If you're offgrid and storing excess power in batteries then point in the direction of most efficiency. If you're connected to a meter and can run it backwards then point in the direction of most efficiency. If you're only producing half your own power and pay a flat rate for electricity then point in the direction of most efficiency.
There are only a few specific situations where an individual would benefit from aligning solar panels with their usage patterns instead of maximum efficiency. My guess is the majority of homeowners don't fall in that category.
I live in the UK and have solar panels. I get a payment from the state for the amount of energy that I generate with the panels. How the energy is used doesn't really matter - it makes a very small difference, but really the financial incentive is all around generation.
The venturebeat article links to netmarketshare as the source of the statistics. The numbers are apparently world-wide. Your own experience is unlikely to be a reliable barometer of what's happening in Munich, Shanghai or Addis Ababa...
The courts are there to decide the cases that are brought before them. If someone chooses to bring an action for copyright infringement in a particular circumstance then it's the function of the courts to decide the case.
The wisdom of bringing, contesting or appealing cases is really a matter for litigants and their legal advisers; not for the court.
Quite. This is quite normal when you take a job in any government department here in the UK. You're asked about, for example, your criminal record. Fessing up to a conviction won't automatically exclude you from consideration (it depends of course on the job and the crime). But lying about it and then getting found out will always go badly for you.
Yeah. Colloquially also known as crying over spilt milk or sending good money after bad.
People who've been closely involved in a previous decision are much more likely to make this kind of error. Which is partly why in business it's good to have input from others - they won't have the same emotional involvement or concerns about being seen to have made a bad choice. Hence they are better able to abandon something when necessary.
You mentioned online courses. There are plenty of good quality ones these days. Some you're expected to work to a particular schedule, some you can do at your own pace. 10 hours a week is plenty.
Your characterisation of the multi-player experience is rather slanted. I've played quite a few games online as part of a competitive team against other teams (UT, Quake, Tribes2), or as part of cooperative team against the game (WoW raiding). I view these as positive social experiences.
Multiplayer gaming doesn't have to be about jumping into some public server with a bunch of random strangers.
Surely the question is rather - why should the BBC provide you with content if you're not prepared to give that information?
The BBC is funded by payments from TV licence holders in the UK. All the content it produces is available free in the UK. It also makes money from selling programmes overseas. If there was no revenue from overseas sales then people in the UK would have to pay a lot more.
So - why should you get the BBC content for free when you've not contributed to the costs of producing it in the first place?
Whilst unit testing is a good thing in general it's actually hard to know how many tests to write. Whilst it is in theory possible to write tests for most things, it's completely infeasible to a priori write tests every for possible interaction with any reasonably sized bit of software. In practice everyone ships code with gaps in the test suite.
There are contexts in which we should be formally proving the correctness of code. This tends to be a niche thing tho' because it's hard and time-consuming.
It's not just the spend, it's the spend compared with the cost of developing and marketing the game. A game like GTA takes many millions to make, a game like WoW takes many millions to make and millions more to keep the infrastructure up. You can make a lot of sales and still lose money. A cheap to make smartphone game can be very profitable even if people don't spend much on it.
I suppose that doesn't quite answer the question of whether any of those pieces of software actually produce documents that comply with the standard, which is what the actual requirement is.
But in any case the practical difficulty will be that people will say they have complied with the requirement by saving as ODF from Word, whether or not that actually enables interoperability with non-Word software.
Assuming there's compliance with this edict at some point in the foreseeable future (which is questionable); what's going to happen is that people will save as ODF from Word. The question is then whether you can truly use other software to work on those documents. MS has a long history of failing to properly implement standards; or even their own specifications.
It's not at all clear that this is want Google plan to do. The BBC are reporting that google.com will not be affected. Whether the Google Spain ruling actually says what you say it does is not clear. The judgment says (at para 88) " the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed...". There's nothing in the decision that specifically addresses deleting copies of data.
With some provisos. There are contexts in which the fact of the convictions can still be used. For example in a subsequent criminal trial evidence of the conviction can be given (subject to the usual rules of evidence about such things).
Slashdot Mirror
If you're offgrid and storing excess power in batteries then point in the direction of most efficiency.
If you're connected to a meter and can run it backwards then point in the direction of most efficiency.
If you're only producing half your own power and pay a flat rate for electricity then point in the direction of most efficiency.
There are only a few specific situations where an individual would benefit from aligning solar panels with their usage patterns instead of maximum efficiency.
My guess is the majority of homeowners don't fall in that category.
I live in the UK and have solar panels. I get a payment from the state for the amount of energy that I generate with the panels. How the energy is used doesn't really matter - it makes a very small difference, but really the financial incentive is all around generation.
Years? Doesn't sound like an SI unit. I suppose you meant 315,360,000 seconds?
The venturebeat article links to netmarketshare as the source of the statistics. The numbers are apparently world-wide. Your own experience is unlikely to be a reliable barometer of what's happening in Munich, Shanghai or Addis Ababa ...
The courts are there to decide the cases that are brought before them. If someone chooses to bring an action for copyright infringement in a particular circumstance then it's the function of the courts to decide the case.
The wisdom of bringing, contesting or appealing cases is really a matter for litigants and their legal advisers; not for the court.
"There's patches" ?
Quite. This is quite normal when you take a job in any government department here in the UK. You're asked about, for example, your criminal record. Fessing up to a conviction won't automatically exclude you from consideration (it depends of course on the job and the crime). But lying about it and then getting found out will always go badly for you.
Yeah. Colloquially also known as crying over spilt milk or sending good money after bad.
People who've been closely involved in a previous decision are much more likely to make this kind of error. Which is partly why in business it's good to have input from others - they won't have the same emotional involvement or concerns about being seen to have made a bad choice. Hence they are better able to abandon something when necessary.
You mentioned online courses. There are plenty of good quality ones these days. Some you're expected to work to a particular schedule, some you can do at your own pace. 10 hours a week is plenty.
Your characterisation of the multi-player experience is rather slanted. I've played quite a few games online as part of a competitive team against other teams (UT, Quake, Tribes2), or as part of cooperative team against the game (WoW raiding). I view these as positive social experiences.
Multiplayer gaming doesn't have to be about jumping into some public server with a bunch of random strangers.
While I totally agree that Romero was an abject failure...
Doom, Quake, Wolfenstien - "abject failure"? Please.
Surely the question is rather - why should the BBC provide you with content if you're not prepared to give that information?
The BBC is funded by payments from TV licence holders in the UK. All the content it produces is available free in the UK. It also makes money from selling programmes overseas. If there was no revenue from overseas sales then people in the UK would have to pay a lot more.
So - why should you get the BBC content for free when you've not contributed to the costs of producing it in the first place?
Whilst unit testing is a good thing in general it's actually hard to know how many tests to write. Whilst it is in theory possible to write tests for most things, it's completely infeasible to a priori write tests every for possible interaction with any reasonably sized bit of software. In practice everyone ships code with gaps in the test suite.
There are contexts in which we should be formally proving the correctness of code. This tends to be a niche thing tho' because it's hard and time-consuming.
It's not just the spend, it's the spend compared with the cost of developing and marketing the game. A game like GTA takes many millions to make, a game like WoW takes many millions to make and millions more to keep the infrastructure up. You can make a lot of sales and still lose money. A cheap to make smartphone game can be very profitable even if people don't spend much on it.
One wonders whether the real issue is lack of MS office, rather than lack of Windows?
Criminals can promise things that legit marketing emails can't.
I suppose that doesn't quite answer the question of whether any of those pieces of software actually produce documents that comply with the standard, which is what the actual requirement is.
But in any case the practical difficulty will be that people will say they have complied with the requirement by saving as ODF from Word, whether or not that actually enables interoperability with non-Word software.
Assuming there's compliance with this edict at some point in the foreseeable future (which is questionable); what's going to happen is that people will save as ODF from Word. The question is then whether you can truly use other software to work on those documents. MS has a long history of failing to properly implement standards; or even their own specifications.
Truth might not be an absolute defence to defamation in the US, but it is in English law.
But in any case this is not about defamation. It's a different thing.
Seriously, I don't think I ever received anything from them that couldn't be sent in RTF format, but that's another story.
99% of the stuff that gets send as word processor files could be plain text.
Only in the US would 3 weeks be regarded as a generous holiday allowance. In most of Europe 4 weeks is a minimum - many people have ~6 weeks+.
The summary suggests that plug-in hybrids are something different from hybrids - surely that's wrong: they're just a particular kind of hybrid.
Huh? If the newspapers don't want people to view their content via the web then they should stop publishing it on the web.
err typo: "what Google plan to do"
It's not at all clear that this is want Google plan to do. The BBC are reporting that google.com will not be affected. Whether the Google Spain ruling actually says what you say it does is not clear. The judgment says (at para 88) " the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed...". There's nothing in the decision that specifically addresses deleting copies of data.
With some provisos. There are contexts in which the fact of the convictions can still be used. For example in a subsequent criminal trial evidence of the conviction can be given (subject to the usual rules of evidence about such things).