You should feel lucky. Most of my roof is southern facing, but the local utility here won't take excess power without charging a bunch of extra fees, plus a really low rate. Additionally, they won't allow you to maintain/bank credit. The only way towards an ROI in under a decade is to use/store everything I generate.
DING! DING! DING! This is exactly the problem.
The icing on this is going to be, in the end, the power companies will *have* to come around to providing a smart grid AND fair buy-back rates (sans fees), as no one will use them for anything other than a backup supply. Otherwise, you'll start to see people putting up their own miniature grids to sell/share power on a local basis. (Think housing addition in the burbs, where ALL of the homes have panels, batteries, and electric cars.)
Even with maintenance costs, "free" renewable energy is quite possible with an efficient home and habits. If you don't travel much/far, or simply use a bicycle (or better, if you don't commute) then you could potentially increase that margin by quite a bit.
You're only proving my point, Coward. Why should I pay out of my own pocket to generate solar, and then pay the utility some more the utility to take my excess energy?
If I can't make my own home efficient enough to stand on it's own, I'm not spending the money. If the local power company wants solar, they can do it on their dime, I'll stick to my utility fees, TYVM.
If a neighborhood/city decided to invest in it's own smart grid, and treat every electricity source on equal-footing, that'd be interesting. If I can generate more power than I'm using, and the electric co *doesn't* own the distribution
I'm sure anyone who tried that would probably be lobbied away, probably by someone like you.
Doesn't matter. As long as monopolistic energy companies spend their time legislating new fees to prevent the average person from being able to afford rooftop solar panels and wind turbines under the banner of "not choosing winners"
This isn't likely to change, either. So, that leaves one option: Every man for himself. A house, and maybe even an entire neighborhood could be built around the idea of having some ability to cut utility costs by utilizing smart appliances, solar power, and electric cars with big honking batteries. But if you generate more power than you need, you better store it - where I live, you'll get an extra fee every month for generating your own power AND the power company only takes your excess in exchange for WHOLESALE rates.
Net-zero would be my only incentive, and it's looking less likely without being investigated by the IAEA
Also, I'd like to point out that Amazon is conducting these tests on a secret site, outside of city limits. The FAA is adding these restrictions are merely "because they can". Hobby aero-modelers simply have to obey the 3mi/400' rule. Adding the word "drone" and "Commercial" is simply causing a panic/stink.
The FAA has taken too long to come up with legislation on the subject, and I don't think they can "ban" commercial drone use outright - or else congress will step in. But dragging their feet with pointless conditions (pilot's license, medical exams) and delays (6 months, now 6 weeks) just shows that they likely have no clue about what they are doing - it's just a bunch of knee-jerking.
You win.
Who says that's why he ran? The officer? If the man was tazed, then shot to death, I get the feeling it wasn't about necessarily about alimony/child-support) It just as easily could have been offering to put him in jail for some other trumped-up charge. We'll never know. And we *certainly* shouldn't accept a word from the officer as truth, in this case - he already appears to have planted evidence.
BS. Because making a tiny move that an officer doesn't like can get you shot, yet James Eagan Holmes can show up to a movie theater in full-assault gear, an AR15, a shotgun, and a glock
Yet, someone who looks a bit different can't sell cigarettes without being choked to death. Or run without being shot at, EIGHT TIMES. Or DWB in a nice car in Burbank
I don't think the problem is racism, I think part of the society has spent a LONG time being treated as less than human. My own few (positive) interactions with police tend to genuinely *surprise* me - due to the extreme fear that the (much more common) bad ones generate. It's.... who else worries about summary-execution over what would be a non-issue for anyone else?
There has been a lot of evidence that all of these tax cuts don't benefit anybody but corporations, and that trick[le] down economics is pretty much not working as advertised.
In that respect, trickle-down economics is working exactly as intended. That trickle is a leak, they're working on plugging it.
Agreed. We're *supposed* to be the Good Guys, pointing out the emperor's nakedness is patriotism, not treason. I would hope any jury could see that.
Is it really a lie if it results in a commercial product capable of removing a *lot* of monotony from truck driving? I hate highway driving - here in OK, it's 2 hours of *nothing* in every direction, I'm likely to fall asleep, and adding entertainment is adding distraction. IMO, it doesn't matter if someone has done it before, it matters if/when *I* can get one to improve *my* life. (Not that I am a truck driver...)
Auto accidents are the #5 most likely way you'll die ~w/1-in-100 odds. (http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html) I don't understand the naysay - no one is looking to ban manual control (yet).
Maybe this could someday be a decent p2p application? Self-sign your cert, then throw your public-key into the wild. Instead of trusting just 1 CA, you can have others w/whom you've directly exchanged the key "endorse" you. More endorsements = more trust. It's not absolute, but at least it's some kind of measure that doesn't plunge from 100%->0% after a single security breach. Maybe if such a system handled dns, as well, it may be possible to reduce the ability to launch a MITM attack? (I'm just typing w/my butt, at this point - but maybe I'm getting the idea across.)
Some rather cheap chain-link fence, cheap climb sensors, and maybe some cameras could go a long way toward solving the pedestrian problem, if required.
On the other hand, recognizing an object in the road that *isn't* another car is all that's required. Especially if all of the cars can communicate w/each other.
Because a *human* driver will handle that situation perfectly! *eyeroll*
A fully automated highway will likely avoid you like a flock of birds. Police already on their way.
Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?
