Our company, for example, uses Linux and measures uptime in years. Machines are rebooted for CPU and kernel upgrades and that's about it. Hard drive upgrades don't require a reboot, and they sure as heck don't crash. One machine had a bad memory module that caused a crash. We don't have users or software that crashes.

I've recently learned a new definition of security, one that's a little bit different from what I'd thought about before.

A secure system is a system that continues to work as expected, even in the face of unexpected events.

Users like a system that works the way they expect. They don't like crashes, endless popups, and systems slowed to a halt by malware.
So teach them the benefits they can expect. You can have a fast, trouble-free computer by doing x, y, and z. Clicking on "virus alerts" makes your computer slow and prone to crashing. Opening unexpected PDF files causes a huge hassle of needing to change your passwords and all that mess.

> If everyone was on solar as you say there would be no problem because excess energy goes back into the grid

There would be no grid! If everyone (or many people) are producing a lot of energy for six hours per day, and therefore paying nothing, there's no money, and therefore no power grid.

> no more dependence on prehistoric power like coal and foreign oil, no more pollutants

For several hours, on sunny days. Except that there is no power, because there is no grid.

Most people seem to be focused on new battery technologies, which are designed to be small and light-weight - which is not important for solar. These newer batteries also tend to last no more than 3-5 years, and they are made of toxic materials. The lack of reasonable battery storage is one major reason I think solar isn't going anywhere.

These old-tech iron-nickel batteries sound very interesting. That information is more convincing than 99% of the pro-solar propaganda I've read on Slashdot.

The basic cable rate IS set by the government agency that issues the franchise (legally forced monopoly). That's known as the LFA. Until 1996-1999, the FCC mostly set that rate, now it's primarily set by the LFA.

During the period of double regulation, 1992-1999, rates increased at 5.6% per year. Once the FCC stepped aside, that was reduced to 4.6%.

So knowing that having Washington bureaucrats set rates increases them, what reduces rates? Rates are 22%-30% lower in areas with competition.

> Linear time should be expected (if it takes longer per ticket when there are more, thats bad, but non-polynomial, thats just horrid)

If one person is having trouble with the web site, there are x0,000 possible causes, so you start with "what are the symptoms they are experiencing, what browser are they using", etc. If there are a flood of tickets about the web site, a few of which mention "can not resolve host name", you have have a DNS problem. More tickets = more information = less time to fix.

They are asking the government for a rate change, because the government sets the prices. Does that sound like free market to you?

If it WERE free market, customers would probably be charged based on the cost to serve them. If solar customers demand less from the utility, they pay less. It would certainly make you think twice about moving into the country, to some place where you have ten or twenty acres, though - installing and maintaining a mile of towers and lines for each customer would be expensive.

People can certainly do that. Having priced such systems a couple of times, I don't know why anyone who has access to utility power would spend huge piles of money on batteries that only last a few years, though. Maybe if there was a law forcing their neighbours to PAY them to waste money on expensive, toxic batteries.

The token connection fee, $2 or whatever, isn't significant. Get a cost quote to build power poles and run lines out to this guy's ranch and tell me $2 makes any difference whatsoever to the discussion.

If the connection fee were a) significant and b) based on the actual cost to run utilities to that particular customer, then you'd have a point. That, and if the utility were not forced to buy power they can't use. In some areas, utilities have to shunt power to ground, throwing it away, on sunny days - but they still have to buy the solar power they have no use for and have to pay to dispose of it.

TFS said they used an "aircraft", which I guess means "airplane". We better watch out - next thing you know, the sheriff's office will have helicopters and be able to hover, watching someone for a while. With an airplane, they can only watch for a couple minutes before they've flown by.

You are absolutely right. You should start sending me that $500 / month you're saving for retirement. In 20 years, I'll send the exact same amount back. There is no reason you should be getting that gain from your mutual fund.

Oh, I forgot. You're clueless, so you're probably not saving for retirement, but rather expecting the government to take the money I save and give it to you. Anyway, just loan me $1,000. I'll pay you back in 20 years. The interest rate? What do you mean interest rate? Why would you expect a return?

That WOULD be fair, for everyone to cover their share of the cost, what it actually costs to provide service to them. It's not politically possible, though, because residential bills would jump much higher. For years now, residential rates have been heavily subsidized by business customers. Outside of cities, it can cost hundreds of thousands to run lines several miles to serve a few households that have acreage. Suzy the barrel racer isn't going to pay $50,000 for the power to her house and barn.

Making it fair (everyone pays their own costs) would result in 500 happy companies for every 100,000 pisses off households (voters).

Did you click "reply" on the wrong post, because it doesn't sound like you read mine.

Let's pretend for a moment that solar can actually work on a large scale, maybe some new solar panel comes out that's 500% efficient. So most companies install solar panels. Therefore, the power company doesn't have to generate ANY power around noon. They save boatloads of money, right? They don't need to generate that peak power. (Not on sunny days, anyway, they still need to maintain the capacity.)

Okay, so the utility is now spending less. They are also billing most customers $0. They have zero revenue. Explain to me how you run a large utility without any money.

They say they want to start working out a solution BEFORE it becomes a big problem.

A solar customer could sell lots of power to them around noon, and use about the same amount at night. This customer would have an electric bill of $0, because they put as much energy into the grid as they took out. In 10 or 20 years, if a million customers are doing that, you have the power company trying to run on a budget of zero - no money to pay salaries, no money to fix equipment, etc. Obviously that doesn't work, the power company would go broke and noone would have power, except while it's sunny. They don't want to wait until that happens to address the problem, a problem which probably will occur if nothing is changed.

> Meanwhile, the partner who spearheaded the push got sufficient bonuses (from AA) to compensate him for the lack of any future career.
> He was on their executive board by the end of it pulling in a fat, fat bonus every year based exclusively on his Enron relationship.

Does this supposed person have a name? Any citation for any of that?