Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Ok.... Here's the thing, though ..... (Score 1) 172

by Registered Coward v2 (#49505765) Attached to: Utilities Battle Homeowners Over Solar Power

The power companies are all moving towards "smart meter" technologies anyway. Why not make sure they've put one in that can monitor the output of a PV solar (or even a wind turbine) installation while they're at it?

For that matter, it seems perfectly reasonable to require the homeowner to install such a meter as part of a solar installation, as a condition of being able to sell power to the utility -- or even to push power into the grid at all.

Not only a meter, but a disconnect so that if the power isn't needed then the transmission system can drop them form the grid. At that point it becomes the producer's responsibility to determine what to do with the excess power. Alternatively, the solar operator could drop prices to be the lost cost producer or even pay to have them take the power.

Comment: Re:Help me out here a little... (Score 1) 172

by Registered Coward v2 (#49505745) Attached to: Utilities Battle Homeowners Over Solar Power

Power companies are lazy. They do know about every single solar installation attached to their grid and they can get "solar forecasts" to plan for sunny days, etc. They may not be using this information but they can and should use it to design the grid and manage it. They can design their grid for solar.

Who pays for this? The utility? The solar providers who are essentially mini-power plants and thus responsible for their impact on the grid? All users via a "solar fee?"

Comment: Re:Help me out here a little... (Score 1) 172

by Registered Coward v2 (#49505725) Attached to: Utilities Battle Homeowners Over Solar Power

IT's early (for me) and my standard disclaimer of "the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet" applies, but "a power grid designed to carry it in the other direction" doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

I admit that circuits was a long time ago, and I never took (or had to take) the high power courses... But what does that even mean? The system is still AC, isn't it? So it's been handling carrying things in both directions forever.

Is this industry BS, or is there something to this claim?

There is technical merit to this claim. An electrical systems balances production, demand, and how the power it transmitted over the grid. Production is controlled by a load dispatcher who tells plants what to produce and when, and adjusts output based on changing demand. When you start adding in sources they cannot control it makes it much harder to maintain a balanced system and ensure it works properly. If, for example, you a significant number of producers pumping solar power into the grid you now have to figure out how to transmit it across the transmission system and maintain stability. if the products suddenly drop off you've got a new set of problems. Maintaining profitability is certainly a concern by system operators is also a viable one.

Comment: Re:and people say unions are bad this is what happ (Score 2) 292

by Registered Coward v2 (#49489495) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination

However, workers can undertake actions to increase their bargaining power and thus wages, as can any other supplier. [...] is no different than any economic transaction

It is different, because of the official governmental support worker-unions enjoy — instead of being treated with the anti-trust laws, like any other entity working to raise the prices of what its members are selling.

Except, unlike a group of producers acting in concert to exert market power; an employer still has many other options for labor. They can outsource, refuse to sign a contract and bring in replacements, move to another non-union location; unlike a monopoly where there is no other source of the product. Granted, those are not easy things to do but hey still are viable competitors to a union workforce. The government has intervened in the workplace in many ways, sometimes to the workers favor (unions, labor laws) and other times to the employers (non-competes, right to work laws,letting bankruptcy abrogate contracts and pension liabilities).

Comment: Re:and people say unions are bad this is what happ (Score 1) 292

by Registered Coward v2 (#49487051) Attached to: IT Worker's Lawsuit Accuses Tata of Discrimination

when we don't have unions to stand up for workers rights!

What rights? There is no right to employment.

True. However, workers can undertake actions to increase their bargaining power and thus wages, as can any other supplier. My hat you pay a wage is no different than any economic transaction. If workers can improve their position in negotiations than so be it. You're free to fire me and I am free to walk but often that is in neither of our best interested so we need to come to some agreement we both can live with.

Comment: Re:A first: We should follow Germany's lead (Score 2) 698

I ask this honestly, as a non-USian - Illinois recently passed the "religious freedom for bakers that don't want to cater to gays because jebus"-act. But how is a religion defined in the US? Could I (theoretically, were I to live in IL as a citizen) start my own religion (here in .fi it takes just 20 people), and decide to not serve some of the customers of my business because of some arbitrary rule that happens to exist in my religion? Or is that while all religions are equal, some religions are more equal than others?

Actually, it allowed discrimination base don religious belief and not necessarily membership in a religious institution. I would imagine a court would have to decide if you decided not to serve say anyone named Bob because you decided the Church of Bob, Reformed considered it blasphemy and thus serving a Bob would be against your religious convictions. The IRS defines religious institutions for tax exempt status but courts could still intervene to say a specific practice was unlawful; nor would a court need to limit applying the law only if you belonged to a recognized church. As for the US government doesn't really define what is a religion but recognizes various practices in various contexts. For example, the US military provides guidance to chaplains on Wiccan practices so chaplains can minister to them.

Comment: Re:you cannot fight the tide (Score 1) 407

Even the German cars may not be made in Germany, BMW or example only makes half its cars there and Spartanburg SC is poised to overtake Dingolfing as the highest volume plant.

But that hair splits at both ends, as many "Detroit" cars are made in Mexico or Canada.

True. Between manufacturing costs and various laws such as fuel economy standards mean cars only relationship to the home country is the name.

Actually, Germany produces about half as many cars as the US.

Only if the goalpost is moved from cars to "all automobiles" a la the AC below. But I didn't say automobiles, I said cars.

Fair enough, although it is only about 1/4 higher in 2014 for cars.

2014 Production

Although if you would add in light trucks in the US, which often are bought instead of a car as a primary vehicle, the stats would change.

Comment: Re:And it's not even an election year (Score 1) 407

Read again. You are re-hashing an argument you've had with others.

Considering my response to you was my first post I'm not sure what argument you are referring to that I made. All I did was point out the EP only freed slaves in territories in rebellion, I made no comment o weather or not they were citizens until you responded to me. I think we agree that they were citizens absent any laws to the contary, and I know of none that made them non-citizens.

I never said the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. I never said it freed any slaves. I just mentioned that when people talked about ending slavery, there was no talk about making the non-citizen slaves into free citizens. The acts (be they proclamations, amendments, or otherwise) merely made them free. Citizenship was assumed.

I think we are in agreement on that point

I took your statement:

Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Notice how nobody ever made the slaves citizens? They just set them free.

to mean the EP freed the slaves. If that was not what you meant then I misinterpreted your post.

They had full rights, but those rights were enforced unequally (and, by some accounts, still are, so long as the "dead black man by the hands of the cops" number greatly exceeds the "dead white guy by the hands of the cops" number).

Actually, Dred Scott said they did not become free by entering into a free state; thus the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities cause did not extend to the privilege of freedom to a slave form a slave state. In fact, Fugitive Slave clause prevented them from escaping and moving to a free state, so the right to move to another state was specifically denied them as a slaves and thus they didn't have all rights and privileges of a free citizen; until they were freed by Amendments.

Interestingly enough, despite all the "state's rights " arguments made as reasons for the South's secession, the slave states were all for the federal government forcing states to return slaves despite the free state's desire not to, to the point of passing The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Comment: Re:And it's not even an election year (Score 1) 407

So, when did the freed slaves become citizens? That was the question.

Good question; although i was responding to the statement that the EP freed the slaves, which people commonly think applied to all slaves when it didn't. Slaves in territories not under rebellion were still slaves. To your question, I would argue slaves became citizens upon the founding of America, as did all other people resident then or by virtue of birth afterward. I would also argue those brought here as slaves post founding became citizens, since there was no law giving them any other status, as any other immigrant where the law did not prevent them form becoming citizens. They did not have full rights as citizens, however, until the passage of the 13th and other Amendments, as decisions such as Dred Scott established.

Comment: Re:you cannot fight the tide (Score 1) 407

Which is why Germany produces twice as many cars as the United States while it's workers are getting paid twice as much.

Actually, Germany produces about half as many cars as the US. Even the German cars may not be made in Germany, BMW or example only makes half its cars there and Spartanburg SC is poised to overtake Dingolfing as the highest volume plant. If you buy an X3, X4 or X6, even in Germany, it's made in Spartanburg. Your 3 series, at least the E9x ones, could come from Germany or South Africa. BMW engines, which is what they made their name on, are still produced in Germany and its former wholly owned subsidiary, Austria.

I do agree, however, that H1B's are about getting cheap labor.

Comment: Re:But but but (Score 1) 407

The dead hand of government interfering with private contracts between adults is un-American.

Just ask John Galt.

Or most slash-dotters who rant about unions.

The dead hand is only bad when it stops you from doing what you want, not when it forces others to do what you want them to do. Just ask anyone who demands their "religious freedom" the first time someone else's religion lets them do something those demanding "religious freedom" don't like. Free for me but not for thee...

Comment: Re:And it's not even an election year (Score 2) 407

The slaves became citizens?

Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation? Notice how nobody ever made the slaves citizens? They just set them free. Why is that? Oh yes, they were citizens. If they weren't, when did they become citizens?

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territories still under rebellion. A slave held in Maryland, for example, was not freed by it. It covered about 3/4 of the slaves in the US, although since the areas it covered were still under control by the Confederates it had no enforcement until Union troops captured the territory. The 13th amendment made slavery and indentured servitude illegal except for those convicted of a crime.

Comment: Re:The internet is not a broadcast medium. (Score 1) 489

by Registered Coward v2 (#49441323) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

You read me wrong. I have no problem with Payola as a concept. It's really no different than an infomercial, and there is no shortage of music stations.

I just really dislike the abusive business practices of the record companies.

No worries. yea, cable companies could learn a thing or two about abusive business practices from record companies.

Comment: Re:The internet is not a broadcast medium. (Score 1) 489

by Registered Coward v2 (#49441035) Attached to: Reason: How To Break the Internet (in a Bad Way)

It's even worse when their argument is based around the assumption that Payola is a good thing.

Yeah, I laughed at that as well. It's not like the record industry is the type of business anyone should want to encourage

http://www.theguardian.com/mus...

However, for the libertarian payola is simply an economic transaction between two parties and thus good.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye

Working...