Lets use some German numbers. They have an installed solar capacity of 38.124 GW. In January 2014 they produced about 800GWh of electricity. With even 5 hours of sunlight they should have produced 5.8TWh. That means that the actual production is only 14% of installed capacity. The average household electricity usage in Germany is 3,612KWh/r. With a 20% premium for heating in winter we come up with 12 KWh/day. So you would need 12,000/10 watts/square foot / 5 hours / 12% efficiency = 50,000 square feet of panel. That is a lot of pannel.
Not such a good idea if "giving it a go" means electricity bills that are not affordable by a significant portion of the population and days where all electricity is shut off. Risking a country's economy on "a go" is not good policy.
. The problem is that you cannot predict how much will be produced with renewable.
The issue is not predictability but dispatch ability. One can predict pretty well how much electricity will be produces using weather forecasts and dawn/dusk calculations. A problem is that this will only tell you when renewables will run short. The main problem is that one can not adjust the inputs to compensate for these shortfalls. That is where dispatch ability comes in. With conventional generators one can, within limits, turn up production. One can not turn up the sun or wind.
The round trip efficiency of hydrogen storage is only 30% to 50%. That means that you would have to put in two to three times the energy that you get out. In the base of that electricity stored in hydrogen will cost 2 to 3 times as much a usual. Secondly hydrogen is difficult to store in large quantities. It leaks through solid steel and unless cryogenicly stored has a very low energy density.
We are talking about winter months where solar will only generate about 10-15% of what it does in summer. That means three months where there may not be enough electricity produced. Houses are not the only user of electricity. There are business, industry, streetlights, etc. It would take billions of dollars worth of batteries to store a few days worth of power.
Whether or not the public have access to public records is up to the public to decide.
Take a look at the laws surrounding public records. There are several instances where records that are held by public agencies are not required to be available to the public. Here is an exerpt from the Washington Law;
RCW 42.56.050 Invasion of privacy, when.
A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Sorry but a poloce officer talking to a drunk on the sidewalk is not "of legitimate concern to the public". Look at this whole list of exemptions.
However, I think there is nothing wrong with the public going fishing for government malfeasance.
Some people would also use the same access to fish for things to use against the civilians in the the videos.
If somebody doesn't want the public looking over his shoulder all the time, the being an armed public servant is the wrong job for that person.
You forget that it is not only the police in the video but the public as well. As I have said, the civilian in the video, unless it is being used in an investigation, that should have control over whether or not it is public.
I don't believe that public servants spend much time in private situations while on the job.
Police deal with people at their worst moments. Do you really believe turning that into "America's Funniest Cop Videos" is a good idea.
And if we need special teams of police who are assigned to go into people's homes, when invited, without camera, never without a witness, then maybe we should arrange for that.
That is a completely unworkable idea. Situations happen too quickly. Some police forces are too small to handle that. For example Poulsbo has a total of 17 police officers. Any video inside a home should be considered private. Cameras are also important in every situation. Whether or not the video is released is the issue.
If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen,...
Maybe you are "concerned" with things have noting to do with you. There is a fine line between "concerned citizen" and busybody.
And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.
Sorry but everyone is not like you. The civilian in the video should be the one to say whether or not it is public.
If there is an issue then ask for a specific video. It is unreasonable to demand every second of video taken by police. There are privacy concerns. Some of that video is taken in private situation.
First, laws like the freedom of information act refer to federal institutions,
Most jurisdictions have some sort of FOI legislation. I Washington State it is the Public Records Act
Second, someone has to classify the police video as 'public records'.
From the quoted law;
"Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.
From that it appears that police video would be Public Record in Washington.
Additionally, 3 years to provide the video is complete bullcrap, and I think anyone even remotely involved would understand that. Unless they really are thinking they need to get consent forms from every person.
So someone has to review every piece of video for every officer on the force to ensure that the video is not exempt from being released. There are 17 officers and probably 5 police cars in the Poulsbo police force. Say 5 officers on a shift that would mean that up to 120 hours per day or a total of 43000 hours of video to review. That takes a lot of time even for a dedicated person to do. Then any possible denial would have to be reviewed again by a lawyer to ensure that it is outside the request. Three years to review 24 hour video from ten sources is lot that much time.
What the PD should do is setup a youtube-ish site with the raw video...
Are you kidding me? That would be a video feed for every on duty police officer and police car in service. That is a lot of video, a lot of bandwidth and a lot of costs.
See even if the videos are being recorded their will be no review or punishment for cops violating civil rights if the victim doesn't come forward (and they might not want to because of what is recorded).
As with all issues this is a question of balance. I see the need for privacy of all the people who do not want their interactions with the police to be public as far outweighing the possibility that some police violations might go unpunished. Nothing is perfect and compromises are always needed.
Other than the Australian convicts most explorers planned on returning. Even the ones that did not want to come back expected to be able to if they had to.
Most colonists took what they thought they would need and expected to be able to survive off the things they found in the new land. Sometimes it did not work and the colony failed. In most cases if the colony survived a few years it never failed. Any Mars expedition would be reliant on the Earth for many decades if not centuries. A settlement on Mars is much better described as an outpost rather than a colony. It would not be self sufficient and would die if a couple of re-supply missions did not get through.
The other difference is that colonists expected to be able to trade for products from the old country. They sent back food, furs, gold, etc and added to the economy of the Old World. That is not going to happen as there is nothing on Mars that would justify the expense of getting it back to Earth. Rather than being an addition to the economy a Mars settlement would just be a money pit. Keep spending money to support people on Mars to do things that can be done for much lower costs by robots.
Another major difference is that the cost of failure is so much higher. In the age of sail it would have been at most a few ships, a few people and some supplies. That would have been the equivalent of maybe $50M. A failure on Mars would cost tens of billions of dollars. The scale is much different
Personally, I think it's great that there are people dumb/crazy/brave enough to try to accomplish this outside of whatever the ossified system is.
Sure "dumb/crazy/brave" can be a good thing at times but when you bamboozle hundreds of thousands of people into giving you money for something that is obviously not possible it becomes a scam.
I'm sure Linus was told by plenty of people "You can't develop a better operating system like this!
There's the rub. Linus improved on something that had already been done. Unix had already been created. So far no one has sent a person 54 million kilometers to a place with negligible atmosphere, no protection from cosmic rays and asked them to survive. The difference is many orders of magnitude.
So what? Whining that it's hard and and that someone wants to do it some other way than the "true way" sounds like MORE bullshit designed to protect the chosen ones than any real criticism.
Calling colonizing Mars "hard" is like calling faster than light travel "a bit difficult". I am not saying there is a true way. I, and the author, are saying that Mars 1 has done almost nothing to deal with the technology needed to get to or live on Mars. All they have is hand waving and faith. There are huge scientific and economic hurdles a Mars colony would have to get over that Mars 1 has not even acknowledged exists.
Prior to 9/11, they were carried out by "airport police" who were employed by the airport. Now they are carried out by federal employees. That's the difference.
You are so paranoid about the federal government that any employee is considered bad. Good to know.
They used to.
Almost right. from this article'
The airline that had operational control of the departure concourse controlled by a given checkpoint would hold that contract. Although an airline would control the operation of a checkpoint, oversight authority was held by the FAA. C.F.R. Title 14 restrictions did not permit a relevant airport authority to exercise any oversight over checkpoint operations.
While private companies provided the people and the arlines provided operational control they still had to follow FAA policy. The policy is what telles them exactly what to do so who is doing it does not matter.
Slashdot Mirror
And quite often you have too much which causes wind generators to shut down.
Lets use some German numbers. They have an installed solar capacity of 38.124 GW. In January 2014 they produced about 800GWh of electricity. With even 5 hours of sunlight they should have produced 5.8TWh. That means that the actual production is only 14% of installed capacity. The average household electricity usage in Germany is 3,612KWh/r. With a 20% premium for heating in winter we come up with 12 KWh/day. So you would need 12,000/10 watts/square foot / 5 hours / 12% efficiency = 50,000 square feet of panel. That is a lot of pannel.
Not such a good idea if "giving it a go" means electricity bills that are not affordable by a significant portion of the population and days where all electricity is shut off. Risking a country's economy on "a go" is not good policy.
. The problem is that you cannot predict how much will be produced with renewable.
The issue is not predictability but dispatch ability. One can predict pretty well how much electricity will be produces using weather forecasts and dawn/dusk calculations. A problem is that this will only tell you when renewables will run short. The main problem is that one can not adjust the inputs to compensate for these shortfalls. That is where dispatch ability comes in. With conventional generators one can, within limits, turn up production. One can not turn up the sun or wind.
The round trip efficiency of hydrogen storage is only 30% to 50%. That means that you would have to put in two to three times the energy that you get out. In the base of that electricity stored in hydrogen will cost 2 to 3 times as much a usual.
Secondly hydrogen is difficult to store in large quantities. It leaks through solid steel and unless cryogenicly stored has a very low energy density.
Denmark will just start importing more fossil fuel bassed electricity than they do now.
We are talking about winter months where solar will only generate about 10-15% of what it does in summer. That means three months where there may not be enough electricity produced.
Houses are not the only user of electricity. There are business, industry, streetlights, etc. It would take billions of dollars worth of batteries to store a few days worth of power.
Whether or not the public have access to public records is up to the public to decide.
Take a look at the laws surrounding public records. There are several instances where records that are held by public agencies are not required to be available to the public. Here is an exerpt from the Washington Law;
RCW 42.56.050
Invasion of privacy, when.
A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Sorry but a poloce officer talking to a drunk on the sidewalk is not "of legitimate concern to the public". Look at this whole list of exemptions.
However, I think there is nothing wrong with the public going fishing for government malfeasance.
Some people would also use the same access to fish for things to use against the civilians in the the videos.
If somebody doesn't want the public looking over his shoulder all the time, the being an armed public servant is the wrong job for that person.
You forget that it is not only the police in the video but the public as well. As I have said, the civilian in the video, unless it is being used in an investigation, that should have control over whether or not it is public.
I don't believe that public servants spend much time in private situations while on the job.
Police deal with people at their worst moments. Do you really believe turning that into "America's Funniest Cop Videos" is a good idea.
And if we need special teams of police who are assigned to go into people's homes, when invited, without camera, never without a witness, then maybe we should arrange for that.
That is a completely unworkable idea. Situations happen too quickly. Some police forces are too small to handle that. For example Poulsbo has a total of 17 police officers. Any video inside a home should be considered private. Cameras are also important in every situation. Whether or not the video is released is the issue.
Both. The former is a fishing expedition and the latter is an invasion of privacy.
If you'll explain how I, as a concerned citizen,...
Maybe you are "concerned" with things have noting to do with you. There is a fine line between "concerned citizen" and busybody.
And yes, if I'm naked on the toilet and a cop busts in, I'm okay with that footage being released because I believe being able to prove whether the cop behaved properly is worth it.
Sorry but everyone is not like you. The civilian in the video should be the one to say whether or not it is public.
Thus, police departments had better stop co-mingling releasable and non-releasable records and portions thereof.
How to you segment a video feed from an officer's camera when the officer move from public to private situations at any time?
If there is an issue then ask for a specific video. It is unreasonable to demand every second of video taken by police. There are privacy concerns. Some of that video is taken in private situation.
Sorry but false xor false is still false.
Cheating is always wrong
First, laws like the freedom of information act refer to federal institutions,
Most jurisdictions have some sort of FOI legislation. I Washington State it is the Public Records Act
Second, someone has to classify the police video as 'public records'.
From the quoted law;
"Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.
From that it appears that police video would be Public Record in Washington.
Additionally, 3 years to provide the video is complete bullcrap, and I think anyone even remotely involved would understand that. Unless they really are thinking they need to get consent forms from every person.
So someone has to review every piece of video for every officer on the force to ensure that the video is not exempt from being released. There are 17 officers and probably 5 police cars in the Poulsbo police force. Say 5 officers on a shift that would mean that up to 120 hours per day or a total of 43000 hours of video to review. That takes a lot of time even for a dedicated person to do. Then any possible denial would have to be reviewed again by a lawyer to ensure that it is outside the request. Three years to review 24 hour video from ten sources is lot that much time.
What the PD should do is setup a youtube-ish site with the raw video...
Are you kidding me? That would be a video feed for every on duty police officer and police car in service. That is a lot of video, a lot of bandwidth and a lot of costs.
See even if the videos are being recorded their will be no review or punishment for cops violating civil rights if the victim doesn't come forward (and they might not want to because of what is recorded).
As with all issues this is a question of balance. I see the need for privacy of all the people who do not want their interactions with the police to be public as far outweighing the possibility that some police violations might go unpunished. Nothing is perfect and compromises are always needed.
No, as the law enforcement officer would be in your employ and therefore and video is not related to his law enforcement job.
Some couldn't return
Other than the Australian convicts most explorers planned on returning. Even the ones that did not want to come back expected to be able to if they had to.
Most colonists took what they thought they would need and expected to be able to survive off the things they found in the new land. Sometimes it did not work and the colony failed. In most cases if the colony survived a few years it never failed. Any Mars expedition would be reliant on the Earth for many decades if not centuries. A settlement on Mars is much better described as an outpost rather than a colony. It would not be self sufficient and would die if a couple of re-supply missions did not get through.
The other difference is that colonists expected to be able to trade for products from the old country. They sent back food, furs, gold, etc and added to the economy of the Old World. That is not going to happen as there is nothing on Mars that would justify the expense of getting it back to Earth. Rather than being an addition to the economy a Mars settlement would just be a money pit. Keep spending money to support people on Mars to do things that can be done for much lower costs by robots.
Another major difference is that the cost of failure is so much higher. In the age of sail it would have been at most a few ships, a few people and some supplies. That would have been the equivalent of maybe $50M. A failure on Mars would cost tens of billions of dollars. The scale is much different
Even early voyagers has some hope of returning. Mars1 is a one way trip.
Personally, I think it's great that there are people dumb/crazy/brave enough to try to accomplish this outside of whatever the ossified system is.
Sure "dumb/crazy/brave" can be a good thing at times but when you bamboozle hundreds of thousands of people into giving you money for something that is obviously not possible it becomes a scam.
I'm sure Linus was told by plenty of people "You can't develop a better operating system like this!
There's the rub. Linus improved on something that had already been done. Unix had already been created. So far no one has sent a person 54 million kilometers to a place with negligible atmosphere, no protection from cosmic rays and asked them to survive. The difference is many orders of magnitude.
So what? Whining that it's hard and and that someone wants to do it some other way than the "true way" sounds like MORE bullshit designed to protect the chosen ones than any real criticism.
Calling colonizing Mars "hard" is like calling faster than light travel "a bit difficult". I am not saying there is a true way. I, and the author, are saying that Mars 1 has done almost nothing to deal with the technology needed to get to or live on Mars. All they have is hand waving and faith. There are huge scientific and economic hurdles a Mars colony would have to get over that Mars 1 has not even acknowledged exists.
So if those with money or political influence can cheat, poorer students ask, why shouldn't they?"
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Prior to 9/11, they were carried out by "airport police" who were employed by the airport. Now they are carried out by federal employees. That's the difference.
You are so paranoid about the federal government that any employee is considered bad. Good to know.
They used to.
Almost right.
from this article'
The airline that had operational control of the departure concourse controlled by a given checkpoint would hold that contract. Although an airline would control the operation of a checkpoint, oversight authority was held by the FAA. C.F.R. Title 14 restrictions did not permit a relevant airport authority to exercise any oversight over checkpoint operations.
While private companies provided the people and the arlines provided operational control they still had to follow FAA policy. The policy is what telles them exactly what to do so who is doing it does not matter.