You're going to need some virus protection from your virus protection from your virus protection to be absolutely safe.
Thankfully, I am offering those at very reasonable prices.
Not only that, SiteAdvisor (trial version!) is clearly aware that tubgirl.com links/redirects to domains including "sexmoviesonpod.com" and "naughtynati.com" (as seen in the helpful graphic).
If the TOS expressly limits the secondary market for the songs that are sold through their service, and you break it by selling a loaded iPod, then the RIAA (or Apple) has a claim.
It doesn't matter at all what the license agreement or ToS says. Apple, iTunes, the iPod, the store where you bought the cd, the shrinkwrap license, the damned RIAA...none of them have the right to tell you that you cannot resell a legally purchased piece of their intellectual property.
Why? The First-sale doctrine. The Copyright Act states that the owner of a lawful copy can "sell or otherwise dispose of" the copy. In this context, "otherwise dispose of" means renting, lending, or leasing your copy.
As long as the item you are selling is a legally purchased, original copy, then the Copyright Act expressly allows the resale of your copy.
I prefer to reward speed over quality. But that is a flexible rule too.
I think I understand why you reward speed over quality. You seek to be the ones covering the "breaking news" of the tech/science sector. Five years ago, Slashdot WAS the site for (as another poster put it) "0-day" geek news.
In the past few years, the word "blog" has entered the vernacular, and Slashdot has slipped behind various blogs and other community run sites in the area of covering the "breaking" news. Frankly, in terms of time from new story to front page, I don't see how the Slashdot submission-queue-with-editor-oversight can compete with the likes of something like Digg's automatic promotion of popular content.
There IS a place where Slashdot can outshine all the competition though: QUALITY.
Slashdot has the deepest and most knowledgable userbase of any site I know. Combine that with a surprisingly functional moderation and browsing preference system, and I usually learn more by reading the posts than I do the article. The type of people that make Slashdot so great are the same type that will be attracted by well-written, thoughtful, non-biased article writeups.
Perhaps it's time for Slashdot to forget about being "0-day". Perhaps it's time for Slashdot to settle into the role to which it's already being relagated: The site one browses to get the real scoop on news that may already have been partially digested.
Perhaps I've typed too much for a post no one will ever read (1k posts already). Perhaps I've used too many words to make my point (QUALITY > SPEED). I just hope that someone at Slashdot reads this and at least considers that quality should be rule number one.
Wow...I've never heard that before. I went googling and found this:
No, it's not nonsense. The fields generated by the deflection coils, etc., ARE much greater in magnitude than the Earth's field, but they're AC fields. The DC offset of these fields is relatively small, and the Earth's field (also DC) IS sufficient to cause a visible shift in the position of the raster and affect the beam landing, etc.. This is why, for instance, there ARE often problems when trying to use a "Northern hemisphere" monitor in the Southern hemisphere.
Having said that, however, this isn't really something the average user needs to worry about. In the detailed specs for any monitor, there generally ARE a set of specific ambient conditions under which certain performance specs are intended to be checked. These usually include the ambient magnetic fields (which also tells you what magnetic environment was used at the factory for adjustment), and the orientation of the monitor within those fields. For the vast majority of monitors, the specified ambient conditions simulate average magnetic fields in the U.S. or Europe (which are very similar), and the monitor is specified as facing east or west within those fields.
Sorry, but when MySQL developers tell me things like "count (*) is supposed to give you an estimate"
To be fair to MySQL, that's only for tables of type InnoDB. MyISAM and other storage engines do return an accurate count. From here:
InnoDB does not keep an internal count of rows in a table. (This would actually be somewhat complicated because of multi-versioning.) To process a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM t statement, InnoDB must scan an index of the table, which takes some time if the index is not entirely in the buffer pool. To get a fast count, you have to use a counter table you create yourself and let your application update it according to the inserts and deletes it does. If your table does not change often, using the MySQL query cache is a good solution. SHOW TABLE STATUS also can be used if an approximate row count is sufficient.
It should be noted, though, that you have to use InnoDB tables for all those "modern" database features like transactional support* and foreign key constraints.
It may be a bit of a bother, but it's not that hard to create the "counter table" for whatever it is you need to count. All the major DBs have something that's a pain in the ass...at least with MySQL you didn't have to pay for the pain.
*BDB and NDB Cluster are apparently transaction safe as well, but I have no experience with them; and for whatever reason, they don't seem to be popularly used.
Was that Linus? I thought that was someone else'e attempt at changing the kernel from C to C++?
I'm no Linux hacker, but this has Linus's name at the bottom, so I'm guessing it was indeed Mr. Torvalds's super-crazy and far-out versioning scheme....besides, I hear the man doesn't care for C++.
Users will make sure it fails. I have seen that many times.
On one hand, I can completely understand that reluctance to change. Users of complex systems that have a steep learning curve can be particularly recalcitrant.
On the other hand, if you truly do "have a 100% working new system, with a 1000% improvement over the old system", then users will most certainly be excited and eager to use it.
Wait, let me try that again...I think I had it backwards.
If your users are not excited, or at least willing to use the program, then you do not have a product that is 1000% improvement. Even more important, though, is that the lack of user satisfaction should not be a surprise! End-users are a very important part of the development cycle. They are the ones you are developing for, and if they have no input during the design and development and testing of the software then don't be surprised when you get a thumbs-down on release day.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a program fails from user reluctance or rejection, then it is not the user's fault, but rather the developer who has failed.
really believing legality of text shouldn't depend on whether or not you're offended
I believe it. I believe it with all my heart and soul.
To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall, I may not approve of what you write, but I will defend to the death your right to do so. Also from that same link, I quite like Voltaire's words:
"Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation."
Whether or not something is "obscene" is extremely subjective; and sticks-and-stone may break my bones, but words, especially in the context of fantasy, won't hurt anyone*. Shutting down a website like red-rose-stories.com for being obscene is next-of-kin to prosecuting thought crime.
*Yes, I know slander, libel, and other untruths may be harmful...but not because they're obscene.
> The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations.
"Nonlethal" is a misnomer for many of these weapons.
The problem inherent to these less-then-lethal weapons is that the police or the military will be more inclined to use them in situations that may not call for such use of force.
Crowd control situations are particularly problematic. I live not far from Boston, and was appalled at the way the Boston police handled the celebratory crowds after last year's Red Sox World Series win. A young woman was shot and killed by a "nonlethal" pepper-spray bullet. From the article:
"The Boston Police Department "accepts full responsibility" for the death of a 21-year-old college student killed by a police projectile fired to disperse crowds celebrating the Boston Red Sox victory over the New York Yankees."...
...
"However, video from the scene where Snelgrove was struck showed the crowd in a joyous mood, slapping high fives and chanting celebratory Red Sox slogans. There were no signs of near-riotous conditions in that immediate vicinity although the area was crowded, and dozens of people near her stopped celebrating when they realized the severity of her injury and they tried to get help."
"Nonlethal" _isn't_...and those using these weapons must understand that they're not playing with Nerf guns.
Pastwatch is a real mind bender in many ways, as it deals with future historians looking into the past. I hesitate to say any more for fear of giving something away, but I highly reccomend picking up the book.
Yes, but if there is a BABY blind from birth they can give them these artificial eyes, and let them see *from birth*. Yes, it won't help people who are already older and blind from birth, but in the future there is a potential of no one ever being blind, is there not?
I was about to mod you as "insightful" (...and you deserve it!), but instead I felt to need to respond.
I _can_ see a future where no one is blind from birth, but not anytime soon.
A baby grows at an enourmous rate, doubling in size every so-many months. Granted, the skull and brain do not grow in size at nearly the same rate; but my point remains valid. Will the chip that interfaces with the child's retina and/or optic nerve be able to adapt to a changing eye size? (For those about to reply that babies' eyes are already full-size, see this. Yes, I had to look it up myself 'cause urban legend says otherwise;-)
Can the "bionic eye" adapt to eye growth? My intuition says "no". If my intuition is correct, then the child would require repeated surgeries over the course of childhood, and probably adolesence.
To replace or repair a child's eyes at birth (I think) requires a more "elegant" technology...a technology out of reach of current and near-future science. Of course, perhaps some non-computer-like biotechnology is the answer. Stem cells come to mind, as they can supposedly be coaxed into forming any type of body tissue.
Note: I have worked with and spent a great deal of time with many blind adults. Most lead a very happy and normal life, and they will surprise you with how much they truely "see".
Well lets not worry about the 14th amedntment [cornell.edu]then. It is hard to actualy place wieght to any portion of the constatution if we are to overlook the context it is supposed to be interpreted in.
Perhaps you should re-read the 14th amendment. Carefully, this time.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note the use of "citizens" versus the use of "any person". I would argue that the legislators who wrote the 14th amendment chose their words carefully. "Any person" is certainly not a "citizen". With this in mind, the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." is crystal clear.
TGK's line of reasoning in the GP-Post bears repeating:
Rights to lease the Guantanimo Base facility were granted to the United States in the treaty that ended the Spanish American War (if memory serves). The base is a US military outpost wherein US troops are subject to the Code of Military Justice, a US Law.
As US Law applies on the base, it is fair and reasonable to assume that the US Constitution, the supreme law of the United States of American, also applies on the base.
Per this line of reasoning, Gitmo falls under US jurisdiction. Therefore the 14th amendment applies, and the government may not deprive the enemy combatants of "equal protection of the laws."
I think HK-47 is adorable...but I wouldn't say that to his face.
HK-47:Explanation: There is a 98% probability that that this Jawa meatbag is searching for his missing companions. Jedi: What about the other 2%? HK-47: That he is looking for trouble and should be blasted right away. But that is just wishful thinking on my part.
HK-47:Advisement: Evisceration works well. Electrocution, blunt trauma, and decapitation are also effective, I understand.
HK-47:Would you shut up? I am not a dangerous psychopath!
The HOSTS file from that site is 210K, and they suggest shutting down your "DNS Client" service on win2k to avoid slowdowns because of the size of the file. They say "the above "Service" is not needed".
Once upon a time, I maintained a huge hosts file...until I discovered that when Windows paused for 30-60 seconds every hour or two, it was a result of the enormous hosts file. Just like you, I found people suggesting that I disable the DNS Client service; but just like you that was not an option for me due to programs that relied on that service.
My solution? Empty out your hosts file and grab Peer Guardian Lite and use whatever blocklist you want. The PeerGuardian guys maintain a nice set of blocklists here. PGLite blocks the connections just as effectively as using the hosts file, and it does so with next-to-zero cpu time.
BTW, I use Opera and it rocks. No popups mentioned in this article, or any test sites pointed to from posters have yet to pop-up on me. Just set Opera to "Block unwanted popups" and browse away.:-)
Last year, when the new season of Stargate began, I would have a bunch of friends over to drink beers and watch new Stargate episodes. The 2nd half of the Stargate season just started airing on SciFi fridays a couple weeks ago...yet neither I nor my usually 'gate buddies have been watching it.
Why? It's simple. They've been airing overseas, and my friends d/l them and we watch the new episodes. We finished most of the current season before the 2nd half even started airing.
...Are we wrong to do so?
For a month or two now, every week we've seen a new episode of Stargate SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and the (fantastic!) new series Battlestar Galactica. All of them are commercial free and very high quality rips. I can see this becoming a serious problem for the SciFi channel, and I would be willing to bet there has been a friday-night ratings drop for the 2nd-half or the season.
Also, on a similar note, watch Battlestar Galatica! It is absolutely amazing...the season finale (which won't air in the US for a month or two) is possibly the best 45 minutes of television ever created.
I don't think anybody has any reason to pay for some unknown web browser, unless it has some amazing features.
Amazing features is _exactly_ what Opera has:
Mouse Gestures! - I don't know how I ever surfed the web without mouse gestures.
Fast Forward & Next Buttons - Browsing an image gallery? Just keep hitting "Next" for the next picture in order! (instead of hitting back after each picture)
M2 Email Client - Opinion is a little divided over M2, but I love it and have been using it as my main email client for a year.
ntm all the "standard" features (that IE lacks) like popup-blocking, skinning, tabbed browsing, browser spoofing, and more.
I am a happy Opera customer, though the browser can be downloaded and used at no charge (just an a ad bar to put-up-with). I _highly_ reccomend trying out Opera if you haven't...the mouse gestures alone are enough to make a person switch.
On the rare occassion I have to use IE, I habitually try mouse gestures and spend a moment confused as to why it isn't working!
There were a ton of groups ready to swoop in and challenge result they didnt agree with.
That's the true story here. These types of actions are reprehensible.
What exactly is reprehensible about challenging and verifying America's voting procedures and results? I don't see any possible harm from the challenge, and I see a potential benefit that could come from inconsistantsies being brought to light.
For instance: "According to the official election results posted on the Palm Beach County election website, 542,835 ballots were cast for a presidential candidate while only 454,427 voters turned out for the election (including absentee). This leaves a discrepancy of 88,408 votes cast for the presidential candidates."
The above strikes me as a problem with our voting system. Problems such as these will never be corrected if there's no one challenging and verifying the election results.
P.S. Yes, I know that Palm Beach county has apparently accounted for the discrepancy by adding the absentee and provisional ballots to that 454,427 number. But if there's no one asking why the numbers didn't originally add up, then we'll never know if there's a problem.
Let's say the solar panels produce about 180 watts of energy. The electrolyzer is probably about 50% efficient, bringing our final storage rate to ~90 joules per second. That works out to about 324 kilojoules per hour. Which at a "mere" 2kw of constant use would provide exactly 162 seconds of driving time. (Actually less due to further inefficiencies.)
That's an excellent point, but who says I can only use 1m^2 of solar panels?
Use the same calculations (I know, your #s are rather idealistic, but let's run with them), but this time assume I have a 10m x 10m square of solar panels on the roof of my house, and an at-home hydrogen fill-up station.
At 2kW usage, one hour of charge time provides 16200 seconds of driving or: 16200s * (1m/60s) * (1h/60m) = 4.5 hours!
Granted, I'm sure these numbers are overly optimistic; but surely you must agree that a roof-top electrolyzer seems feasible. Hell, I'd give up a 10m x 10m section of my backyard for free fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
An old acquaintance of my mother has apparently made vast sums of money selling insurance to the insurance companies...
I think your business model may have merit.
Not only that, SiteAdvisor (trial version!) is clearly aware that tubgirl.com links/redirects to domains including "sexmoviesonpod.com" and "naughtynati.com" (as seen in the helpful graphic).
So...I'm sold. Where do I sign up?
It doesn't matter at all what the license agreement or ToS says. Apple, iTunes, the iPod, the store where you bought the cd, the shrinkwrap license, the damned RIAA...none of them have the right to tell you that you cannot resell a legally purchased piece of their intellectual property.
Why? The First-sale doctrine. The Copyright Act states that the owner of a lawful copy can "sell or otherwise dispose of" the copy. In this context, "otherwise dispose of" means renting, lending, or leasing your copy.
As long as the item you are selling is a legally purchased, original copy, then the Copyright Act expressly allows the resale of your copy.
I think I understand why you reward speed over quality. You seek to be the ones covering the "breaking news" of the tech/science sector. Five years ago, Slashdot WAS the site for (as another poster put it) "0-day" geek news.
In the past few years, the word "blog" has entered the vernacular, and Slashdot has slipped behind various blogs and other community run sites in the area of covering the "breaking" news. Frankly, in terms of time from new story to front page, I don't see how the Slashdot submission-queue-with-editor-oversight can compete with the likes of something like Digg's automatic promotion of popular content.
There IS a place where Slashdot can outshine all the competition though: QUALITY.
Slashdot has the deepest and most knowledgable userbase of any site I know. Combine that with a surprisingly functional moderation and browsing preference system, and I usually learn more by reading the posts than I do the article. The type of people that make Slashdot so great are the same type that will be attracted by well-written, thoughtful, non-biased article writeups.
Perhaps it's time for Slashdot to forget about being "0-day". Perhaps it's time for Slashdot to settle into the role to which it's already being relagated: The site one browses to get the real scoop on news that may already have been partially digested.
Perhaps I've typed too much for a post no one will ever read (1k posts already). Perhaps I've used too many words to make my point (QUALITY > SPEED). I just hope that someone at Slashdot reads this and at least considers that quality should be rule number one.
Pfft. How can anyone call this silly?
It's perfect next to my RAM w/digital readouts, blacklight sensitive motherboard, and glowing power supply
(none of which are silly)
To be fair to MySQL, that's only for tables of type InnoDB. MyISAM and other storage engines do return an accurate count. From here:
It should be noted, though, that you have to use InnoDB tables for all those "modern" database features like transactional support* and foreign key constraints.
It may be a bit of a bother, but it's not that hard to create the "counter table" for whatever it is you need to count. All the major DBs have something that's a pain in the ass...at least with MySQL you didn't have to pay for the pain.
*BDB and NDB Cluster are apparently transaction safe as well, but I have no experience with them; and for whatever reason, they don't seem to be popularly used.
Unfortunately, everyone in the crowd will assume someone else is calling 911.
I'm no Linux hacker, but this has Linus's name at the bottom, so I'm guessing it was indeed Mr. Torvalds's super-crazy and far-out versioning scheme....besides, I hear the man doesn't care for C++.
On one hand, I can completely understand that reluctance to change. Users of complex systems that have a steep learning curve can be particularly recalcitrant.
On the other hand, if you truly do "have a 100% working new system, with a 1000% improvement over the old system", then users will most certainly be excited and eager to use it.
Wait, let me try that again...I think I had it backwards.
If your users are not excited, or at least willing to use the program, then you do not have a product that is 1000% improvement. Even more important, though, is that the lack of user satisfaction should not be a surprise! End-users are a very important part of the development cycle. They are the ones you are developing for, and if they have no input during the design and development and testing of the software then don't be surprised when you get a thumbs-down on release day.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a program fails from user reluctance or rejection, then it is not the user's fault, but rather the developer who has failed.
I believe it. I believe it with all my heart and soul.
To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall, I may not approve of what you write, but I will defend to the death your right to do so. Also from that same link, I quite like Voltaire's words:
Whether or not something is "obscene" is extremely subjective; and sticks-and-stone may break my bones, but words, especially in the context of fantasy, won't hurt anyone*. Shutting down a website like red-rose-stories.com for being obscene is next-of-kin to prosecuting thought crime.
*Yes, I know slander, libel, and other untruths may be harmful...but not because they're obscene.
Hmmm...a "plucky" robot for combat with extendable legs with wheels allowing it to move like an insect.
Now where have I seen one of those before?
>> "nonlethal" weapons
> The only place I've ever actually heard of them being used is in roit or crowd control situations.
"Nonlethal" is a misnomer for many of these weapons.
The problem inherent to these less-then-lethal weapons is that the police or the military will be more inclined to use them in situations that may not call for such use of force.
Crowd control situations are particularly problematic. I live not far from Boston, and was appalled at the way the Boston police handled the celebratory crowds after last year's Red Sox World Series win. A young woman was shot and killed by a "nonlethal" pepper-spray bullet. From the article:
"Nonlethal" _isn't_...and those using these weapons must understand that they're not playing with Nerf guns.
On that topic, I'd like to reccomend the book Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus by Orson Scott Card (...you know, the guy who wrote Ender's Game)
Pastwatch is a real mind bender in many ways, as it deals with future historians looking into the past. I hesitate to say any more for fear of giving something away, but I highly reccomend picking up the book.
Your momma's so fat, a DS3 line can't top her band-width.
/me ducks
I was about to mod you as "insightful" (...and you deserve it!), but instead I felt to need to respond.
I _can_ see a future where no one is blind from birth, but not anytime soon.
A baby grows at an enourmous rate, doubling in size every so-many months. Granted, the skull and brain do not grow in size at nearly the same rate; but my point remains valid. Will the chip that interfaces with the child's retina and/or optic nerve be able to adapt to a changing eye size? (For those about to reply that babies' eyes are already full-size, see this. Yes, I had to look it up myself 'cause urban legend says otherwise ;-)
Can the "bionic eye" adapt to eye growth? My intuition says "no". If my intuition is correct, then the child would require repeated surgeries over the course of childhood, and probably adolesence.
To replace or repair a child's eyes at birth (I think) requires a more "elegant" technology...a technology out of reach of current and near-future science. Of course, perhaps some non-computer-like biotechnology is the answer. Stem cells come to mind, as they can supposedly be coaxed into forming any type of body tissue.
Note: I have worked with and spent a great deal of time with many blind adults. Most lead a very happy and normal life, and they will surprise you with how much they truely "see".
Regards,
jtcm
Perhaps you should re-read the 14th amendment. Carefully, this time.
From your link: (emphasis mine)
Note the use of "citizens" versus the use of "any person". I would argue that the legislators who wrote the 14th amendment chose their words carefully. "Any person" is certainly not a "citizen". With this in mind, the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." is crystal clear.
TGK's line of reasoning in the GP-Post bears repeating:
Per this line of reasoning, Gitmo falls under US jurisdiction. Therefore the 14th amendment applies, and the government may not deprive the enemy combatants of "equal protection of the laws."
QEDPeace,
jtcm
I think HK-47 is adorable...but I wouldn't say that to his face.
Now _that_ is cute!
Once upon a time, I maintained a huge hosts file...until I discovered that when Windows paused for 30-60 seconds every hour or two, it was a result of the enormous hosts file. Just like you, I found people suggesting that I disable the DNS Client service; but just like you that was not an option for me due to programs that relied on that service.
My solution? Empty out your hosts file and grab Peer Guardian Lite and use whatever blocklist you want. The PeerGuardian guys maintain a nice set of blocklists here. PGLite blocks the connections just as effectively as using the hosts file, and it does so with next-to-zero cpu time.
BTW, I use Opera and it rocks. No popups mentioned in this article, or any test sites pointed to from posters have yet to pop-up on me. Just set Opera to "Block unwanted popups" and browse away. :-)
Last year, when the new season of Stargate began, I would have a bunch of friends over to drink beers and watch new Stargate episodes. The 2nd half of the Stargate season just started airing on SciFi fridays a couple weeks ago...yet neither I nor my usually 'gate buddies have been watching it.
Why? It's simple. They've been airing overseas, and my friends d/l them and we watch the new episodes. We finished most of the current season before the 2nd half even started airing.
...Are we wrong to do so?
For a month or two now, every week we've seen a new episode of Stargate SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and the (fantastic!) new series Battlestar Galactica. All of them are commercial free and very high quality rips. I can see this becoming a serious problem for the SciFi channel, and I would be willing to bet there has been a friday-night ratings drop for the 2nd-half or the season.
Also, on a similar note, watch Battlestar Galatica! It is absolutely amazing...the season finale (which won't air in the US for a month or two) is possibly the best 45 minutes of television ever created.
Amazing features is _exactly_ what Opera has:
I am a happy Opera customer, though the browser can be downloaded and used at no charge (just an a ad bar to put-up-with). I _highly_ reccomend trying out Opera if you haven't...the mouse gestures alone are enough to make a person switch.
On the rare occassion I have to use IE, I habitually try mouse gestures and spend a moment confused as to why it isn't working!
Neo works for Best Buy?
Whoa.
Where are my mod points when I need em?
Kudos to the parent for a brilliantly funny (ntm, informed) post.
What exactly is reprehensible about challenging and verifying America's voting procedures and results? I don't see any possible harm from the challenge, and I see a potential benefit that could come from inconsistantsies being brought to light.
For instance: "According to the official election results posted on the Palm Beach County election website, 542,835 ballots were cast for a presidential candidate while only 454,427 voters turned out for the election (including absentee). This leaves a discrepancy of 88,408 votes cast for the presidential candidates."
The above strikes me as a problem with our voting system. Problems such as these will never be corrected if there's no one challenging and verifying the election results.
P.S. Yes, I know that Palm Beach county has apparently accounted for the discrepancy by adding the absentee and provisional ballots to that 454,427 number. But if there's no one asking why the numbers didn't originally add up, then we'll never know if there's a problem.
That's an excellent point, but who says I can only use 1m^2 of solar panels?
Use the same calculations (I know, your #s are rather idealistic, but let's run with them), but this time assume I have a 10m x 10m square of solar panels on the roof of my house, and an at-home hydrogen fill-up station.
100m^2 * (180W/m^2 * 0.5) = 9000W = 9 kilojoules/sec
9kJ/s * (60s/1m) * (60m/1h) = 32400 kilojoules/hour
At 2kW usage, one hour of charge time provides 16200 seconds of driving or: 16200s * (1m/60s) * (1h/60m) = 4.5 hours!
Granted, I'm sure these numbers are overly optimistic; but surely you must agree that a roof-top electrolyzer seems feasible. Hell, I'd give up a 10m x 10m section of my backyard for free fuel.