tzs
If you could not charge at home then a high mileage ICE vehicle (before the war) had lower energy costs in a significant fraction of the US.
Even with home charging there were something like 10 states where a Prius beat an EV if you were paying the state average rates for gas and for home electricity.
Massachusetts was the state most favorable to ICEs. In the Boston area a Prius would have lower energy costs in the city as long as gas was under about $4.40/gal.
Those countries have robust and long establish national ID systems, and they do go a good job of making sure citizens easily obtain their ID.
The US has no such system.
There are millions of adult citizens without valid government issues photo ID acceptable and who cannot reasonably afford to get it. Before you say that states offer free ID, it is not the cost of the ID itself that is the issue. It is the cost of getting supporting documents.
Often getting copies of the supporting documents requires showing ID. Oops. There are alternate procedures, which often involve hard to find documents, often not digitized or centralized.
The only way to do a voter ID system in the US without disenfranchising a large number of voters is to establish a system similar to other countries with a national ID that is easy for every citizen to obtain and we grandfather in existing citizens by making the new system only required for people who are born after it is instituted.
It is more common with medium to large commercial users than with residential users.
The bill will have both the per kWh energy charge to cover energy usage and the demand charge.
So in his case it means if he cooks one meal on an induction stove that month, with no other high loads at the same time, it sets a floor of $36 on the demand charge.
For example a country with multiple significant ethnic groups should probably have a parliament with a similar ethnic split. A country with a significant rural population and a significant urban population should probably have a similar split in parliament.
Within those groups people are going to vote for their best people for the job. That's generally going to be from among the smarter and/or more educated in their group.
That results in a parliament that is not representative along those dimensions.
That sounds like the robot tried to yield and she purposefully moved to counter that.
That would likely support a charge for obstructing traffic or disorderly conduct or something similar.
...and then when they actually try most of the people who said they wanted it find out that they don't actually want it.
They do have the highest rate of Ponzi schemes, which is a problem and they have been putting in effort to fight that.
The factors that make Ponzi schemes easier in Utah would also likely make illegal online gambling more harmful than in other states so it makes sense for them to want to nip that in the bud.
As someone who is just a reader the main annoyance at FFN is that when a story gets a new chapter it is often hard to get it to actually show the chapter. Sometimes you can only get it if you try to go directly to it, sometime you can only get it if you go to it from the previous chapter. Sometimes you can't get it at all.
Also sometimes if you try to reread the next-to-last chapter to remind yourself of context before reading the new chapter it say the next-to-last chapter was not found. As with the last chapter sometimes you can get it if you approach from the right direction.
Sometimes it is even the last several chapters that get temporarily lost this way.
So far this eventually has cleared up on a given story but sometimes it takes weeks.
From what I've seen authors mention there are also several issues with its support for authors making them as frustrated and annoyed as us pure readers.
Recently I've also noticed even the browsing story categories is falling apart. E.g., go there and from the "Browse" menu pick books. On the books page pick "Harry Potter". Then when it lists the HP stories click the "Crossovers" link to see the HP crossovers. That gives an error, and has done so for quite a while.
It was 4.8 million PDFs, which I think is a bit more than "a few".
None of the federal charges really had anything to do with copying the files [1].
> Kevin Mitnick served five years, they were looking to throw up to 35 years at him, and a minimum sentence of seven years if he went to trial.
You are comparing the ridiculous DOJ press release number [2] for Swartz to Mitnick's actual sentence. You should compare like to like, so should be comparing 35 years for Swartz to the ridiculous DOJ press release number for Mitnick which was 200 years.
[1] https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130211030902/https://www.popeh...
The argument that the fossil fuel industry historically being a major source of their funding is why they currently oppose renewables is weak because that has been a major continuing source of their funding for many decades.
Hence to explain why the renewable support in the 2008 party platform went away we need to look for an explanation other than simply the fossil fuel industry wanted it.
It still may be due to the fossil fuel industry, but to make that argument one needs to explain why they didn't have enough power before to stop it from going into the platform in 2008 but they did have enough later to get rid of it.
Climate change:
> By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.
...
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
...
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
Clean energy:
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
Reducing demand for fossil fuels:
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
...
> We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...
As far as secure boot and attestation goes, my understanding is that these are based on signatures.
Things like signing keys have generally not been considered to be source code under GPL. Such things before GPLv3 were completely out of scope.
In GPLv3 they were brought into scope, but not by changing the way they define source code. Instead they added a new category, "Installation Information", for "any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work [...]".
Section 6 of GPLv3, which is where the part your quote comes from, under some circumstances requires that you must accompany the conveyed Corresponding Source must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
The circumstances where this is required are pretty narrow. Before we get to that we need one more term that was added for GPLv3: "User Product".
>> A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.
Installation Information must be included when two things are true:
1. The object code conveyance is in, with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and
2. The conveying is part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient.
In short, under GPLv3, if you want use GPLv3 code in the software or firmware you include out of the box on hardware you are distributing you need to include Installation Information.
As far as I know GrapheneOS is only distributed as a third party download you can install on a device you already own, so does not trigger the GPLv3 Installation Information requirement.
It might be useful to allow just matching the note. E.g., if the singer is singing C5 count the user singing C4 as a match.
Yes, the MLAT stuff is terrible, but it does not involve any double standard.
The non-MLAT stuff does not involve a double standard because pretty much every country has something equivalent.
The US version (and the foreign versions) are not extraterritorial because they are all compelling someone in their territory to turn over something that person controls.
If my government asks me for two files, one of which I happen to have stored on file storage service in my country, and one I've stored on a file storage service in another country, the fact that I scp from an in-country server for one an an out-of-country server for the other doesn't make it an exercise of extraterritorial power.
Why coal when the peaks exceed what renewables can offer? The same reason the US builds natural gas plants (and is building more of those than anyone else in the world)--it is their fossil fuel that is the cheapest and has the most secure supply.
Unless you can make a good case that some people have some kind of natural or divine right to a bigger share of whatever planetary CO2 budget we decide we have, shares have to be allocated per person rather than per country.
Any other systems leads to absurdity once you take into account that groupings of people can change.
DAC isn't useful for short term, but could be useful as a very long term cleanup project.
Assuming world wide solar panel production continues to rapidly grow, wait until it reaches a point where we could set aside a number of solar panels for DAC each year equal to the current annual production of solar panels. Let's call this an arseload of solar panels.
Each year use those panels to build a solar farm in a subtropical desert dedicated solely to powering a DAC facility using current commercial DAC technology.
When we've expanded solar panel production enough raise the set aside to two arseloads a year. Keep increasing it when we can.
By the time we have 180 arseloads worth of panels (at current panel efficiency) powering DAC (at current DAC efficiency), we'd be removing each year about 10% more CO2 than we currently emit per year. We'd be using about 1/15th of the area of the 5 largest subtropical deserts.
If we ever got to 1600 arseloads we'd be removing CO2 fast enough to take the atmosphere from 450 ppm CO2 to 280 ppm in 6 years.
All that carbon removed, if stored as graphite and spread out evenly under 1600 aresloads of solar panels would form a layer about 1 cm deep.
Note that I'm not hypothesizing any breakthroughs in solar power or in DAC. The only thing speculative here is that it is possible to build hundreds of arseloads of solar panels over the next several hundred years. I have no idea if there is some consumable needed that is sufficiently limited to make this impossible.
> [...], the CLOUD act, [...]
The CLOUD Act doesn't do what you think it does. Here's a comment from a while ago with more detail [1].
Citation needed.
Is this the same general public whose backlash over the suspension got it reversed a few days later by the network, and by Nextstar and Sinclair a few days after that?