There's a reason it always comes up, and namely because it actually matters.
Yes, they _could_ use peak storage, but they don't. They're on the grid. It does matter.
Nothing you said in that mess actually supports what you said. The poster you're replying to mooted all your points, and yet you think by restating them that it makes them "matter".
Nothing you posted changes what GP said.
It's just passing the bill to someone else...
It's also paying someone else's share sometimes, and those times outweigh the times someone is paying for them. It's not hard to understand, so why is it hard for you to understand?
What are you trying to say ? That an "real AC" will dehumidify while a "heat pump" will magically leave all the water in the air when it cools it down ?
See, that's exactly my point. If you wee half as informed on the subject as you pretend, you wouldn't have to ask, because you'd know exactly what I'm referring to. That you don't proves my point, you're ignorant.
You've just gone from junk engineering to junk physics. It doesn't work that way.
Guess what asshat, you've gone from being wrong and ignorant to using fallacies to support you being wrong and ignorant.
How about you start making sense and get a clue while you're at it ?
How about you stop pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about and actually LEARN WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.
No he didn't, liar. He said, in YOUR quote
"be it the democrats, labor or someone else"
YOU added the retarded bit about "Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes". The difference is not subtle, and you did it intentionally because you have an axe to grind.
Despite the fact that you and others like you think this is a criticism, you are wrong.
I would expect thinking, rational people to occasionally change their position on a subject based on the circumstances.
The idea that once a person has taken a position that they can't change, or risk being called a "hypocrite", is ridiculous. It's a cheap trick people like you use when you don't have a real argument.
Hypocrisy isn't always a bad thing, you're just not smart enough to realize when it is and isn't.
Gay marriage does not have any affect whatsoever on straight couples.
This is demonstrably wrong.
Married couples pay different taxes than unmarried couples. With a large increase in the number of married couples (as a result of gays who could not previously marry) the tax burden of married straight couples will be affected.
Whether that will be a positive affect or not is irrelevant, you said "Gay marriage does not have any affect whatsoever on straight couples" which is, as I have shown, wrong.
This is not the only example of why you're wrong, just an obvious one.
That calls into question the accuracy and validity of your opinions on the subject, as anyone with an opinion worth considering wouldn't make an easily refuted, demonstrably wrong claim like you did.
Heh. Dude, are you that convinced that you can change reality by just refusing to believe it?
Snarky, but useless.
I've seen the video (so save the stupid quotes that you hand pick to support your position, they're useless too) and the incident did not occur the way you claim.
So what's the big difference between an AC and a heat pump (except for the former being an application of the latter) ? Explain please.
No, actually, I won't. I will tell you that in the future, if you don't understand a post you're replying to, and get told so and corrected, it's incredibly pathetic to play stupid semantic games in an effort to gloss over your previous post.
However, there IS a difference. The fact that you don' understand what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you're ignorant.
You stop for a second and consider that I DID READ THE WHOLE THING before responding?
It DOES NOT have AC, it has a heat pump. They do not work the same, and in combination with the high ambient temp, will make the car unsuitable for MY needs.
Why are you people such assholes all the time, especially when YOU make a stupid fucking assumption...
Well then perhaps they should start with the automakers that make over sized Soccer-Mom Assault Vehicles and over powered Impotence Compensators.
Kindly shut the fuck up, you sound like the exact polar opposite of the very people you deride in your post, and yet you don't seem to realize it.a
As Click and Clack opined
Fixed your mistake. What two old guys think I "need" means fuck all to me, and as an argument, you should realize how useless it is. In addition, it's no surprise to anyone that Berkeley thinks bigger autos are Satan incarnate is no more useful as the fact that oil companies think gasoline is a panacea. Consider the source works both ways.
The 1967 VW Beetle weighed 1850lbs and had 53hp, and they worked just fine...
in 1967. They were primitive then, though, and were never more than "basic transportation". Tell me again why your opinion of "works fine" should mean anything to me?
There is no need to go 0-60 in under ten seconds if most cars on the road do it in fifteen seconds
Says you. In my extensive driving experience, such a car would be insufferable. Tell me again why your subjective opinion of what constitutes an acceptable auto should mean anything to me?
Structural engineering of cars is really only half the crash test, the other half is the size of the other car they collide with.
And that's just wrong.
The point you fail to comprehend is that if no one will actually buy or drive a 100mpg car, then it's a failure. So all the wonderful compromises you seem to think won't matter, do actually matter.
If in all three cases the cost of the search was $500,000 then yes, a poor person should only pay 1000. A wealthy man should pay 10,000, and Bill Gates should finance the whole thing. That is treating people equally
No. You clearly have no idea what "equal" means, but 1000 is not equal to 10,000.
Had you said "fairly" here, you could have a point, but since fairness is subjective, that idea is only marginally less ridiculous.
....Well, I'd say that the % of people who care about their fan noise is less than that, much less...
And I already said I don't. I genuinely don't care about your opinion on the matter, your bias is plain and obvious.
That being said, if I did care, you'd still be wrong.
Anybody who wishes to use their computer as a video player in the living room would care very much if it added noise of its own to the soundtrack of the show.
You mean like every single projector ever made? Funny, none of our customers have complained about their 30k projector's fan noise. EVER.
It's called "attenuation", you should look it up so you aren't wrong again.
Since they themselves breached copyright law in order to listen to music for which they had not paid, they are hypocrites for going after others for doing the same.
When did Metallica go after people for trading their music on cassettes? Or did you mean "something similar", which realy isn't even all that similar?
And as I recall, they went after people for trading their music without their permission. The "for which they had not paid" part is something people like you add to muddy the issue and make them seem like money grubbing whores. Not that they aren't, but your point isn't valid in the context of what actually happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing you said in that mess actually supports what you said. The poster you're replying to mooted all your points, and yet you think by restating them that it makes them "matter".
Nothing you posted changes what GP said.
It's also paying someone else's share sometimes, and those times outweigh the times someone is paying for them. It's not hard to understand, so why is it hard for you to understand?
You'd be wrong.
And so rather than clarify, you jump to conclusions and begin attacking him. You're a dick, I was right.
No, it's exactly what he said, you just assumed you knew what he meant. And were wrong.
See, that's exactly my point. If you wee half as informed on the subject as you pretend, you wouldn't have to ask, because you'd know exactly what I'm referring to. That you don't proves my point, you're ignorant.
Guess what asshat, you've gone from being wrong and ignorant to using fallacies to support you being wrong and ignorant.
How about you stop pretending you know what the fuck you're talking about and actually LEARN WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
No he didn't, liar. He said, in YOUR quote
"be it the democrats, labor or someone else"
YOU added the retarded bit about "Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes". The difference is not subtle, and you did it intentionally because you have an axe to grind.
Why lie?
Despite the fact that you and others like you think this is a criticism, you are wrong.
I would expect thinking, rational people to occasionally change their position on a subject based on the circumstances.
The idea that once a person has taken a position that they can't change, or risk being called a "hypocrite", is ridiculous. It's a cheap trick people like you use when you don't have a real argument.
Hypocrisy isn't always a bad thing, you're just not smart enough to realize when it is and isn't.
I see, so no, there is no reason and you're just not very bright. Got it.
This is demonstrably wrong.
Married couples pay different taxes than unmarried couples. With a large increase in the number of married couples (as a result of gays who could not previously marry) the tax burden of married straight couples will be affected.
Whether that will be a positive affect or not is irrelevant, you said "Gay marriage does not have any affect whatsoever on straight couples" which is, as I have shown, wrong.
This is not the only example of why you're wrong, just an obvious one.
That calls into question the accuracy and validity of your opinions on the subject, as anyone with an opinion worth considering wouldn't make an easily refuted, demonstrably wrong claim like you did.
We can's do both at the same time?
Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your rant with some sense, carry on...
Snarky, but useless.
I've seen the video (so save the stupid quotes that you hand pick to support your position, they're useless too) and the incident did not occur the way you claim.
You are lying about the event.
You might not want to be such a dick.
Nothing you said in your post disagrees with him, you're just not good enough at reading to realize you misunderstood his post.
Wrong.
Humidity.
Fuck off now.
No, it isn't.
Fuck off again.
No, actually, I won't. I will tell you that in the future, if you don't understand a post you're replying to, and get told so and corrected, it's incredibly pathetic to play stupid semantic games in an effort to gloss over your previous post.
However, there IS a difference. The fact that you don' understand what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you're ignorant.
You stop for a second and consider that I DID READ THE WHOLE THING before responding?
It DOES NOT have AC, it has a heat pump. They do not work the same, and in combination with the high ambient temp, will make the car unsuitable for MY needs.
Why are you people such assholes all the time, especially when YOU make a stupid fucking assumption...
Sub tropical/tropical climate + customers + bike = terrible idea.
If you are arrogant enough to tell people " you should be..." while completely ignoring their circumstances, you should keep your opinion to yourself.
And my current transportation gets well over 40mpg on average.
So when you claim there's a patent on your miraculous device, people can ask you for the number and prove you weren't lying.
Where I live, just above ambient temp. would be unacceptably hot 9 months out of the year.
That's a disqualifier.
Kindly shut the fuck up, you sound like the exact polar opposite of the very people you deride in your post, and yet you don't seem to realize it.a
Fixed your mistake. What two old guys think I "need" means fuck all to me, and as an argument, you should realize how useless it is. In addition, it's no surprise to anyone that Berkeley thinks bigger autos are Satan incarnate is no more useful as the fact that oil companies think gasoline is a panacea. Consider the source works both ways. in 1967. They were primitive then, though, and were never more than "basic transportation". Tell me again why your opinion of "works fine" should mean anything to me?
Says you. In my extensive driving experience, such a car would be insufferable. Tell me again why your subjective opinion of what constitutes an acceptable auto should mean anything to me?
And that's just wrong.
The point you fail to comprehend is that if no one will actually buy or drive a 100mpg car, then it's a failure. So all the wonderful compromises you seem to think won't matter, do actually matter.
Yes.
Your point was ridiculous when you made it the first time, and it's ridiculous now too.
No, they do not. You are wrong.
They get billed for services that are sent and rendered after 911 is called. The difference is not semantic.
Exactly, you know you're wrong and demonstrate it here.
No. You clearly have no idea what "equal" means, but 1000 is not equal to 10,000.
Had you said "fairly" here, you could have a point, but since fairness is subjective, that idea is only marginally less ridiculous.
If you don't see the problem with that, your opinion isn't worth listening to. You didn't see the problem with it so...
And neither is Iron Man, nor has it ever been.
And I already said I don't. I genuinely don't care about your opinion on the matter, your bias is plain and obvious.
That being said, if I did care, you'd still be wrong.
You mean like every single projector ever made? Funny, none of our customers have complained about their 30k projector's fan noise. EVER.
It's called "attenuation", you should look it up so you aren't wrong again.
I'd wager far fewer people care about that than the lack of expansion slots on a mini.
Well, I'd say that the % of people who care about their fan noise is less than that, much less.
That you think it's important has zero bearing on its actual importance.
When did Metallica go after people for trading their music on cassettes? Or did you mean "something similar", which realy isn't even all that similar?
And as I recall, they went after people for trading their music without their permission. The "for which they had not paid" part is something people like you add to muddy the issue and make them seem like money grubbing whores. Not that they aren't, but your point isn't valid in the context of what actually happened.