Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Show us the data (Score 1) 413

That are the capacity factors for "missplaced" wind mills, as likely 80% of them are.

A wind mill has two core attributes: yield, e.g. 5MW and windspeed for that yield, e.g. 8m/s.

If you have 8m/s constantly you will have constantly 5MW yield and your CF is 100%.

Obviously you don't have that speed all the time. Now it happens does older off shore plants often are placed at positions where the wind speed regularily exceeds the rated wind speed, hence the produced energy is above that 100% mentioned above.

As the energy harvested scales with the qube of the wind speed, the wind mill in the above example will produce 40MW if the wind speed is 16m/s

The capacity factors in wiki pages are usually inventons of the authors. Regarding Germany, to get the over all capacity factor you simply divide installed 'nameplate' capacity by actual produced energy/power. Hence you get a total CF of ... don't know ... 30%?

However that has no meaning at all for a single plant, as I said befor, the big off shore plants BALTIC1 and BALTIC2 have a cF of ~140%

The new off shore plants in the northern sea will likely be above 200%.

Your introduction of "capacity factors" was a red herring.
I did not introduce that. I answered to my parent, who did.
I usally don't use CFs ... they are meaningless for daily work with power plants. As I said often enough, I doubt any energy company in Germany has CFs associated to its plants.

Comment Re:"faces up to 25 years in prison" - Nah. (Score 1) 36

In almost all cases, definitely including this one, the maximum possible sentence is entirely irrelevant to the sentence that will be actually imposed.

Thanks for giving some deeper insight into this story. The real headline is not what the Reuters guy did, but how out-of-control the federal prosecutors have become.

At worst, what this guy did was vandalism.

If you break into some place in order to vandalize it, expect to be sentenced the same as any burglar. If you want to be sentenced as a vandal, vandalize something you can reach from the sidewalk.

That said, I'm not convinced the true damages were over the $5000 needed to be federal. In my State I would expect a class C felony though. Except that local prosecutors would be scared to charge a media guy.

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 1) 198

Odd that you go so crazy in trying to create a situation where it is morally justified to swerve you had to presume that the person swerving is such an immoral asshole that if he hits a pedestrian who dove in front of his vehicle, he'll just drive off.

If you had time to swerve, you had time to stop. There are not rows of parked cars on the freeway. Streets that have lane-side parking have speed limits such that if you have time to turn the wheel to swerve, you'd have time to stop too. And if children are just popping randomly out from behind parked cars, and you can't see that kids are playing by the road as you approach, how the hell are you going to know if a bicycle just pulled out into the other lane and you didn't notice yet?

There is a lot more going on in this scenario than just an unseen kid. There is a speeding asshole who thinks he's smarter than an engineer, and a child whose parents' fault the accident would be, and the bicyclist who you killed who was the only innocent party in the scenario.

Comment Re:This guy should be a lawyer (Score 1) 198

No, your duty is to drive a safe speed and pay attention. And yes, to continue following the safety rules. What you don't seem to get is that in reality swerving kills somebody that should have lived, and doesn't save anybody because stopping is more effective. It isn't "save a child" vs "dent a fender," it is "do what you're supposed to do that is known to reduce fatalities" vs "do something you don't have time to measure the effects of, in a situation where you don't know what is going to happen." And no, if you could "see and keep track of vehicles coming my way in the other lane" you would have "seen and kept track of" the child and slowed down before creating this totally absurd false choice. Any time that you have time to "swerve" safely, you would have time instead to make a legal lane change if that will solve the problem, or simply stop if not. You're not allowed to drive faster than you can react to things in your lane, and in your scenario you're potentially killing a child by driving too fast when there is not enough lane clearance.

What will happen is, you'll swerve and hit a vehicle, cause a multiple car crash, kill a whole family, and the child will have jumped back out of the way anyways. So you'll have killed a whole family for nothing, just because you can't comprehend that traffic engineers are correct when they say NEVER SWERVE, STAY IN YOUR LANE AND STOP

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 437

That's the regional guy, not the CEO who quit. Who had an engineering background.

The guy in your link is "CEO" of a subsidiary. He is one of the few people who can be believed when he says he didn't learn about it until the WVU study was published, because a regional subsidiary isn't involved in creating the vehicles. I'd expect him to know about North American advertising campaigns, tax avoidance schemes, and the regional supply chain. I would not expect him to have any access at all to the engineering side.

Comment Re: ZFS is nice... (Score 1) 267

But it's combined by the user at runtime, not by canocal. The GPL allows an end users to do this.

This is a way that people kid themselves about the GPL. If the user were really porting ZFS on their own, combining the work and never distributing it, that would work. But the user isn't combining it. The Ubuntu developer is creating instructions which explicitly load the driver into the kernel. These instructions are either a link script that references the kernel, or a pre-linked dynamic module. Creating those instructions and distributing them to the user is tantamount to performing the act on the user's system, under your control rather than the user's.

To show this with an analogy, suppose you placed a bomb in the user's system which would go off when they loaded the ZFS module. But Judge, you might say, I am innocent because the victim is actually the person who set off the bomb. All I did was distribute a harmless unexploded bomb.

So, it's clear that you can perform actions that have effects later in time and at a different place that are your action rather than the user's. That is what building a dynamic module or linking scripts does.

There is also the problem that the pieces, Linux and ZFS, are probably distributed together. There is specific language in the GPL to catch that.

A lot of people don't realize what they get charged with when they violate the GPL (or any license). They don't get charged with violating the license terms. They are charged with copyright infringement, and their defense is that they have a license. So, the defense has to prove that they were in conformance with every license term.

This is another situation where I would have a pretty easy time making the programmer look bad when they are deposed.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.