You obviously aren't aware of inetd or xinetd, although you probably have them running, started by your precious sysvinit.
First, most modern Linux systems come without an inetd or xinetd, because they have no services which aren't supplied by long-running daemons. Second, inetd won't listen on things it doesn't need to listen on, let alone xinetd.
"All muslim's are terrorists" ranting. That is not productive or accurate.
If you said "Hey, Islam needs to go through it's own Reformation", then the ones you deride as "SJW's" would agree with you.
There is a middle ground. That middle ground is where you claim that the majority of muslims give at least tacit approval to islamic terrorism by not opposing it. If they did oppose it, they would have had a reformation by now.
The ones that focus on Islam instead of the real reasons (extreme misogynistic traditions in many cultures)
Islam is an extremely misogynistic tradition. That is the real reason they can't progress their cultures. You can see this at work in every Islamic state. Their culture progresses more slowly, because they've got rules to make that happen. No different from the Amish, except there's enough Muslims to be a problem, and the Amish are grossly outnumbered.
Jews? It's really ludicrous to even bring up the Jews. Jews don't exist. Numerically, that is
That's a ridiculous thing to say. Sure, they very much don't exist in some places, but they are extremely unevenly distributed due to some deliberate and deft political decisions on the part of the UK. They created the nation of Israel and one of the most complicated regions in the world got even more complicated — to the benefit of everyone but the residents of the region where the Jews were installed. And people are still lauding them for their benevolence, which is the most hilarious part.
Tell you what though, go hang out with the Palestinians and share with them your idea that Jews don't exist. You'd better move quickly though, if you want to find any. Those nonexistent Jews are working on making that impossible.
This is not to single out the Jews for bad treatment, just to point out that they are sufficiently numerous to commit atrocities. You know, kind of like Moses' slaughter of all the first-born sons... atrocities are kind of what they do, according to their own alleged history.
For all its faults, the Catholic church had a good idea, that just letting people read the Bible themselves and interpret it their own way would lead to all kinds of bad things, so they tried to keep people from doing that
Wait, you don't really believe that shit, do you? You're crazier than the catholics if you do. Keeping people from information is always done to handicap them. True leaders create more leaders. The Catholics only want more followers.
Really intelligent people - those who are smart over the whole range, not just the logic puzzle part, are normally a delight to talk with.
I haven't met anyone smart over the whole range, yet, especially not on slashdot. Ain't nobody perfect. Slashdot is more than usually full of precious snowflakes, for example
In many ways Anita Sarkeesian is asking for what she's getting. The rape/death threats are uncalled for,
Which is it? Make up your fucking mind.
The numbers Solar City gave me showed a net savings of $30 a month. That's it - 30 bucks a month. And that is assuming you buy into their calculations - which I don't.
You really don't think energy costs will go up over time? Ironically, the only way they wouldn't is if we committed to more renewables.
But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail
Lot's of people still actually hand-write addresses. It needs to get OCRed in order to be sorted.
You have to finish the sentence before you can understand it. I'd bet you just interrupt in the middle of sentences all the time, and thus fail to understand what people are telling you by preventing them from actually finishing a complete thought.
If you go back and read the complete sentence, which expresses a complete thought, then it makes perfect sense.
You use a lot of big words, I don't think you know what any of them mean.
You've proven full well that I do.
What I argue is that there's structural differences that makes this a better idea to to centrally than at home,
But you're wrong.
If it's cost effective for you to store the power in a battery and use it in the daytime it's going to be more cost effective for them to store the power in a battery and sell it to you in the daytime.
Cost-effective for who, and on what basis?
The very reason they sell it cheap at night is that there's no cost effective way to store the excess power for later,
It's not cost-effective for them, because they don't have a secondary use for the battery.
You're on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, buddy.
You still have failed to support your argument in the slightest. We're waiting, though we're not holding our breath, because we want to live.
The problem with that plan is that so many aspects of the way the system is designed give people with money and/or time an advantage that you'd basically have to scrap it.
This is a problem?
I do understand the solar industry, that's why I fliped two big middle fingers to them and bought and imported all china solar panels and installed a 5Kwh setup for drastically cheaper than any of the overpriced US crap.
Like anyone else, I will buy the panels which provide the most output for my dollar, and which fit in the space available. But if the world would institute some laws which would penalize countries for slave labor and environmental abuse, then it would cease to make sense to buy a lot of that crap. I sit here surrounded by similar crap, but the point remains.
I use grid intertie and drive the meter backwards. No local storage.
That's certainly cost-effective, but it won't help as much in an outage.
Electrical bill is $14.95 a month because you have to pay the "fees" and the scumbag leaders in my states government passed a law that allows the power company to not pay for any surplus I generate above my own use.
Yes, scumbags are always the problem. Obviously it wouldn't make sense for you to add a lot of battery on the basis of selling power back at shifted times.
Just because you put words together, it doesn't mean the resulting sentence is true.
And you just made a meaningless statement which advances the conversation in no way whatsoever, since it could equally be applied to anything anyone said ever. If you want to provide some sort of meaningful information, you can do that. Or can you?
What happens if you buy this battery and a year or two down the road someone comes out with a battery that is twice as efficient as the one you have?
Then the whole world changes, whole corporations go out of business overnight while others swell, and there is widespread financial chaos.
This is the exact question I asked Solar City when I was considering solar panels for my house.
That's because you don't understand the solar industry even a little bit. When new, more efficient panels come out, not only is their price per watt higher but the price per watt on the old panels comes down. The primary benefit is not reduction of cost, at least not at first, but in reduction of panel area needed. That reduces the size of an installation which can reduce its cost — but in the case of a residential solar system, that is rarely the case. Since they're usually fixed and roof-mounted, the amount of materials used to mount them is fairly small and there are no property cost considerations whatsoever. The homeowner doesn't care if they have three or six panels on their roof, because they're on their roof and they're not taking up any space they were using before.
The truth is that improvements in batteries and solar panels do not come in 100% increments. They come in small increments delivered over long periods of time, just like the savings on energy costs delivered by a solar installation. Not installing solar now because you're worried that solar is going to get better is just depriving yourself of the benefits that you enjoy by doing it sooner. Meanwhile, your system can be upgraded piecemeal, so you can replace your batteries in 15 years and your panels in 30, maybe add some more batteries then. You can mix and match different kinds of panels to a certain extent; sure, you need different charge controllers for old and new style panels, but you can have both kinds of charge controllers right next to one another, connected to the same battery bank. So really, there is no basis whatsoever for your concern that a 100% efficiency improvement will come along tomorrow and eliminate the value of your investment. And frankly, if such a leap in efficiency were realized in a commercial product, then some government would probably buy up 100% of it and you wouldn't be able to get any anyway. Kind of like what happened with nanosolar, which was then driven out of existence by the chinese dumping panels on our market so none of us got to buy any of it. That stuff had the potential to be disruptive, but now we have to wait for someone to conceive of the idea again with some new and even cheaper technology because we're okay with goods produced with slave labor so long as it doesn't happen within our borders.
Distributed storage capacity solves nothing if the grid operators cannot manage it.
I bet you don't downshift your car because you think it's going to hurt your engine, too.
It's only a solution if the batteries help balance the grid.
Yes, that was what the GP was talking about. Good news! You get at least a "D" on your reading comprehension test!
This is bad for homeowners with PV, because they want to run their meters backwards and get paid, and grid balancing would reduce their ability to do that.
You have no idea what you're on about. Increasing homeowner battery capacity is how we're going to implement grid balancing, and when the homeowner's battery bank balances the grid, their meter is going to run backwards and they're going to get paid. But unlike a grid-tied system without batteries, they'll be able to release the power when they want to, and as such, they will get paid as much as possible while simultaneously also providing the maximum grid balancing value — by providing power when it is most needed. It is not a coincidence that power costs the most when there is the least power available.
What is needed is net metering. The infrastructure cost and connection fee should be completely divorced from the cost of power, and the users of the power should effectively pay the providers with just a small cut taken off the top for whoever is managing the tracking and billing — which need not be the same as the infrastructure provider. Indeed, recent events regarding PG&E's inability to maintain neighborhood power distribution infrastructure provide some evidence that tying the two together is disastrous.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?
