First US usage of power is about 4 times higher per household than Germany, possibly due to Germans mostly not having or using AC in the warmer months. This makes summer the power usage low in Germany. In the US the summer months are the usage high.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
https://www.eia.gov/electricit...

The government (ie taxpayers) subsidize the tune of 20 billion Euros per year and rising (hiding the actual cost)

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
http://www.seia.org/research-r...

German prices per kwh are higher (~.34 per kwh) vs US (~.15) mostly due to tax/tariff on energy, and regulatory procedures related to the infrastructure payments of solar and other renewables. The prices are rising so fast the government has had to begin a more restrictive path on new solar.

https://www.eia.gov/electricit...
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...

Based solely on price per kwh and predictable capacity, solar is awful. More specifically awful for germany, because of geography and weather trends.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/qu...

This unpredictability is causing massive new production plants using coal. This is a reult of shutting down nuclear and building solar which only generates an average of >10% of potential capacity. Altogether the solar plan's end result is not bringing them closer to meeting their climate pollution goals.
https://carboncounter.wordpres...

"when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011. If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits."

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsh...

The original article shows several disputes concerning the project including the fact that the community would not receive any benefit from converting the property besides working along with the power company which owns the massive power junction around the town. No tax benefits, no diminshed power bills, unsightly sites all over the place (This was to be another addition to the 4 solar locations in their area). The council disputed the more controversial/uninformed reasons, passed 3 additions and rejected one (for unspecified reasons). Then tabled discussions for further additions. The people primarily objected to loss of taxable business property locations and lack of a tangible benefit to the community (which the town council represents). The sunlight comments arent in quotes which makes them at least questionable considering the rest of the comments are in quotes. If one makes reasonable accomodations to the nature of the objections, you could easily see that the comments about cancer would apply to the GIANT ELECTRICAL ARRAY in town, which the WHO states the that they arent sure why but there seems to be high incidents of correlation to cancer... The article amounts to so much Trolling by the original author, and subsequent hangers on to illegimately bash objectors to the current idealogical correctness.

Reuters doesnt want to have to dig so deep to discover manipulated photos. They dont want it to be quite so easy to manipulate those photos without it being easily discoverable. Its an entirely separate issue from having punishment for misdeeds. Ars has no issue with it.

http://arstechnica.com/busines...

"Two years have gone by since Fenical identified anthramycin and no one has shown any interest in taking it from the research lab to the clinic."

The point of this article seems to be that HIS study on a drug that apparently is as deadly as the disease it cures, isn't a big hit with drug companies. You dont see drug companies pass over anything they might be able to sell to millions of people per year.

From all over the media, political commentators have been slamming Rand Paul since the 'filibuster'. Not just competitive republicans running for office or stumping for their guy either. Fox news left him off the latest poll, Scarboro (former republican analyst) mocks him, Bill Kristol (ancient neocon acolyte) mocks him. Several editorial columns describe his maneuvering of the vote for renewing the patriot act as betrayal. Huffpo implied Rand's 'act' is so tedious that other senators roll their eyes.

Amazing how this man is so derided for actually acting on one of the biggest issues of our time instead of just going along

It says If we want the benefits of wind doubling, we should subsidize wind farms. It blatantly says toward the end that this is not the Business as Usual model.

The Study Scenario is a plausible outcome, representing what could come about through a variety of pathways, including aggressive wind cost reductions, high fossil fuel costs, federal or state policy support, high demand growth, or different combinations of these factors. The resulting Study Scenario —10% by 2020, 20% by 2030, and 35% by 2050 wind energy as a share of national end-use electricity demand—is compared against the Baseline Scenario to estimate costs, benefits, and other impacts associated with potential future wind deployment.

Given the purpose of the paper and the lengths they had to go to fabricate a reality to achieve a positive outcome, this could easily be seen as an admission that Wind power in it's current form is unproductive.

The short list of what Wind power requires to be on the path according to this study (10% of power production in US) high gas prices (especially natural gas), Federal subsidation, overcoming low generation periods (alternate sources/short term storage), highly accurate predictive weather models, new long range transmission lines, political opposition to the towers,much higher prices of offshore wind power, higher consumer prices despite subsidation, higher electrical usage (to create a demand for new generation), All other forms of power generation must just stop growing, this study ignores all of the others.

This a study that makes certain assumptions about usage and capacity and draws conclusions of the realities of what that market will look like into the future. This one is labeled the "Study Scenario' and is paired with the Central Study Scenario' and the 'Baseline Scenario', all of which make differing assumptions about what direction the Wind generation market will become over the next 40 years.

This study assumes significant investment and growth specifically in GW expansion, breaking down costs, difficulties, consequences and lots of other details. The crux of the study comes at ES.2-3 where it shows, in years where there is no Wind power subsidy from the federal government, there is no expansion of generation.

From the Article: ES.5.1 The Opportunity: The Wind Vision analysis modeled a future Study Scenario (with various sensitivities) in which 10% of the nation’s electricity demand is met by wind power in 2020, 20% by 2030, and 35% by 2050.

ES.4.2 Risk of Inaction: Without actions to improve wind’s competitive position in the market, such as those described in the roadmap, the nation risks losing its existing wind manufacturing infrastructure and a range of public benefits.

This is an Energy Dept rationalization for increased funding most especially of the Wind Power Production Tax Credit. The most entertaining part is the repeated mentions of the limitations of wind power (low wind regions, distance from power grid, unpredictable output). They have to increase power usage significantly to predict lower prices (because of the largely insurmountable technical issues with Wind) even though electricity usage has declined for 6 years. In short, this is a brochure for the best case scenario for Wind Power if everything goes right. The original studies (this is an executive summary) dont seem to be available.

.

The early release and refusal to place new inmates in California is huge. According to federal statistics, California dropped 50k internments per year and are releasing early 13k per month. Just their decline alone accounts for 72% of total US reductions. Depending on the length of sentences, they may well have sent home the entire 200k 'drop' in prisoners. And other major state prison systems admit their lowering of prison sentences for drug crimes is the reason for their drops.

And the california plan seems to be raising some crimes there

"By contrast, we find robust evidence that realignment is related to increased property crime. In terms of overall property crime, we estimate an additional one to two property crimes per year on average for each offender who is not incarcerated as a result of realignment. In particular, we see substantial increases in the number of motor vehicle thefts, which went up by 14.8 percent between 2011 and 2012. (Magnus Lofstrom and Steven Raphael, Public Safety Realignment and Crime Rates in California, Public Policy Institute of California, Dec., 2013 at p. 2.)"

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

http://www.latimes.com/local/c...

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

Its like the pedo stories they used to do on tv news shows. Lure offenders to a home and take pictures of their creepy activities and show them to the public. The only thing they didnt do was show who the creepy offenders are. Why 75% of slashdotters want to debate feminism and womens rights in the workplace only shows just how uncomfortable people are discussing this issue. The 25% who are discussing the actual article are apparently the creeps she/they are trying to expose (or at least awaken their moral compass)

I agree with everything you said. The problem comes in the stage after the 'theory' is released. When "Assuming that evolution is true, this other idea should also be true; let us find out" becomes "Now we have accepted evolution as THE properly functioning mechanism of living things, we can make assumptions based on this". They take the 'If' off of the consideration. Discussions now start with an assumption of multiple varied (and sometimes non functional or conflicting) theories under one roof, all True. It doesnt matter if the Scientist hold his theory as a theory if the public holds it as a fact. Secondly, the scientific methods encourage an atheistic approach. Theorized unknowns are still unknowns. Dark matter, while scientifically appealing, is complete conjecture beyond the scientific need to have it there as a placeholder. In fact Science as a whole is conjecture and assumptions (carefully measured and considered) despite the fact that they accurately predict the way some things work. Im not discouraging scientific study and exploration. Im all for it. Study and measure it all, Ill continue to read it and try to make sense of it while enjoying the new toys and information that result. I will also continue to doubt any particular theory is the answer when it is announced as such. And I dont have a problem seeing God as author of it all, as He is great and vast and capable of creating the intricacies we enjoy observing. Sorry about the structure, never did figure out how to create line breaks on slashdot.

This argument (software bundling) has been around since 1993. Slashdot has been taking notice of this argument (beginning with IE bundling antitrust debates) going back almost that far. This ruling is about Italian legal standards and technology confusion more than what any of the comments are about. In fact this ruling is about microsoft and it's legacy more than anything else. Every piece of data storing technology has 'software' on it. Most of them can be described as having an OS. Im talking about everything from a flash drive to a car, to computerized airplanes, to CNC routers, to MRI machines, etc. 1) There is no chance in hell even Italy will uphold all electronics be available sans software. 2) Even in a limited situation for computers, requiring a company to warrantee a computer to be run under 100 possible OS's places a high burden on the company and will only happen in nations with very low tax income from computer manufacturers. 3) You can always just build a computer... with any OS you desire. 4) Phone companies wont do it for the same reason they dont adopt Ubuntu PC's.... 6 million daily calls from grandpas who accidentally got the Ubuntu PC and cant get his AOL to work... and by the way, where is the spider solitaire? Not everyone wants to spend days getting everything to work, then still having to remember his "root" . Andyou still have the compatibility problem assuming you get Android on an Iphone and tweak it till it actually works. Now all the Apps in Appstore need to be compatible with all phones, or acknowledge they arent and which they arent... test for all, debug for all, multiple versions of every app, linked features, etc. This is before apple quality testing. Then apple loses their clean 'it just works' appearance (which is their best sales edge) which is exactly what went wrong with Windows and why everyone is disgusted with it. All things to all people=consistently frustratingly sort of compatible. 5) Im not sure cell phone providers would ever allow true open underlying software because they dont trust people with unfettered access to their networks.

Thats why I told several customers to upgrade to 7 ... because it is what MS told us. Except Access to LPTI and USB ports is different enough that anything except completely monolithic software requires serious technical experience in choosing settings otherwise you cant even print from the device. One important note. If 7 had no drivers for your printer/dongle/adapter for both x32 and x64, (which is a lot of the issue we ran into and why they didnt move on during Vista) XP mode had no access to the device either. A common example is Flexi sign, a proprietary software that you had to pay $6000 for the 7 x64 compatible version. In the time I worked these legacy softwares which have no modern versions with the same options/appearance/utility were absolute stopping points for a specific segment of the population.

When electricity is conducted on a wire,are new electrons sent down the wire riding on the surface? Or are they pushed through the mass of existing electrons and cause one currently in line to bounced off the back end (like a newton's cradle)? Something Ive always wondered...

Because you dont make headlines, get congressional attention, or get federal funding for accusing local hoodlums. Say terrorist and point at something potentially vulnerable and you may just win the lottery. The whole point of this story should be that the guy(s) did a good deal of damage to several components and didnt cause one single outage. The histrionic congressional response "Any guy with a .22 could shut down the whole thing!!!" should be a comedic punchline.