Most of the world is not Northern Canada, which must be where they got that number from. Maine averages 4.55 peak sun hours per day, and is the northereasternmost state in the continental United States. Even Washington state is at 3.95.

Solar panels: The roof of a trailer is about 450 square feet. In the northeastern U.S., you would average only 3.5 hours of full sun, so you'd get only a little over 13 kW per day.

So the solar generation function of a panel is no sun, no power, partial sun, no power, peak sun hours, full power.

Well, I guess that you're the expert.

So in an entire day, covering the entire roof of a trailer with solar panels would add a whopping 7 miles of range

Maybe that's enough to get you over a time zone or so so that you get an extra hour of "full sun"? ;)

After all, it's not like trailers are ever sitting idle during loading, unloading, or waiting for loads. Always moving, doncha know.

Once and for all people: "it's" (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of "it is." "its" is the possessive pronoun, which was intended here.

Yes, it is. Now think of the rule for possessives with every other type of noun (ordinary and proper) - " 's ". It's like the "i" before "e" except after "c" (and sometimes "y") rule, irregular verbs, and a host of other landmines in writing down the English language.

It doesn't help that there's a group of people actively miseducating kids about pronouns and demonizing references to them. His, hers, its, yours, theirs, and ours are all bricks paving the shoulder of the road to hell.

So embarrassed by the crap that you have to make up that you're posting AC? What are these free business loans only "illegals" qualify for, and where can I apply? Yo quiero links!

This sounds like someone made minute, non-revolutionary advances on standard de-salination and described it as if they were the first person to invent evaporative desalination. People have been doing sun powered desalination for thousands of years.

At small scales.

At large scales, desalination plants use reverse osmosis, which pretty much inherently creates a brine that is released back into the environment. You're not "moving the salt" to any useful industrial process, since it's still rather dilute.

At best, some of those plants use solar power to drive the RO process. But we'd much rather have the electricity to power other things, so a process that uses a non-semiconducting metal surface to perform solar-powered evaporative distillation, without a need to dispose of a brine, and without relying upon solar-electric generation and conversion, is a bigger deal than you make it out to be.

Thank the Trump-Lord that coal and natural gas plants are free, eh?

Contracts, or portions of contracts that license existing IP for government use do not typically gain any rights whatsoever to the products beyond those normally granted by law or license. The case you reference has little, if anything, to do with the typical weapon system acquisition process.

I work in this area. It would help you if you actually read the FAR that you're citing, since it says the exact opposite of what you claim.

The standard license rights that a licensor grants to the Government are unlimited rights, government purpose rights, or limited rights. Those rights are defined in the clause at 252.227-7013 , Rights in Technical Dataâ"Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services. In unusual situations, the standard rights may not satisfy the Government's needs or the Government may be willing to accept lesser rights in data in return for other consideration. In those cases, a special license may be negotiated. However, the licensor is not obligated to provide the Government greater rights and the contracting officer is not required to accept lesser rights than the rights provided in the standard grant of license. The situations under which a particular grant of license applies are enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.

A license is a right to exploit (make, have made, sell, offer to sell, import, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, publicly display and/or perform, and/or generally use, depending upon the IP and the transaction).

What it is not is an assignment of ownership of the IP. The private entity developing the IP retains ownership of the IP and can exploit it itself for commercial purposes, excepting ITAR issues and other technology restrictions that would apply to similar technologies generally.

The original claim was "the government owns most it (sic) not all of its IP in its supply chain." That's false. It has a license to it, and rarely anything more.

You know the government owns most it not all of its IP in its supply chain, right? It's all work for hire.

You know that you're just making up bullshit and then typing it into a comment, right?

There is no "work for hire" for most IP. Patents are owned by their inventors absent a contract assigning it to others (typically their employer, not the Federal government). Copyrightable works made for hire are limited to "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." Otherwise, the copyright is owned by the author (which might be an employer, but definitely is not the Federal government, which cannot create works protected by copyright) absent a contract assigning it to others.

Show me the government contracts that assign rights to the government. Show me all the Microsoft and Oracle and Amazon and Google software that has had ownership assigned to the government. Deny that cases like Bitmanagement Software GMBH v. United States appear routinely on the Court of Federal Claims' docket, and explain away 28 USC 1498.

You're not just a little bit wrong, you're basically entirely wrong. Federal procurement contracts do not routinely include assignments of IP to the government. Nobody making dual use technology would bother doing business with the government if it did. The government doesn't fund the development of things that it uses, it buys it after the fact, even in the defense space.

Each version is a work, so in theory, it could be enforced per newly added ffmpeg commit which resulted in a binary being created by Rockchip.

Nope. Statutory damages/a? (504(c)(2)) are awarded only if the work is registered prior to the commencement of infringement. Was each newly added ffmpeg commit separately registered with the U.S. Copyriight Office? No? Then no bueno.

There are exactly two copyright registrations for ffmpeg, for v0.5 and r21770. That's your ceiling.

Proprietary service drops support for proprietary protocol..

That just means Google is now operating in exactly the same manner that Microsoft used to be when they had dominance over consumer device operating systems. Google now has dominance in the mobile market with Android, and is using that to shove Chrome down people's throats. Personally, the first thing I do with any new phone is download Firefox, just like I did (and still do) with new computers. As the statistics show, though, the vast majority of people don't bother to do that so whatever is the default is what they use. The right and fair thing to do would be to stop them from abusing their monopoly power by offering a choice of browsers at time of install, and not favor their own browser in any way. That would have been the thing to force MS to do as well back when they were being sued for abuse of monopoly power after taking down Netscape with the same tactic. Unfortunately, it didn't happen then and it isn't happening now either. So, Google will continue to dominate the market unless and until some other highly disruptive technology comes along to unseat the current smartphone market and gives another player a chance to enter and eventually dominate the market in a similar fashion.

This is the end of this civilization and the beginnings of the next.

So now you've abandoned the wall of AI-generated text and simply short-circuited into manual nihilism.

Want to know how I can tell? Because neither time have you put in enough effort to realize that we're both identifying the same problems, and the original poster was claiming that "Young people are clearly stupid then" for seeing them and demanding liberal democracy with a robust welfare state.

If you want to decry trolling, look in the mirror and lecture yourself.

An impressive quantity of AI-generated slop. Meanwhile, the proletariat are increasingly willing to burn down the system in the hopes that trying something, anything, will improve their lot they are left behind and/or discarded.

So you get what we have now, where the country is being run by elite arsonists. But it'll get better, surely, right?

Young people hear socialism and see Europe and the Nordic countries where losing your job means you wonâ(TM)t go bankrupt from medical bills.

Young people are clearly stupid then. The Nordic countries have some of the best free-market policies on the planet. ...
  If they didn't have productive economies supported by some of the strongest free-market capitalist policies, they wouldn't be able to afford such a nice welfare state.

Young people are clearly quite on point about this, as your own reply admits. You appear to want a set of glorious free market capitalist policies without much of a social safety net (the "welfare state"). Fuck that Heritage foundation pipe dream, and fuck you for wanting it too.

You can have a reasonably regulated economy where everyone of working age has to fend for themselves, or you can have a much more loosely regulated economy that is taxed so that people of working age are not at the complete mercy of ultracapitalist whims. And in either society must provide for its children (unless you're into eating your economic seed corn for short-term funsies and long-term disaster) and its elderly (because working people into the grave is not popular pretty much everywhere).

Go substantially outside of those options, and you get societal instability that can and does result in an involuntary reordering of those sitting at the top (the French empire, the U.S. guilded age and workers movements, etc.). And some of your free market capitalist peers will happily sell the revolting peasants the rope with which to accomplish that.