No, you're just being an idiot. If it's so much better to run a small grid, why not simply do that? Feel free to divide the US into as many pieces as you like.
Don't try to move power from summer to winter. Let the hydro plants do that if necessary, and if that isn't enough, add more wind turbines (more wind in winter than in summer).
Why would a smaller grid be easier to handle a smaller grid? A larger grid under the control of one power authority should generally lead to fewer problems: It's easier to bring in power through a different line, and if a power plant fails it will be a smaller percentage of total capacity which needs to be replaced at short notice.
The UK only has a few connections to the continental grid, so they are almost entirely reliant on their own backup capacity. Yet they still manage a fairly decent grid.
If it's just (residential) freezers full of food, insurance is a lot cheaper than backup power. At least here. Most people will only experience that at most once in their lives, so it's cheap to insure against.
There's also the advantage that if you're in a power cut, most likely your customers had their power cut too. Downtime due to power cuts is therefore not as expensive as downtime due to faults in the UPS or generator.
This is less true for stuff like telecommunications, where emergencies are exactly where service is most needed.
That's ok, a 90% solution is still a good start. Anyway, the game developers can just band together and make a joint signing authority or even a repository. For Windows, that's known as Steam.
You'll probably be quite disappointed by quantum entanglement then. There are no signs that it can be used for FTL communication. You might as well have high hopes for really fast twinned pigeons.
That's why it's important to have a free market with lots of choices for who does the approval. Luckily we're spoilt for choice in Linux distributions, and there's quite a bit of non-Linux choice too. Even within the distributions you can add other "approval providers".
On Windows you'd have to trust Microsoft of course, but most Windows users already (perhaps unknowingly) use the Malicious Software Removal Tool as well as several different ways to run pre-approved software.
I didn't say anything about wrong. I simply stated facts. The marginal price of software IS 0. And copyright IS a government granted monopoly. It's a monopoly that says only the copyright holder can produce that particular software.
I still don't understand your question. Linux distributions are already signing software. So how do the developers get their software signed? They submit it to the distribution or wait for someone else to do it for them. Once it passes whatever kind of review that particular distribution favours, the software is signed and available in the repositories.
Actually the Fedora assumption was the exact opposite: That we can't expect to pop up a dialog asking the user for the root password to approve the installation of software, and have the user make the right decision every time. It is better to make a list of safe software which can't compromise an installation, and allow the user to install that without prompts.
This is not without problems, but once it is done right, the system will be less dependent on users making the right choices.
Installing pre-approved software without root access would be a great step forward both for usability and security. Imagine if we can get to the point where a normal user can use a laptop computer for a year without running with sufficient privileges to install untrusted software.
Sure, there are challenges, first and foremost how to revoke approval of a particular package. That doesn't mean we have to stick with the old trusted root paradigm forever. For the vast majority of Linux laptops/desktops, the user IS the administrator, and we can't expect to educate all computer users to be competent Unix administrators.
The laptop "manufacturers" actually just pay some random company to buy components and assemble them. The cell manufacturers have a much harder job, but surprisingly their margins seem much smaller.
In a free market, companies can't charge more, because competitors will undercut them until the price is close to the manufacturing price. Laptop batteries are a typical example of capitalism without a free market.
It's good for the manufacturer, for sure, but it's certainly not a free market. In a competitive market, large margins are unsustainable because your competitors will undercut you. Of course as soon as you are talking software, the market is by government fiat not competitive.
Laptop batteries sold separately are generally sold after the laptop was purchased, or at least after the decision was made to purchase that particular laptop. People don't generally spend the time to price out more than 2 laptops including all options before picking which one they want, they usually look at the base unit price. Therefore the laptop manufacturer has a monopoly (or close to a monopoly, at least, for some things you can get third-party components) on the sale of laptop options like batteries. A monopoly means being able to charge what the item is worth to the buyer, instead of only being able to charge a little more than the productions costs like in a market with perfect competition. The only challenge is to avoid scaring the cheapskate buyers away that you only make a small profit on without lowering the price for everyone, but differential pricing is solving that "problem".
Options and spare parts are generally examples of market failures.
You need about 10% concentration of CO2 to kill someone. Burning a liter of fuel isn't going to get you there, unless the garage is very small. If you have a car which burns more than a liter at idle in 20 minutes, you need a better car. Also, the CO2 will escape if you have any holes to the outside near the bottom of the garage.
Perhaps if you seal the garage and lie flat on the floor...
I think you forgot the group of people who believes that no one should interfere with their life style, no matter how much that life style harms others. I personally believe that group is the largest.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're just being an idiot. If it's so much better to run a small grid, why not simply do that? Feel free to divide the US into as many pieces as you like.
Don't try to move power from summer to winter. Let the hydro plants do that if necessary, and if that isn't enough, add more wind turbines (more wind in winter than in summer).
Why would a smaller grid be easier to handle a smaller grid? A larger grid under the control of one power authority should generally lead to fewer problems: It's easier to bring in power through a different line, and if a power plant fails it will be a smaller percentage of total capacity which needs to be replaced at short notice.
The UK only has a few connections to the continental grid, so they are almost entirely reliant on their own backup capacity. Yet they still manage a fairly decent grid.
If it's just (residential) freezers full of food, insurance is a lot cheaper than backup power. At least here. Most people will only experience that at most once in their lives, so it's cheap to insure against.
There's also the advantage that if you're in a power cut, most likely your customers had their power cut too. Downtime due to power cuts is therefore not as expensive as downtime due to faults in the UPS or generator.
This is less true for stuff like telecommunications, where emergencies are exactly where service is most needed.
Substitute "heat pump" for furnace, perhaps. Lots of homes are heated and cooled by those.
This has gone on several posts too long. I am convinced that anyone reasonable can see what is right in this particular thread.
The only thing I have to add is that argument by analogy is generally no argument at all.
That's ok, a 90% solution is still a good start. Anyway, the game developers can just band together and make a joint signing authority or even a repository. For Windows, that's known as Steam.
You'll probably be quite disappointed by quantum entanglement then. There are no signs that it can be used for FTL communication. You might as well have high hopes for really fast twinned pigeons.
That's why it's important to have a free market with lots of choices for who does the approval. Luckily we're spoilt for choice in Linux distributions, and there's quite a bit of non-Linux choice too. Even within the distributions you can add other "approval providers".
On Windows you'd have to trust Microsoft of course, but most Windows users already (perhaps unknowingly) use the Malicious Software Removal Tool as well as several different ways to run pre-approved software.
I didn't say anything about wrong. I simply stated facts. The marginal price of software IS 0. And copyright IS a government granted monopoly. It's a monopoly that says only the copyright holder can produce that particular software.
I still don't understand your question. Linux distributions are already signing software. So how do the developers get their software signed? They submit it to the distribution or wait for someone else to do it for them. Once it passes whatever kind of review that particular distribution favours, the software is signed and available in the repositories.
Yes, one of the challenges is that a revocation list is necessary. That doesn't invalidate the idea.
Probably the same way they already get their software trusted, by distributor-of-choice signing their packages.
Actually the Fedora assumption was the exact opposite: That we can't expect to pop up a dialog asking the user for the root password to approve the installation of software, and have the user make the right decision every time. It is better to make a list of safe software which can't compromise an installation, and allow the user to install that without prompts.
This is not without problems, but once it is done right, the system will be less dependent on users making the right choices.
Installing pre-approved software without root access would be a great step forward both for usability and security. Imagine if we can get to the point where a normal user can use a laptop computer for a year without running with sufficient privileges to install untrusted software.
Sure, there are challenges, first and foremost how to revoke approval of a particular package. That doesn't mean we have to stick with the old trusted root paradigm forever. For the vast majority of Linux laptops/desktops, the user IS the administrator, and we can't expect to educate all computer users to be competent Unix administrators.
Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Software's marginal price is 0, so in a free market the price would be close to 0.
The laptop "manufacturers" actually just pay some random company to buy components and assemble them. The cell manufacturers have a much harder job, but surprisingly their margins seem much smaller.
The hovercraft design is fine for the middle of the grass, but it's a pain for the edges.
In a free market, companies can't charge more, because competitors will undercut them until the price is close to the manufacturing price. Laptop batteries are a typical example of capitalism without a free market.
It's good for the manufacturer, for sure, but it's certainly not a free market. In a competitive market, large margins are unsustainable because your competitors will undercut you. Of course as soon as you are talking software, the market is by government fiat not competitive.
I believe the reason is actually another.
Laptop batteries sold separately are generally sold after the laptop was purchased, or at least after the decision was made to purchase that particular laptop. People don't generally spend the time to price out more than 2 laptops including all options before picking which one they want, they usually look at the base unit price. Therefore the laptop manufacturer has a monopoly (or close to a monopoly, at least, for some things you can get third-party components) on the sale of laptop options like batteries. A monopoly means being able to charge what the item is worth to the buyer, instead of only being able to charge a little more than the productions costs like in a market with perfect competition. The only challenge is to avoid scaring the cheapskate buyers away that you only make a small profit on without lowering the price for everyone, but differential pricing is solving that "problem".
Options and spare parts are generally examples of market failures.
Yes, but CO2 is not particularly deadly. CO on the other hand is really nasty.
You need about 10% concentration of CO2 to kill someone. Burning a liter of fuel isn't going to get you there, unless the garage is very small. If you have a car which burns more than a liter at idle in 20 minutes, you need a better car. Also, the CO2 will escape if you have any holes to the outside near the bottom of the garage.
Perhaps if you seal the garage and lie flat on the floor...
I think you forgot the group of people who believes that no one should interfere with their life style, no matter how much that life style harms others. I personally believe that group is the largest.