Slashdot Mirror

Holy Jesus' butt-plug you're a cock.

Not good enough, now go to the 1st reformed church of the AR-15 and repeat that sentence.

1 - automation creates jobs as well as replacing them

Yes, but those jobs also require a higher level of worker education so your case that defunding education has no effect has now acquired yet another dent.

2 - outsourcing to low cost countries has replaced jobs irrespective of automation

Quoting the financial Times (yuk, I feel dirty): https://www.ft.com/content/dec... The US did indeed lose about 5.6m manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. But according to a study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, 85 per cent of these jobs losses are actually attributable to technological change — largely automation — rather than international trade.

The lesson here is that if you want to be a player in the automated economy you better have a well educated workforce.

3 - teachers are among the highest paid earners in the US

That depends entirely upon where you are and how seriously your state takes education: https://www.forbes.com/sites/n... ... also, the teacher's complaint is not just pay most of it is actually a total lack of resources and funding to do their job properly. Because their state leadership (usually Republican) has decided to experiment with small government.

4 - the Chinese are less than 20 years of reform away from another revolution

They have managed to create a telecommunications industry that owns 1500 standards essential 5G patents and four of the leading smartphone manufacturers in those 20 years. I look forward to seeing what they'll accomplish in the next 20 years while you sit on your hands and assume they'll never have the temerity to threaten America's technological lead.

5 - I've already told you I'm not underestimating anybody, but frankly China isn't my opponent. I'm not a nation state

You do a good job of sounding like you are determined to underestimate the Chinese.

PS - 7 - I don't use the term f**ing, I use the terms fuck and fucking. You may not like them but that's your fucking choice, stop trying to impose it on me

And you still sound like somebody who thinks that inserting some form of the word 'fuck' into every sentence makes their argument stronger.

PS - 8 - I don't have a toilet for a mouth.

Yes you do.

PS - 9 - I'm not fucking American. I'm also not Chinese and I'm also capable of objectively assessing both nations. You clearly are not.

So I am incapable of accessing both nations and you are because ..... no proof?

There were 208,000 new registrations for electric vehicles in the U.S. last year

That's less than a quarter of the number of F150s Ford sells in a year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

That only makes it sound more impressive because Ford sells shittons of F150.

There were 208,000 new registrations for electric vehicles in the U.S. last year

That's less than a quarter of the number of F150s Ford sells in a year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

"So what's the long term plan to store the heavy metals and the byproducts from solar panel production?
Those byproducts don't exist, moron."

Perhaps you should bother to educate yourself before spouting off like a fool.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

https://www.cleanenergywire.or...

https://principia-scientific.o...

https://spectrum.ieee.org/gree...

Those byproducts don't exist, moron.

Oh? Perhaps you should do some research first.

I'm not saying that the drawbacks of solar outweigh the benefits, but their is a pollution problem in the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, and some of those products don't degrade, since their toxicity is due to them being heavy metals. If nuclear is held to the standard that we need a long term plan to store its waste, shouldn't solar meet the same standard?

To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.

Uhm..

If you think it is perfectly normal to equate self inflicted deaths with deaths caused by someone else then I feel that you need to reconsider your ethics somewhat.

Everyone has the right to not take the necessary safety precautions when their own life is on the line.
When it comes to dam construction and nuclear power plants you put other peoples lives on the line.

Driving drunk on your private road is OK, you are only risking you own life.
Driving drunk on a public road is not OK, you are putting other peoples lives at risk.

"So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. " = HORSESHIT, moron! Falling off a roof is NOT A RESULT OF ANY POWER SOURCE yet is tabulated as one?

You are dumber than you ought to be given what you've invested time to know halfway. NOBODY DIED AS A RESULT OF SOLAR OR WIND POWER TECHNOLOGIES. They threaten nobody ongoing! Nuclear can't say that.

When dishonest faggots like you try to pretend the likelihood of morons falling off their roof proves industry-investment-dying nuclear power is somehow "safer" than anything else, you know you've hit rock bottom of the slag pool.

To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? And since those sources provide fuck all worth of power, when you divide to calculate deaths by terawatt hour you get that solar kills several times more people than nuclear. But yea, do go on and give us your completely uninformed opinion and continue to insist your guesses are equal to data and years of experience in the field.

Years from now, after nuclear finally gets us off of fossil fuels, how do you think your children or grandchildren will think of environmentalists from now? I bet that years from now, historians will lump you in with anti-vaxers (pro-plaguers), flat earthers and Trumpers. All of those groups deny basic data and facts and do so in the fact of that information for years. All of those groups have leaders who know that they are wrong and only care about that sweet, sweet donation money. Do you think the folks that run environmental lobbying groups actually want a solution to climate change? Don't get in the way of that money train dear.

Ironically buying food in bulk is one of the more affordable ways to shop for food, particularly for low income families.

You'd think so. But Costco's average customer has a household income over $100,000.

Their customer base is the upper middle class, not the poor.

Not true, it's also those "exfiltrating" money from Venezuela keeping it propped up, too. And turkey.

How is that confusing? You're unaware of Android? A widely used Linux system with a massive rate of piracy?

Point is it is absolutely nothing to do with Linux or "Linux users". If you have alternative statistics on what the piracy rate is on Linux then I'd be happy to see them (and no, your anecdotes are not evidence or statistics).

Why do you perpetuate this lie about Henry Ford? Is it lack of knowledge or is it lack of conscience? Henry Ford paid his workers twice as much as any other employer at the time because he needed his trained and competent employees to stay working at his factories and not leave to go working somewhere with less pressure to mass produce.

His conveyor lines and mass production is what allowed him to produce more per unit of manual labour and thus to drop prices so that more people could buy his product but paying his employees more was not to make sure they could buy the cars, that's nonsense modern socialist propaganda. He hired tens of thousands of people and once they were trained they could easily leave and command the same wage anywhere else, to prevent that Ford offered compensation large enough that no other manufacturer at the time could afford it because they didn't have the scale and the means to mass produce the way he did.

So once again, is it because you do not know or is it because you want to lie that you perpetuate this BS about Ford?

1.) You can't live on a cruise ship.

Yes you can.

Since their detection rate was already abysmal i'll gladly take a little less theater to go with my "security".

I live in a no-disposable-plastic-bag city, and most people pay $1/ea for heavy duty plastic bags. Some I've used hundreds of times, and they're only showing minor wear. None have failed on me, ever.

I live in a no-disposable-bag state. And so far, I can count a single-digit number of times that I saw someone who brought his or her own bag. Single-digit. But I see people buying new reusable bags approximately every trip I take to any store. I'm sure there are a few people like you. But there are a lot more people who aren't. And now they're throwing away many times as much plastic.

People against this policy don't realize that they're fighting against having higher quality bags when shopping.

Oh, please, do tell me, someone who lives in a no-plastic-bag state, what I don't realize about the policy that I live with every day.

They're fighting against luxury, to defend the practice of putting one or two items in a cheap plastic bag.

Luxury is never having to worry about whether you brought enough bags with you, and whether those extra dollars you have to pay for bags mean that you don't have enough food to get you through the week. These policies are hardest on the working poor. Those people I see buying bags every day? They're not the software engineers. They're the people who clean the software engineers' houses. And for them, these policies are appalling. The left should have had an absolute coronary when the bag bans were proposed, but they were too busy drooling over a fictional belief that these bans will somehow save the planet to notice that their policies have basically turned into a poor tax.

Everything is packaged before it goes into the bag. There is no need for bags unless you have a quantity of items, in which case those disposable bags suck anyways! Are we really sure their primary purpose wasn't some sort of anti-turtle conspiracy? I mean, as bags, they suck.

So how many ply are the bags you use for trash? Do you reuse your non-disposable bags as trash bags? Because that's what we used to use for trash bags back before the ban. Now, we have to buy trash bags, and they're a LOT thicker. The people who support these laws simply have no clue how many secondary problems that these bans cause further down the line, particularly for the people who have the least ability to afford them. Thankfully, I don't fall into that category, but I'll still gladly fight for the people who are.

The stories about plastic in the oceans usually fail to mention that it got there because some countries allow plastic in their rivers! For example: Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined: How You Can Help (Apr 21, 2018)

Banning plastic bags is supported by paper bag manufacturers. Stores in and near Portland, Oregon stopped supplying plastic bags. The underlying reason appeared to be that International Paper (world map) has a plant near Portland. Grocery stores there don't fill the paper bags because the paper bags are fragile, especially when they get wet in the rain.

Paper is FAR more damaging to the environment. First, a huge truck must go to a place where there are trees. The trees are cut and trucked to a processing plant. The plant uses poisonous chemicals to make the paper.

There are MANY examples of paper plant pollution. Here is a Slashdot story: Chile Becomes First Country In Americas To Ban Plastic Bags.

"CMPC is a Chilean pulp and paper company, being one of the biggest in Latin America. ... Revenue: US$ 5.1 billion (2017)"

Another plant: CELCO Valdivia Pulp Mill pollution: "The company had been dumping more dioxins and heavy metals than had been approved by the regulating agencies into the river from a waste tube that had been approved by the authorities. It had also been producing far above levels approved in its Environmental Impact Assessment, and was cited for multiple violations of environmental and health laws."

"In July 2007 CELCO agreed to pay CLP$614 millions to Valdivian tourism companies to avoid legal actions for supposed losses of the tourism sector of Valdivia due to contamination of Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary."

"The Secretary of State for the Environment said that, despite having large financial and technical resources, CELCO had an extremely poor environmental record."

We re-use plastic bags to line wastebaskets, and to throw away wet materials. We always throw paper bags away.

Paper buried in trash areas can eventually degrade, but that usually doesn't happen because there is usually not enough oxygen to support the breakdown process. How much oil is used to make plastic?: "Although crude oil is a source of raw material (feedstock) for making plastics, it is not the major source of feedstock for plastics production in the United States."

The natural gas used to make plastic bags is less polluting. Still a problem, but not as much of a problem as using oil.

Ahem, BingoUV,

Over 4 Billion Passengers Flew In 2017 Setting New Travel Record. The International Air Transport Association, an airline industry trade association with 290 member airlines, has released its 62 nd annual report on travel statistics for 2017.Sep 8, 2018
Over 4 Billion Passengers Flew In 2017 Setting New Travel Record
https://www.forbes.com/.../ove...

    Took me less than 30 seconds. Dumb-ass.

California has REAL problems and they prioritize paper receipts?

That vast State Water Project was designed for a population not much greater than 25 million. Today, on any one day, California verges on nearly 40 million people within its borders and is projected to reach 50 million if not higher.

According to a January 2017 study, “California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.” The study was based on “a review of federal, state and local financial disclosures.”

When you consider the California legal system and its regulatory system, inclusive of the world’s most comprehensive global warming law, California is likely the most regulated state in the Country.

California also is among the highest taxed states in the nation. California has the highest income tax rates. The top rate is 13.3%. The next highest is Oregon, but they don't have a sales tax.

The middle class is leaving in droves because of the above plus the high cost of housing.

But paper receipts must be addresses first.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

Considering things like this and the renewable portfolio standards, the desire to leave is understandable. Countries like France and Sweden which are already near carbon-free, are being forced to deploy ineffective and costly renewables, increasing both emissions and costs. Germany has spent hundreds of billions chasing unicorns, and their carbon intensity remains near flat at more than 10x that of France, with electricity nearing twice the price. Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power; instead Germany is a model of failure that the EU is forcing on their other member states.

I've never believed your stated Kessel Run times anyway, Han.

Of course you mean, "Kessel Run distances". (In this case, "run" means "route".)

From: 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' Solves The Kessel Run Problem

According to Star Wars: The Essential Atlas and the Solo novels, the road to Kessel involved navigating a cluster of black holes known as 'the Maw'. This would typically take 18 parsecs -- to avoid falling into the Maw's gravity wells -- but with a sturdy ship like the Millennium Falcon and a daring captain like Han, a smuggler could skirt close to the edges of the Maw and cut the distance down to 12 parsecs.

Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped. It was not funded by the GOP. However, we do have the Clinton campaign and the DNC paying Fusion GPS. So no - you're wrong. The GOP did NOT commission the dossier. That's a lie. The Democrats own that one - and like most things, they want to get rid of their connection - so they lie about it.

I didn't say the GOP commissioned that dossier I said it was Republicans, the Washington Free Beacon is a conservative website that shills for the GOP which makes it part of the GOP hive-mind. When the Beacon dropped the dossier after Trump became god-emperor of the right wing Fusion GPS sold it to the DNC. Now that is free market capitalism at work, as a conservative you should approve :-)

Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped. It was not funded by the GOP. However, we do have the Clinton campaign and the DNC paying Fusion GPS. So no - you're wrong. The GOP did NOT commission the dossier. That's a lie. The Democrats own that one - and like most things, they want to get rid of their connection - so they lie about it.

No, we walked ten miles up hill both ways. It's fine, keep your head in the sand.

https://www.psychologytoday.co...
https://www.news-medical.net/h...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...

You could actually look into it instead of just being a dickhead... In this case, you are correct, it's not criminal assault in the couple of links I looked through. But it's still a criminal offense. Appears to land you 3-5 years of getting assaulted in prison.

NY says its a crime

Toronto agrees

Regardless of what many have claimed, many pilots have said they were already trained to deal with this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

In my 43 years ... dietary advice has gone from.

1. Fat is good for you! Drink whole milk!
2. Fat is the devil! Eat rice cakes.
3. Actually, forget that last part. Carbs are the real problem.

You are too young to remember when protein was evil!.
JH Kellog invented Corn Flakes as a healthier alternative to high-protein meat-based American breakfasts of the time, which he believed led to masturbation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...

The percentage of Millionaires who inherit any money at all is the same as the percentage of the general population. So inheritance has no measurable effect on becoming a millionaire. I don't know the stats on billionaires.

However, let's think through the idea that "90% of billionaires inherited all their money - nobody makes a billion dollars, only inherits it".

For that to be true, Dad would have had to make a billion dollars. But the claim is that nobody makes a billion dollars. Therefore that thesis contradicts itself and must be false.

Here are some statistics from Forbes. There are about 540 billionaires. They studied 400 of those, so most of them.

7% of billionaires inherited all of their money.
8% inherited nothing

The rest inherited *something* and then grew that to over a billion dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/a...

They are:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

The cost to run an existing coal plant, especially with subsidies, is less than it is to build a new solar or wind plant, so the existing ones keep chugging. But virtually all new development in the US was exactly what the OP said was the cheapest: wind, solar and natural gas.

Seriously? Moving the camera underneath the screen is what's finally tripping the '1984' alarm in your head? None of the aggressive surveillance, gps tracking, always-on microphones, facial recognition, ministry-of-truthing the internet to push political agendas, and literal thought control all facilitated by smartphone-catalyzed social media addiction bothered you?

Of course, someone else has discounted that, but as noted there is more than just electricity driving reduction in poverty. https://www.forbes.com/sites/u...

Did you read that article? They hooked up a couple of huts to a grid then measured those families 18 months later. But that's a fundamentally dishonest way to measure it. Having reliable electricity allows for heavy industry to exist. It reduces spoilage of food stuffs. And it has a fundamental impact upon an economy. These things can't be measured marginally like the authors of your study assume. A few more huts having electricity doesn't fundamentally change the businesses that are now possible. It doesn't change how the central market stores produce. It doesn't change individual outcomes inside of a society, it changes the entire society fundamentally and so marginal expansion of a grid doesn't show the same impacts as initial introduction of reliable electricity.

One of the reasons fools on youtube rail against science is fundamentally dishonest studies like this one that are clearly politically motivated to find a specific outcome to support some ideologue's ideas about how the world works. Cheap energy is the single best way we have to lift people out of poverty. That goes entirely counter to the environmental movement's ideas about increasing energy costs to encourage efficiency. Sorry if this little inconvenient fact gets in the way of the image environmentalist want to project about their movement but reality doesn't respond to spin.

Well, they were able to whine their way into Flickr cancelling selling prints of Creative Commons works - https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...

heres an earlier forbes article where they outlined other credibility issues with snopes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/k...

I wouldn't be so harsh on people for using the term "GMO" incorrectly, as the term itself is unspecific, and is often broadened to include anything that has had its genes altered[1], even by nature.[2] [3]

It would be so much simpler if people just referred to the specific technologies being utilized, as they all suffer from risk/reward issues, and there aren't clear ethical borders. An incomplete list of the technologies used include:
* Nature's own technique of random mutations with a natural selection filter on top
* Artificial selection by humans, which in ~10,000 years gave us massive, delicious mutants like the modern wheat and corn crops, and docile cows, pigs and dogs
* Cloning started around the 1800s in order to perpetuate popular varieties of e.g. apples, oranges and bananas, whereby a branch of the tree is cut off and re-planted
* Forced hybridization has been around the 1900s, where two distinctly inbred parental lineages are perpetually bred to produce sterile offspring (e.g. seedless watermelons, or mules for use by the British Empire as amazing pack animals)
* Radiation-induced mutation breeding (mutagenesis) has been around since around the 1930s, which forcefully increases the mutation rate and splits chromosomes in order to allow breeding with other species -- a technique the EU even calls GMO (see [1])
-- a lot of western staple crops are based on, or hybridized from, crops produced from this technique
* Chemically-induced mutation breeding is a more modern version of mutagenesis that's doesn't cause as much DNA damage -- still a GMO in the EU though (see [1])
* Transgenic modifications, where specific genes can be takes from unrelated species, was invented in the 1970s
* Cisgenic modifications, where the specific genes are taken from a species where it would have been possible to acquire it naturally through conventional breeding,[4] have been a classification of GMOs since around the year 2000

So GMO debates could be untangled massively if people just spoke about the specific technologies. For instance, I suspect based on your comment that you would be against transgenic GMOs and mutagenesis, but for cisgenic GMOs... while being on the fence about forced hybridization?

>"there is a growing divide between "The Rich" and "The Poor", and the middle-class keeps shrinking, forcing people who were once middle-class into the ranks of "The Working Poor""

That is not what is actually happening in the USA or the world. In both, the "poor class" keeps shrinking while both the middle andupper class have been increasing. In the world it is far more prevalent, but I will stick to the USA

http://www.aei.org/publication...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...

So you have to get the whole picture. ALL people are doing better. So although there is a greater divide on the extremes, far fewer people are actually negatively affected by it.

There isn't a fixed pie. The pie has been growing. More people are eating more pie than ever before.

Thanks for mentioning the term "clawback" in this context; I learnt something interesting tonight.

For anyone else interested, a couple of articles that go into further detail:

Clawback Lawsuits on Rise in Aftermath of Ponzi Schemes
Ponzi Scheme Victims May Owe Triple Damages For Usury In Clawback Lawsuits - A New Tool In Ponzi Scheme Litigation?

Tesla’s shit system just murdered another person. Teslas are electric death traps.

And that they can be expecting even before he expects it.

Thank you for standing up for honesty! Make America Great Again!

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wilbur-ross-alleged-to-have-siphoned-more-than-120-million-from-associates-forbes-report-2018-08-07

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/08/wilbur-ross-stole-money-from-colleagues-sweetn-low-from-restaurants

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/08/06/new-details-about-wilbur-rosss-businesses-point-to-pattern-of-grifting

Oh, the humanity!

The US, on the other hand, has seen no reduction of CO2 in that time.

There's a bit of debate on that...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

...says it will take $92 trillion of social programs to reverse climate change. Oh, and we have get rid of farting cows.

Since no one seems able to see past the cows, I will state this more explicitly. AOC and (most) greens have no interest in viable solutions, as demonstrated by their violent opposition to nuclear energy. Even if this particular bit geoengineering was proven effective, they would do everything in their power to prevent its implementation.

Ironically, I think many would support the social programs if they thought we could afford it. Nuclear delivers essentially unlimited clean energy to enable universal prosperity, with almost zero environmental footprint. Meanwhile, renewable energy is only capable of delivering empty promises and a continuing dependence on fossil fuels.

Guess it doesn't apply to aircraft themselves, Boeing's solution for their burning batteries, put it in titanium box with tubes. They are still catching on fire 4 years later. https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...

Innocent people don't regularly accept Plea Bargains.

Yes they do:

Plea bargaining and the innocent

Innocent people are pleading guilty

Innocence is irrelevant

Why innocent people plead guilty

How to convince an innocent client to plead guilty

What? First, it's only some scenes. Second, even if it was all the scenes, it still wouldn't double the cost.

Only all the scenes of people talking. And all the cover scenes. And all the scenes to recut the movie so it makes sense to non-Indians.

If no one wants to watch it, you wouldn't bother. And you don't have to pay Americans. You just need English speakers. In fact, it would be weirder if you used Americans.

That's a catch-22.
If you want to show it, just to see if anyone wants to watch it - you must already have filmed it.

Also... Indians speak English. With an accent.
You're not dubbing it so lazy Americans don't have to read. You're dubbing it cause it sounds weird and confusing for those Americans.
It's like American... but it's like how Mexicans talk. Only not exactly. More like how Apu talks. Only that's funny and this isn't.

And dubbing it in non-American you're just asking for trouble.
There's a reason British actors are THE go-to for villains, with their weird, non-American, "English".

People watch a lot of weird shit full of cheap melodrama here.

Not like this.

India only got electrified last year. For certain values of "electrified".
Needless to say... their movies are made for a different kind of an audience.
And... Indian stories are... different.
So are their family comedies.
Can you even tell the genre of this one?

All three movies are recent commercial and critical successes. All ranging around $3-4.5 million to make, and raking in around $15-30 million.
Just releasing them in US theaters would cost more. Cause they would be competing for theater screens with Hollywood movies.
While their entire take is less than a budget of a black and white indie. As in independent.

Best they could hope for would be some kind of a digital Netflix-like distribution, hoping for their audience to stumble onto them or be pushed by algorithms.
But that would have happened already, had there been a market for those movies.
Maybe if more Indians migrate to US and they grow to be 1 or 2 percent of the population?

The Deadline Fallacy is being used to avoid considering effective long term solutions. If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?

It is clear that the scaremongers do not want to solve the problem, and their ordained "solutions" are only making it worse. The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables.

The Deadline Fallacy is being used to avoid considering effective long term solutions. If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?

It is clear that the scaremongers do not want to solve the problem, and their ordained "solutions" are only making it worse. The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables.

"Unnecessary use of fossil fuels" which would have been avoided if not for anti-nuclear zealots like drinkypoo, who convinced us to build out coal instead of nuclear. As if one immensely stupid idea wasn't enough, they are now advocating natural gas, greenwashed by renewables.

The "Green New Deal" isn't a new deal; it has been tried repeatedly, and fails every time. The most spectacular example being Germany, whose citizens now enjoy electricity prices twice that of France, with a carbon intensity 10 times higher, and flat even after spending hundreds of billions. Had they spent that on nuclear, they would be done decarbonizing, with energy to spare for electrifying transportation and heating.

And this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

France has been able to keep both costs and CO2 emissions low with their nuclear power. You want me to believe that we can do better than both Germany and France if only we build more batteries? Batteries don't produce electricity. To get cheap electricity out you have to put even cheaper electricity in, that's to make up for the capital investment in building the batteries and for energy losses in the storage.

Oh, and Germany already has access to ample energy storage. They sell their electricity to their neighbors that have lots of hydro and then buy it back later. They have to sell cheaper than French nuclear and then buy at prices higher than they can produce, that's just how the market works. That won't change with batteries in Germany.

You believe Germany has the technology now to build energy storage that's cheaper than storing energy in a tank of Russian natural gas? Or cheaper than Scandinavian hydro? What's stopping them then? They should be well on their way to telling France and Russia that their energy won't be needed any more. Instead we see them making plans for another natural gas pipeline from Russia.

Foolish startups that have people throwing millions (or billions) of dollars at them while other good startups can't get the funding they need. I have a startup that has built a new kind of data management system. It is twice as fast as the big database management systems and does things thousands of times faster than file systems. It is the kind of thing that can radically change how data is managed on a global scale; yet I can't seem to attract even a few $100K from investors even though I have a working system with a few customers already. It's all 'who you know' instead of 'what you know'.

Perhaps it's because people are addicted to the phrase order of magnitude. 2x just isn't enough. If you had 10x then you'd be in. Citation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/g...

Gifting shares of stock to another just transfers the cap gains over to them, and reduces one's lifetime gift exemption.

Paying someone with stock is likely viewed as selling them the stock, and thus would trigger the cap gains being realized. Selling it for less than its market value would reduce those gains, but of course would reduce the amount of money you get for it even more.

Donating stocks does give you a charitable deduction, and avoid the cap gains on that stock, but you are still poorer than if you had sold the stock, paid the taxes, and kept all the rest for yourself.

Here are some details: https://www.forbes.com/2010/07...

Fact, breathing a single microgram could kill you.

There's that panicy overblowing thing again. First, read this. Note how 30 years later, he's fine after handling the rock and keeping it in his room for a year. If half an hour was 4000 times the limit, this kid got 70 million times the limit or more (since he actually crumbled it in his hands)..

Again, it was best to remove the uranium rocks, but it is doubtful that any harm has been done.

I say this as one of millions of people who have had radioactive materials directly injected into a vein.

Read very carefully: 5 feet away from the buckets, radiation was at background levels. No residual radiation was found where the buckets were sitting.

It has always been ?

You really have no idea how outrageously low the energy costs in the US have historically been, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't be asking such stupid questions.

https://www.eurotrib.com/story/2013/7/2/174936/9080

And your point with that is...what, that Germany developed identically to the rest of Europe in the time period in question (first chart), thus doing nothing significantly worse than other European countries? Or that German prices are only slightly higher than in other EU countries, even before accounting for Germans' much higher purchasing power (second chart)? Or what exactly are you trying to prove?

Kind of funny how the U.S. was able to reduce the cost of electricity

Thus proving my claim about the cheap natural resources available in the US (fracking, currently).

while in Germany it tripled

I'm pretty sure the average price of electricity in Germany hasn't tripled - unless you somehow ignored inflation and used nominal values only (according to this breakdown, for example, in the 12-year 2006-2018 period, the residential prices have increased roughly from 24 to 29 real cents per kWh (2018 value)). But you haven't really pointed out any such data, so it's difficult to divine what you're going off of.