Plus those installations can provide a shedload of REACTIVE power, very, very useful for grid stabilization.
They can, but are they? I have only seen residential solar which reacted to grid overload/underload situations (i.e. situations which should never occur in an ideal world), not any which reacted to constant requirements for reactive power. Do you know of any which take part in the standard grid stabilization in normal use, outside of grid emergencies?
Will Windows Phone thrive by being a better iOS than iOS and a better Android than Android? It did not work for OS/2 20 years ago.
With the same reasoning, schools in Europe are taking the holocaust out of the history lessons, to avoid nasty remarks from muslim kids in the classroom.
No, they are not. You may be thinking of this: http://www.snopes.com/politics...
I'd prefer having the support of local people. However, religious belief too often stands in the way of telescopic investigation of our universe. Perhaps there can be something done so they feel it is part of their culture after all.
When electricity is cheap, it is because the marginal cost of producing it is low. The marginal cost is low because it does not take very much extra fuel to produce it. In other words, when electricity is cheap, its production is also less environmentally harmful. (This only holds as long as the power stations are unchanged of course.)
The Economist regularly gets this wrong by saying that electric cars are polluting more if they charge at night rather than during the day. They base this on the average pollution per kWh being higher at night. However, the average pollution does not matter. It is the marginal pollution which matters, and that is very low at night. This is really the kind of thing that economists should be specializing in getting right; I do not understand how you can be an economist and get it wrong.
Another problem is that if they do accept your CA certificate, you can issue a certificate for irs.gov and they will believe that.
The trust system in TLS is really lousy.
As has been mentioned before in this thread, use the Let's Encrypt protocol to get a publicly valid cert for free, set up your own internal CA or just use self signed certs... not hard.
I am beginning to suspect this whole article's purpose for existing is to allow commenters to side-load a bunch of whitewashing about "letsencrypt"
I am going to respond with a resounding FUCK YOU when you offer to let some third party shit "reconfigure and do it automatically" the security on my web services.
What you're website is serving has no relationship to what the browser gets if they do a man-in-the-middle attack and change the content.
...and?
I am supposed to care what some dumbass in china has happen to his pirated windows machine because his own government is trying to fuck him? He should remove his government if that's the case. Either way, not my problem.
I agree this is stupid. Sometimes, though, I like to think of the best arguments I can for the other side's position. In other words, come up with reasons I might be wrong.
In this case, I'd have to admit that ANY time I send an encrypted message, it should always have a way for the good guy to read the message. For example, suppose I use https to send a secure request to bank.com. That must have a way for the good guy, bank.com, to read the message. There's no technical reason it can't be encrypted such that TWO good guys have keys, bank.com and the Good Guy Bureau.
In fact, standard encryption as used by tls does almost that - two people ALREADY have the key which is used to encrypt the message. The sender has the key and so does the receiver. The shared key is then encrypted by another key generated such that two parties can know it, without either ever transmitting it. Mathematically, one could certainly add the GGB key to the algorithm.
It could be just as unbreakable as the current encryption standards, though those do depend on keys being kept secret. The Good Guy Key probably wouldn't actually be kept secret for long. That's the huge failing that makes it a non-starter from a purely technical perspective- that we'd all be screwed if the FBI's key were ever revealed or cracked. Various attempts at DRM show that widely-used keys are always cracked.
Why bother with all that? The FBI walks in (or calls) the bank, and they hand over all your information just trying to be "helpful." This happens ALL THE TIME at ISPs and banks. Why do all the technical stuff to achieve it?
Deorbit is what happened... If you mean actually escape from Mercury gravity, that would have shortened the mission due to the need to save fuel for a last burn. What would be the point?
Coal plants are certainly capable of throttling their output and using less coal. But if what you say was true, my point would only be reinforced: Marginal CO2 emissions by using an extra kWh at night would be zero, because the grid would otherwise have to stabilize by dumping electricity in resistors.
DSB (Danish Railways) has a table on http://www.dsb.dk/om-dsb/dsbs-... saying that their long-distance trains do 33g CO2 per person km. Regional trains are considerably worse. Modern cars should hopefully do better than 133g per km.
Urban trains do better because people are standing up, which significantly lowers the train weight per person.
Now, Denmark is admittedly a bit of a developing country when it comes to trains. Obviously a pure electrified system running on hydro power would do a lot better. DSB's long distance trains use 0.12kWh per person km. A Tesla uses about 0.35kWh per km, which comes to 0.09kWh per person km with 4 people.
That would be pointless because practically no one uses oil to produce electricity. Electric cars tend to charge at night where the coal plants are running at very low power and low efficiency. An idling coal plant has a very high average pollution per kWh produced but a very low marginal pollution per extra kWh.
Of course if it is a windy night the coal plants might just give up and shut down overnight, and then you really get your zero emissions.
Most other forms of transport have no chance against a decent modern passenger car with 4+ passengers. Most passenger cars are comparatively light, well below 500kg per passenger, which is very hard to beat. They do that because there is hardly any wasted space. A bus needs a walkway and it has to be tall enough to stand in, and trains are just horrendously heavy. While rubber-on-tarmac is a bit wasteful compared to metal-on-metal, it is not that bad, and the lower weight helps a lot.
Electric trains can sometimes play in that efficiency range, but it is tempting to make them faster and then the savings mostly evaporate. Cars are useful despite their lower speeds because of the time saved by almost going door-to-door.
And if you block ads, you get a "please don't block ads" nag screen that moves.
2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League
