Based on other comments, his intention isn't to replace existing roofs, but to get added to new construction. Don't know how well that will work, or if that's really his intent, but if removes the GPs points from significance.
Metal roofs are notorious for poor thermal properties, so if you plan a metal roof, plan on lots of insulation under it. It might still save you a lot of money, though.
A legitimate question was raised, though, of whether the panel could continue generating power afterwards. The claim was that after that exhibition the panel was severely cracked...and this might let in moisture which would corrode the internals.
So you probably need to ensure this kind of damage is included in your home owner's insurance.
Would you prefer he said "write and enforce the regulations"? It would mean about the same. Or are you being picky, in that the actual enforcement would be done by police?
The regulations seem very reasonable at this time and from this distance, but the PROCESS is not reasonable, and arguably unconstitutional. That something *like* this needs to be done doesn't mean that doing things in this way doesn't pose severe problems in many cases, and it doesn't mean that the process is constitutional. Mind you, I would believe that the supreme court would (or has) decided that it does, but they make obviously invalid arguments to justify actions that appear to be needed. Much of the time I agree with their intent, but I often find their arguments to require extreme contortion of the language in a way that I find totally invalid. But I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. I didn't study how to make yes mean no and conversely.
At one time, I think in the early 1950's, someone built a memory store that could handle 10 values...those weren't bits, and symbol is too general. Those were digits.
P.S.: The device turned out to be too slow to compete against two state devices. Something along this line has happened multiple times since then, but never with at many as 10 states unless you could qubits, where I can't really say how many states they have.
I'm not sure you are correct. The court itself said the term was ambiguous and undefined by the legislation. Claiming that a change from an earlier interpretation is "only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written" does not, therefore, seem a valid statement.
OTOH, it may well be easily within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written. But the summary didn't present an argument that the earlier interpretation isn't also within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written..it just said the judges felt it was too lenient. Not the same thing at all.
This is, however, another good reason why the DMCA should be repealed. So should the previous copyright act (the Sony Bono copyright act). Actually, I think that should be repealed all the way back until the term of the copyright was 17 years, and even that had severe problems. Most copyrights should be valid for no longer than 5 years, though if there are excessive upfront costs a case could be made for extending the term to 10 years.
We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.
What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.
And note well that this "well organized militia" would need to be totally independent of government control or approval. But it's also worth noting that such things have a very bad track record historically, i.e. even worse than governments.
There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with particular attention to why it is valid.
This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.
It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.
Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).
But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)
OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.
You don't seem to understand. This was an advertisement intended to reach those who weren't thinking about the problem. Anything that requires an explicit search would not meet the goal.
To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.
The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.
It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.
That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.
Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.
Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".
First thought: Not really true, but it could go into a mode where it only operated in a VERY degraded state....like no external connectivity.
Second thought: And I guess even that could fail if, say, the power went out, so I guess you're right after all.
The problem here is that "network failure" isn't well defined. Computer failure is, though, so if all the computers that ran the software went down, the network would have clearly failed. I'm sure they meant something different, but they don't seem to have been explicit about what they meant. (Betcha that "never goes down" came out of marketing, and they didn't know, or care, exactly what they meant.)
The problem is it needs to be phased in, and various support programs need to be phased out. Handling this smoothly will be difficult. And the transition period probably needs to be about 15 years.
Jobs ARE disappearing a lot faster than they are being created, and the population is growing. This does not augur well for social stability unless there is some universal support system. Basic Income is the universal support system that has the most push behind it. And we need a lot more effort put into virtual reality, so that people without jobs can find something that they will do rather than cause trouble. Of course, that itself will eliminate entire classes of jobs. But virtual reality when properly developed could replace gyms, schools, and many other activities. The "school" replacement could be essentially apprenticeship games.
Think of this as a high-tech version of "bread and circuses", but it needs to be done in a way that's less socially disruptive than Rome was forced into....and preferably before wide-scale civil war breaks out. (Again, check the history of Rome.)
If this is handled right we could be headed towards a utopia...but if it isn't we could be headed towards a profound dystopia. Unfortunately, I see very few signs that anyone with any power even realizes the problems.
I'm quite convinced that Hillary violated the law in setting up her private e-mail. I'm a lot less convinced that doing it the officially approved way would have been any more secure.
And if I chose between Hillary and Trump I'll pick Hillary. There's a lot I don't like about her, but it doesn't come close to what I don't like about Trump.
OTOH, I don't live in a swing state, so I'll probably pick Stein. Not because I think she'd be a good president, or because I think her ideas would work, but because they're CLOSER to the ideals I have than those of Hillary. Sanders would have been even better, and his ideas could be made to work if Congress would cooperate.
Additionally, despite my dislike of Hillary, I think of her VP the way I think of Spiro Agnew...President Nixon's life insurance policy.
Corruption is, indeed, good to point out. But timing can cause one to suspect partisan motivations.
If I liked Hillary, I'd be upset. As it is I just don't think she's as bad as Trump, which is a really low bar. And she may mean some of the good things she says. (Her honesty rating is higher than that of most politicians holding office...but I sure wouldn't claim she never lies.)
No, the early models ignored the heat transfer mechanism of ice on the surface melting and carrying heat to the bottom of the glaciers. There were probably other problems that I don't know about, but just that one example has caused a much faster melt.
Slashdot Mirror
Based on other comments, his intention isn't to replace existing roofs, but to get added to new construction. Don't know how well that will work, or if that's really his intent, but if removes the GPs points from significance.
Metal roofs are notorious for poor thermal properties, so if you plan a metal roof, plan on lots of insulation under it. It might still save you a lot of money, though.
A legitimate question was raised, though, of whether the panel could continue generating power afterwards. The claim was that after that exhibition the panel was severely cracked...and this might let in moisture which would corrode the internals.
So you probably need to ensure this kind of damage is included in your home owner's insurance.
Would you prefer he said "write and enforce the regulations"? It would mean about the same. Or are you being picky, in that the actual enforcement would be done by police?
The regulations seem very reasonable at this time and from this distance, but the PROCESS is not reasonable, and arguably unconstitutional. That something *like* this needs to be done doesn't mean that doing things in this way doesn't pose severe problems in many cases, and it doesn't mean that the process is constitutional. Mind you, I would believe that the supreme court would (or has) decided that it does, but they make obviously invalid arguments to justify actions that appear to be needed. Much of the time I agree with their intent, but I often find their arguments to require extreme contortion of the language in a way that I find totally invalid. But I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. I didn't study how to make yes mean no and conversely.
At one time, I think in the early 1950's, someone built a memory store that could handle 10 values...those weren't bits, and symbol is too general. Those were digits.
P.S.: The device turned out to be too slow to compete against two state devices. Something along this line has happened multiple times since then, but never with at many as 10 states unless you could qubits, where I can't really say how many states they have.
Perhaps Apple wants people to remember tricks.
I'm not sure you are correct. The court itself said the term was ambiguous and undefined by the legislation. Claiming that a change from an earlier interpretation is "only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written" does not, therefore, seem a valid statement.
OTOH, it may well be easily within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written. But the summary didn't present an argument that the earlier interpretation isn't also within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written..it just said the judges felt it was too lenient. Not the same thing at all.
This is, however, another good reason why the DMCA should be repealed. So should the previous copyright act (the Sony Bono copyright act). Actually, I think that should be repealed all the way back until the term of the copyright was 17 years, and even that had severe problems. Most copyrights should be valid for no longer than 5 years, though if there are excessive upfront costs a case could be made for extending the term to 10 years.
We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.
What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.
And note well that this "well organized militia" would need to be totally independent of government control or approval. But it's also worth noting that such things have a very bad track record historically, i.e. even worse than governments.
There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with particular attention to why it is valid.
This may depend on exactly how one interprets the phrase "wall". In a figurative sense one could interpret, e.g., the very existence of the border patrol as a wall. In that vein anything that one did to hinder immigration could be interpreted as fulfilling that pledge. Say letting contracts to build radar stations to companies that are subsidiaries of Trump, inc.
The comment was about the flow of drugs.
It's not new. The specific ideas that they are intolerant about have changed, but there's long been a large group of people on slashdot that are intolerant of ideas they don't like. In this it reflects society pretty accurately. The difference is that consequences of intolerant actions (downvoting) are separated from intolerant speech. Some of the separation is in time, but other are not. If you prefer to vote something up, you look for ideas or statements that appeal to you. If you prefer to vote something down, you look for ideas or statements that distress you.
Go actually READ the Constitution. Parts of it apply to all people. Parts don't. They could use a bit of clarity in places, but it's usually pretty clearer. It's a LOT clearer than my state constitution. And it's not horrendously long. Only about five pages (depending, of course, and page size and font, but I'm thinking of 8 1/2X11 inch paper and 10 point Times-Roman...but this *is* an estimate, since it's been awhile since I printed it out).
But, e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." clearly indicates that a law in that area is forbidden to regulate ANYONE. Of course, before the Civil War it was expected that such areas would be regulated by the various states...but then never updated the Constitution when they changed to a powerful Federal Government weak State Government system. All they did was decide to "reinterpret" (i.e., ignore when convenient) what the constitution said. This was, and is, dereliction of duty. Probably misfeasance rather than malfeasance in the not fixing it arm of action, but clearly malfeasance in the enforcement arm. (In the case of the Supreme Court malfeasance seems more accurate than misfeasance.)
OTOH, it takes a long time to get an amendment through the adoption process. When something needs addressing quickly, you can't wait for the Constitution to be fixed. But ignoring that problem doesn't get the problem solved, it just sweeps it under the rug.
You don't seem to understand. This was an advertisement intended to reach those who weren't thinking about the problem. Anything that requires an explicit search would not meet the goal.
To be fair their website would not be equivalent to shouting in your basement. Google would index it, etc. But only people looking for the information would find it, and this appears to have been an advertisement intended to reach people who were not currently considering the problem. So their own web page wouldn't be a useful option.
The temporary censorship is a problem, but not the major problem, as that was corrected. The major problem is that it was difficult to reach someone who both could and would address the problem. I've been in that situation so often that I find THAT problem hard to forgive.
It's clear that they EVENTUALLY got in contact with Facebook, but possibly only indirectly. It's not at all clear whether this happened before or after the story hit the news. Having called technical support at some companies and been put on hold for over an hour, I'm not willing to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong, but I'll require at least *some* evidence before I'll believe it.
That's probably correct, but they made it difficult to contact them, which removes any excuse that "it was an automated system that did it" provides.
Yes, if they made it easy to contact them they'd probably get LOTS of complaints. Guess what, They OUGHT to get lots of complaints.
Personally, I don't understand why people are willing to use Facebook, but since they are there are they are a public accomodation. It's not quite the same as a monopoly, though there are certain similarities, strongly reinforced by the network effect. As such for them to refuse service should be a crime. When this is going on internationally, though, things get quite complex, so they have an obligation to make contact, explanation, and negotiation easy when they refuse service. When they don't I start seeing valid reasons for countries to refuse to allow them to do business within "their borders".
First thought:
Not really true, but it could go into a mode where it only operated in a VERY degraded state....like no external connectivity.
Second thought:
And I guess even that could fail if, say, the power went out, so I guess you're right after all.
The problem here is that "network failure" isn't well defined. Computer failure is, though, so if all the computers that ran the software went down, the network would have clearly failed. I'm sure they meant something different, but they don't seem to have been explicit about what they meant. (Betcha that "never goes down" came out of marketing, and they didn't know, or care, exactly what they meant.)
The problem is it needs to be phased in, and various support programs need to be phased out. Handling this smoothly will be difficult. And the transition period probably needs to be about 15 years.
Jobs ARE disappearing a lot faster than they are being created, and the population is growing. This does not augur well for social stability unless there is some universal support system. Basic Income is the universal support system that has the most push behind it. And we need a lot more effort put into virtual reality, so that people without jobs can find something that they will do rather than cause trouble. Of course, that itself will eliminate entire classes of jobs. But virtual reality when properly developed could replace gyms, schools, and many other activities. The "school" replacement could be essentially apprenticeship games.
Think of this as a high-tech version of "bread and circuses", but it needs to be done in a way that's less socially disruptive than Rome was forced into....and preferably before wide-scale civil war breaks out. (Again, check the history of Rome.)
If this is handled right we could be headed towards a utopia...but if it isn't we could be headed towards a profound dystopia. Unfortunately, I see very few signs that anyone with any power even realizes the problems.
I'm quite convinced that Hillary violated the law in setting up her private e-mail. I'm a lot less convinced that doing it the officially approved way would have been any more secure.
And if I chose between Hillary and Trump I'll pick Hillary. There's a lot I don't like about her, but it doesn't come close to what I don't like about Trump.
OTOH, I don't live in a swing state, so I'll probably pick Stein. Not because I think she'd be a good president, or because I think her ideas would work, but because they're CLOSER to the ideals I have than those of Hillary. Sanders would have been even better, and his ideas could be made to work if Congress would cooperate.
Additionally, despite my dislike of Hillary, I think of her VP the way I think of Spiro Agnew...President Nixon's life insurance policy.
Corruption is, indeed, good to point out. But timing can cause one to suspect partisan motivations.
If I liked Hillary, I'd be upset. As it is I just don't think she's as bad as Trump, which is a really low bar. And she may mean some of the good things she says. (Her honesty rating is higher than that of most politicians holding office...but I sure wouldn't claim she never lies.)
No, the early models ignored the heat transfer mechanism of ice on the surface melting and carrying heat to the bottom of the glaciers. There were probably other problems that I don't know about, but just that one example has caused a much faster melt.
Which way do the currents flow? They *could* do that, but if they wanted to reach New York they'd better put a motor on it.