higher surface/volume ratio. OTTH, last time I posted this someone told me that insulation was now good enough that this wasn't a major problem. Perhaps he's right.)
Weeelll.... Actually you should say "...because somebody's great-grandkids...". A lot of the original luddites died as the result of their jobs being eliminated...and so did their kids. (True, some of them took up other jobs, like thief, but they were only trained as weavers, so they weren't reall very good at them.) The same period gave us the french word "sabotage" which meant throwing your wooden shoes (sabots) into the machinery.
Most history isn't exactly bunk, it's more a massive white-wash job on the history of the wealthy and powerful.
It's all well and good to talk about supporting STEM education, but that doesn't do much good if everyone who considers investing their time and effort in that direction realizes that they'll be burdening themselves with intolerable debt, and that there's a very good chance they won't be able to get a job which will even let them keep up with accumulating interest.
Sorry, I was talking about the US income tax. I've no idea what the motivations behind British income tax were.
The GGGP post in the thread mentions *both* the US and the British governments, and I focused on the US, though either, or even both, are consistent with most of the intermediate posts.
I'm not even sure of that, unless the broadcast crosses state lines at a power which might reasonably impact transmissions originating in another state.
OTOH, it is definitely useful to have a standards agency that specifies encoding standards for, e.g., FM. But specifying standards shouldn't necessarily equate to enforcing compliance. Perhaps that should be separate, and only be enforceable on those claiming to adhere to the standard and not doing so.
This, however, is an argument about "should" and not about "historicly applied powers". Regulating ISPs as common carriers is within the FCCs hostoricly applied powers, in as much as they are interstate companies and there's the precedent of AT&T. (Not that the feds have been showing themselves shy about extending their powers beyond all reason without such a legal cloak, but in this case I think that they're on relatively reasonable [for them] footing.)
No. Withholding tax law may have been written for that purpose, but the purpose of the Income Tax was to weaken the power of the states relative to the federal government.
They may be in the UK, but I'm not, and if they do it here it's illegal. I will grant that this won't stop them, but British law isn't the only relevant law. And if they do it here the proper description is "illegal spying". I'd presume most other countries have similar laws (though they might exhempt their own "Intelligence Agencies").
2: Their herbicide is cancer causing. If you have heavy exposure, as an agricultural worker is likely to do.
3: Monsanto denies it. See 1, above.
4: And they probably think smoking cigarettes is beneficial to your health. citation needed.
5: Or maybe they are just greedy assholes who want money at the destruction of nature and everyone's health. I doubt that they would go out of they way to destroy nature and everyone's health., otherwise Yep.
When was ISIS ever about maintaining the moral high ground? (OTOH, the US doesn't have any grounds for complaint, as it has been at least equally vile.)
It's sad, but that was my original thought on this.
OTOH, I haven't checked, so I don't know that the people DOXed are remote killers. For all I know they could be the regimental cooks.
I wish that it weren't a fair criticism to call the US a terrorist state. Unfortunately...very unfortunately...I feel that's a justifiable criticism. But I doubt that this will do anything to improve matters. And while low level soldiers are easy targets, they aren't the ones making the decisions. (I can't say that they are without guilt, but they are also easily replaceable.)
"The Old Man of the Mountain" had a system that was effective for quite awhile, but it depended upon being able to insinuate his followers into close proximity to their targets. That's probably not possible anymore, and in any case his system eventually failed when he was attacked by those he was unprepared against.
Yes-No. "Will you cheat?" isn't a black and white thing, and expectation of not getting caught isn't the only modifier. Also involved are how important it is, and what the expected consequences of getting caught are.
Would you cheat on a math test to save your life? Your parents life? Your children's lives? If you said "No" to all of those you're lying. But if you would cheat for a penny, then you're totally without morals...unless there are exceptional circumstances that I haven't thought of.
What about if you had to pay a lot for the opportunity to take the test, and if you passed you would have a good career, and if you failed you wouldn't? I'd wager that would strongly increase the amount of cheating. (And unless you answered no to all the above questions, you can't be sure that you wouldn't, because I purposely left a lot of the motivators vague.)
People not only have differing amounts of "honor", they also disagree about what the term means.
Enacting Title II is within the FCCs historic powers. And it was suggested by a judge as the appropriate response to his invalidation of their prior attempt at rule making.
If you want to be asserting that it shouldn't be within the FCCs power, you may have a point, and I'd need to think about it for awhile.
Others have denied that the government is " deciding whether something is illegal retroactively.", and have pointed out reasons why the various different rulings are consistent with published rules. So I have trouble taking your assertion that is is as truth.
P.S.: I find most of the content rules silly, but then I see nothing wrong with nudity on city streets, so I'm clearly in a minority. Were I to allow content rules I would have them forbidding the glorification of violence, but I deem free speech even more important than that.
Well, actually I wasn't happy with the decision to allow commercial traffic on the internet...and I'm still not. Resigned is a more accurate description. I did appreciate the decision to allow non-governmental/non-academic on the net, but that happend a bit before the decision to allow commercial use. And allowing commercial ISPs was a good decision. What wasn't a good idea was the decision to allow financial transactions over the internet. I'll agree that a network that allows financial transactions is reasonable, but the internet should not be that network. It was never designed to the kind of secure transmissions that that makes necessary, and this has lead to constant problems...and continual downgrading of the service.
That said, if financial transactions had not be permitted, the internet would be considerably smaller, and the secondary network that had financial transactions enabled would probably eventually swallow it. I'm sorry, buy this is still better, because the internet's basic design is wrong for secure transmission of tokens. That was not among the original design goals, and has had to be kludged onto it...and that was the wrong way to do things.
It's also true that the phone companies wanted to rent a DAA for such a high price that acoustic couplers were developed as a more reasonable answer. And a DAA was little more that a hardwired connection to the phone system.
There are very good reason to be dissatisfied with the service the pre-breakup phone company provided to those areas of the market it wasn't interested in serving. (I'll agree, though, that the hyperbolic arguments of incompetence are unjustified. If Ma Bell was interested in providing a service they did quite a good job of it.)
Yes, that's a better answer. But that's not within the FCC's powers. Various federal and state (mainly, IIUC, state) and local (city, county, etc.) laws and ordinances have given the phone and cable companies effective local monopolies. Those cannot be addressed by the FCC.
I, also, would prefer that the original problem be addressed, that hard lines not be owned by companies with the same owners as, or in any exclusive relationship with, the providers of the communication links. Except that local communities, cities, towns, etc. should be allowed to provide both provided that they did not restrict who was allowed access to their lines and "customers". But the FCC has (and/or should have) no power in this area.
The idea that people can know what the laws are and the what the penalties are is a myth. Nobody, *NODOBY* knows all the laws that cover their behavior. Not only are there too many, the're all subject to judicial interpretation.
(You can often make a good guess whether some particular law applies, but that's a very different argument.)
Well, I'm not privy to the author's internal design criteria, but it's my understanding he was QUITE impressed by the extensive use of spies in Fascist Spain.
That the public has no access can be proven by exception (i.e., occasionally some of it gets leaked). That the public has no use is proven FALSE by those same exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Real marriages are the ones that give you a tax advantage/ health care saving/etc.
Warning: I'm a prrogrammer, not a physicist.
IIUC, one interpretation is that "yes, it's a particle, but it only has a probable location/velocity/momentum/etc.". So it is simultaneously both a particle (as an object) and a distribution of probabilities as characteristics of the particle. It's the probabilities that move as a wave, but it's only the particle that we can detect.
N.B.: I studied this quite a long time ago, so not only are things a bit fuzzy, the "best" way of looking at them may have changed.
Also: Please note that this is just an interpretation of the data. The data appear to be such that multiple (wierd) interprations are possible, and no-"non-wierd" interpretation is possible. My favored interpretation is a variation of the Multi-World (EGW) interpretation modified to include multiple pasts as well a multiple futures so the the universe becomes a directed graph with a (possibly unique) origin and a (unknown) limit. But most state transitions though probabilistic don't make the universe larger because the multiple pasts of each instant-instance merge an (essentially) equally large number of world-lines to the divergence towards the future. So the number of world lines stays approximately constant. Think of it as a really huge state transition table with probabilistic transitions being processed on a system with a truly huge number of independent threads. And all exits from each state are taken with a weight equal to the probability. This is already pretty messy, but then you need to start worrying about the light cones, and the fact that information transmitted via light only experiences time when and absorbtion/re-emission even occurs. (I haven't yet figured out how to handle light slowing down when not traversing a vacuum but also not being absorbed. Does it start experiencing time?)
OK. Possibly I misunderstood what was required to allow a push connection to the electrical grid. OTOH, it was a couple of decades ago that we put in solar panels (with a grid connection, and, obviously, not Solar City), so also perhaps the rules have changed.
The bank would also want security for the loan, perhaps you could get better terms from them. If the Solar City salesman you contacted said they don't do "off the grid" installations...that doesn't seem to be what the company currently says. Maybe they didn't, maybe it's flim-flam, maybe your salesman didn't want to do it. From your description he was clearly lousy at his job.
OTOH, this http://www.greentechmedia.com/... might be related to your experience. However this http://blog.solarcity.com/put-... seems to bolster your point. But this http://cleantechnica.com/2012/... disagrees with that. These were all published at different points in time, so quite possibly the position is in flux. Their site doesn't seem to address the question directly for residential customers.
So I think you are basically correct, if you want an "off the grid" solar installation you should go with someone else until they are ready to make a clear statement. But for the larger installations that they are talking about in this Press Release, attaching to the grid appears to be an afterthought. (It couldn't really be an afterthought, but it seems designed for locations where good grid connections cannot be assumed.)
Thinking of them as a utility company is actually more accurate than thinking of them as an installer. But they aren't regulated the way most utility companies are (which has both good and bad points). They are a utility company because they own the generation plant that they install on your property. You are just the only customer of that plant. I'm sorry the salesman you dealt with was unpleasant, but that's not a basis for deciding that the *company* is a bunch of hucksters. (I'm not saying they aren't, they could be. I'm saying that isn't a valid basis for deciding.)
As for your "Any electrician..." comment, yes. But most electricians don't have agreements with the power company to allow them to connect their devices to feed power into the lines. Most solar companies do. Now if you want total grid independence that shouldn't matter to you. So in that case what matters is that Solar City supplies long term financing that most electricians won't give you. If you don't want it, fine. Some people do.
Your result clearly depends on local electric costs from the grid. For others it may well not make sense. And perhaps they have more than one package to choose from...with different contracts. (Also, perhaps they offer different such packages in different areas.)
I'm glad you've been having a good experience. I hope you continue to. But realistically you're dealing with a large corporation in a monopoly situation (i.e., you're locked into that contract for a long time). So be sure you understand what the contract says, and what your remedies are if they start defaulting on their obligations.
Perhaps not, but how long will the salt stay molten without additional energy input?
(OTOH, for a city sized plant that might well be a reasonable choice. Small packages have a higher surface/volume ratio. OTTH, last time I posted this someone told me that insulation was now good enough that this wasn't a major problem. Perhaps he's right.)
Weeelll....
Actually you should say "...because somebody's great-grandkids...". A lot of the original luddites died as the result of their jobs being eliminated...and so did their kids. (True, some of them took up other jobs, like thief, but they were only trained as weavers, so they weren't reall very good at them.) The same period gave us the french word "sabotage" which meant throwing your wooden shoes (sabots) into the machinery.
Most history isn't exactly bunk, it's more a massive white-wash job on the history of the wealthy and powerful.
It's all well and good to talk about supporting STEM education, but that doesn't do much good if everyone who considers investing their time and effort in that direction realizes that they'll be burdening themselves with intolerable debt, and that there's a very good chance they won't be able to get a job which will even let them keep up with accumulating interest.
This smells to me like a pure PR move.
Sorry, I was talking about the US income tax. I've no idea what the motivations behind British income tax were.
The GGGP post in the thread mentions *both* the US and the British governments, and I focused on the US, though either, or even both, are consistent with most of the intermediate posts.
I'm not even sure of that, unless the broadcast crosses state lines at a power which might reasonably impact transmissions originating in another state.
OTOH, it is definitely useful to have a standards agency that specifies encoding standards for, e.g., FM. But specifying standards shouldn't necessarily equate to enforcing compliance. Perhaps that should be separate, and only be enforceable on those claiming to adhere to the standard and not doing so.
This, however, is an argument about "should" and not about "historicly applied powers". Regulating ISPs as common carriers is within the FCCs hostoricly applied powers, in as much as they are interstate companies and there's the precedent of AT&T. (Not that the feds have been showing themselves shy about extending their powers beyond all reason without such a legal cloak, but in this case I think that they're on relatively reasonable [for them] footing.)
No. Withholding tax law may have been written for that purpose, but the purpose of the Income Tax was to weaken the power of the states relative to the federal government.
They may be in the UK, but I'm not, and if they do it here it's illegal. I will grant that this won't stop them, but British law isn't the only relevant law. And if they do it here the proper description is "illegal spying". I'd presume most other countries have similar laws (though they might exhempt their own "Intelligence Agencies").
Well.....
1: Monsanto is evil.
Yep.
2: Their herbicide is cancer causing.
If you have heavy exposure, as an agricultural worker is likely to do.
3: Monsanto denies it.
See 1, above.
4: And they probably think smoking cigarettes is beneficial to your health.
citation needed.
5: Or maybe they are just greedy assholes who want money at the destruction of nature and everyone's health.
I doubt that they would go out of they way to destroy nature and everyone's health., otherwise Yep.
When was ISIS ever about maintaining the moral high ground? (OTOH, the US doesn't have any grounds for complaint, as it has been at least equally vile.)
It's sad, but that was my original thought on this.
OTOH, I haven't checked, so I don't know that the people DOXed are remote killers. For all I know they could be the regimental cooks.
I wish that it weren't a fair criticism to call the US a terrorist state. Unfortunately...very unfortunately...I feel that's a justifiable criticism. But I doubt that this will do anything to improve matters. And while low level soldiers are easy targets, they aren't the ones making the decisions. (I can't say that they are without guilt, but they are also easily replaceable.)
"The Old Man of the Mountain" had a system that was effective for quite awhile, but it depended upon being able to insinuate his followers into close proximity to their targets. That's probably not possible anymore, and in any case his system eventually failed when he was attacked by those he was unprepared against.
Yes-No. "Will you cheat?" isn't a black and white thing, and expectation of not getting caught isn't the only modifier. Also involved are how important it is, and what the expected consequences of getting caught are.
Would you cheat on a math test to save your life? Your parents life? Your children's lives? If you said "No" to all of those you're lying. But if you would cheat for a penny, then you're totally without morals...unless there are exceptional circumstances that I haven't thought of.
What about if you had to pay a lot for the opportunity to take the test, and if you passed you would have a good career, and if you failed you wouldn't? I'd wager that would strongly increase the amount of cheating. (And unless you answered no to all the above questions, you can't be sure that you wouldn't, because I purposely left a lot of the motivators vague.)
People not only have differing amounts of "honor", they also disagree about what the term means.
FWIW, I'm a native English speaker, and I still get rules about capitalization mixed up. (I suppose taking German didn't help things, though...)
Enacting Title II is within the FCCs historic powers. And it was suggested by a judge as the appropriate response to his invalidation of their prior attempt at rule making.
If you want to be asserting that it shouldn't be within the FCCs power, you may have a point, and I'd need to think about it for awhile.
Others have denied that the government is " deciding whether something is illegal retroactively.", and have pointed out reasons why the various different rulings are consistent with published rules. So I have trouble taking your assertion that is is as truth.
P.S.: I find most of the content rules silly, but then I see nothing wrong with nudity on city streets, so I'm clearly in a minority. Were I to allow content rules I would have them forbidding the glorification of violence, but I deem free speech even more important than that.
Well, actually I wasn't happy with the decision to allow commercial traffic on the internet...and I'm still not. Resigned is a more accurate description. I did appreciate the decision to allow non-governmental/non-academic on the net, but that happend a bit before the decision to allow commercial use. And allowing commercial ISPs was a good decision. What wasn't a good idea was the decision to allow financial transactions over the internet. I'll agree that a network that allows financial transactions is reasonable, but the internet should not be that network. It was never designed to the kind of secure transmissions that that makes necessary, and this has lead to constant problems...and continual downgrading of the service.
That said, if financial transactions had not be permitted, the internet would be considerably smaller, and the secondary network that had financial transactions enabled would probably eventually swallow it. I'm sorry, buy this is still better, because the internet's basic design is wrong for secure transmission of tokens. That was not among the original design goals, and has had to be kludged onto it...and that was the wrong way to do things.
It's also true that the phone companies wanted to rent a DAA for such a high price that acoustic couplers were developed as a more reasonable answer. And a DAA was little more that a hardwired connection to the phone system.
There are very good reason to be dissatisfied with the service the pre-breakup phone company provided to those areas of the market it wasn't interested in serving. (I'll agree, though, that the hyperbolic arguments of incompetence are unjustified. If Ma Bell was interested in providing a service they did quite a good job of it.)
Yes, that's a better answer. But that's not within the FCC's powers. Various federal and state (mainly, IIUC, state) and local (city, county, etc.) laws and ordinances have given the phone and cable companies effective local monopolies. Those cannot be addressed by the FCC.
I, also, would prefer that the original problem be addressed, that hard lines not be owned by companies with the same owners as, or in any exclusive relationship with, the providers of the communication links. Except that local communities, cities, towns, etc. should be allowed to provide both provided that they did not restrict who was allowed access to their lines and "customers". But the FCC has (and/or should have) no power in this area.
I've got a clue for you.
The idea that people can know what the laws are and the what the penalties are is a myth. Nobody, *NODOBY* knows all the laws that cover their behavior. Not only are there too many, the're all subject to judicial interpretation.
(You can often make a good guess whether some particular law applies, but that's a very different argument.)
Well, I'm not privy to the author's internal design criteria, but it's my understanding he was QUITE impressed by the extensive use of spies in Fascist Spain.
That the public has no access can be proven by exception (i.e., occasionally some of it gets leaked). That the public has no use is proven FALSE by those same exceptions.