States define by law what is considered a public utility, it is entirely their prerogative to define it however they like. Additionally it is easily arguable that access to the internet is more essential than access to a phone system which has long been defined as a public utility.
This is part of the reason why the sticks will be wiped out within a few decades. They simply are not economically viable due to a lack of economics of scale for their infrastructure. The communities were built in a different age, when the dynamics of value production were wildly different. Now they exist because they can salvage/repurpose previously developed infrastructure and they have united behind the R party to demand government subsidies. You can only live off of old infrastructure and government handouts for so long. You actively see it with community after community drying up.
Almost none of the fundamental technology we are using right now is based off developments due to the profit motive. This is a myth the rural population tells its children.
Your statement is about as accurate references to the tooth fairy or santa clause
The problem was never the fact that aggregators were a bad thing, the problem was that they aggregation was incredibly consumer unfriendly. I like CNN, Comedy Central, HBO, and the sci-fi channel. I put NEGATIVE value on ESPN, Disney, and FOX yet their bundles were designed in such a way as to force me to pay for them.
You can do just about anything if you burn enough money. Restating that has no impact on the grid-scale discussion. Looking at the above chain it looks like there may be two groups talking past each-other. One about grid-scale, one about some niche off the grid use.
Assuming that spending increased with inflation (not a reasonable assumption) at 64.6% increase on roughly 50% still leaves about 20% subsidized from other sources.
"pior to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund, roads were financed directly from the General Fund of the United States Department of the Treasury"
Also
"During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices.[4] Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively.[5]"
TLDR Quote after quote after quote indicates the gas taxes never have been enough to fund road construction/maintenance let alone land purchase values, let alone environmental costs, let alone regional stabilization efforts, let alone government sponsored R&D into engines.
Once again I actually don't have a problem with many of these subsidizes I just have a problem with the psychotic myth that the industry is not massively subsidized.
"The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent"
I stand about 1/2 corrected. The original rule of thumb was 1% each year which I referenced, which would be exactly half, which is why I chose the word "majority".
PV is common enough even in the US its usage is about 1/50th of the word "solar"
That amounts to enough to indicate that people on a tech website should know it. It is not an esoteric term that implies snobbishness in usage. Criticizing the original author for assuming that you would know it is ungrounded.
"Roads are paid for by the end-user in the form of a gasoline tax."
Factually wrong. No they are not for the large bulk of costs. https://taxfoundation.org/gaso.... Annnd that is for the current state, The massive build out of the road system was primarily funded by general tax liabilities.
I suppose we could have defeated the Nazis with horse-drawn carriages...."
Nope. Note I do think subsidies are bad when done right, I just brought up that point to illustrate how "free market" crusaders are just completely ignorant of reality.
"You pay for it coming or going. The end user just pays at whatever point."
I assume that is what you are referring to? They would need a storage capacity of about 150 times what they are installing for your "days" of electricity to be accurate. Completely and utterly out of the question to be cost effective.
If you don't know what PV stands for at this point you are board line technology illiterate. It would be fair to assume here that any readers should know what PV stands for.
There is no such thing as the free market, never has, never will be. Cars as a whole are massively subsidized, via the public paying for roads, gasoline cars were massively by the military investment in product production infrastructure and governmental actions to stabilize oil producing regions, oil production continues to be insanely subsidized but the government refusing to charge a fair price for production on public lands and refusal to tax/punish externalities . Eliminate all subsidies and society will collapse, with you, me, and everyone we know likely dead within a few years.
Battery problems of this nature are hard, very very hard. My random semi-informed estimate is that true grid scale demand shifting battery storage will not be viable to at earliest the end of my lifetime.
"No. Most people have one ISP. How do they compare two if they don't have service from both?"
The use-case for 99.9999% of consumers is to compare ISPs. I am sorry that is just the reality. Not in having both at once, but to see if a switch is worth it between different providers. "Hey I just switched to FIOS can I now download my porn faster? Y/N if so how much faster"
You are right that the the system can be gamed, that is exactly the problem everyone else is pointing out here.
When ISP's force their customers to try and use their own in-house test to validate their they are basically pissing on their own clients as rightfully no one trust their in house tests to be honest.
The solution is to use some 3rd party trusted appraiser. No one should trust A or B. In virtually every situation where side A and B can not be trusted and you can't afford to do a rigorous system test yourself , the solution is always to find an independent source C who you can put some faith in.
"That removes the suspicion" No it does not. I am going to go out on a limb here and use hyperbole. But no one even here gives a shit about what you are calling "accuracy" What people want it an impartial metric to compare the performance of different ISPs to. If google.com takes 5 minutes to load on my PC I could not give a crap that your internal metrics tell you your network is amazing, because it is not, it is shit.
There are two roads, from your house, both go a bar . Your dipshit friend says "The road on the right is faster I can get to my house in exactly 10 minutes!!!!" Your not moron friend says the road on the left is faster it would take me about 15 minutes to get to the bar!!
The dipshit friend of yours is incorrect to use the standard of how fast it takes him to get home even if he is more accurate
Why? Because that standard is not useful in this context.
Do you know what the NYCer's solution is? Don't go to the middle of nowhere. There is nothing of value in the middle of nowhere anyway and thus they get to cut their cellphone bill in half.
Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area"
That is exactly what they are doing.
The result is a stupidly high price which is basically a subsidy from urban populations to the backwater.
They do that because the average American is easily manipulated into spending more for services and features they don't need.
"On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a metric that has value to a customer"
Yes it does. I simply do not care about you or your family. The 99.7% of the population convers literally everywhere I will go in the United States. Don't want terrible service? Don't live in the backwater. It amazes me how much people whine when the cause of their problems is that they don't live in civilization.
"It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection"
Correct, it is,however, suspicious to anyone who is familiar with the concept of impartiality that they get to choose their own reference. Double suspicious that they choose references that are not standard for their end users own personal tests. Triple suspicious that the results never align with real world experiences.
"We don't like that with any other of the amendments in the constitution, why should we be so willing to allow it for the 2nd?"
Simple, the other rights take more time to do damage.
Now it is a valid philosophical debate whether that time to damage ratio's are worth the reduction in our civil liberties. It is however willful blindness to not recognize that you are presenting a false equivalency.
Slashdot Mirror
Says you?
States define by law what is considered a public utility, it is entirely their prerogative to define it however they like. Additionally it is easily arguable that access to the internet is more essential than access to a phone system which has long been defined as a public utility.
This is part of the reason why the sticks will be wiped out within a few decades. They simply are not economically viable due to a lack of economics of scale for their infrastructure. The communities were built in a different age, when the dynamics of value production were wildly different. Now they exist because they can salvage/repurpose previously developed infrastructure and they have united behind the R party to demand government subsidies. You can only live off of old infrastructure and government handouts for so long. You actively see it with community after community drying up.
Almost none of the fundamental technology we are using right now is based off developments due to the profit motive. This is a myth the rural population tells its children.
Your statement is about as accurate references to the tooth fairy or santa clause
The internet? Defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Computing? Defense. https://www.computerhope.com/i...
Electricity? Pure intellectual curiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Home electricity distribution? Half profit motive, half ego battle.
https://www.livescience.com/46...
Roughly 1/8ths of the underlying motivations came from profit motive.
The problem was never the fact that aggregators were a bad thing, the problem was that they aggregation was incredibly consumer unfriendly. I like CNN, Comedy Central, HBO, and the sci-fi channel. I put NEGATIVE value on ESPN, Disney, and FOX yet their bundles were designed in such a way as to force me to pay for them.
What content? Also I actually would be willing to pay more to not have Disney garbage on my streaming service.
You can do just about anything if you burn enough money. Restating that has no impact on the grid-scale discussion. Looking at the above chain it looks like there may be two groups talking past each-other. One about grid-scale, one about some niche off the grid use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
"pior to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund, roads were financed directly from the General Fund of the United States Department of the Treasury"
Also
"During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices.[4] Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively.[5]"
TLDR Quote after quote after quote indicates the gas taxes never have been enough to fund road construction/maintenance let alone land purchase values, let alone environmental costs, let alone regional stabilization efforts, let alone government sponsored R&D into engines.
Once again I actually don't have a problem with many of these subsidizes I just have a problem with the psychotic myth that the industry is not massively subsidized.
Which far away land do you live in? Not the U.S
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent"
I stand about 1/2 corrected. The original rule of thumb was 1% each year which I referenced, which would be exactly half, which is why I chose the word "majority".
The same can be said for all social media and their drive to retain customers,
PV is common enough even in the US its usage is about 1/50th of the word "solar"
That amounts to enough to indicate that people on a tech website should know it. It is not an esoteric term that implies snobbishness in usage. Criticizing the original author for assuming that you would know it is ungrounded.
"Roads are paid for by the end-user in the form of a gasoline tax."
Factually wrong. No they are not for the large bulk of costs. https://taxfoundation.org/gaso.... Annnd that is for the current state, The massive build out of the road system was primarily funded by general tax liabilities.
I suppose we could have defeated the Nazis with horse-drawn carriages...."
Nope. Note I do think subsidies are bad when done right, I just brought up that point to illustrate how "free market" crusaders are just completely ignorant of reality.
"You pay for it coming or going. The end user just pays at whatever point."
I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
http://www.renewableenergyworl...
I assume that is what you are referring to? They would need a storage capacity of about 150 times what they are installing for your "days" of electricity to be accurate. Completely and utterly out of the question to be cost effective.
No they are not projected to last 50 years at full or even majority output.
http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/7475/What-Is-the-Lifespan-of-a-Solar-Panel.aspx
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
If you don't know what PV stands for at this point you are board line technology illiterate. It would be fair to assume here that any readers should know what PV stands for.
There is no such thing as the free market, never has, never will be. Cars as a whole are massively subsidized, via the public paying for roads, gasoline cars were massively by the military investment in product production infrastructure and governmental actions to stabilize oil producing regions, oil production continues to be insanely subsidized but the government refusing to charge a fair price for production on public lands and refusal to tax/punish externalities . Eliminate all subsidies and society will collapse, with you, me, and everyone we know likely dead within a few years.
Battery problems of this nature are hard, very very hard. My random semi-informed estimate is that true grid scale demand shifting battery storage will not be viable to at earliest the end of my lifetime.
***Longer timelines. ***** MUCH LONGER****
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Producing energy since September 1969,
The use-case for 99.9999% of consumers is to compare ISPs. I am sorry that is just the reality. Not in having both at once, but to see if a switch is worth it between different providers. "Hey I just switched to FIOS can I now download my porn faster? Y/N if so how much faster"
You are right that the the system can be gamed, that is exactly the problem everyone else is pointing out here.
When ISP's force their customers to try and use their own in-house test to validate their they are basically pissing on their own clients as rightfully no one trust their in house tests to be honest.
The solution is to use some 3rd party trusted appraiser. No one should trust A or B. In virtually every situation where side A and B can not be trusted and you can't afford to do a rigorous system test yourself , the solution is always to find an independent source C who you can put some faith in.
"That removes the suspicion" No it does not. I am going to go out on a limb here and use hyperbole. But no one even here gives a shit about what you are calling "accuracy" What people want it an impartial metric to compare the performance of different ISPs to. If google.com takes 5 minutes to load on my PC I could not give a crap that your internal metrics tell you your network is amazing, because it is not, it is shit.
There are two roads, from your house, both go a bar . Your dipshit friend says "The road on the right is faster I can get to my house in exactly 10 minutes!!!!" Your not moron friend says the road on the left is faster it would take me about 15 minutes to get to the bar!!
The dipshit friend of yours is incorrect to use the standard of how fast it takes him to get home even if he is more accurate
Why? Because that standard is not useful in this context.
Do you know what the NYCer's solution is? Don't go to the middle of nowhere. There is nothing of value in the middle of nowhere anyway and thus they get to cut their cellphone bill in half.
Verizon's customer base were so skewed in that way, they would be spending very large amounts of money to serve a very small customer population across a very large area"
That is exactly what they are doing.
The result is a stupidly high price which is basically a subsidy from urban populations to the backwater.
They do that because the average American is easily manipulated into spending more for services and features they don't need.
"On the other hand it pretty much doesn't matter *who* it can work for apart for yourself, so 99.7% of other people isn't a metric that has value to a customer" Yes it does. I simply do not care about you or your family. The 99.7% of the population convers literally everywhere I will go in the United States. Don't want terrible service? Don't live in the backwater. It amazes me how much people whine when the cause of their problems is that they don't live in civilization.
"It is not suspicious to anyone who understands networks that they would want you to use a known source when testing your network connection"
Correct, it is ,however, suspicious to anyone who is familiar with the concept of impartiality that they get to choose their own reference. Double suspicious that they choose references that are not standard for their end users own personal tests. Triple suspicious that the results never align with real world experiences.
Simple, the other rights take more time to do damage.
Now it is a valid philosophical debate whether that time to damage ratio's are worth the reduction in our civil liberties. It is however willful blindness to not recognize that you are presenting a false equivalency.