This is a good question. Here's the answer. UTC is never a daylight saving time. With UTC you don't have to be aware of the daylight saving time rules of a foreign country. You only have to be aware of when your own time zone goes on and off daylight saving. It does make it simpler to figure out mentally.
This is particularly important for opposite hemisphere countries, which go on and off daylight savings time at roughly opposite times instead of roughly the same time.
Nobody wants to keep up with the changes to all the daylight savings regimes of all the countries in the world. Very often people do not take the trouble to say whether a time is a daylight saving time or a standard time. The reader first has to figure that out.
I don't point the finger at slashdot because it is an American site. However quoting some particular countries time in an international forum is inconsiderate, ignorant or imperialistic. Pick one or more.
There's another one called an HVDC supergrid. Its cheaper than nukes. It's cheaper than replacing all the coal fired power stations. If you want to be fully informed on the energy debate, you need to check this out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Obviously the CFC industry wasn't as big and powerful as the fossil fuels industries, didn't spend enough money obfuscating the issues, perverting public opinion by telling them want they wanted to hear and getting Rupert to agree with their point of view.
Wow, did you know that a binary system consists of literally two stars! And a pair of stars is like two stars also, awesome! So a binary pair must be like two doubly awesome stars. Party on dudes!
In the sight of the newsgroup, in the name of software stability and maintainability, I Linus Torvalds, creator and maintainer of linux, creator of git, sentence you to die. You will speak no final word.
I could gain the same pleasure by fantasizing that instead of being my father's son, I am in fact the bastard son of a billionaire and his sole heir, and he's about to come to the end of his days. He didn't tell me because he wanted to see what I could make of myself. There, saved $2.
Genital modification/mutilation of infants is a serious human rights violation. This is so fucking obvious that if you don't get it already I doubt there is anything more anyone can say to convince you.
The Chinese are building more nuclear plants these days and electric scooters are very popular there. I wouldn't be surprised to see them become more environmentally friendly than the US in the next 15-30 years.
They already are:
United States: 17.5 tonnes CO2 emitted per capita
China: 5.3 tonnes CO2 emitted per capita
Source: United Nations Millennium Development Goals Indicators
Legal advice has been obtained recently that the Australian government cannot implement the internet filter without legislating. That is the real news here.
Both the greens and the opposition spokesmen oppose the filter. Xenophon's vote would be crucial only if there was a coalition split on the issue, such as if the National party senators split from their opposition colleagues.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. Either the Fairfax article is incorrect or their journalists know something that's not been made public.
"Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users."
""Obviously, wind alone isn't the solution," Jacobson said. "It's got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power."
How do you reconcile these two quotes: if wind can supply steady power, why is it obvious that wind alone isn't the solution?
If astronomers couldn't change the number of planets as new information became available, then astronomy would be dogma instead of a science. To me the pluto demotion has been a great illustration of science at work. Educators should be using it as an example of the difference between science and dogma. Mistake made, mistake corrected.
Theoretically they could use peak storage, but understand this: they don't. Until they do they are not 100% wind powered. All of the storage technologies you mention are either prohibitively expensive or don't have the capacity to cope with lulls in the wind for days or weeks at a time.
Outside a few small mountainous countries with heaps of hydro such as New Zealand, we are all dependent on fossil fuel or nuclear at least part of the time.
I believe that there has been an overreaction to criticism of Wikipedia that it is of uneven quality. The old idea that you "don't put off the newbies" seems to have been downgraded. Everyone will be familiar with the big bold tags, but I have also witnessed unnecessarily destructive criticisms of newbies by experienced editors in subjects where it is very difficult to get people to contribute.
Wikipedia is something entirely new! If you don't want uneven quality go read a dead-tree encyclopedia. If you don't want to read an unnotable article go read some other article!
I am horrified that a blatantly pejorative comment like this could get modded up to 3. I find myself spending less and less time on slashdot lately, this will just about it kill it off. Find some manners!
Since the human race has already demoted the sun, the moon and Ceres, demoting
Pluto doesn't seem like such a big deal.
The word planet originally meant "wanderer". Any body whose position varied with
respect to the star background was regarded as a planet. In ancient times the
sun and the moon were regarded as planets along with Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn.
Ceres was also regarded as a planet at the time of its discovery.
This decision of the IAU is nevertheless an important one and a victory for
themselves and for science. They have corrected a mistake made long ago. The
only losers are those would mistake science for dogma, and cling to false belief
in the face of later evidence. Those who would regard astronomers as losers are
those would regard scientists as gods and science as an infallible philosophy.
Today science has been shown to be what it is: a self correcting philosophy.
Patrick Moore says that wind and solar cannot replace coal because of intermittency problems. This is not correct: electric storage is becoming cheaper and more efficient all the time. Check out Vanadium redox batteries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_batter y
In addition the solar tower generates power continuously because of the re-radiation of energy from the ground under the canopy.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/faqs/faqs.htm
It seems to me that there are a number of technologies that have the potential to replace coal at a reasonable cost:
1. nuclear (have you ever heard of the integral fast reactor?),
2. wind backed by hydro used as an energy storage facility,
3. aquathermal or what ever it is we're going to call it.
So why don't we stop arguing about which one it's going to be and just get on with it?
Do all of them, find out which is the cheapest. Do we really know?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good question. Here's the answer. UTC is never a daylight saving time. With UTC you don't have to be aware of the daylight saving time rules of a foreign country. You only have to be aware of when your own time zone goes on and off daylight saving. It does make it simpler to figure out mentally.
This is particularly important for opposite hemisphere countries, which go on and off daylight savings time at roughly opposite times instead of roughly the same time.
Many countries do change their daylight savings time rules every now and again, for example the US as recently as 2007:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_time_in_the_United_States/
Nobody wants to keep up with the changes to all the daylight savings regimes of all the countries in the world. Very often people do not take the trouble to say whether a time is a daylight saving time or a standard time. The reader first has to figure that out.
I don't point the finger at slashdot because it is an American site. However quoting some particular countries time in an international forum is inconsiderate, ignorant or imperialistic. Pick one or more.
There's another one called an HVDC supergrid. Its cheaper than nukes. It's cheaper than replacing all the coal fired power stations. If you want to be fully informed on the energy debate, you need to check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
work out its commercial kinks
So would that be a straight BDSM dungeon, or are we going the whole way with specialists in urolagnia, acrotomophilia and menophilia?
Obviously the CFC industry wasn't as big and powerful as the fossil fuels industries, didn't spend enough money obfuscating the issues, perverting public opinion by telling them want they wanted to hear and getting Rupert to agree with their point of view.
Well yes, but there are limits, it really isn't private enough to rub one out.
Wow, did you know that a binary system consists of literally two stars! And a pair of stars is like two stars also, awesome! So a binary pair must be like two doubly awesome stars. Party on dudes!
We can look to the Starks and the Torvalds of this world for the solution to this problem.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918
In the sight of the newsgroup, in the name of software stability and maintainability, I Linus Torvalds, creator and maintainer of linux, creator of git, sentence you to die. You will speak no final word.
I could gain the same pleasure by fantasizing that instead of being my father's son, I am in fact the bastard son of a billionaire and his sole heir, and he's about to come to the end of his days. He didn't tell me because he wanted to see what I could make of myself. There, saved $2.
If you join Facebook, you have just signed away your rights to privacy. Zuckerberg has as good as said so.
The law is an ass. Internet law is a dumb-ass. The law just can't keep up with the internet.
Genital modification/mutilation of infants is a serious human rights violation. This is so fucking obvious that if you don't get it already I doubt there is anything more anyone can say to convince you.
The Chinese are building more nuclear plants these days and electric scooters are very popular there. I wouldn't be surprised to see them become more environmentally friendly than the US in the next 15-30 years.
They already are:
United States: 17.5 tonnes CO2 emitted per capita
China: 5.3 tonnes CO2 emitted per capita
Source: United Nations Millennium Development Goals Indicators
Fantastic, now all we need is a Placet (from Fredric Brown's Placet is a crazy place).
Legal advice has been obtained recently that the Australian government cannot implement the internet filter without legislating. That is the real news here.
Both the greens and the opposition spokesmen oppose the filter. Xenophon's vote would be crucial only if there was a coalition split on the issue, such as if the National party senators split from their opposition colleagues.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this. Either the Fairfax article is incorrect or their journalists know something that's not been made public.
Your are incorrect. Australia has senators who are also members of parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate
Two quotes from the original article:
"Jacobson said that while some people are under the impression that wind and wave power are too variable to provide steady amounts of electricity, his research group has already shown in previous research that by properly coordinating the energy output from wind farms in different locations, the potential problem with variability can be overcome and a steady supply of baseline power delivered to users."
""Obviously, wind alone isn't the solution," Jacobson said. "It's got to be a package deal, with energy also being produced by other sources such as solar, tidal, wave and geothermal power."
How do you reconcile these two quotes: if wind can supply steady power, why is it obvious that wind alone isn't the solution?
If astronomers couldn't change the number of planets as new information became available, then astronomy would be dogma instead of a science. To me the pluto demotion has been a great illustration of science at work. Educators should be using it as an example of the difference between science and dogma. Mistake made, mistake corrected.
Theoretically they could use peak storage, but understand this: they don't. Until they do they are not 100% wind powered. All of the storage technologies you mention are either prohibitively expensive or don't have the capacity to cope with lulls in the wind for days or weeks at a time. Outside a few small mountainous countries with heaps of hydro such as New Zealand, we are all dependent on fossil fuel or nuclear at least part of the time.
I believe that there has been an overreaction to criticism of Wikipedia that it is of uneven quality. The old idea that you "don't put off the newbies" seems to have been downgraded. Everyone will be familiar with the big bold tags, but I have also witnessed unnecessarily destructive criticisms of newbies by experienced editors in subjects where it is very difficult to get people to contribute.
Wikipedia is something entirely new! If you don't want uneven quality go read a dead-tree encyclopedia. If you don't want to read an unnotable article go read some other article!
This comment is seriously offensive, and needs modding down.
I am horrified that a blatantly pejorative comment like this could get modded up to 3. I find myself spending less and less time on slashdot lately, this will just about it kill it off. Find some manners!
Since the human race has already demoted the sun, the moon and Ceres, demoting Pluto doesn't seem like such a big deal. The word planet originally meant "wanderer". Any body whose position varied with respect to the star background was regarded as a planet. In ancient times the sun and the moon were regarded as planets along with Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Ceres was also regarded as a planet at the time of its discovery. This decision of the IAU is nevertheless an important one and a victory for themselves and for science. They have corrected a mistake made long ago. The only losers are those would mistake science for dogma, and cling to false belief in the face of later evidence. Those who would regard astronomers as losers are those would regard scientists as gods and science as an infallible philosophy. Today science has been shown to be what it is: a self correcting philosophy.
Patrick Moore says that wind and solar cannot replace coal because of intermittency problems. This is not correct: electric storage is becoming cheaper and more efficient all the time. Check out Vanadium redox batteries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_batter y
In addition the solar tower generates power continuously because of the re-radiation of energy from the ground under the canopy.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/faqs/faqs.htm
It seems to me that there are a number of technologies that have the potential to replace coal at a reasonable cost: 1. nuclear (have you ever heard of the integral fast reactor?), 2. wind backed by hydro used as an energy storage facility, 3. aquathermal or what ever it is we're going to call it. So why don't we stop arguing about which one it's going to be and just get on with it? Do all of them, find out which is the cheapest. Do we really know?
Changing a wikipedia article takes seconds. Repainting a wall takes hours or days and dollars. A sense of perspective is required here.
The restaurant analogy in the "The Register" article is false. When you go to a restaurant you have to pay. Wikipedia is free.