The reality is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with carriers wanting to enjoy common carrier protections without having to provide common carrier openess.
I don't have mod points, so I have to post. It's discouraging to see so much lefty-Flavor-Aid blather here at +5, and something like this only sitting at +4 (at the time of me seeing it).
You know what their response to that is? It's very simple: "Right, you're buying a license."
It probably is their response. It may be even more flippant... "Right, you're buying a box". Everyone need to push back and state that such is not the way to convey such in our language. That they need to explicitly state that the price is for the priveledge to enter into a license agreement with them for use of their software, and that a reasonable jury will interpret the language of "buying the product" to mean "buying the product".
Of course, I may still be under the misguided impression that our world still has a good percentage of reasonable people.
Also, I'd like for it to now be legally disallowed to use the term "buy software" in a commercial context as it no longer applies and would falsely advertise what it is that we "purchase".
An absolutely brilliant point. And following up on that point, I went to their website to see how they phrased it, and indeed they are using the language "reasons to buy" and "review and buy" on their product pages.
I would assume the nuclear plants found on submarines and large warships both provide a lot of energy and are not in the category of 'extra large.'
Many of them would also be in the category of running a fuel enriched beyond what is allowed in civilian reactors.
Do you have a reference to the fact that the battery needs to run at 350C?
You could start with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery
It seems a bit impractical to heat a house-sized building that much, especially when you have lost power.
Good insulation, and you don't heat the building, you heat the guts of the battery. Also, the lost energy is likely heating the battery.
I'm guessing a 4MW generator would take a couple of minutes, maybe 10s of minutes, to spin up to capacity.
Not the ones I've seen. (Hospital and nuke reactor backup.)
Some companies have terrible "everything you do even outside of work is ours" clauses.
Check your state's laws. Some states have laws protecting workers from this, making such clauses unenforceable. I personally recall a co-worker I had who found our state's (Washington) law WRT this and challenged our employer over the issue (mid 90s). (I wish I had the citation handy for my example, but I don't.)
[...]The Republican party has cratered so badly, and is teetering so close to Fascism, everyone looks good by comparison, even the Democrats.[...]
Do you even know what that word means? It doesn't seem like you do due to how you use it. A comment like this getting +5 is why I think
TFA calls it a "green energy project". The type of people who think this is green energy are the complete f-ing morons that side track the rest of us from real viable energy advancements.
Further more, the TFA claims this will "lower the energy consumption of the market". At the inefficiency of this (which is already limited to being no more efficient than a car is itself), it will actually increase the energy consumption of the market.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
