If the utility is paying a market rate (instead of an inflated rate to get people to invest in alternative energy), why couldn't we all sell power to the grid? Eventually if the home units get efficient enough, what would be the problem with power being supplied entirely peer-to-peer?
Granted, I think we're a very long way away from that, but I don't see anything wrong with the funding mechanism.
> The market rate would just fall to near zero. The surplus from different homes would have very similar patterns.
This assumes that all homes are using the same technology to generate power, but after the landrush to solar, rates (which are time variant) would incentivize new entrants to the "sell-to-the-grid" market to choose technologies which might be less average output per unit cost than solar, but which have different timing characteristics.
"used in my example above where we decided that us meant “unsafe string” and s meant “safe string.” They’re both of type string. The compiler won’t help you if you assign one to the other"
Assuming you have the luxury of a language with a good type system (either because it's designed for the task in hand or it's extensible), the compiler can help you, and you would be much better off having unsafe and safe strings as separate types. Then the encode function simply becomes a function of type unsafe -> safe. I believe Michael Snoymann touches on this in his presentation, "Designing Type-Safe Haskell APIs".
I'm not arguing that Joel's method isn't a good idea. However, if you can it's better to leave hints for the compiler, not just the programmers.
I thought they calculated the amount of dust that based on the current rate dust accumulation and extrapolating based on the believed age of the universe. It's a little surprising we have not corrected that thought since the moon landing.
I disagree, because actively supporting limiting the rights of minorities over what amounts to an appeal to religious tradition seems more than a matter of opinion to me.
Also, I understand that you downvoted me above, but going to my other comments in another thread and giving them the same treatment is abusive - especially since I'm a new user. You have single-handedly destroyed my karma balance. So I guess the message is that I'm not welcome here because I support equal rights?
The Old Testament tells the story from the point of view of Jewish tribes, and they don't complain that other people are anti-Semitic, and it's appropriate as the most fighting happens between different Semitic people (and they know it since they actually tell so in their genealogies, you know that "boring" "who begat whom" parts). The main difference to Jewish writers is if these other people (or frequently even the Jewish tribes) believe in Him who must not be named (you know, the arch-enemy of that Harry Potter guy (1)) or not. Read it. When Jewish tribes win in the Old Testament, they joyfully perform different acts of genocide (2), which was OK since Ya... um, the Lord wanted exactly that.
Not so surprising that that Muhammed guy (peace be upon him! (0)) got inspired for his wars. Apparently he was illiterate, but it seems that somebody read him big parts of OT. Muslims believe it was an angel named Gabriel (3), not to be confused with Moroni (4) that appeared in the US. And when we're there, Americans should understand Muhammedans and vice versa, as the US president was directly instructed by God too (5) so much for the Separation of church and state (6).