Just because someone has to create works doesn't mean everyone needs to have this capability "without an investment of capital," as the article puts it. There will still be PCs for a price, and established businesses will still be able to afford this price just as established video game studios can afford console devkits.
As an example of that, my first serious computer that I bought around 1990, when I started a video side business, was an Amiga 2000, with a 4 meg expansion memory card, and a 40 Meg Hard drive. Just that computer cost me almost 3 thousand dollars. I didn't blink either - it was a cost of doing business.
Today, computers are dirt cheap by comparison. I spent 1500 for my iMac 5 years ago, and something over a kilobuck for my HP laptop. But if the desktop market collapses and their prices go back towards the early 90's levels, it will just be a cost of doing business again, because they surely aren't going away.
And it's interesting that I've had that that iMac now for over 5 years, and it's still plugging along just fine, where that old Amiga was replaced in just over 2 years, as obsolete. Matter of fact, I went from the 2000 to a 2500 to a A3000 + toaster to a A4000 + toaster and finally a Mac with non-linear editing in 2000. Since then, the buying of new computers has slowed down a lot.
Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"?
No, not really. But what yu wrote told me what you were going to write after that. And I for one woud prefer not to dilute the discussion with what it will turn into as soon as we mention anti-nuclear. Subsidies, subsidies subsidies. we needn't have actual cash handouts. A subsidy might be a tax break, exemption from environmental regulations, limitations on liabilities. All things that reduce operating costs. Because money that you don't have to spend is just money that you either keep or distribute to the stakeholders.
And remember, I'm not personally against subsidies as long as they are applied properly. For new technology that might need a kickstart - absolutely. Unless we decide that the US is going to cede technology advances to other countries, who are willing to have government help drive technology forward. Giving breaks to established or never to be profitable industries like corn based ethanol. No. Oil and gas seem to be able to make a profit anyhow, and Ethanol based on corn never will, and is just free money for farmers. Nuclear liability limits? I'm divided on that one, but it's pretty certain that the price of an insurance policy for maybe 10 percent of likely damage in the event of a kablooey is immensly less expensive.
You want to talk about Pro or anti Nuclear power, there are plenty of places to do it. In a subsidy subthread, it has as much place, and as predictable an outcome as deciding to bring in certain politicians or the other deriling discussion side trips. So you betchya, I shut off when we go there, this response is as close as I''ll get to entertaining your notion. Ciao.
I'm a Graphic designer. Work is only increasing, who do you think makes all the GFX for the console's/tablet's?
This! Because someone actually has to make the consumer's stuff.
This death of the PC and other stuff keeps coming up, and the sycophants of it are always lacking in some basics. They are the same people who said that our smartphones crappy cameras made DSLR's redundant.
What has happened is that tablets and smartphones have allowed the computer challenged to join in the fun, but those folk are pretty much consumption only. Somebody has to make what they consume.
And I've found that there is absolutely no replacement for real estate. So my iMac is serving me up with 2-27 inch screens, and my HP laptop is routinely connected to a 27 inch monitor as well. So it is functioning as a desktop except when I need to take it with me. Usually to present to people what I have produced.
Now, the market is changing. Since consumption only folks are performing the vast majority of computing device activities, such as using Facebook or other look at something, then type a few words, then look at something else - the market for the desktop and it's inherent power is going to shrink.
But go away? nope, nope nope.
( I work with x3 50inch screens) I work in an office with other's who code, I dont see them switching either, never see a console you can code on or a tablet suitable.
Ohh yeah, now that's some serious real estate! I drool - I work out of home now, and am running out of wall space, or else I'd join you in that much view.
Part of my work is similar to yours, I do video work and photography and graphics. So the need for a lot to look at is there. But I also do a lot of work with spreadsheets, relational databases, and pdf's and web development - and all of those programs are running at the same time. Trying to do that on one small screen is doable but slow as molasses, and my extra screens and real estate they provide have long since paid for their money outlay.
Maybe one day the consumer base will switch but those of us use that build for a living Pc's wont be going away anytime soon.
I think that the consumers have already switched. And they are on a platform and form factor that works for them. I do wonder however, what the young folks are going to do when they age a little and presbyopia kicks in. At that point, even the PeeWee Herman smartphones of today will be kinda small for them.
All the hams I spoke with this evening are wondering why you find it difficult to copy. No kidding. We seem to have trained our ears on the analog radios over marginal paths.
It is a training thing. I am pretty deaf, with two separate tinnitus tones, what does get to my brain sounds like a cracked speaker, and tremendous loss above 2 KHz, yet I am able to hear a lot of transmissions that inexperienced people with good hearing cannot. This is proven time and again when contesting with a noob helper.
The issue I find with low bandwidth signals is that they cause fatigue over time. It's like when I wear a hearing aid. After 20 minutes, I'm ready to scream - This is likely because people with my issue have trouble separating the intelligence from the noise.
Lots of people ask about this. If we did pure speech-to-text and text-to-speech, it would take about half the bandwidth but everybody would have the same synthesized voice. Once you start trying to add parameters to the synthesized voice such as pitch, speed, and tonality, those take as much bandwidth as we are using for the entire codec, because they are essentially the same parameters.
Doesn't Motorola have a low bandwidth FM mode using phonemes? I've listened to a few radios using something like that, and they are pretty unpleasant to use.
It is a testament to the amateur radio pioneers of the past that an analog radio transmission mode invented over a hundred years ago is, just now, being possibly rivaled in its efficiency.
And there is a reason why Single Sideband will still be used for a long time to come.
A weak or noisy SSB signal can still be copied and understood. The digital encodings have a fatal flaw. It is known as the "digital cliff". If it doesn't decode properly, or if you have a weak or noisy signal, you get silence.
So the net effect is a quiet signal of significantly less range. In addition, most digital encoding schemes don't really save any bandwidth.
This encoding appears to try to work around that issue by guessing at missing bits and placing the guess' in the stream. So I suspect that some extra range will be gained before it drops off. A big question will be if this gain is achieved at the expense of a now noisy signal, where the noise is purposely injected by the codec. In the real world, will this injection end make for illegible signals? Dunno - I'll probably try some of this using FreeDV before being too tough on it.
This isn't to say people shouldn't try. But as you note, the gold standard SSB isn't in any danger yet. On my radio I can knock the Sideband Bandwidth to around 2 KHz and even less, so the 3 KHz standard they are aiming for is kind of a moving target.
Ah, a term used so much it is like saying "Scotch tape" or Xerox copy.
Well no it isn't but language such as that is a sign of upbringing and local colloquial language rather than a sign of intelligence or how much someone knows about a field.
But feel free to bias based on language rather than on fact.
Aren't you doing the exact same thing as you accuse me of doing? And facts are good, and highly indicated in this discussion. I approve. But "Fuckwittery" is rather difficualt to prove as a fact. "fuckwittery" tells us about the person claiming it though.
Now I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to convince people that something is safe when someone else says it isn't, I'll probably use explanatory terms, and not call those folks who said it wasn't safe "fuckwits". We all in our careers and elsewhere get questioned on our veracity occasionally. I just had that happen in the case of a competitive event I administer. My response? Exceptional pleasantness, and so much referencable, provable, and 100 percent correct data that my accuser eventually says, "No more - Please! I was wrong."
Me calling him a fuckwit? Yes the guy was indeed being one - not only doesn't make my case, but having much experience with humans, name calling is usually the sign of a bully, or someone who even has something to hide, so they try the intimidation route. Red flags go up and alarm bells go off. And me calling him gains sympathy for the accuser. In the meantime, after I proved with no questionable he no longer doubts my veracity, and knows what will happen if he were ever to question it again. Which is all to say that he won't ever question my honesty. And all of the folks sitting on the sidelines see it as well.
A lot of us swear. I do, I have no doubt that you do. But I know when a little spice is needed, and when to use the big words, and when to drop the big words and tame the shop talk down a little. Profanity is for sitting around the bar, telling jokes, and so seldom in intelligent discourse, that it's use is contraindicated almost always.
I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.
Okay
So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.
This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.
Another one...
You could have stopped at "anti nuclear" and that'ts all you needed to say. Here is your problem. The moment you utter or write that phrase, most people just stop listening. You and your ilk have a lot to do with that, as the simultaneous nuclear is hte safest" the fine images and video of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and teh condescending attitude that anyone against or even ambivalent about nuclear poer is a stuid asshole just make folks thing "Bitch, please!" How's that workin' out for ya'all?
Fuckwittage? Anti-Vaxxer references? Hope this guy has a newsletter.
Well, first off, I'm going to be a little suspicious of experts who find fuckwittage in their dictionary, when a stupid cacahead reference will do. I dunno that taking a temper tantrum reassures me all that much.
My guideline is that if it is allowed, it is visible to someone who wants to see it badly enough.
I'll make note that of the renewables, the major subsidy there is for fuel ethanol, which most people that are interested in renewable energy don't want.
Just consider how many parts - static & moving - a cassette has compared to a CD. GP is talking utter bollocks.
And then there are the players. A decent cassette player which is probably going to be a 1990's creation, will have lots of worn out rubber parts. And when they do this they get all wow and fluttery, and develop a pretty big appetite for munching on tapes. Bollocks indeed!
It isn't all that casual. I had plenty of cassettes that were eaten by the machinery. And go muzzy over time. I was darn happy to abandon cassettes as soon as I could. And no way will I buy another machine just to hear the voice quality, wow and flutter prone crap.
- not want anyone else knowing about how healthy you are or are not
- not want the data uploaded into 'the cloud'
- not even want to know what they are doing is unhealthy
Here be Dragons.
As a diagnostic tool when visiting the doctor? Sure. But as a full time wearable - that's insane. And all of this needs massive HIPPA restraint.
Can you imagine the ads we would be served? "Hello there value customer! We see your Temperature has gone up slightly and your heart rate is elevated" This would be a good time to try some Halls Mentho-Lyptus cough drops, or Alka Seltzer plus. We'll just dispatch na Amazon drone to your house, and you'll be well on your way to feelgood town in short order.
Or the Lawyers...... "Attention, we see you have a stent installed, and many of these have failed. You could be eligible for a substantial cash reward. We've pre-dialed Suckram and Kcam agency, pick up your phone, and be on the way to resolving this great problem."
And not all bad - "Good evening Mr Olsoc - it appears your wife has finished ovulating, so time for some fun tonight! We think you would simply love some of our KY flavored lovin' gel's, Shall we ship some proto while everyone is getting in the mood?" Now in bacon flavor!
The problem with the free market, and lassaize-faire capitalism is that it is destroyed by the first group that has major success. Becuse the greed that fuels the market can become very destructive as people with pathological levels of it inevitably take over. And the simplistic early agriculture type arguments for it just don't work in a highy technical and mechanized world. You gotta have some brakes on any "ism". And the reason is, ideology doesn't work at all. Idealogues end up going insane. Its how we have people arguing that we have to put the overpaid American worker out of a job, ignoring that laid off people don't buy the shit that's being produced. Capitalism with some restraints? Now that works a trick.
Who's paying? Musk has received billions of government aid. Is it a good investment, considering the outcome - a series of toys for the very rich? I don't think so.
Thanks, Obama.
Who's paying for oil and NatGas and Petrochemical and Ethanol subsidies? If solar was the only and only ever thing ever subsidized, you might have a point. But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten, well, let's hear you bitch about those.
And we don't like people like you who come in here and threaten to kill people.
Is that some sort of 'have you stopped beating your wife' comment? I didn't notice the GP commenter threatening to kill anybody.
Perhaps you didn't see who I was replying to? He wrote:
"If you keep this shit up, you're going to bring this country to the point of civil war. Good idea, I say: this side has all the guns, so we can push all you fuckers into the ocean."
So we have a threat of armed revolution, an assessment that the poster says it is a "Good Idea", that they have guns they will use, and will kill those they disagree with.
You know why? because the rape of the middle class is whats keeping everyone else going.
For a while it will work, and not much longer. Its genius really, that we have managed to get a lot of people to vote completely against their self interests.
You see, a "free market" is actually free, not controlled by government-run bureaucracies that make it very difficult for medical device manufacturers to produce something that ISN'T covered by patents any more.
You know, like epinephrine injectors.
But I thought that America was deep in the throes of Regulations that force prices to be high.
So if we are over regulated, yet CVS has managed to bring the price down, then I don't know that a free market argument applies, because FDA, O'Blama, and Franklin Roosevelt.
After all - if a free market doesn't exist, how can it work it's magic?
Anyone RTFA, but below the Solar Factory is another article about Tesla building a freaking battery backup for the city of Los Angeles for use as a peak leveler.
This is re-volting news for the anti solar PV crowd.
What I don't like is you disingenuous shitrats practically burning half the country's population in effigy and then claiming they're cruel, bigoted warmongers.
And we don't like people like you who come in here and threaten to kill people.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone has to create works doesn't mean everyone needs to have this capability "without an investment of capital," as the article puts it. There will still be PCs for a price, and established businesses will still be able to afford this price just as established video game studios can afford console devkits.
As an example of that, my first serious computer that I bought around 1990, when I started a video side business, was an Amiga 2000, with a 4 meg expansion memory card, and a 40 Meg Hard drive. Just that computer cost me almost 3 thousand dollars. I didn't blink either - it was a cost of doing business.
Today, computers are dirt cheap by comparison. I spent 1500 for my iMac 5 years ago, and something over a kilobuck for my HP laptop. But if the desktop market collapses and their prices go back towards the early 90's levels, it will just be a cost of doing business again, because they surely aren't going away.
And it's interesting that I've had that that iMac now for over 5 years, and it's still plugging along just fine, where that old Amiga was replaced in just over 2 years, as obsolete. Matter of fact, I went from the 2000 to a 2500 to a A3000 + toaster to a A4000 + toaster and finally a Mac with non-linear editing in 2000. Since then, the buying of new computers has slowed down a lot.
Whoa, what? So you reject everything I said because I said "anti-nuclear"?
No, not really. But what yu wrote told me what you were going to write after that. And I for one woud prefer not to dilute the discussion with what it will turn into as soon as we mention anti-nuclear. Subsidies, subsidies subsidies. we needn't have actual cash handouts. A subsidy might be a tax break, exemption from environmental regulations, limitations on liabilities. All things that reduce operating costs. Because money that you don't have to spend is just money that you either keep or distribute to the stakeholders.
And remember, I'm not personally against subsidies as long as they are applied properly. For new technology that might need a kickstart - absolutely. Unless we decide that the US is going to cede technology advances to other countries, who are willing to have government help drive technology forward. Giving breaks to established or never to be profitable industries like corn based ethanol. No. Oil and gas seem to be able to make a profit anyhow, and Ethanol based on corn never will, and is just free money for farmers. Nuclear liability limits? I'm divided on that one, but it's pretty certain that the price of an insurance policy for maybe 10 percent of likely damage in the event of a kablooey is immensly less expensive.
You want to talk about Pro or anti Nuclear power, there are plenty of places to do it. In a subsidy subthread, it has as much place, and as predictable an outcome as deciding to bring in certain politicians or the other deriling discussion side trips. So you betchya, I shut off when we go there, this response is as close as I''ll get to entertaining your notion. Ciao.
I'm a Graphic designer. Work is only increasing, who do you think makes all the GFX for the console's/tablet's?
This! Because someone actually has to make the consumer's stuff.
This death of the PC and other stuff keeps coming up, and the sycophants of it are always lacking in some basics. They are the same people who said that our smartphones crappy cameras made DSLR's redundant.
What has happened is that tablets and smartphones have allowed the computer challenged to join in the fun, but those folk are pretty much consumption only. Somebody has to make what they consume.
And I've found that there is absolutely no replacement for real estate. So my iMac is serving me up with 2-27 inch screens, and my HP laptop is routinely connected to a 27 inch monitor as well. So it is functioning as a desktop except when I need to take it with me. Usually to present to people what I have produced.
Now, the market is changing. Since consumption only folks are performing the vast majority of computing device activities, such as using Facebook or other look at something, then type a few words, then look at something else - the market for the desktop and it's inherent power is going to shrink.
But go away? nope, nope nope.
( I work with x3 50inch screens) I work in an office with other's who code, I dont see them switching either, never see a console you can code on or a tablet suitable.
Ohh yeah, now that's some serious real estate! I drool - I work out of home now, and am running out of wall space, or else I'd join you in that much view.
Part of my work is similar to yours, I do video work and photography and graphics. So the need for a lot to look at is there. But I also do a lot of work with spreadsheets, relational databases, and pdf's and web development - and all of those programs are running at the same time. Trying to do that on one small screen is doable but slow as molasses, and my extra screens and real estate they provide have long since paid for their money outlay.
Maybe one day the consumer base will switch but those of us use that build for a living Pc's wont be going away anytime soon.
I think that the consumers have already switched. And they are on a platform and form factor that works for them. I do wonder however, what the young folks are going to do when they age a little and presbyopia kicks in. At that point, even the PeeWee Herman smartphones of today will be kinda small for them.
All the hams I spoke with this evening are wondering why you find it difficult to copy. No kidding. We seem to have trained our ears on the analog radios over marginal paths.
It is a training thing. I am pretty deaf, with two separate tinnitus tones, what does get to my brain sounds like a cracked speaker, and tremendous loss above 2 KHz, yet I am able to hear a lot of transmissions that inexperienced people with good hearing cannot. This is proven time and again when contesting with a noob helper.
The issue I find with low bandwidth signals is that they cause fatigue over time. It's like when I wear a hearing aid. After 20 minutes, I'm ready to scream - This is likely because people with my issue have trouble separating the intelligence from the noise.
Lots of people ask about this. If we did pure speech-to-text and text-to-speech, it would take about half the bandwidth but everybody would have the same synthesized voice. Once you start trying to add parameters to the synthesized voice such as pitch, speed, and tonality, those take as much bandwidth as we are using for the entire codec, because they are essentially the same parameters.
Doesn't Motorola have a low bandwidth FM mode using phonemes? I've listened to a few radios using something like that, and they are pretty unpleasant to use.
It is a testament to the amateur radio pioneers of the past that an analog radio transmission mode invented over a hundred years ago is, just now, being possibly rivaled in its efficiency.
And there is a reason why Single Sideband will still be used for a long time to come.
A weak or noisy SSB signal can still be copied and understood. The digital encodings have a fatal flaw. It is known as the "digital cliff". If it doesn't decode properly, or if you have a weak or noisy signal, you get silence.
So the net effect is a quiet signal of significantly less range. In addition, most digital encoding schemes don't really save any bandwidth.
This encoding appears to try to work around that issue by guessing at missing bits and placing the guess' in the stream. So I suspect that some extra range will be gained before it drops off. A big question will be if this gain is achieved at the expense of a now noisy signal, where the noise is purposely injected by the codec. In the real world, will this injection end make for illegible signals? Dunno - I'll probably try some of this using FreeDV before being too tough on it.
This isn't to say people shouldn't try. But as you note, the gold standard SSB isn't in any danger yet. On my radio I can knock the Sideband Bandwidth to around 2 KHz and even less, so the 3 KHz standard they are aiming for is kind of a moving target.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
We have two - are you interested in the get off my lawn version, or the big tinfoil hat one?
That's racist.
Ah, a term used so much it is like saying "Scotch tape" or Xerox copy.
Well no it isn't but language such as that is a sign of upbringing and local colloquial language rather than a sign of intelligence or how much someone knows about a field.
But feel free to bias based on language rather than on fact.
Aren't you doing the exact same thing as you accuse me of doing? And facts are good, and highly indicated in this discussion. I approve. But "Fuckwittery" is rather difficualt to prove as a fact. "fuckwittery" tells us about the person claiming it though.
Now I don't know about you, but if I'm trying to convince people that something is safe when someone else says it isn't, I'll probably use explanatory terms, and not call those folks who said it wasn't safe "fuckwits". We all in our careers and elsewhere get questioned on our veracity occasionally. I just had that happen in the case of a competitive event I administer. My response? Exceptional pleasantness, and so much referencable, provable, and 100 percent correct data that my accuser eventually says, "No more - Please! I was wrong."
Me calling him a fuckwit? Yes the guy was indeed being one - not only doesn't make my case, but having much experience with humans, name calling is usually the sign of a bully, or someone who even has something to hide, so they try the intimidation route. Red flags go up and alarm bells go off. And me calling him gains sympathy for the accuser. In the meantime, after I proved with no questionable he no longer doubts my veracity, and knows what will happen if he were ever to question it again. Which is all to say that he won't ever question my honesty. And all of the folks sitting on the sidelines see it as well.
A lot of us swear. I do, I have no doubt that you do. But I know when a little spice is needed, and when to use the big words, and when to drop the big words and tame the shop talk down a little. Profanity is for sitting around the bar, telling jokes, and so seldom in intelligent discourse, that it's use is contraindicated almost always.
But then again, I'm probably a fuckwit, amiright?
I've seen that list so there's an easy example to give you.
Okay
So an anti-nuclear group came up with some assumptions that make nuclear energy look bad. News at 11.
This is an example of what I'm talking about... this "subsidy" is actually not a payment to any fossil fuel producer or user.
Another one...
You could have stopped at "anti nuclear" and that'ts all you needed to say. Here is your problem. The moment you utter or write that phrase, most people just stop listening. You and your ilk have a lot to do with that, as the simultaneous nuclear is hte safest" the fine images and video of Chernobyl and Fukushima, and teh condescending attitude that anyone against or even ambivalent about nuclear poer is a stuid asshole just make folks thing "Bitch, please!" How's that workin' out for ya'all?
Well, first off, I'm going to be a little suspicious of experts who find fuckwittage in their dictionary, when a stupid cacahead reference will do. I dunno that taking a temper tantrum reassures me all that much.
My guideline is that if it is allowed, it is visible to someone who wants to see it badly enough.
Slashdot is not your safe place. Maybe you should try Tumbler.
And maybe you should try YouTube comments.
But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten
What huge subsidies are you referring to? All of the articles I've seen about fossil fuel subsidies are mostly bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Pick which ones you want to debunk.
I'll make note that of the renewables, the major subsidy there is for fuel ethanol, which most people that are interested in renewable energy don't want.
Just consider how many parts - static & moving - a cassette has compared to a CD. GP is talking utter bollocks.
And then there are the players. A decent cassette player which is probably going to be a 1990's creation, will have lots of worn out rubber parts. And when they do this they get all wow and fluttery, and develop a pretty big appetite for munching on tapes. Bollocks indeed!
Your casual dismissal is just incorrect.
It isn't all that casual. I had plenty of cassettes that were eaten by the machinery. And go muzzy over time. I was darn happy to abandon cassettes as soon as I could. And no way will I buy another machine just to hear the voice quality, wow and flutter prone crap.
Its just old and bad technology.
Everyone may want to be healthy, but everyone may
- not want anyone else knowing about how healthy you are or are not - not want the data uploaded into 'the cloud' - not even want to know what they are doing is unhealthy
Here be Dragons.
As a diagnostic tool when visiting the doctor? Sure. But as a full time wearable - that's insane. And all of this needs massive HIPPA restraint.
Can you imagine the ads we would be served? "Hello there value customer! We see your Temperature has gone up slightly and your heart rate is elevated" This would be a good time to try some Halls Mentho-Lyptus cough drops, or Alka Seltzer plus. We'll just dispatch na Amazon drone to your house, and you'll be well on your way to feelgood town in short order.
Or the Lawyers...... "Attention, we see you have a stent installed, and many of these have failed. You could be eligible for a substantial cash reward. We've pre-dialed Suckram and Kcam agency, pick up your phone, and be on the way to resolving this great problem."
And not all bad - "Good evening Mr Olsoc - it appears your wife has finished ovulating, so time for some fun tonight! We think you would simply love some of our KY flavored lovin' gel's, Shall we ship some proto while everyone is getting in the mood?" Now in bacon flavor!
do you want your GOP care plan to find out?
Die-er quicklier!
Including programmers
The problem with the free market, and lassaize-faire capitalism is that it is destroyed by the first group that has major success. Becuse the greed that fuels the market can become very destructive as people with pathological levels of it inevitably take over. And the simplistic early agriculture type arguments for it just don't work in a highy technical and mechanized world. You gotta have some brakes on any "ism". And the reason is, ideology doesn't work at all. Idealogues end up going insane. Its how we have people arguing that we have to put the overpaid American worker out of a job, ignoring that laid off people don't buy the shit that's being produced. Capitalism with some restraints? Now that works a trick.
Who's paying? Musk has received billions of government aid. Is it a good investment, considering the outcome - a series of toys for the very rich? I don't think so.
Thanks, Obama.
Who's paying for oil and NatGas and Petrochemical and Ethanol subsidies? If solar was the only and only ever thing ever subsidized, you might have a point. But if oil and gas can have the huge subsidies they've gotten, well, let's hear you bitch about those.
Kindy GP commenter is just encouraging you to take some swimming lessons.
"Go jump in a lake" would be sufficient. Funny even.
Threats of killing people? Not so much.
It's 'free enough', absolutes don't exist outside the minds of theoreticians.
And ideologues.
And we don't like people like you who come in here and threaten to kill people.
Is that some sort of 'have you stopped beating your wife' comment? I didn't notice the GP commenter threatening to kill anybody.
Perhaps you didn't see who I was replying to? He wrote:
"If you keep this shit up, you're going to bring this country to the point of civil war. Good idea, I say: this side has all the guns, so we can push all you fuckers into the ocean."
So we have a threat of armed revolution, an assessment that the poster says it is a "Good Idea", that they have guns they will use, and will kill those they disagree with.
IOW, a threat of killing others.
You know why? because the rape of the middle class is whats keeping everyone else going.
For a while it will work, and not much longer. Its genius really, that we have managed to get a lot of people to vote completely against their self interests.
You see, a "free market" is actually free, not controlled by government-run bureaucracies that make it very difficult for medical device manufacturers to produce something that ISN'T covered by patents any more.
You know, like epinephrine injectors.
But I thought that America was deep in the throes of Regulations that force prices to be high.
So if we are over regulated, yet CVS has managed to bring the price down, then I don't know that a free market argument applies, because FDA, O'Blama, and Franklin Roosevelt.
After all - if a free market doesn't exist, how can it work it's magic?
This is re-volting news for the anti solar PV crowd.
What I don't like is you disingenuous shitrats practically burning half the country's population in effigy and then claiming they're cruel, bigoted warmongers.
And we don't like people like you who come in here and threaten to kill people.