As an ex-police officer, I have to say that the parent is right on target. As soon as a situation became confused, everything would go downhill FAST. With a lot of concealed weapons around, I don't want to think how many innocents would be maimed or killed in a year given the number of altercations that occur in any large city.
(I have a story about how an irate woman went after a man whom she believed had stolen her cat. Only problem was the man's cat was male and the lost cat was female. The woman ended up in prison for breaking the windows in the man's house and his car's windshield. If she had had a gun...)
Does it matter when an item is invented? If the AK47 design wasn't patented back in the 1940s (remember that in the Soviet communist state everything belonged to the state anyway) then presumably the 1999 patent would be valid.
I guess that if Russia is expected to uphold IP rights, the rest of the world should abide by Russian patents. I doubt that anyone in Russia is interested in collecting money from desperately poor third-world countries - this would be aimed at the somewhat richer countries that manufacture these weapons and sell them to all comers.
There was a reboot required after installing this patch. Seriously, very few security patches don't require a restart - it's in the nature of the beast. Personally, I'm surprised when a restart isn't required after a system level update on Windows, Mac or Linux. FYI, there was a notification up front that a reboot would be required.
I'm somewhat amazed that you are complaining - but I guess you needed to complain about something.
I have 48 x 185 watt panels connected to three Sunny Boy 2500u inverters which are connected to a Sunny Boy Control using RS422. The Sunny Boy Control is connected to a PC using an RS232 serial line.
The Sunny Boy Control is set to collect data from the inverters every 5 minutes. It stores AC power generated at that instant, cumulated AC power generated that day, DC voltage and current into each inverter from the panels, AC current out, any errors that turn up, and some other useful and useless information. I have an automated task to dump the data from the Sunny Boy Control into the PC daily.
I don't know what is causing the drop-off. However, I do have solar energy system that was installed in 2003. I was not required to install a time of use meter (the E7 tariff in California) but I moved to that tariff because it makes great sense.
The normal baseline rate for electricity on the standard residential tariff (E1) is 11.4 cents/kWh rising to 36.4 cents/kWh for usage over 300% of baseline. On the E7 tariff, during summer peak time (noon to 6pm) the baseline cost is 29.4 cents/kWh rising to 52.8 cents/kWh for over 300% of baseline usage. However, off-peak cost is 8.6 cents/kWh to 32.1 cents/kWh at 300% usage.
What do all these numbers mean? My solar array generates a high percentage of the total amount of electricity generated during peak time. I know this because a data monitor was installed on my solar array and I have detailed numbers on the performance of the panels and inverters. I think it was well worth the $1500 additional cost.
Bottom line: last year I used 16,345 KWh of electricity, 12,096 kWh generated by the solar panels and 4,249 provided by the utility company. However, I ended the year $191 in credit with the utility. This is because they credit me at the current rate when I send electricity back into the grid, and I'm delivering electricity at the time when I get the highest credit, and I'm using electricity at night when the price is lowest. So, last year I received 4,249 kWh of electricity from the utility that I didn't have to pay for. Without the E7 tariff I would have received ~$1,200 less credit for peak time generation and I would have paid ~$160 more for the electricity I did use.
Obviously, mileage will vary for different installations. For me, time of use has been, and continues to be, a great financial benefit. It also contributes to home comfort: I sent my home thermostat to a minimum of 72 degrees and a maximum of 76 degrees, and that's how the thermostat stays 24/7 all year. Extravagant maybe, because I could have saved more electricity with different thermostat settings, but I like my comfort. And saving electricity doesn't do me any good because all it gives me is a larger credit with the utility company (and I can't convert that to cash).
The writer says that the Member of Parliament who broke the news (that International Olympic Committee chose VISA for IT security) doesn't see why the British Government should pay one billion pounds for security. Presumably because they didn't select the contractor. I don't see where you get the idea that Visa is paying for security - they are profiting from their investment in sponsoring the games by being paid to handle IT security.
I don't know if Visa is qualified or not. They certainly have made some less than stellar business choices in allowing a certain level of fraud in their normal business so long it doesn't impact profits unduly.
But that's not the point. The Olympic Games are a significant terrorist target, and the business of protecting them should be awarded on the basis of best and most suitable technology. The article points out a couple of technologies that might be useful but were not considered because they are marketed by companies who are not sponsors. That is flat wrong.
I find "Butler" to be very useful. It's a free application (although I donated) and you can set up many aspects of your Mac easily. And it's been around long enough to be well tested.
For me, a Terminal window is control + apple + t, safari is control + apple + s, the calculator is control + apple + c, my editor is control + apple + e. You get the idea. It shouldn't take an experienced user more than 10 minutes to install and configure simple keyboard shortcuts. More complex things might take a little longer, but it's not a biggie.
Spend a little time checking out the Clean Power Estimator at http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewables/est imator/index.html if you want the latest up-to-date information for California. To get the most from this site you will need to know various things like how much you pay annually for electricity at present, what size system is appropriate for you, and how much a solar farm costs to install per kW in your area.
Surprisingly for an emerging technology, costs seem have risen somewhat since I installed my panels in 2003. A quick online check shows that panels are actually about 10-15% more now, which is not what I expected. In 2003, the installed cost was about $8400 per kW, but based on panel costs I'd suggest allowing $9,000 per kW at least now.
My installer was http://www.skypowersystems.com/ - their work and attention to detail was fantastic, but the company has changed ownership since my install was completed. I'd also suggest checking out http://www.regrid.com/ which was my second choice. I have a lot more information about how I selected solar which I would be happy to share with you. If you write to me at watt9999@mac.com (that's a temporary email address) I'll be happy to help in any way I can.
Nope, I didn't bother with computing the lost opportunity cost - mostly because in the long run I considered the lost opportunity of getting solar power installed is much greater. And your 7% return is not correct as it doesn't take into account my marginal rate of taxation which would reduce the ROI to under 4%.
As an alternative, I could have paid for my installation without laying out any of my own money by taking out a mortgage loan and repaying the loan out of the savings. This works rather well because this is a home improvement so the interest is tax deductible.
Baseline usage is 11.9 kwh per day in summer, 12.6 kwh in winter.
For me, before I installed the panels I was regularly running into the "over 300%" category, and that was one of the reasons that solar made sense for my particular situation.
Also, I didn't spend $65k on the installation, I spent $31k. If you take out a loan for this amount, you can pay it back entirely out of the electricity savings.
Don't take my word for it - the State of California has a very comprehensive on-line worksheet that will calculate how much energy an installation will generate based on your location. It will also give you the numbers about how to finance it, including accounting for lost opportunity cost by tying up your money in the panels. I reviewed the numbers after a year and I actually generated about 2% more electricity than the calculator said I could expect.
I didn't install panels to sell electricity. I installed them because I liked the idea of generating my own electricity, and it because it made good financial sense for me.
You see the economics as dreadful. I (who actually did the math very, very carefully) see the economies are a very good deal. The deal is only sweetened by the reduction in greenhouse gases that my installation triggers.
Frankly, you remind me of a person arguing that it's a bad idea to vote. You are only one person, you can't possibly make a difference, and think of all the lost money with people driving to polling stations and waiting to cast their votes. All true. And all very wrong.
Back in 2003 I decided the time was right to go green. At the time I was paying about $2900 a year for 15,500 KwH, and I figured I could make the money back in a reasonable number of years. After many discussions with local solar installers I picked one and in December 2003 I had 48 panels, each 60 inches by 30 inches, installed on my roof and three inverters on the side of the house to convert the DC output to standard household AC.
The panels generate approximately 7.5kW AC (8.8kW DC). The total cost was $65,000 but with a grant from the State of California and State tax credits, the total cost was reduced to just over $31,000. Since then I have been paying only the minimum price for electricity service (around $5 a month) to cover the cost of the meter rental. As electricity rates have increased a bit (and no doubt will continue to increase) I calculate that I will recover my costs approximately 8 years after installation, and I will then start to save money. The life of the panels should be around 30 to 40 years
It's worth remembering that you need to make certain your roof is good for the years the panels will be operating, so for some it will also mean installing a new roof first. That wasn't an issue for me as I have an ornamental metal tile roof that should last much longer than the panels.
Essentially, I use the power utility as my batteries - during sunny days I generate much more electricity than I use and the excess goes into the grid, and then I use power from the grid on rainy winter days and during nighttime. I get credited for electricity sent to the grid, and yes, the meter really does run backwards.
One neat trick is that I don't have to generate the equivalent of all the energy I use to break even. I'm on a utility company plan where the electricity I use during peak summer times (noon to 6pm) is very expensive - around three times normal rates - but off-peak usage is about 70% of normal rates. But I get credited at the rate in place at the time of day the electricity is generated. Because my installation generates the majority of the electricity during the peak times, I get credited for those KwH at the high rate and when I need to use electricity at night I pay the reduced rate. As an example of how effective this is, last year I generated 12,400 KwH and I also used 3,600 KwH from the utility company. But at the end of the year I had a credit balance of $380.
There's one gotcha there - if you have a debit balance at the end of the year, you have to pay it. But if you have a credit balance, that gets lost. Ideally you want to generate just enough electricity so that your adjusted balance is zero, but that's pretty hard to judge. In any case, you want ample extra capacity just after installation as the panels reduce their efficiency by about 0.5% to 1.0% per year.
The parent post underplays the realities of competition in the Internet.
1. There are a very limited number of tier 1 providers. Does anyone seriously expect that they won't create an informal cabal to implement additional costs wherever they can? There's a reason that the telcos and cable companies have been pourings millions of dollars into lobbying for no net neutrality.
2. The issue is not that consumers will be hit with additional costs, it's that content providers will be hit with more costs. Consumers can't move to another ISP if say, Amazon's web site is slow and expect that site to speed up if the problem is that Amazon hasn't paid higher fees for better service. If Amazon wants to move for better service, see point 1.
3. I fail to see how the parent's comments on bandwidth being plentiful makes a point. If the gatekeepers to that bandwidth are bent on charging higher prices and there's no way to circumvent them, it's not relevant.
4. The parent post suggests that if content providers are charged more, the costs to consumers will drop. In the absence of true competition, that's just naive thinking. The only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, there's no requirement to be fair - only true competition forces a measure of fairness.
what about going into "Get Info" and changing settings sounds "easy" or "intuitive" to you?
Well, the application that opens a file is part of the information about that file, so it seems very natural to use "get info" to discover the app that will open the file, and then change it if necessary. But "easy" is in the eye of the beholder.
It doesn't get easier than it does on a PC. When I need to eject a disk, I press "eject" on the disk drive.
Funny you should mention that. I run 4 PCs and 2 macs in my home office. About a month ago my two year old grand-daughter happened to do just that - press the "eject" on a PC DVD writer. Of course, she was probably attracted to the pretty pulsing light just by the button, as the drive was being used to backup stuff at the time. There are several other advantages to the Mac approach of having software eject the drive. Also, it was a good reminder that everything needs to be up off the floor when there's a youngster around who's in the terrible twos.
Okay... backwards compared to an OS that insists that you put your disks in the trash (the place you put things when you want them deleted) in order to eject them
When you select a disk icon and start to drag it, the trash icon changes to the eject disk icon. You can't put a disk icon in the trash - it's just not possible. You must be thinking of OS9, not OSX.
Everything I've ever installed on Mac OSX has involved an installer except for a tiny few homebrew applications.
Large products (like Microsoft Office, for example) are installed by drag and drop. Try doing that with Office on a Windows system. Drag and drop is the recommended way to install products. I think many developers have been brainwashed by Windows to think that an installer is needed, or perhaps they think that users prefer an installer. In some circumstances an installer is required, but they are not required for most user level applications.
Is there a way in OSX to make it so that every, say, GIF image opens in a particular program?
Yup, just get the file info (command-i) or use the contextual menu or use the standard menu bar item. In the file info there's a simple option ("Open with:") that allows you to select the application for this type of file. It's even easier than Windows.
I can't help wondering if you have actually used OSX very much - or at all.
As I understand it, Apple is only requesting that the page from Apple's copyrighted manual be removed, not the article itself.
I don't know whether fair use applies, but this hardly seems worthy of a Slashdot article. Heck, C-SPAN requesting removal of the recent Colbert video from YouTube (after 500,000+ downloads) on copyright grounds is more deserving of an article.
Oh, wait, it's Apple being accused of something nasty.... that explained it.
Elitism may be out of fashion, but Google is famously elitist when it comes to hiring. It understands that companies begin to slide into mediocrity when they start to hire mediocre people. A-level people want to work with A-level people.
The only problem is that a company cannot thrive longterm with only A-level people. As a software company grows and matures so the average age of the company code base increases, and there's a gradually increasing requirement for maintenance of the older products. A-level people rarely consider their primary task in life is settling in as a maintenance coder on products that are no longer considered to have a substantial "wow" factor.
Having said that, code maintenance can be some of the most demanding work around, as programmers are asked to come up to speed on outdated code they didn't write and make it do things it was never designed to do. But, speaking generally, this isn't considered something that will make you stand out in your company and it's not where A-level people want to be.
Equally well, having everyone take a turn at maintenance doesn't work either. I would imagine that there's few programming tasks worse than taking over code that's been maintained by half a dozen people who only wanted to move on to other things. You probably aren't going to get any of the awards mentioned in the article by burying yourself in old code, regardless how valuable that might be.
There's one significant difference between the nVidia launches this week and the ATI board launched the same day. The nVidia products were available on launch day from on-line stores but the ATI product won't be available for "a few weeks".
It looks like ATI wanted to steal nVidia's thunder by announcing their latest product the same day. The small issue of not actually being able to manufacture their product yet doesn't seem to be very important to them.
'The classic opportunity for our American farmers and entrepreneurs and small businesses to understand is there is a 300 million-person market of middle class citizens here in India, and that if we can make a product they want, that it becomes viable,'
What becomes viable? Almost any manufactured product the Indian middle class want can be made in India less expensively than the US can make it. If the Indians can't do it, the Chinese will do it for them.
I can envisage US companies making products in Asia for sale in Asia, with the profits coming back to the US companies. The only people in the US who will benefit are the owners of the companies who do are successful doing this.
It looks to me like Bush is one more pushing the "increased business profits are good for my friends" line. I'm not sure how the average US citizen will benefit from this strategy.
I understand how media can be obsoleted when players for that media are no longer available. However, it's much more difficult to make a data format unuseable.
Surely that can only occur if the format can only be read by a non-open source application that is only available in binary format and where the hardware to run that program becomes unavailable. I suppose it could also happen if the media you use for your iTunes storage becomes obsolete and you don't remember to copy your music to another media format.
I think a billion downloads (and counting) will ensure that iTunes music will remain playable for a long time to come and will sound just as good then as it does now.
It's difficult to take seriously any article written under the byline "Bonhomie Snoutintroff".
The Register is a British publication, and it's very likely the author is British also - the author's bio doesn't state his nationality. I guess this Brit feels he (or she) is a really good judge of American lawyers and the American legal system, and this places him in a good position to comment meaningfully on the merits of the actions taken by the EFF. (How many American journalists have an intimate understanding of the British courts, sufficient to write about British legal practice?)
The author also seems to be privy to the inner workings of the EFF and feels qualified to judge the merits of each case cited in the article. Or possibly he has some sort of axe to grind. It's hard to know where to start correcting his comments, and frankly it isn't worth it taking the time.
The article is a piece of garbage and fully worthy of being published in the Register.
I was in the Metropolitan Police from 1983 to 1989. Most of that time I was a constable in C Division (West End Central, Savile Row). My divisional number was C118. C Division is quite busy - it runs from Charing Cross Road on the East to Park Lane on the West, from Oxford Street in the north to Picadilly in the south. In the divisional patch is Picadilly Circus, Leicester Square, China Town (Gerard St), Soho and Shepherds Market (both red light areas), Regent Street, Bond Street and the south side of Oxford Street (all major shopping areas), several embassies (including the Unites States embassy), numerous large hotels (lots of crime there), and a number of night clubs. In 1988 I was posted to the Police National Computer Unit in Hendon as a force liason officer, caught the computer bug there, and switched careers a year later. Satisfied?
First of all, I speak as ex-police officer. The parent post shows a serious lack of knowledge of this crime and British policing.
According to press reports, the two police officers were attending a report of a disturbance. There was no information that this was an armed robbery in progress, and the police women just happened to be the closest officers. Please remember that most city policing in Britain is done by cops on foot walking the streets with inimate knowledge of their beat area; not by remote seeming individuals running around in cars. For example, in the division that I last worked, we had 29 foot patrols and 4 vehicle patrols - which isn't to say that there aren't other vehicles around (traffic division cars, tactical patrol group, special patrol group, vice, Criminal Investigation, etc.)
Gun crimes are rare in Britain - there is no legal way for any individual to own a gun and there are stiff penalties (like jail) just for possession. Having a gun is considered a more serious crime than having drugs. If a police officer suspects that they may be faced by a person with a gun they have only to use their radio and armed officers will be on their way within seconds - literally. Guns are available at all police stations, and many (perhaps most these days) police officers are trained in using them.
In five years as a police officer, including over 1,000 arrests, I was never faced by anyone with a gun, and I can only recall a handful of times that officers had to call for backup because of suspected gun use. However, I was faced by knive wielding people six times and five times I disarmed them without injury to either of us. The first time I was faced by a man with a knife I wasn't quick enough and received a cut to the back of my hand that needed ten stitches, and the knife wielder received six years in prison.
According to all press reports, the policewomen involved in this incident did have body armor. However, body armor doesn't stop all bullet types, and there are bullet types specifically designed to penetrate such armor. The principle reason that most officers wear body armor is to protect themselves from knives, a much bigger threat than guns. Of course, this doesn't apply to all officers, those who carry guns (diplomatic protection group, anti-terrorist group, special patrol group, royal family protection officers, etc.) expect to face guns and wear appropriate protection.
Police work can never be totally safe. In Britain approximately one officer a year dies in the line of duty. However, the most common cause of death is being run over by a vehicle, deliberately or accidentally. Over the last 30 years, 12 officers have died to gunfire, and three of those were in a single incident in London.
British police value the fact they are generally unarmed. It makes the general public feel less intimidated by officers, and there is a general sense of public cooperation with the police that far exceeds that of countries where the police are armed. There have been many strident calls to routinely arm the British police, but very few of these calls have been from police officers. I think that arming British police would fundementally change the way that the British police interact with the public and cause more incidents (such as the case where over-eager officers shot and killed a suspected terrorist in the London underground, and subsequently found out that the man was merely an electrician on his way to work with no terrorist connections at all.) It would also make criminals more eager to carry guns and more willing to use them.
These two policewomen were just unlucky. A routine incident turned deadly. It happens, but it's pretty infrequent. Rules should not be based on very rare incidents.
The parent post asks why the car was allowed to travel all the way from Bradford to London. I don't know, but a number of possibilities come to mind. The most likely reason in my mind is that there was not a suitable location to isolate and take the
Slashdot Mirror
As an ex-police officer, I have to say that the parent is right on target. As soon as a situation became confused, everything would go downhill FAST. With a lot of concealed weapons around, I don't want to think how many innocents would be maimed or killed in a year given the number of altercations that occur in any large city.
(I have a story about how an irate woman went after a man whom she believed had stolen her cat. Only problem was the man's cat was male and the lost cat was female. The woman ended up in prison for breaking the windows in the man's house and his car's windshield. If she had had a gun...)
Does it matter when an item is invented? If the AK47 design wasn't patented back in the 1940s (remember that in the Soviet communist state everything belonged to the state anyway) then presumably the 1999 patent would be valid.
I guess that if Russia is expected to uphold IP rights, the rest of the world should abide by Russian patents. I doubt that anyone in Russia is interested in collecting money from desperately poor third-world countries - this would be aimed at the somewhat richer countries that manufacture these weapons and sell them to all comers.
There was a reboot required after installing this patch. Seriously, very few security patches don't require a restart - it's in the nature of the beast. Personally, I'm surprised when a restart isn't required after a system level update on Windows, Mac or Linux. FYI, there was a notification up front that a reboot would be required.
I'm somewhat amazed that you are complaining - but I guess you needed to complain about something.
I have 48 x 185 watt panels connected to three Sunny Boy 2500u inverters which are connected to a Sunny Boy Control using RS422. The Sunny Boy Control is connected to a PC using an RS232 serial line.
The Sunny Boy Control is set to collect data from the inverters every 5 minutes. It stores AC power generated at that instant, cumulated AC power generated that day, DC voltage and current into each inverter from the panels, AC current out, any errors that turn up, and some other useful and useless information. I have an automated task to dump the data from the Sunny Boy Control into the PC daily.
I don't know what is causing the drop-off. However, I do have solar energy system that was installed in 2003. I was not required to install a time of use meter (the E7 tariff in California) but I moved to that tariff because it makes great sense.
The normal baseline rate for electricity on the standard residential tariff (E1) is 11.4 cents/kWh rising to 36.4 cents/kWh for usage over 300% of baseline. On the E7 tariff, during summer peak time (noon to 6pm) the baseline cost is 29.4 cents/kWh rising to 52.8 cents/kWh for over 300% of baseline usage. However, off-peak cost is 8.6 cents/kWh to 32.1 cents/kWh at 300% usage.
What do all these numbers mean? My solar array generates a high percentage of the total amount of electricity generated during peak time. I know this because a data monitor was installed on my solar array and I have detailed numbers on the performance of the panels and inverters. I think it was well worth the $1500 additional cost.
Bottom line: last year I used 16,345 KWh of electricity, 12,096 kWh generated by the solar panels and 4,249 provided by the utility company. However, I ended the year $191 in credit with the utility. This is because they credit me at the current rate when I send electricity back into the grid, and I'm delivering electricity at the time when I get the highest credit, and I'm using electricity at night when the price is lowest. So, last year I received 4,249 kWh of electricity from the utility that I didn't have to pay for. Without the E7 tariff I would have received ~$1,200 less credit for peak time generation and I would have paid ~$160 more for the electricity I did use.
Obviously, mileage will vary for different installations. For me, time of use has been, and continues to be, a great financial benefit. It also contributes to home comfort: I sent my home thermostat to a minimum of 72 degrees and a maximum of 76 degrees, and that's how the thermostat stays 24/7 all year. Extravagant maybe, because I could have saved more electricity with different thermostat settings, but I like my comfort. And saving electricity doesn't do me any good because all it gives me is a larger credit with the utility company (and I can't convert that to cash).
Don't anthropomorphize robots - they don't like it.
You really need to read the article again.
The writer says that the Member of Parliament who broke the news (that International Olympic Committee chose VISA for IT security) doesn't see why the British Government should pay one billion pounds for security. Presumably because they didn't select the contractor. I don't see where you get the idea that Visa is paying for security - they are profiting from their investment in sponsoring the games by being paid to handle IT security.
I don't know if Visa is qualified or not. They certainly have made some less than stellar business choices in allowing a certain level of fraud in their normal business so long it doesn't impact profits unduly.
But that's not the point. The Olympic Games are a significant terrorist target, and the business of protecting them should be awarded on the basis of best and most suitable technology. The article points out a couple of technologies that might be useful but were not considered because they are marketed by companies who are not sponsors. That is flat wrong.
Is the best you can do some questionable rumor from 7 years ago?
I find "Butler" to be very useful. It's a free application (although I donated) and you can set up many aspects of your Mac easily. And it's been around long enough to be well tested.
For me, a Terminal window is control + apple + t, safari is control + apple + s, the calculator is control + apple + c, my editor is control + apple + e. You get the idea. It shouldn't take an experienced user more than 10 minutes to install and configure simple keyboard shortcuts. More complex things might take a little longer, but it's not a biggie.
Surprisingly for an emerging technology, costs seem have risen somewhat since I installed my panels in 2003. A quick online check shows that panels are actually about 10-15% more now, which is not what I expected. In 2003, the installed cost was about $8400 per kW, but based on panel costs I'd suggest allowing $9,000 per kW at least now.
My installer was http://www.skypowersystems.com/ - their work and attention to detail was fantastic, but the company has changed ownership since my install was completed. I'd also suggest checking out http://www.regrid.com/ which was my second choice. I have a lot more information about how I selected solar which I would be happy to share with you. If you write to me at watt9999@mac.com (that's a temporary email address) I'll be happy to help in any way I can.
Nope, I didn't bother with computing the lost opportunity cost - mostly because in the long run I considered the lost opportunity of getting solar power installed is much greater. And your 7% return is not correct as it doesn't take into account my marginal rate of taxation which would reduce the ROI to under 4%.
As an alternative, I could have paid for my installation without laying out any of my own money by taking out a mortgage loan and repaying the loan out of the savings. This works rather well because this is a home improvement so the interest is tax deductible.
You should look at the tariff book before saying that 18c/kwh is high. Here's the price where I live:
Baseline: 11.34c
101%-130%: 12.98c
131%-200%: 22.94c
201%-300%: 32.14c
over 300%: 36.96c
Baseline usage is 11.9 kwh per day in summer, 12.6 kwh in winter.
For me, before I installed the panels I was regularly running into the "over 300%" category, and that was one of the reasons that solar made sense for my particular situation.
Also, I didn't spend $65k on the installation, I spent $31k. If you take out a loan for this amount, you can pay it back entirely out of the electricity savings.
Don't take my word for it - the State of California has a very comprehensive on-line worksheet that will calculate how much energy an installation will generate based on your location. It will also give you the numbers about how to finance it, including accounting for lost opportunity cost by tying up your money in the panels. I reviewed the numbers after a year and I actually generated about 2% more electricity than the calculator said I could expect.
I didn't install panels to sell electricity. I installed them because I liked the idea of generating my own electricity, and it because it made good financial sense for me.
You see the economics as dreadful. I (who actually did the math very, very carefully) see the economies are a very good deal. The deal is only sweetened by the reduction in greenhouse gases that my installation triggers.
Frankly, you remind me of a person arguing that it's a bad idea to vote. You are only one person, you can't possibly make a difference, and think of all the lost money with people driving to polling stations and waiting to cast their votes. All true. And all very wrong.
Back in 2003 I decided the time was right to go green. At the time I was paying about $2900 a year for 15,500 KwH, and I figured I could make the money back in a reasonable number of years. After many discussions with local solar installers I picked one and in December 2003 I had 48 panels, each 60 inches by 30 inches, installed on my roof and three inverters on the side of the house to convert the DC output to standard household AC.
The panels generate approximately 7.5kW AC (8.8kW DC). The total cost was $65,000 but with a grant from the State of California and State tax credits, the total cost was reduced to just over $31,000. Since then I have been paying only the minimum price for electricity service (around $5 a month) to cover the cost of the meter rental. As electricity rates have increased a bit (and no doubt will continue to increase) I calculate that I will recover my costs approximately 8 years after installation, and I will then start to save money. The life of the panels should be around 30 to 40 years
It's worth remembering that you need to make certain your roof is good for the years the panels will be operating, so for some it will also mean installing a new roof first. That wasn't an issue for me as I have an ornamental metal tile roof that should last much longer than the panels.
Essentially, I use the power utility as my batteries - during sunny days I generate much more electricity than I use and the excess goes into the grid, and then I use power from the grid on rainy winter days and during nighttime. I get credited for electricity sent to the grid, and yes, the meter really does run backwards.
One neat trick is that I don't have to generate the equivalent of all the energy I use to break even. I'm on a utility company plan where the electricity I use during peak summer times (noon to 6pm) is very expensive - around three times normal rates - but off-peak usage is about 70% of normal rates. But I get credited at the rate in place at the time of day the electricity is generated. Because my installation generates the majority of the electricity during the peak times, I get credited for those KwH at the high rate and when I need to use electricity at night I pay the reduced rate. As an example of how effective this is, last year I generated 12,400 KwH and I also used 3,600 KwH from the utility company. But at the end of the year I had a credit balance of $380.
There's one gotcha there - if you have a debit balance at the end of the year, you have to pay it. But if you have a credit balance, that gets lost. Ideally you want to generate just enough electricity so that your adjusted balance is zero, but that's pretty hard to judge. In any case, you want ample extra capacity just after installation as the panels reduce their efficiency by about 0.5% to 1.0% per year.
The parent post underplays the realities of competition in the Internet.
1. There are a very limited number of tier 1 providers. Does anyone seriously expect that they won't create an informal cabal to implement additional costs wherever they can? There's a reason that the telcos and cable companies have been pourings millions of dollars into lobbying for no net neutrality.
2. The issue is not that consumers will be hit with additional costs, it's that content providers will be hit with more costs. Consumers can't move to another ISP if say, Amazon's web site is slow and expect that site to speed up if the problem is that Amazon hasn't paid higher fees for better service. If Amazon wants to move for better service, see point 1.
3. I fail to see how the parent's comments on bandwidth being plentiful makes a point. If the gatekeepers to that bandwidth are bent on charging higher prices and there's no way to circumvent them, it's not relevant.
4. The parent post suggests that if content providers are charged more, the costs to consumers will drop. In the absence of true competition, that's just naive thinking. The only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, there's no requirement to be fair - only true competition forces a measure of fairness.
Well, the application that opens a file is part of the information about that file, so it seems very natural to use "get info" to discover the app that will open the file, and then change it if necessary. But "easy" is in the eye of the beholder.
It doesn't get easier than it does on a PC. When I need to eject a disk, I press "eject" on the disk drive.
Funny you should mention that. I run 4 PCs and 2 macs in my home office. About a month ago my two year old grand-daughter happened to do just that - press the "eject" on a PC DVD writer. Of course, she was probably attracted to the pretty pulsing light just by the button, as the drive was being used to backup stuff at the time. There are several other advantages to the Mac approach of having software eject the drive. Also, it was a good reminder that everything needs to be up off the floor when there's a youngster around who's in the terrible twos.
When you select a disk icon and start to drag it, the trash icon changes to the eject disk icon. You can't put a disk icon in the trash - it's just not possible. You must be thinking of OS9, not OSX.
Everything I've ever installed on Mac OSX has involved an installer except for a tiny few homebrew applications.
Large products (like Microsoft Office, for example) are installed by drag and drop. Try doing that with Office on a Windows system. Drag and drop is the recommended way to install products. I think many developers have been brainwashed by Windows to think that an installer is needed, or perhaps they think that users prefer an installer. In some circumstances an installer is required, but they are not required for most user level applications.
Is there a way in OSX to make it so that every, say, GIF image opens in a particular program?
Yup, just get the file info (command-i) or use the contextual menu or use the standard menu bar item. In the file info there's a simple option ("Open with:") that allows you to select the application for this type of file. It's even easier than Windows.
I can't help wondering if you have actually used OSX very much - or at all.
As I understand it, Apple is only requesting that the page from Apple's copyrighted manual be removed, not the article itself.
I don't know whether fair use applies, but this hardly seems worthy of a Slashdot article. Heck, C-SPAN requesting removal of the recent Colbert video from YouTube (after 500,000+ downloads) on copyright grounds is more deserving of an article.
Oh, wait, it's Apple being accused of something nasty.... that explained it.
Elitism may be out of fashion, but Google is famously elitist when it comes to hiring. It understands that companies begin to slide into mediocrity when they start to hire mediocre people. A-level people want to work with A-level people.
The only problem is that a company cannot thrive longterm with only A-level people. As a software company grows and matures so the average age of the company code base increases, and there's a gradually increasing requirement for maintenance of the older products. A-level people rarely consider their primary task in life is settling in as a maintenance coder on products that are no longer considered to have a substantial "wow" factor.
Having said that, code maintenance can be some of the most demanding work around, as programmers are asked to come up to speed on outdated code they didn't write and make it do things it was never designed to do. But, speaking generally, this isn't considered something that will make you stand out in your company and it's not where A-level people want to be.
Equally well, having everyone take a turn at maintenance doesn't work either. I would imagine that there's few programming tasks worse than taking over code that's been maintained by half a dozen people who only wanted to move on to other things. You probably aren't going to get any of the awards mentioned in the article by burying yourself in old code, regardless how valuable that might be.
There's one significant difference between the nVidia launches this week and the ATI board launched the same day. The nVidia products were available on launch day from on-line stores but the ATI product won't be available for "a few weeks".
It looks like ATI wanted to steal nVidia's thunder by announcing their latest product the same day. The small issue of not actually being able to manufacture their product yet doesn't seem to be very important to them.
What becomes viable? Almost any manufactured product the Indian middle class want can be made in India less expensively than the US can make it. If the Indians can't do it, the Chinese will do it for them.
I can envisage US companies making products in Asia for sale in Asia, with the profits coming back to the US companies. The only people in the US who will benefit are the owners of the companies who do are successful doing this.
It looks to me like Bush is one more pushing the "increased business profits are good for my friends" line. I'm not sure how the average US citizen will benefit from this strategy.
I understand how media can be obsoleted when players for that media are no longer available. However, it's much more difficult to make a data format unuseable.
Surely that can only occur if the format can only be read by a non-open source application that is only available in binary format and where the hardware to run that program becomes unavailable. I suppose it could also happen if the media you use for your iTunes storage becomes obsolete and you don't remember to copy your music to another media format.
I think a billion downloads (and counting) will ensure that iTunes music will remain playable for a long time to come and will sound just as good then as it does now.
It's difficult to take seriously any article written under the byline "Bonhomie Snoutintroff".
The Register is a British publication, and it's very likely the author is British also - the author's bio doesn't state his nationality. I guess this Brit feels he (or she) is a really good judge of American lawyers and the American legal system, and this places him in a good position to comment meaningfully on the merits of the actions taken by the EFF. (How many American journalists have an intimate understanding of the British courts, sufficient to write about British legal practice?)
The author also seems to be privy to the inner workings of the EFF and feels qualified to judge the merits of each case cited in the article. Or possibly he has some sort of axe to grind. It's hard to know where to start correcting his comments, and frankly it isn't worth it taking the time.
The article is a piece of garbage and fully worthy of being published in the Register.
It occurs to me that only the illegal drug and software industries call their customers "users".
I was in the Metropolitan Police from 1983 to 1989. Most of that time I was a constable in C Division (West End Central, Savile Row). My divisional number was C118. C Division is quite busy - it runs from Charing Cross Road on the East to Park Lane on the West, from Oxford Street in the north to Picadilly in the south. In the divisional patch is Picadilly Circus, Leicester Square, China Town (Gerard St), Soho and Shepherds Market (both red light areas), Regent Street, Bond Street and the south side of Oxford Street (all major shopping areas), several embassies (including the Unites States embassy), numerous large hotels (lots of crime there), and a number of night clubs. In 1988 I was posted to the Police National Computer Unit in Hendon as a force liason officer, caught the computer bug there, and switched careers a year later. Satisfied?
First of all, I speak as ex-police officer. The parent post shows a serious lack of knowledge of this crime and British policing.
According to press reports, the two police officers were attending a report of a disturbance. There was no information that this was an armed robbery in progress, and the police women just happened to be the closest officers. Please remember that most city policing in Britain is done by cops on foot walking the streets with inimate knowledge of their beat area; not by remote seeming individuals running around in cars. For example, in the division that I last worked, we had 29 foot patrols and 4 vehicle patrols - which isn't to say that there aren't other vehicles around (traffic division cars, tactical patrol group, special patrol group, vice, Criminal Investigation, etc.)
Gun crimes are rare in Britain - there is no legal way for any individual to own a gun and there are stiff penalties (like jail) just for possession. Having a gun is considered a more serious crime than having drugs. If a police officer suspects that they may be faced by a person with a gun they have only to use their radio and armed officers will be on their way within seconds - literally. Guns are available at all police stations, and many (perhaps most these days) police officers are trained in using them.
In five years as a police officer, including over 1,000 arrests, I was never faced by anyone with a gun, and I can only recall a handful of times that officers had to call for backup because of suspected gun use. However, I was faced by knive wielding people six times and five times I disarmed them without injury to either of us. The first time I was faced by a man with a knife I wasn't quick enough and received a cut to the back of my hand that needed ten stitches, and the knife wielder received six years in prison.
According to all press reports, the policewomen involved in this incident did have body armor. However, body armor doesn't stop all bullet types, and there are bullet types specifically designed to penetrate such armor. The principle reason that most officers wear body armor is to protect themselves from knives, a much bigger threat than guns. Of course, this doesn't apply to all officers, those who carry guns (diplomatic protection group, anti-terrorist group, special patrol group, royal family protection officers, etc.) expect to face guns and wear appropriate protection.
Police work can never be totally safe. In Britain approximately one officer a year dies in the line of duty. However, the most common cause of death is being run over by a vehicle, deliberately or accidentally. Over the last 30 years, 12 officers have died to gunfire, and three of those were in a single incident in London.
British police value the fact they are generally unarmed. It makes the general public feel less intimidated by officers, and there is a general sense of public cooperation with the police that far exceeds that of countries where the police are armed. There have been many strident calls to routinely arm the British police, but very few of these calls have been from police officers. I think that arming British police would fundementally change the way that the British police interact with the public and cause more incidents (such as the case where over-eager officers shot and killed a suspected terrorist in the London underground, and subsequently found out that the man was merely an electrician on his way to work with no terrorist connections at all.) It would also make criminals more eager to carry guns and more willing to use them.
These two policewomen were just unlucky. A routine incident turned deadly. It happens, but it's pretty infrequent. Rules should not be based on very rare incidents.
The parent post asks why the car was allowed to travel all the way from Bradford to London. I don't know, but a number of possibilities come to mind. The most likely reason in my mind is that there was not a suitable location to isolate and take the