You're absolutely right. If you've ever watched a group of two or three year old kids, one or two kids tend to be leaders/bossy. The others follow the leader(s). The same happens in any business meeting after a few minutes. It's basic human nature. Mammal nature, actually - other mammals do the same.
Even it it weren't human nature, when a bunch of people get together, conflicts happen and rules are needed to resolve and reduce conflicts. Those rules need to be enforced. Rules for large groups are also known as "laws".
There WILL be leaders, and there WILL be laws. The only question is how leaders are chosen and laws are determined. In the absence of any designed process for choosing leaders, you get the way animals do it - fighting, and the biggest, strongest guy wins.
The heat pump is more efficient than resistive heating down to about -10F (-23C). Many units *also* have an auxiliary resistive element that can kick in around 35F to assist in heating.
> If the wind speed increases too much, the blades must be feathered completely and the generator shut down to keep it from tearing itself apart.
Yes, that's certainly true. It must also be built with large enough, strong enough parts to withstand winds at least four times higher than nameplate speed - 64 times as much force being exerted on the structure. That's the *wind power*. The fact that the turbine has to throw away most of the power available from the wind doesn't change the find that the wind is more powerful, to the cube of the wind speed.
So the actual design power (power of the wind it must withstand) is 64 times or more the power it can convert to electricity. In other words, they are almost always running off FAR less power than they are designed to withstand, meaning there is a lot of frictional and inertial overhead from running at "very low" power (compared to what they are designed to withstand). That hurts efficiency further.
Wind power is conceptually awesome, and when the wind is just right is works really well. The cube power law forces practical designs to make some pita tradeoffs.
I said "Sounds suspiciously low to me, I may have put a decimal point in the wrong place." Sure enough, I did. It's 28,720,964,877 megawatt hours.
Also, the tank you mentioned goes cold - you can't use that energy over a week. On day seven you could get maybe 1 MW out of it, but not 100 MW. IF you use it right away, within four hours so it doesn't get cold, you could get about 100MW from it. To be generous, let's pretend it's insulated really, really well and you can get 200 MW from it over the course of a week. 50MW is probably more realistic, but let's be generous, just for fun.
We need 28,720,964,877 MW hours divided by 50, so 574419297 MW/h. At 200 MW per very well insulated tank, that's 2,872,096 tanks. We know 200 MW is on the high side, so let's say somewhere between 3-12 million tanks.
Each tank is 4,901 square feet. So we need 29,409,152,250 sq feet of tanks. With magical insulation that takes up no space, no spacing between tanks, no room for maintenance access or piping or anything, that's 1,055 square miles of tanks alone. If we wrap each tank in a few feet of insulation and lay out a square grid of access roads between them, we're looking at about 2,200 square miles.
You didn't show your work so I don't know how you came up with that. I suspect one error, which is strongly encouraged by certainly advocacy groups, is conflating energy and electricity. Be sure you're starting with the 98 quadrillion BTU of ENERGY needed. That's about 290,000,000 megawatt hours. So using your example of 100 MW generators, that's 100,000 tanks if your statement is correct and realistic in the real world. Sounds suspiciously low to me, I may have put a decimal point in the wrong place.
Energy vs electricity is important because we need to power cars (currently powered by gas), home heating (currently using natural gas and oil), industry, etc. Currently our *electricity* usage is a small fraction of our *energy*. If we're going to switch from gasoline, natural gas, fuel oil etc to renewable electric, we're going to need a LOT more electricity, which will require storage.
Something that makes wind power interesting is that the power of the wind is proportional to the CUBE of wind speed. That is to say, wind speed to the third power.
Half the speed means only 12.5% of the power, minus overhead, so around 8% of the usable power. MANY days and weeks the wind is half of peak, meaning power is 90% less than peak.
80% wind speed is half the power, again minus constant and linear overheads.
You noted the AVERAGE wind during the hot months is 80% speed (50% power). Unfortunately average doesn't tell the story. Yesterday it was 80 degrees in Dallas, today it's 51, average is 57. Weather doesn't closely track the average and people need to drive, cook, and build things every day, not just on days the wind is right.
Regarding temperature and wind, you may have noticed that as air pressure drops, temperature drops. As you fill a tire or spray something from a high pressure can, the air or gas is cold as it comes out. That's an adiabatic change - the same amount of heat energy is spread over a larger volume, which s lower temperature. Meteorological air masses are the same - low pressure correlates with low temperature. The same air masses will warm up of its pressure is increased. Low pressure also correlates with more wind. The doctor just called us, so I gotta run and can't explain that part right now.
I had a typo. I wrote that Hoover Dam holds 147 square miles of water behind it. That should be 247 square miles.
The dam is 726 feet high. From highest to lowest levels, it can store about 1/3,000 of our energy needs to get through a typical large storm system. Obviously you'd still have to ration energy on days like this:
I wish storage we're in any way feasible for a significant portion of our energy needs. Unfortunately, any storage we can come up with is orders of magnitude too small. We use 11 TRILLION btu of energy every year. There's nothing can come anywhere close to storing enough power to make it through those weeks when a couple of large cloud systems cover half the country, drastically reducing solar output.
I'm trying to come up with a good analogy to give you a sense of scale, but it's difficult. I can tell you that all of our current storage can store less than 1% of what we produce, and the clean energy we produce is less than 10% of our energy needs. It's like saying "water can be stored in Dixie cups" and then supposing that we can store the nations water supply in Dixie cups. You can picture the hundreds of paper cups it would take to store water for just one shower - energy storage is like that.
Let's take one proposal as an example, hydro storage. Hydro is handy where you happen to have a just the right geography, such as at Hoover dam. The thing is, you need a LOT of water pumped high to hold a little bit of energy. To match the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, we would have to lift 13 tons of water (3500 gallons) one kilometer high (3,280 feet). Hoover Dam, holding back 147 square miles of water, can store about 1/3,000 of the needed energy. Unfortunately, we don't have 3,000 locations as good as Hoover dam. Given actual US geography, we'd need the reservoir to be the entire area between the Rocky Mountains on the West and the Appalachians on the East. Our hydro reservoir would completely flood 17 states and portions of 5 other states. We'd have a huge dam across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Building that dam would itself require approximately as much energy as the country produces in a year.
You can do the math for lipo and other types of storage. Sure, you can store a week of energy for a remote hunting cabin,if the cabin doesn't have air conditioning or any tools or anything that requires more power than lighting does. The US has 325 MILLION people, though. Energy storage per person, adequate to supply AC, transportation, etc, will take up about as much space as their living space, and cost at least as much (unless it's stored as hydrocarbons, an incredibly dense form of storage). So you can picture for every residential neighborhood, you'd need an equally-sized neighborhood of energy storage units. Your rent or mortgage is very roughly about equal to what your energy storage bill would be.
Did you *read* any of that before you linked to it? Did you pay any attention to WHO was making those ridiculous claims? Don't tell me you read Kevin Steinberger's claims like 40% of Texas energy production is wind and actually *believed* that. Try 3%. Texas DOES produce more wind energy than any other state, but it's a tiny fraction of what we produce. When it's hot, and therefore not windy, we average only about 6 megawatts - the same days we need our air conditioning.
If you click on the About Us page there on the NRDC web site you'll see how they describe themselves:
Even by environmentalist standards, this is a relentless group
Like the National Inquirer, they fail to explicitly state "this is satire and shouldn't be confused with anything real". The Onion is a better source in that respect.
If you think your ISP, which I'm guessing is AOL, is the only type of ISP there is, turn in YOUR geek card.
The relevant law lays out four types of ISPs, network engineers split them up slightly differently, but still into four types.
17 USC Â 512(k)(1)(A) defines the general term Internet service provider: (A)As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the userâ(TM)s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
512(a) through 512(d) lay out the four types recognized by law, each with slightly different requirements to have Safe Harbor:
A) Transitory ISPs (transit backbones and access providers)
These ISPs move data, but never store it for long periods. Note that just as your local ISP provides their customers internet access at home, the backbones provide internet access to their customers, the customers' data centers. Network engineers split access and transit into two types.
B) Caching ISPs
These operate caches and do not materially alter the nature of the content. These provide a *buffered* connection to the internet - requests coming in from the internet are sometimes satisfied by the ISP re-sending the response their customer provided earlier.
C) Hosting ISPs
Store data at the direction of the user. These provide highly reliable internet connections for customer software, with hardware also provided.
D) Search engines and indexes. Provide access to the internet not as a wire, but as a means of locating the desired internet-accessible resources. Legally an ISP, not an ISP from a network engineering perspective.
So long as an ISP is just a "series of tubes" (actually fibers and routers such) through which anyone can send anything, they can't well be blamed for what one person requests or sends. As soon as they start exercising any editorial control, they start opening themselves up to be held not responsible not only in the court of public opinion, but LEGALLY.
I think the right move for Cloudflare would have been to condemn what was said while pointing out that they only operate caches. The site is actually hosted by a different company. If the hosting company is known for housing Nazi propaganda and that sort of thing, perhaps say so. Name the hosting company if appropriate, but don't start getting into making editorial decisions about what can and can't flow through your pipes, unless you want to turn into a company that sells only a flowers and rainbows subset of the internet.
Some elected Democrats have said REALLY nasty things about Trump. Trump has said offensive things. Is Cloudflare going to get into deciding which of those things can be seen through their proxies? Things said by both sides could certainly be called "hate speech". I don't think Cloudflare wants to get into the business of deciding which hate speech is okay with them.
Al Sharpton talks about "offing [killing] copsâ and "crackers", is Cloudflare going to ban him? Never should have started down this road.
> contract of exchange (for lack of a better term) between the retail store and the customer. No where in there is the contract with the MAKER OF THE GOOD, in this case, Disney.
My other reply has my analysis of how I think it makes sense to look at this, but the retail customer DOES in fact also have a sale contract with the manufacturer / producer, which doesn't involve the store. The warranty included with most physical products is part of that contract.
Offer: If you buy my book (from any store) and bring it to me, I'll sign it.
When a box says "1 year manufacturer's warranty", that's an offer from the manufacturer to the retail customer - if you buy this product, will provide warranty. The purchaser can accept that offer by purchasing the product.
I haven't read the terms of the Disney offer, but it might say, in effect, "if you buy this DVD, we'll give you a download copy too". That would set up a contract between Disney and the purchaser.
It's ALSO possible for a retailer to be the "agent" of the manufacturer, but that would be more likely if the retailer sells only one brand and the manufacturer controls some aspects of how the retailer operates. An example would be a Dodge dealer. In some cases, a promise from Dodge dealers related to warranty, financing, etc could be binding on Dodge, because the dealer could be functioning as an agent of Dodge. No Power of Attorney document required.
What you say is true, but has no practical effect in this instance. The store sells exactly what they bought - whatever is in the box, with whatever terms and promises appear in or on the box. They can't sell what they don't have.
There are two possibilities: Disney sold what they intended to sell, a Blu-Ray combined with a license for the original retail purchaser to download a copy, using the code included in the box.
If that's what the store bought, that's what they can sell. Netflix would have purchased a disc at retail, and a license for THEM to download a copy.
Alternatively, if the Disney sold a FULLY TRANSFERABLE right to a digital copy, the store bought that and sold it to Netflix, who can sell it to you.
Either way, the purchaser (Netflix in this case) is buying *whatever* the store bought, the store is basically the mailman. If the store bought a non-transferable right, valid only for the original retail purchaser of the package it doesn't magically become fully transferable under any contract law. (First sale doctrine applies only to tangible copies, and only those copies that are owned, not licensed or leased.)
The exact terms that Disney used in the offer, and whether they are inside or outside of the package, will determine what they sold. It doesn't matter if the item was delivered by UPS, FedEx or a retail store - Netflix ends up getting whatever Disney sold.
Just two days ago I said Musk drums up publicity while Nissan, BYD, and others build more electric cars. He's the PT Barnum of our age, I said. The Musk fanatics went nuts. Today, this. He's literally claiming he'll finance his new company by selling hats, and trolling the media with Spaceballs clips.
They pay taxes like every other business does. No business pays federal income taxes on EXPENSES. That's the main thing the people trying to trick you call a "subsidy", which is just friggin ridiculous. Here's how it works:
Your local bookstore starts out with $100,000 dollars. They buy a bunch of books for $100,000. They sell half the books for $75,000. They now have $75,000 plus half a shipment of books, worth $50,000. That's $125,000 They started with $100,000 and ended with $125,000 so that's a profit of $25,000 They pay corporate taxes on $25,000 profit (and stockholders pay taxes again on the same $25,000)
Note they would be LYING if they told potential investors or a bank they wanted a loan from that they had made $75,000. The $75,000 in sales cost them $50,000 in books and failing to account for that would be fraud.
An oil company starts with $100,000 They buy / lease land with oil for $100,000 The sell half the oil for $75,000 They now have $75,000 plus half a shipment of the oil, worth $50,000. That's $125,000 They started with $100,000 and ended with $125,000 so that's a profit of $25,000 They pay corporate taxes on $25,000 profit (and stockholders pay taxes again on the same $25,000)
Again it would be fraud for them to claim $75,000 - they only made $25,000. ($75,000 sales minus the $50,000 it cost them to get the oil they sold).
That's the main thing that silly "green" propagandists / click bait sites try to tell you is a "subsidy" - the fact that LIKE ALL OTHER BUSINESSES they don't fraudulently claim their expenses as profit.
> At 20 mpg, that costs 600 gallons of gasoline, or around $1500/year. Over a ten year lifetime, fuel costs are only around $15,000
The cost of 600 gallons of gas is $1,260. Forty cents a gallon per gallon is TAX, which pays for things like subsidies to people buying electric cars, "free" charging stations, etc. It's paid buy people using gas cars, but it's the cost of electric car subsidies, roads (used by freeriders in electric cars), etc.
> they are really encrypting it, then they are tunneling UDP (SIP) over TCP (for TLS)
Just finished Chapter 1 of Basic Cryptography? "Encryption" doesn't mean TLS, and TLS doesn't require TCP. Plenty of common applications use encrypted UDP, some do TLS over UDP. IPsec, which is built-in to the Linux kernel, encrypts IP. Some apps, such as Cisco Anyconnect, can set up EITHER an IPSec connection, OR a TLS-based connection.
I wrote an IPSec / ISAKMP / IKE client a couple of months ago, so that's one I'm rather familiar with. As mentioned above, IPSec encrypts *IP* packets. Those could carry UDP or TCP fragments, or icmp, cdp, etc. It's encrypted at the IP packet level. To *set up* the IPSec connection, it uses UDP packets.
Another client I wrote this year spoke encrypted RDP, which is TLS over UDP. Some other Microsoft products use roughly the same protocol. OpenVPN is another example. It uses encrypted UDP, and can use optionally TLS authentication within the encrypted UDP channel.
This coming week my task is Microsoft SQL Server. It's TLS over TCP - hopefully STANDARD to over TCP.
> Yes, the DJI quadcopters can produce fairly high quality GPS tagged video.... > So, some poor Chinese intelligence intern is pouring through gigabytes of pictures of Americans' back yards, local parks and smoggy sunsets in order to glean some tiny bits of information?
If I'm running Chinese intelligence, no I'm not looking at video of some backyard in Wisconsin. Except maybe one particular house in downtown Janesville, Wisconsin - where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan lives. I might be curious who is visiting him and generally what he's up to when he goes home every weekend.
Several companies make more electric cars than Tesla does. Nissan is one you've heard of, probably. The Nissan Leaf is the most popular. They also make some all-electric vehicles for business use.
Several companies in China make electric cars. In fact China makes more electric cars than the rest of the world combined. BYD is one Chinese company.
> I have only ever heard of Telsa manufacturing them.
Nissan and BYD executives don't announce they're building a tunnel, without permits, for a scientifically questionable vacuum subway from their parking lot to some other city. They just make good cars. Elon Musk is the PT Barnum of our age.
If I ran the Chinese spy agency and I knew that my country was sending hundreds of thousands of drones to fly high resolution cameras over the US, I darn sure would look at tapping into that. I don't know if they *have*, but they are incompetent if they haven't considered it.
> Why couldn't downsizing be an option? Surely the magazine now is in much better shape, financially or organizationally, than when it was started out as an enthusiast operation.
It's LARGER than when it started out. Very likely not in BETTER condition financially. If it's big and "no longer financially viable" that likely means "owes a bunch of money to suppliers", and maybe even to employees and the IRS. Having $6 in the donation plate is better financially than having $20,000 in the bank and a tax bill for $800,000.
An offer An acceptance A meeting of the minds (what was accepted is the same as what was offered) Exchange of consideration (payment or work performed)
Here's an example: Me: If you mow my lawn, I'll pay you $50 You: Okay, I'll mow it for $50 Me: Front and back, with edging You: Yep, front and back, with edging You then mow my lawn.
I'd owe you $50, because we had a contract. I offered you $50, you accepted, we were talking about the same thing, and you actually did your part. That's a contract.
> sale should be treated as if it was purchased without a contract.
Offer: Store as says "Pickles, 24oz, $1.99â Acceptance: Customer picks up the pickles and takes them to the cashier Meeting of the minds: Customer and store both have this particular type of pickles in mind Exchange of consideration: Customer pays, store hands them bag with pickles in it
Any sale IS a contract, once the sale is completed.
> All other purchases made with contracts (contract being defined as--again depending on h far you want to take it-- requiring a signature or actual negotiation)
That's not the definition of contract. There's no definition of "contract" anywhere in law that mentions a signature. A signature is just EVIDENCE that the conversation (contract) took place, so the person can't later say "I don't remember ever talking to that person or agreeing to anything".
Certain types of contracts, generally those that can't possibly be finished within one year, are *unenforceable* in court unless written, because it's too easy for people to have different memories of conversations that occurred years ago. It's still a contract, but the court will essentially say "we can't be sure what the terms of the contract we're; either party may be remembering wrong".
In case anyone wants to talk about the actual bill, as opposed to just cramming their nose up some politician's ass, here's what the bill changed.
First, a quick review of what sectionnot702 is. Section 702 relates to eavesdropping on foreign communications. Programs under 702 are not to be used to target Americans. When one party to a conversation is an American, their identity is to be masked, referring to them as "person A", "person B", etc. So the record would show a conversation between Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Person A.
With that background, this bill makes the following two changes:
The committeeâ(TM)s bill would require government agencies to get a court order before viewing the content of communications to or from Americans in the National Security Agencyâ(TM)s database of information collected under the authority, known as Section 702, in criminal cases.
Rules relating to "unmasking" the identity of US citizens would be tightened. Certain officials have authority to unmask based on certain criteria. The bill would reduce the number of people who can authorize unmasking and tighten the conditions under which unmasking is allowed.
In general, the idea is to further the idea that section 702 is a national security tool tool to be used for international national security purposes, not for domestic criminal prosecutions, or worse, political purposes against US citizens not accused of any crime.
>. distributor gets to state their terms, but the potential buyer at the store effectively does not. And, there is no negotiation for consideration and/or terms. Therefore, I would like law and/or jurisprudence to come down and state "There was no negotiation, and therefore, no agreement could have been entered into".
That is true of ALL retail purchases. Whether you're buying a lawnmower, a pair of headphones, or software, the retail purchaser does not directly negotiate with the manufacturer or distributor regarding the terms of sale. They only choose which offered terms to accept or not (example I can choose to buy an iPhone, a Samsung, a generic, or none). There is practically never any negotiation of retail sales contracts. Does that mean we have to void all sales? Retail purchases are no longer valid? That seems an extreme "cure" for a relatively minor issue. There are, however, other cures, in existing law.
One item of existing law says that "take it or leave it" contracts are interpreted to the advantage of the party who didn't write the terms. In this case, that's the purchaser. If the terms of the digital download sale are ambiguous regarding whether it's transferrable, the purchaser (Netflix) wins on the that point. The idea is that since the seller wrote the terms, anything about the terms is the seller's fault, so they are the ones to lose out when something is unclear.
Unreasonable terms in such contracts are also not enforcible. The exact test of reasonableness varies by jurisdiction, but the basic idea is "if the person read the contract and had the opportunity to negotiate, would they reasonably accept this part of the contract?"
Other things that apply to non-negotiated contracts include implied warranties. If something is offered for sale on a take-it-or-leave basis, where warranties are not negotiated, there is an automatic warranty that the item is fit for sale. If the item is offered / advertised for a particular purpose, there is an automatic warranty that it is fit for that purpose.
It almost sounds like Russia might not want to ban the weapon they have been developing. Or, the headline and summary are complete bullshit. That happens a lot on Slashdot, misleading clickbait headlines.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right. If you've ever watched a group of two or three year old kids, one or two kids tend to be leaders/bossy. The others follow the leader(s). The same happens in any business meeting after a few minutes. It's basic human nature. Mammal nature, actually - other mammals do the same.
Even it it weren't human nature, when a bunch of people get together, conflicts happen and rules are needed to resolve and reduce conflicts. Those rules need to be enforced. Rules for large groups are also known as "laws".
There WILL be leaders, and there WILL be laws. The only question is how leaders are chosen and laws are determined. In the absence of any designed process for choosing leaders, you get the way animals do it - fighting, and the biggest, strongest guy wins.
The heat pump is more efficient than resistive heating down to about -10F (-23C). Many units *also* have an auxiliary resistive element that can kick in around 35F to assist in heating.
> If the wind speed increases too much, the blades must be feathered completely and the generator shut down to keep it from tearing itself apart.
Yes, that's certainly true. It must also be built with large enough, strong enough parts to withstand winds at least four times higher than nameplate speed - 64 times as much force being exerted on the structure. That's the *wind power*. The fact that the turbine has to throw away most of the power available from the wind doesn't change the find that the wind is more powerful, to the cube of the wind speed.
So the actual design power (power of the wind it must withstand) is 64 times or more the power it can convert to electricity. In other words, they are almost always running off FAR less power than they are designed to withstand, meaning there is a lot of frictional and inertial overhead from running at "very low" power (compared to what they are designed to withstand). That hurts efficiency further.
Wind power is conceptually awesome, and when the wind is just right is works really well. The cube power law forces practical designs to make some pita tradeoffs.
I said "Sounds suspiciously low to me, I may have put a decimal point in the wrong place." Sure enough, I did. It's
28,720,964,877 megawatt hours.
Also, the tank you mentioned goes cold - you can't use that energy over a week. On day seven you could get maybe 1 MW out of it, but not 100 MW. IF you use it right away, within four hours so it doesn't get cold, you could get about 100MW from it. To be generous, let's pretend it's insulated really, really well and you can get 200 MW from it over the course of a week. 50MW is probably more realistic, but let's be generous, just for fun.
We need 28,720,964,877 MW hours divided by 50, so 574419297 MW/h. At 200 MW per very well insulated tank, that's 2,872,096 tanks. We know 200 MW is on the high side, so let's say somewhere between 3-12 million tanks.
Each tank is 4,901 square feet. So we need 29,409,152,250 sq feet of tanks. With magical insulation that takes up no space, no spacing between tanks, no room for maintenance access or piping or anything, that's 1,055 square miles of tanks alone. If we wrap each tank in a few feet of insulation and lay out a square grid of access roads between them, we're looking at about 2,200 square miles.
You didn't show your work so I don't know how you came up with that. I suspect one error, which is strongly encouraged by certainly advocacy groups, is conflating energy and electricity. Be sure you're starting with the 98 quadrillion BTU of ENERGY needed. That's about 290,000,000 megawatt hours. So using your example of 100 MW generators, that's 100,000 tanks if your statement is correct and realistic in the real world. Sounds suspiciously low to me, I may have put a decimal point in the wrong place.
Energy vs electricity is important because we need to power cars (currently powered by gas), home heating (currently using natural gas and oil), industry, etc. Currently our *electricity* usage is a small fraction of our *energy*. If we're going to switch from gasoline, natural gas, fuel oil etc to renewable electric, we're going to need a LOT more electricity, which will require storage.
Something that makes wind power interesting is that the power of the wind is proportional to the CUBE of wind speed. That is to say, wind speed to the third power.
Half the speed means only 12.5% of the power, minus overhead, so around 8% of the usable power. MANY days and weeks the wind is half of peak, meaning power is 90% less than peak.
80% wind speed is half the power, again minus constant and linear overheads.
You noted the AVERAGE wind during the hot months is 80% speed (50% power). Unfortunately average doesn't tell the story. Yesterday it was 80 degrees in Dallas, today it's 51, average is 57. Weather doesn't closely track the average and people need to drive, cook, and build things every day, not just on days the wind is right.
Regarding temperature and wind, you may have noticed that as air pressure drops, temperature drops. As you fill a tire or spray something from a high pressure can, the air or gas is cold as it comes out. That's an adiabatic change - the same amount of heat energy is spread over a larger volume, which s lower temperature. Meteorological air masses are the same - low pressure correlates with low temperature. The same air masses will warm up of its pressure is increased. Low pressure also correlates with more wind. The doctor just called us, so I gotta run and can't explain that part right now.
I had a typo. I wrote that Hoover Dam holds 147 square miles of water behind it. That should be 247 square miles.
The dam is 726 feet high. From highest to lowest levels, it can store about 1/3,000 of our energy needs to get through a typical large storm system. Obviously you'd still have to ration energy on days like this:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic...
I wish storage we're in any way feasible for a significant portion of our energy needs. Unfortunately, any storage we can come up with is orders of magnitude too small. We use 11 TRILLION btu of energy every year. There's nothing can come anywhere close to storing enough power to make it through those weeks when a couple of large cloud systems cover half the country, drastically reducing solar output.
I'm trying to come up with a good analogy to give you a sense of scale, but it's difficult. I can tell you that all of our current storage can store less than 1% of what we produce, and the clean energy we produce is less than 10% of our energy needs. It's like saying "water can be stored in Dixie cups" and then supposing that we can store the nations water supply in Dixie cups. You can picture the hundreds of paper cups it would take to store water for just one shower - energy storage is like that.
Let's take one proposal as an example, hydro storage. Hydro is handy where you happen to have a just the right geography, such as at Hoover dam. The thing is, you need a LOT of water pumped high to hold a little bit of energy. To match the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, we would have to lift 13 tons of water (3500 gallons) one kilometer high (3,280 feet). Hoover Dam, holding back 147 square miles of water, can store about 1/3,000 of the needed energy. Unfortunately, we don't have 3,000 locations as good as Hoover dam. Given actual US geography, we'd need the reservoir to be the entire area between the Rocky Mountains on the West and the Appalachians on the East. Our hydro reservoir would completely flood 17 states and portions of 5 other states. We'd have a huge dam across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Building that dam would itself require approximately as much energy as the country produces in a year.
You can do the math for lipo and other types of storage. Sure, you can store a week of energy for a remote hunting cabin,if the cabin doesn't have air conditioning or any tools or anything that requires more power than lighting does. The US has 325 MILLION people, though. Energy storage per person, adequate to supply AC, transportation, etc, will take up about as much space as their living space, and cost at least as much (unless it's stored as hydrocarbons, an incredibly dense form of storage). So you can picture for every residential neighborhood, you'd need an equally-sized neighborhood of energy storage units. Your rent or mortgage is very roughly about equal to what your energy storage bill would be.
Did you *read* any of that before you linked to it? Did you pay any attention to WHO was making those ridiculous claims? Don't tell me you read Kevin Steinberger's claims like 40% of Texas energy production is wind and actually *believed* that. Try 3%. Texas DOES produce more wind energy than any other state, but it's a tiny fraction of what we produce. When it's hot, and therefore not windy, we average only about 6 megawatts - the same days we need our air conditioning.
If you click on the About Us page there on the NRDC web site you'll see how they describe themselves:
Even by environmentalist standards, this is a relentless group
Like the National Inquirer, they fail to explicitly state "this is satire and shouldn't be confused with anything real". The Onion is a better source in that respect.
If you think your ISP, which I'm guessing is AOL, is the only type of ISP there is, turn in YOUR geek card.
The relevant law lays out four types of ISPs, network engineers split them up slightly differently, but still into four types.
17 USC Â 512(k)(1)(A) defines the general term Internet service provider:
(A)As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the userâ(TM)s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
512(a) through 512(d) lay out the four types recognized by law, each with slightly different requirements to have Safe Harbor:
A) Transitory ISPs (transit backbones and access providers)
These ISPs move data, but never store it for long periods. Note that just as your local ISP provides their customers internet access at home, the backbones provide internet access to their customers, the customers' data centers. Network engineers split access and transit into two types.
B) Caching ISPs
These operate caches and do not materially alter the nature of the content. These provide a *buffered* connection to the internet - requests coming in from the internet are sometimes satisfied by the ISP re-sending the response their customer provided earlier.
C) Hosting ISPs
Store data at the direction of the user. These provide highly reliable internet connections for customer software, with hardware also provided.
D) Search engines and indexes. Provide access to the internet not as a wire, but as a means of locating the desired internet-accessible resources. Legally an ISP, not an ISP from a network engineering perspective.
So long as an ISP is just a "series of tubes" (actually fibers and routers such) through which anyone can send anything, they can't well be blamed for what one person requests or sends. As soon as they start exercising any editorial control, they start opening themselves up to be held not responsible not only in the court of public opinion, but LEGALLY.
I think the right move for Cloudflare would have been to condemn what was said while pointing out that they only operate caches. The site is actually hosted by a different company. If the hosting company is known for housing Nazi propaganda and that sort of thing, perhaps say so. Name the hosting company if appropriate, but don't start getting into making editorial decisions about what can and can't flow through your pipes, unless you want to turn into a company that sells only a flowers and rainbows subset of the internet.
Some elected Democrats have said REALLY nasty things about Trump. Trump has said offensive things. Is Cloudflare going to get into deciding which of those things can be seen through their proxies? Things said by both sides could certainly be called "hate speech". I don't think Cloudflare wants to get into the business of deciding which hate speech is okay with them.
Al Sharpton talks about "offing [killing] copsâ and "crackers", is Cloudflare going to ban him? Never should have started down this road.
> contract of exchange (for lack of a better term) between the retail store and the customer. No where in there is the contract with the MAKER OF THE GOOD, in this case, Disney.
My other reply has my analysis of how I think it makes sense to look at this, but the retail customer DOES in fact also have a sale contract with the manufacturer / producer, which doesn't involve the store. The warranty included with most physical products is part of that contract.
Offer: If you buy my book (from any store) and bring it to me, I'll sign it.
When a box says "1 year manufacturer's warranty", that's an offer from the manufacturer to the retail customer - if you buy this product, will provide warranty. The purchaser can accept that offer by purchasing the product.
I haven't read the terms of the Disney offer, but it might say, in effect, "if you buy this DVD, we'll give you a download copy too". That would set up a contract between Disney and the purchaser.
It's ALSO possible for a retailer to be the "agent" of the manufacturer, but that would be more likely if the retailer sells only one brand and the manufacturer controls some aspects of how the retailer operates. An example would be a Dodge dealer. In some cases, a promise from Dodge dealers related to warranty, financing, etc could be binding on Dodge, because the dealer could be functioning as an agent of Dodge. No Power of Attorney document required.
What you say is true, but has no practical effect in this instance. The store sells exactly what they bought - whatever is in the box, with whatever terms and promises appear in or on the box. They can't sell what they don't have.
There are two possibilities:
Disney sold what they intended to sell, a Blu-Ray combined with a license for the original retail purchaser to download a copy, using the code included in the box.
If that's what the store bought, that's what they can sell. Netflix would have purchased a disc at retail, and a license for THEM to download a copy.
Alternatively, if the Disney sold a FULLY TRANSFERABLE right to a digital copy, the store bought that and sold it to Netflix, who can sell it to you.
Either way, the purchaser (Netflix in this case) is buying *whatever* the store bought, the store is basically the mailman. If the store bought a non-transferable right, valid only for the original retail purchaser of the package it doesn't magically become fully transferable under any contract law. (First sale doctrine applies only to tangible copies, and only those copies that are owned, not licensed or leased.)
The exact terms that Disney used in the offer, and whether they are inside or outside of the package, will determine what they sold. It doesn't matter if the item was delivered by UPS, FedEx or a retail store - Netflix ends up getting whatever Disney sold.
Just two days ago I said Musk drums up publicity while Nissan, BYD, and others build more electric cars. He's the PT Barnum of our age, I said. The Musk fanatics went nuts. Today, this. He's literally claiming he'll finance his new company by selling hats, and trolling the media with Spaceballs clips.
They pay taxes like every other business does. No business pays federal income taxes on EXPENSES. That's the main thing the people trying to trick you call a "subsidy", which is just friggin ridiculous. Here's how it works:
Your local bookstore starts out with $100,000 dollars.
They buy a bunch of books for $100,000.
They sell half the books for $75,000.
They now have $75,000 plus half a shipment of books, worth $50,000. That's $125,000
They started with $100,000 and ended with $125,000 so that's a profit of $25,000
They pay corporate taxes on $25,000 profit (and stockholders pay taxes again on the same $25,000)
Note they would be LYING if they told potential investors or a bank they wanted a loan from that they had made $75,000. The $75,000 in sales cost them $50,000 in books and failing to account for that would be fraud.
An oil company starts with $100,000
They buy / lease land with oil for $100,000
The sell half the oil for $75,000
They now have $75,000 plus half a shipment of the oil, worth $50,000. That's $125,000
They started with $100,000 and ended with $125,000 so that's a profit of $25,000
They pay corporate taxes on $25,000 profit (and stockholders pay taxes again on the same $25,000)
Again it would be fraud for them to claim $75,000 - they only made $25,000. ($75,000 sales minus the $50,000 it cost them to get the oil they sold).
That's the main thing that silly "green" propagandists / click bait sites try to tell you is a "subsidy" - the fact that LIKE ALL OTHER BUSINESSES they don't fraudulently claim their expenses as profit.
> At 20 mpg, that costs 600 gallons of gasoline, or around $1500/year. Over a ten year lifetime, fuel costs are only around $15,000
The cost of 600 gallons of gas is $1,260. Forty cents a gallon per gallon is TAX, which pays for things like subsidies to people buying electric cars, "free" charging stations, etc. It's paid buy people using gas cars, but it's the cost of electric car subsidies, roads (used by freeriders in electric cars), etc.
> they are really encrypting it, then they are tunneling UDP (SIP) over TCP (for TLS)
Just finished Chapter 1 of Basic Cryptography?
"Encryption" doesn't mean TLS, and TLS doesn't require TCP. Plenty of common applications use encrypted UDP, some do TLS over UDP. IPsec, which is built-in to the Linux kernel, encrypts IP. Some apps, such as Cisco Anyconnect, can set up EITHER an IPSec connection, OR a TLS-based connection.
I wrote an IPSec / ISAKMP / IKE client a couple of months ago, so that's one I'm rather familiar with. As mentioned above, IPSec encrypts *IP* packets. Those could carry UDP or TCP fragments, or icmp, cdp, etc. It's encrypted at the IP packet level. To *set up* the IPSec connection, it uses UDP packets.
Another client I wrote this year spoke encrypted RDP, which is TLS over UDP. Some other Microsoft products use roughly the same protocol. OpenVPN is another example. It uses encrypted UDP, and can use optionally TLS authentication within the encrypted UDP channel.
This coming week my task is Microsoft SQL Server. It's TLS over TCP - hopefully STANDARD to over TCP.
> Yes, the DJI quadcopters can produce fairly high quality GPS tagged video. ...
> So, some poor Chinese intelligence intern is pouring through gigabytes of pictures of Americans' back yards, local parks and smoggy sunsets in order to glean some tiny bits of information?
If I'm running Chinese intelligence, no I'm not looking at video of some backyard in Wisconsin. Except maybe one particular house in downtown Janesville, Wisconsin - where Speaker of the House Paul Ryan lives. I might be curious who is visiting him and generally what he's up to when he goes home every weekend.
Several companies make more electric cars than Tesla does. Nissan is one you've heard of, probably. The Nissan Leaf is the most popular. They also make some all-electric vehicles for business use.
Several companies in China make electric cars. In fact China makes more electric cars than the rest of the world combined. BYD is one Chinese company.
> I have only ever heard of Telsa manufacturing them.
Nissan and BYD executives don't announce they're building a tunnel, without permits, for a scientifically questionable vacuum subway from their parking lot to some other city. They just make good cars. Elon Musk is the PT Barnum of our age.
If I ran the Chinese spy agency and I knew that my country was sending hundreds of thousands of drones to fly high resolution cameras over the US, I darn sure would look at tapping into that. I don't know if they *have*, but they are incompetent if they haven't considered it.
> Why couldn't downsizing be an option? Surely the magazine now is in much better shape, financially or organizationally, than when it was started out as an enthusiast operation.
It's LARGER than when it started out. Very likely not in BETTER condition financially. If it's big and "no longer financially viable" that likely means "owes a bunch of money to suppliers", and maybe even to employees and the IRS. Having $6 in the donation plate is better financially than having $20,000 in the bank and a tax bill for $800,000.
A contract has four parts:
An offer
An acceptance
A meeting of the minds (what was accepted is the same as what was offered)
Exchange of consideration (payment or work performed)
Here's an example:
Me: If you mow my lawn, I'll pay you $50
You: Okay, I'll mow it for $50
Me: Front and back, with edging
You: Yep, front and back, with edging
You then mow my lawn.
I'd owe you $50, because we had a contract. I offered you $50, you accepted, we were talking about the same thing, and you actually did your part. That's a contract.
> sale should be treated as if it was purchased without a contract.
Offer: Store as says "Pickles, 24oz, $1.99â
Acceptance: Customer picks up the pickles and takes them to the cashier
Meeting of the minds: Customer and store both have this particular type of pickles in mind
Exchange of consideration: Customer pays, store hands them bag with pickles in it
Any sale IS a contract, once the sale is completed.
> All other purchases made with contracts (contract being defined as--again depending on h far you want to take it-- requiring a signature or actual negotiation)
That's not the definition of contract. There's no definition of "contract" anywhere in law that mentions a signature. A signature is just EVIDENCE that the conversation (contract) took place, so the person can't later say "I don't remember ever talking to that person or agreeing to anything".
Certain types of contracts, generally those that can't possibly be finished within one year, are *unenforceable* in court unless written, because it's too easy for people to have different memories of conversations that occurred years ago. It's still a contract, but the court will essentially say "we can't be sure what the terms of the contract we're; either party may be remembering wrong".
In case anyone wants to talk about the actual bill, as opposed to just cramming their nose up some politician's ass, here's what the bill changed.
First, a quick review of what sectionnot702 is. Section 702 relates to eavesdropping on foreign communications. Programs under 702 are not to be used to target Americans. When one party to a conversation is an American, their identity is to be masked, referring to them as "person A", "person B", etc. So the record would show a conversation between Putin, Ahmadinejad, and Person A.
With that background, this bill makes the following two changes:
The committeeâ(TM)s bill would require government agencies to get a court order before viewing the content of communications to or from Americans in the National Security Agencyâ(TM)s database of information collected under the authority, known as Section 702, in criminal cases.
Rules relating to "unmasking" the identity of US citizens would be tightened. Certain officials have authority to unmask based on certain criteria. The bill would reduce the number of people who can authorize unmasking and tighten the conditions under which unmasking is allowed.
In general, the idea is to further the idea that section 702 is a national security tool tool to be used for international national security purposes, not for domestic criminal prosecutions, or worse, political purposes against US citizens not accused of any crime.
>. distributor gets to state their terms, but the potential buyer at the store effectively does not. And, there is no negotiation for consideration and/or terms. Therefore, I would like law and/or jurisprudence to come down and state "There was no negotiation, and therefore, no agreement could have been entered into".
That is true of ALL retail purchases. Whether you're buying a lawnmower, a pair of headphones, or software, the retail purchaser does not directly negotiate with the manufacturer or distributor regarding the terms of sale. They only choose which offered terms to accept or not (example I can choose to buy an iPhone, a Samsung, a generic, or none). There is practically never any negotiation of retail sales contracts. Does that mean we have to void all sales? Retail purchases are no longer valid? That seems an extreme "cure" for a relatively minor issue. There are, however, other cures, in existing law.
One item of existing law says that "take it or leave it" contracts are interpreted to the advantage of the party who didn't write the terms. In this case, that's the purchaser. If the terms of the digital download sale are ambiguous regarding whether it's transferrable, the purchaser (Netflix) wins on the that point. The idea is that since the seller wrote the terms, anything about the terms is the seller's fault, so they are the ones to lose out when something is unclear.
Unreasonable terms in such contracts are also not enforcible. The exact test of reasonableness varies by jurisdiction, but the basic idea is "if the person read the contract and had the opportunity to negotiate, would they reasonably accept this part of the contract?"
Other things that apply to non-negotiated contracts include implied warranties. If something is offered for sale on a take-it-or-leave basis, where warranties are not negotiated, there is an automatic warranty that the item is fit for sale. If the item is offered / advertised for a particular purpose, there is an automatic warranty that it is fit for that purpose.
It almost sounds like Russia might not want to ban the weapon they have been developing. Or, the headline and summary are complete bullshit. That happens a lot on Slashdot, misleading clickbait headlines.