That's a good question. I know that sometimes in mergers they issue new stock instead of giving money, where $1k of TSLA stock is converted into $1k of GOOG stock, but that shouldn't happen with cash. Or maybe they're assuming that Musk would buy the equivalent amount of Google stock with his payment.
In addition, you don't deliberately expose the vaccination candidate, you vaccinate a test population with a proper double blind*
*IE not all are actually vaccinated, and you disclose this to the population (There's a 50/50 chance we're injecting you with plain saline, and even then we don't know if the vaccine will work!)
If you do this with 200 people, and 5 come up with the disease out of the control group and 1 out of the vaccine group, you have something to go on towards longer/larger term studies.
With vaccines today you can also look at antibody titers. If the right antibodies show up, then you have evidence that the individual may have gained immunity. HIV is crazy tenacious and good at hiding, so even the known antibodies might not be enough.
Actually all 3 have various benefits: Vaccine: It's great! You get to sell it to people who aren't even sick yet! Cure: You beat everybody else who only have treatments for selling it. Gotta love competitive advantage. Generally speaking the person will survive longer and buy other stuff in your line of products. Long-term treatment: They keep coming back, yes, but you can have problems keeping it affordable.
See my comment about amplifiers and antennas. It's not like the makers of radio transmitters don't expect you to hook their product up to them. Which amplifier, at what setting, and which antenna, depending upon location, matters as to whether the end product is FCC legal.
Cisco expects you to hook their components together, which is why they tried to get into the suit. It's HOW you hook their networking gear up that makes for a valid or invalid product, somewhat independent of the configuration of the gear.
That only works if you've replaced enough other stuff in your computer, that the compromised chips don't have a code that the compromised windows is programed to ignore, that you didn't buy a compromised chip in the first place, etc...
Also, if I'm bothering with custom compromised chips, I might just have the CPU ID be reprogrammable on them, and bring with me a device capable of reading the code from the removed CPU and burning it into the replacement.
In reality though, they'll just use an unadvertised zero day exploit to install a rootkit onto your computer and be done with it.
If I buy a radio, I expect it to be a device which is legal to operate in any permutation I can do without altering the device.
It's quite possible to buy a radio that has modes of operation that are illegal for you to use. It's more difficult with a receive-only radio like what you later clarified it more as, but it's possible to violate wire-tapping statutes if you buy the right one and use it 'wrong'.
Transmitters, well, due to various federal laws it's extremely easy to set up a non-compliant station - Just on the 5Ghz spectrum you have frequencies where the maximum legal power is 1 watt EIRP, the one next to it is 4 watts, etc... Because it's based on effective transmission power - if you use a dish you actually have to lower the power of the amplifier, etc... So it ends up being on the customer to select their radio, amplifier, and antenna and configure them in a compliant manner.
Cisco switches are extremely configurable in similar ways, I imagine that the argument is that you can configure any one Cisco switch any darn way you please and not be in violation, it's only when combined with other infrastructure bits like interconnects and cable that infringement becomes possible.
Either the patent is a complete joke and fails the obviousness test, or the patent system is a complete joke and fails the rationality test.
At the rate HFT works at, 0-4 seconds would be more than enough, and allow random Joe blow to buy/sell stock without having to wait much more than the usual expected webpage load times.
Well, roughly speaking, dealerships originated because car companies were limited in scope and the market fractured between states that were no where near as integrated as today.
You know how as a company becomes larger it becomes less agile? Dealerships was a way for car manufacturers to reduce their scope, transfer risk, etc... Same reason that companies like McDonalds franchised.
The car manufacturer didn't have to worry about individual dealerships being non-profitable, not being able to adjust to local demands, etc... They just sold the cars to them using interstate commerce to avoid most issues. However, as we developed better data manipulation, control schemes and such it became practical for them to have their own stores, which they started to do - at which point all the dealers ran to the government for laws protecting them. Remember, they went to their local state governments, where the car companies had no real presence yet.
I'm also a 'moderate libertarian' here, and oh heck is "There are very few such people, but they are noisy." true.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Very much so.
Let's look at schools and prisons. Both are something that you can, in theory, privatize. However it's been my experience that while private schools(especially religious ones such as Catholic schools, and I'm an atheist) can often educate a child better for less money, private prisons tend to be a mess. Ergo - private schools are okay, I support vouchers, though you constantly have to monitor said private schools to make sure they start and remain effective. Prisons, on the other hand, need to be public - but there's a lot of space because an overly powerful prison guard union can drag down a public prison as effectively as corporate greed can drag down a private one. It's all about balance, because once you get into colleges 'for profit' schools suck majorly - delivering low value education(worse rates at jobs/lower salaries) at high expense. They spend proportionally more on advertising and such...
I think it's because parents concerned enough to send their child to a private school, even profit ones, is a step removed, but they're there more or less constantly to do quality assessment. But I still prefer non-profits(not necessarily religious).
I don't think it's too much to ask that we regularly review various programs for effectiveness. If it's not effective, it should be dropped. If it's not the most cost effective way to do something, why aren't we using them? Not everything is about profit, but look at our prisons - other countries and even some states within the USA have shown that an emphasis on reform, alternative punishments like house arrest & ankle bracelets work and can cut the time you need to toss somebody into prison for by 2/3rds while producing a released prisoner that's 2/3rds less likely to offend again. That's HUGE, and I have to ask: How can we afford to keep paying for our current system?
Its a perversion of democracy that you must not let the voter know what the hell he's voting for, as this would be preferable to electioneering.
I agree with Any Web Loco, the problem is that election officials are there for the election not to educate people on the parties, and I could see a vague question like "the liberals" causing a lawsuit by the Liberal Democrat party because, hey, they have liberal in their name. Of course, you have the Country Liberals, Liberal Democratic Party, Liberal Party of Australia, and Liberal National Party of Queensland.
In other words, in order to properly answer the question, they'd have to ask a number of questions and spend more time on it than they have available to avoid any possibility of 'electioneering', as opposed to, as they say, simply referring them to the various campaigners right outside the polling place that are more than happy educate potential voters on their platform.
BTW: If I was an australian, my 'short list' from a simple wiki search, in rough order of preference: Liberal Democratic Party Drug Law Reform Australia Australian Sex Party Country Alliance Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party Pirate Party Australia Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens) Shooters and Fishers Party
Of course, I've probably just done more work on selecting my choices than 50% of Australians.;)
Eh, it's somewhat more of a strawman warning, actually. I'm actually a libertarian and don't hold the stated views 100%.
I at least acknowledge that tobacco is freaking addictive and it's tough to quit. My major sympathies lie with the ones who start smoking in 'the good old days' when the companies were running ads about the health benefits of smoking, doctor endorsements, etc... I might be a libertarian, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to be deceptive.
They want people to quit. The jury's still out on whether e-cigs help with that, but they clearly don't hurt... and from a harm reduction standpoint, they're about a hundred times better.
I'm reminded of what I heard on NPR last week, talking about how in a single year e-cig use has doubled by high schoolers. Unstated is whether it's displacing real cigarette use. Certainly stated is a fear that it'll lead to smoking 'real cigarettes'.
What I didn't know is that some state laws are set up such that e-cigs are legal to the sub-18 crowd.
Anyways, From the anti-ecig stuff I've heard I get a feeling of 'if a solution isn't perfect we shouldn't do it', and 'smoking is evil; anything resembling smoking is also evil, therefore e-cigs are evil!!!', even 'We can't have people switching to a safer nicotine delivery system, they might not quit!'.
Neither company X or Y have to agree to put their patent under FRAND rules. There's incentives for them to do so, yes. The trick ends up being that X&Y are NOT the only ones on the standard board choosing technology, so companies A-W also have a say, so with some horsedealing either A or B will be chosen. Or they'll just support both.
In some cases it might be something of a bidding war - cheapest seller wins.
The way that grown-up, adult engineers and standards-setting bodies pragmatically deal with that fact is to impose a FRAND clause for any patented technology that is included in a technical standard
This can be a little more complicated - they can't impose FRAND terms on patents, so what they do is if the company refuses to accept FRAND licensing they don't put it in the standard. FRAND terms tend to be widespread enough to balance out the lower fees.
I know my android already has some of this for alarms and music, and I would indeed like to see it expanded - I want my email to be protected, but I want to be able to hit pause on my workout program easier.
They are movie studio. They don't really care if a movie is good or bad. They only care about how much money they made with a movie. Most of a movie's earning are made the first few weeks. So whatmatters to them, basically boils down to "Are many people going to see a movie during its openning week ?".
Note that I carefully stayed away from saying whether the movie was good or bad, or by what metric.
Lot of noise online (Wikipedia activity in today's article. Or google activity in a previous article mentionned elsewhere in this thread) is a sign of how much a movie is talked about. The more a movie is talked about, the more interest there is about this movie, the more it occupies attention.
Which is kind of the point of the op of the whole thread. I was making it a bit more generic - feed enough historical data into computers along with the performance of the associated movies and you'll find correlations. If that correlation holds up over time it can be used for prediction. In this case wiki access/edits does indeed make for a measure of the 'buzz' about a movie, which can correlate with the opening performance of a movie.
Oh, and while word of mouth generally doesn't happen fast enough to help 2 week performance, it IS fast enough to degrade it for a flop, so they don't want that.
Okay, I've actually moved around a lot. Right now my water is via personal well. Before that it was the town, before that a cooperative, before that a public company.
Personally, I've always found I get the best service from the cooperatives. Partially as a result and thinking about the economics I think coops are the best economic model for utilities due to their monopolistic nature - if you at least have the customer owning them, it makes the company care more for serving their owner-customers than making a profit.
That's a completely fucked up way to state things.
The kicker is that no 'average' home consumes power evenly, nor does any power plant produce it perfectly evenly. So it's all a series of averages.
so 1400TWh/year divided by 11280 kWh/year/home equals about 124 million homes.
and that works out to 1 TWh/year equals 88.6k homes per TWh, which seems reasonable based on where you get your average use data and how you average/round.
Of course, I wonder where you got 1.4k TWh from 4k TWh.
BTW, on average home power consumption - you can divide the USA into regions; the northeast matches Europe(more or less), the South uses enough juice to drag up the average. The NW tends to use more power as well because electricity is so cheap there huge proportions heat everything via electric.
Nuclear plants can be used in a load following mode, but given that they have about the lowest marginal cost per kwh produced*, it makes no sense for them to NOT produce power when they can. Coal is more expensive, but if you really want to you can reach 90% capacity factor with it as well; my base has a coal powered cogeneration plant(electricity + steam heat) that can run all winter long, but in the summer it runs at less than half power, allowing lots of maintenance, but it never really fully shuts off.
The main point about capacity factor for renewable energy is that, for the most part it's not optional. So when you look at nuclear at $3 a watt vs $2 a watt solar, the nuclear is actually cheaper because you can anticipate running it at 90%, vs less than 30% for solar. So solar has to be below $1 a watt for nameplate capacity in order to actually produce the same average amount of power as a nuclear plant.
*Solar technically has a free marginal cost but you don't have a choice on when it generates power, Wind has a measurable cost per kwh because it has physical components that wear out.
True facepalm moment is that the TSA guy doing the extra screening on him actually recognized him and kept doing it anyway because a faceless person on a computer had marked Colin's ticket as needing extra checks.
I'm not TSA but I make the 'famous' and/or high ranking people fill out the same required paperwork before I issue them stuff as everybody else.
Personally, I think the high-rankers need to experience the joys of TSA checks some more. Then we might see reform.
And if you think Israel's profiling is anything but 100% racist then you have a looser definition of "race" than the Likud.
Really? The fact that I think they target by religion and sex as well makes me have a loose definition of "race"?
I don't know; 'shall not be infringed' is a rather strong standard to me.
Oxford: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
For example I think the closing of the NFA registry is unconstitutional, though given that 'due process of law' is a reason to remove rights from criminals, I'm okay with background checks.
The differences remain mostly semantics. Over here 'Residual Current Devices' are called 'Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter', or GFCI. If the device detects any imbalance of current between L-N or voltage on ground it trips. US standards for the leakage voltage is so small though that we only mandate it's usage on 'likely' circuits- outside, bathroom, and kitchen. Another option we have is Arc-fault devices, which attempt to cut off if arc-like loads are detected.
US doesn't usually have ring circuits in domestic situations, hence you guys rate cables at pretty much the maximum current they can handle without actually catching fire
We normally NEVER have ring circuits domestically. The ratings are NOT just 'without actually catching fire', they're also rated for acceptable voltage drop. There's also actually 3 standards - 60/75/90C - IE 12 gauge with 60C insulation shouldn't ever get over 60C even at maximum load, run length, and environmental temperature, with minimum heat dissipation and no more than a 5% voltage drop.
If you have above average length runs, there's formulas in the NEC that will tell you if you need to shift to larger cables.
Opps, forgot to copy the whole post I constructed elsewhere...
The closest equivalent to 2.5mm is 10 gauge, 12 gauge would be 2.053 mm. 10 gauge is rated up to 30 amps per the NEC. 12 gauge is 25A, but commonly limited to 20A(max for a standard branch circuit of wall outlets). 10 gauge and up is generally for things like dryers, water heaters, stoves and ovens, which are also 220V.
*Military: The actual electricians are busy elsewhere and I gotta get my shit working. I'm trained on how electricity works more than the electricians, what I lack is the practical training for wiring up a building. I'm more concerned with circuit boards.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good question. I know that sometimes in mergers they issue new stock instead of giving money, where $1k of TSLA stock is converted into $1k of GOOG stock, but that shouldn't happen with cash. Or maybe they're assuming that Musk would buy the equivalent amount of Google stock with his payment.
In addition, you don't deliberately expose the vaccination candidate, you vaccinate a test population with a proper double blind*
*IE not all are actually vaccinated, and you disclose this to the population (There's a 50/50 chance we're injecting you with plain saline, and even then we don't know if the vaccine will work!)
If you do this with 200 people, and 5 come up with the disease out of the control group and 1 out of the vaccine group, you have something to go on towards longer/larger term studies.
With vaccines today you can also look at antibody titers. If the right antibodies show up, then you have evidence that the individual may have gained immunity. HIV is crazy tenacious and good at hiding, so even the known antibodies might not be enough.
Actually all 3 have various benefits:
Vaccine: It's great! You get to sell it to people who aren't even sick yet!
Cure: You beat everybody else who only have treatments for selling it. Gotta love competitive advantage. Generally speaking the person will survive longer and buy other stuff in your line of products.
Long-term treatment: They keep coming back, yes, but you can have problems keeping it affordable.
See my comment about amplifiers and antennas. It's not like the makers of radio transmitters don't expect you to hook their product up to them. Which amplifier, at what setting, and which antenna, depending upon location, matters as to whether the end product is FCC legal.
Cisco expects you to hook their components together, which is why they tried to get into the suit. It's HOW you hook their networking gear up that makes for a valid or invalid product, somewhat independent of the configuration of the gear.
That only works if you've replaced enough other stuff in your computer, that the compromised chips don't have a code that the compromised windows is programed to ignore, that you didn't buy a compromised chip in the first place, etc...
Also, if I'm bothering with custom compromised chips, I might just have the CPU ID be reprogrammable on them, and bring with me a device capable of reading the code from the removed CPU and burning it into the replacement.
In reality though, they'll just use an unadvertised zero day exploit to install a rootkit onto your computer and be done with it.
If I buy a radio, I expect it to be a device which is legal to operate in any permutation I can do without altering the device.
It's quite possible to buy a radio that has modes of operation that are illegal for you to use. It's more difficult with a receive-only radio like what you later clarified it more as, but it's possible to violate wire-tapping statutes if you buy the right one and use it 'wrong'.
Transmitters, well, due to various federal laws it's extremely easy to set up a non-compliant station - Just on the 5Ghz spectrum you have frequencies where the maximum legal power is 1 watt EIRP, the one next to it is 4 watts, etc... Because it's based on effective transmission power - if you use a dish you actually have to lower the power of the amplifier, etc... So it ends up being on the customer to select their radio, amplifier, and antenna and configure them in a compliant manner.
Cisco switches are extremely configurable in similar ways, I imagine that the argument is that you can configure any one Cisco switch any darn way you please and not be in violation, it's only when combined with other infrastructure bits like interconnects and cable that infringement becomes possible.
Either the patent is a complete joke and fails the obviousness test, or the patent system is a complete joke and fails the rationality test.
Probably still true though.
At the rate HFT works at, 0-4 seconds would be more than enough, and allow random Joe blow to buy/sell stock without having to wait much more than the usual expected webpage load times.
Well, roughly speaking, dealerships originated because car companies were limited in scope and the market fractured between states that were no where near as integrated as today.
You know how as a company becomes larger it becomes less agile? Dealerships was a way for car manufacturers to reduce their scope, transfer risk, etc... Same reason that companies like McDonalds franchised.
The car manufacturer didn't have to worry about individual dealerships being non-profitable, not being able to adjust to local demands, etc... They just sold the cars to them using interstate commerce to avoid most issues. However, as we developed better data manipulation, control schemes and such it became practical for them to have their own stores, which they started to do - at which point all the dealers ran to the government for laws protecting them. Remember, they went to their local state governments, where the car companies had no real presence yet.
I'm also a 'moderate libertarian' here, and oh heck is "There are very few such people, but they are noisy." true.
Classic libertarianism asks "how can we do that with a little government as possible". How can we have the set of communal services we want with as little government oversight, as little taxation, as little public ownership as possible and still make it work. How can we ensure free and fair markets with little fraud, but do it with the minimum government presence? Of the many ways we could provide public safety nets and ensure access to health care, which requires the least government participation?
Very much so.
Let's look at schools and prisons. Both are something that you can, in theory, privatize. However it's been my experience that while private schools(especially religious ones such as Catholic schools, and I'm an atheist) can often educate a child better for less money, private prisons tend to be a mess. Ergo - private schools are okay, I support vouchers, though you constantly have to monitor said private schools to make sure they start and remain effective. Prisons, on the other hand, need to be public - but there's a lot of space because an overly powerful prison guard union can drag down a public prison as effectively as corporate greed can drag down a private one. It's all about balance, because once you get into colleges 'for profit' schools suck majorly - delivering low value education(worse rates at jobs/lower salaries) at high expense. They spend proportionally more on advertising and such...
I think it's because parents concerned enough to send their child to a private school, even profit ones, is a step removed, but they're there more or less constantly to do quality assessment. But I still prefer non-profits(not necessarily religious).
I don't think it's too much to ask that we regularly review various programs for effectiveness. If it's not effective, it should be dropped. If it's not the most cost effective way to do something, why aren't we using them? Not everything is about profit, but look at our prisons - other countries and even some states within the USA have shown that an emphasis on reform, alternative punishments like house arrest & ankle bracelets work and can cut the time you need to toss somebody into prison for by 2/3rds while producing a released prisoner that's 2/3rds less likely to offend again. That's HUGE, and I have to ask: How can we afford to keep paying for our current system?
Its a perversion of democracy that you must not let the voter know what the hell he's voting for, as this would be preferable to electioneering.
I agree with Any Web Loco, the problem is that election officials are there for the election not to educate people on the parties, and I could see a vague question like "the liberals" causing a lawsuit by the Liberal Democrat party because, hey, they have liberal in their name. Of course, you have the Country Liberals, Liberal Democratic Party, Liberal Party of Australia, and Liberal National Party of Queensland.
In other words, in order to properly answer the question, they'd have to ask a number of questions and spend more time on it than they have available to avoid any possibility of 'electioneering', as opposed to, as they say, simply referring them to the various campaigners right outside the polling place that are more than happy educate potential voters on their platform.
BTW: If I was an australian, my 'short list' from a simple wiki search, in rough order of preference:
Liberal Democratic Party
Drug Law Reform Australia
Australian Sex Party
Country Alliance
Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party
Pirate Party Australia
Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens)
Shooters and Fishers Party
Of course, I've probably just done more work on selecting my choices than 50% of Australians. ;)
Eh, it's somewhat more of a strawman warning, actually. I'm actually a libertarian and don't hold the stated views 100%.
I at least acknowledge that tobacco is freaking addictive and it's tough to quit. My major sympathies lie with the ones who start smoking in 'the good old days' when the companies were running ads about the health benefits of smoking, doctor endorsements, etc... I might be a libertarian, but that doesn't mean that you're allowed to be deceptive.
They want people to quit. The jury's still out on whether e-cigs help with that, but they clearly don't hurt... and from a harm reduction standpoint, they're about a hundred times better.
I'm reminded of what I heard on NPR last week, talking about how in a single year e-cig use has doubled by high schoolers. Unstated is whether it's displacing real cigarette use. Certainly stated is a fear that it'll lead to smoking 'real cigarettes'.
What I didn't know is that some state laws are set up such that e-cigs are legal to the sub-18 crowd.
Anyways, From the anti-ecig stuff I've heard I get a feeling of 'if a solution isn't perfect we shouldn't do it', and 'smoking is evil; anything resembling smoking is also evil, therefore e-cigs are evil!!!', even 'We can't have people switching to a safer nicotine delivery system, they might not quit!'.
It appears you missed the point, what with the glaring 'libertarian' tags.
Neither company X or Y have to agree to put their patent under FRAND rules. There's incentives for them to do so, yes. The trick ends up being that X&Y are NOT the only ones on the standard board choosing technology, so companies A-W also have a say, so with some horsedealing either A or B will be chosen. Or they'll just support both.
In some cases it might be something of a bidding war - cheapest seller wins.
The way that grown-up, adult engineers and standards-setting bodies pragmatically deal with that fact is to impose a FRAND clause for any patented technology that is included in a technical standard
This can be a little more complicated - they can't impose FRAND terms on patents, so what they do is if the company refuses to accept FRAND licensing they don't put it in the standard. FRAND terms tend to be widespread enough to balance out the lower fees.
I know my android already has some of this for alarms and music, and I would indeed like to see it expanded - I want my email to be protected, but I want to be able to hit pause on my workout program easier.
They are movie studio. They don't really care if a movie is good or bad. They only care about how much money they made with a movie. Most of a movie's earning are made the first few weeks. So whatmatters to them, basically boils down to "Are many people going to see a movie during its openning week ?".
Note that I carefully stayed away from saying whether the movie was good or bad, or by what metric.
Lot of noise online (Wikipedia activity in today's article. Or google activity in a previous article mentionned elsewhere in this thread) is a sign of how much a movie is talked about. The more a movie is talked about, the more interest there is about this movie, the more it occupies attention.
Which is kind of the point of the op of the whole thread. I was making it a bit more generic - feed enough historical data into computers along with the performance of the associated movies and you'll find correlations. If that correlation holds up over time it can be used for prediction. In this case wiki access/edits does indeed make for a measure of the 'buzz' about a movie, which can correlate with the opening performance of a movie.
Oh, and while word of mouth generally doesn't happen fast enough to help 2 week performance, it IS fast enough to degrade it for a flop, so they don't want that.
Okay, I've actually moved around a lot. Right now my water is via personal well. Before that it was the town, before that a cooperative, before that a public company.
Personally, I've always found I get the best service from the cooperatives. Partially as a result and thinking about the economics I think coops are the best economic model for utilities due to their monopolistic nature - if you at least have the customer owning them, it makes the company care more for serving their owner-customers than making a profit.
That explains the 4k TWh for total US production, where did the 1.4k TWh for all homes come from?
That's a completely fucked up way to state things.
The kicker is that no 'average' home consumes power evenly, nor does any power plant produce it perfectly evenly. So it's all a series of averages.
so 1400TWh/year divided by 11280 kWh/year/home equals about 124 million homes.
and that works out to 1 TWh/year equals 88.6k homes per TWh, which seems reasonable based on where you get your average use data and how you average/round.
Of course, I wonder where you got 1.4k TWh from 4k TWh.
BTW, on average home power consumption - you can divide the USA into regions; the northeast matches Europe(more or less), the South uses enough juice to drag up the average. The NW tends to use more power as well because electricity is so cheap there huge proportions heat everything via electric.
Nuclear plants can be used in a load following mode, but given that they have about the lowest marginal cost per kwh produced*, it makes no sense for them to NOT produce power when they can. Coal is more expensive, but if you really want to you can reach 90% capacity factor with it as well; my base has a coal powered cogeneration plant(electricity + steam heat) that can run all winter long, but in the summer it runs at less than half power, allowing lots of maintenance, but it never really fully shuts off.
The main point about capacity factor for renewable energy is that, for the most part it's not optional. So when you look at nuclear at $3 a watt vs $2 a watt solar, the nuclear is actually cheaper because you can anticipate running it at 90%, vs less than 30% for solar. So solar has to be below $1 a watt for nameplate capacity in order to actually produce the same average amount of power as a nuclear plant.
*Solar technically has a free marginal cost but you don't have a choice on when it generates power, Wind has a measurable cost per kwh because it has physical components that wear out.
True facepalm moment is that the TSA guy doing the extra screening on him actually recognized him and kept doing it anyway because a faceless person on a computer had marked Colin's ticket as needing extra checks.
I'm not TSA but I make the 'famous' and/or high ranking people fill out the same required paperwork before I issue them stuff as everybody else.
Personally, I think the high-rankers need to experience the joys of TSA checks some more. Then we might see reform.
And if you think Israel's profiling is anything but 100% racist then you have a looser definition of "race" than the Likud.
Really? The fact that I think they target by religion and sex as well makes me have a loose definition of "race"?
I don't know; 'shall not be infringed' is a rather strong standard to me.
Oxford: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
For example I think the closing of the NFA registry is unconstitutional, though given that 'due process of law' is a reason to remove rights from criminals, I'm okay with background checks.
The differences remain mostly semantics. Over here 'Residual Current Devices' are called 'Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter', or GFCI. If the device detects any imbalance of current between L-N or voltage on ground it trips. US standards for the leakage voltage is so small though that we only mandate it's usage on 'likely' circuits- outside, bathroom, and kitchen. Another option we have is Arc-fault devices, which attempt to cut off if arc-like loads are detected.
US doesn't usually have ring circuits in domestic situations, hence you guys rate cables at pretty much the maximum current they can handle without actually catching fire
We normally NEVER have ring circuits domestically. The ratings are NOT just 'without actually catching fire', they're also rated for acceptable voltage drop. There's also actually 3 standards - 60/75/90C - IE 12 gauge with 60C insulation shouldn't ever get over 60C even at maximum load, run length, and environmental temperature, with minimum heat dissipation and no more than a 5% voltage drop.
If you have above average length runs, there's formulas in the NEC that will tell you if you need to shift to larger cables.
Opps, forgot to copy the whole post I constructed elsewhere...
The closest equivalent to 2.5mm is 10 gauge, 12 gauge would be 2.053 mm. 10 gauge is rated up to 30 amps per the NEC. 12 gauge is 25A, but commonly limited to 20A(max for a standard branch circuit of wall outlets). 10 gauge and up is generally for things like dryers, water heaters, stoves and ovens, which are also 220V.
*Military: The actual electricians are busy elsewhere and I gotta get my shit working. I'm trained on how electricity works more than the electricians, what I lack is the practical training for wiring up a building. I'm more concerned with circuit boards.