I wasn't claiming there were no pro-Remain voices in the media, was I?
I was responding to your specific claim that there was a "massive onslaught of Remain propaganda across all platforms, including the national media". That claim implies that no pro-Brexit voices could really be heard in the national media, which is ridiculous hyperbole, and you should be ashamed of it. So is the use of the word propaganda, unless you are willing to use the same word to describe pro-Brexit opinion. The truth is, there was plenty of very vociferous pro-Brexit campaigning in the national media, and there was plenty of vociferous anti-Brexit campaigning too.
And by the way, on the topic of propaganda, I challenge you to find an equally vile front page headline as "Enemies of the people" and its vile deployment -- with photos -- against three judges who made a decision that the Mail disagreed with as favouring Remain. It has no equivalent in any Remain-supporting newspaper.
All of those services I've ever used have been really fucking irritating: take forever to navigate through, laggy, struggling to interpret what I say correctly, and you typically have to repeat security info to the human you eventually do talk to. A shitty experience.
The fact that the events happened a while ago does not make this old news. It only came to light now and that is why it is new news. I'm glad to be able to clear that confusion up for you. What's old news is the fact that the President himself has used an unsecured phone from the outset and conducts business pertaining to national security in insecure locations, such as dining rooms with members of the public present. It would be new news if he went to jail for that. It would also be the right thing to happen, but it won't.
I'm glad you think that what we know about what Ivanka did so far is unimportant. Personally, I'm not much minded to just take the word of people who clearly have an interest in downplaying the severity of the breach, but I'm thrilled for you that you think they're trustworthy.
Because the orange man keeps on doing so much bad stuff. The floods of bad stuff are so gigantic that Slashdot barely covers any of it, and yet it still dominates the feed.
Thank goodness the President's daughter has no kind of official role in the Administration, otherwise you might look like a pillock who's attempting to be disingenuous by leaving out pertinent facts that even those with only a passing acquaintance with American politics are already aware of.
Um. I know you're very busy getting all indignant and stuff, but if you have a minute, I'd like to point out that the Secretary of State is not an elected official. So your sentence makes no sense.
"Trump probably has in mind how a century of putting out wildfires in the American west has caused forests to grow dense with trees, making large, hot fires more common than they once were. This is not the predominant cause, however, of the fires currently making the news. To comprehend what is currently taking place in California, you have to comprehend how it has historically burned – and the vast changes now occurring across the landscape."
The rest of the article provides insight into how climate change affects fires; the fact that many wildfires happen in non-forested areas; and how clear-cutting is an ineffective technique.
All those fancy degrees, and you had to resort to ad hominem because, in your own words, you had "no idea wtf [I was] talking about". I mean, if you're as clever as you think you are, you should be able to figure out what I meant even if it didn't make sense to you at first reading, even if you thought the logic was all twisted -- and then respond to it with some kind of piercingly brilliant argument that lanced straight through the heart of my assertions. Instead, you had to resort to the sort of thing a 5 year old would find a bit childish: "talking about babies? Hah, well you're just a great big baby yourself". I mean, c'mon dude. Have some self-respect: if you're going to use an insult because you can't think of an argument, at least use an insult consonant with your expensive education.
You have no idea what I'm talking about? Surely you can't be that stupid. Surely no-one can. The point is blindingly obvious: if happiness is earned, then babies can't have access to happiness, because they have yet to do anything to earn that happiness. And given that you're apparently ridiculously stupid, let me state for the avoidance of doubt that I'm using the word "earn" in the same sense you originally used it: not actual financial earnings, but actions that are deserving of reward (in this case, happiness). Babies can't act in that way. Which goes to show you are a hypocrite, complaining about absurd over-simplification and then making an absurd over-simplification of your own in the very same post.
Yup. There's obviously tons of important ancillary benefits that come prior to this stage as well: less noise, less vibration damage, less brake dust, etc. And there's also lower CO2 due to cars lasting longer because fewer moving parts.
Run me through the logic of EVs becoming economically infeasible once the pack degrades again? Because packs that have been going for 100k miles are still showing 80% or better SoH, and charging is still something a large proportion of folks could in principle do at home with off-street wall-boxes, and night-time electricity is pretty damn cheap.
All you're doing is shifting the CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack.
Think about that "all" for a bit. Also the "CO2" in front of "emissions". You get to shift 100% of tailpipe emissions of all types, not just CO2, out of city centres and suburbs to large scale powerplants that can run at maximum efficiency with much more effective scrubbers. That's a set of major gains right there.
Soooo....you know how you don't like absurd over-simplifications? And you know how you then said "Happiness is EARNED"? Don't you think that might be an, um, absurd over-simplification? Or do you think babies should not be happy?
Zoe can be bought with battery. Although many buy new on a PCP (finance) deal so they can trade in as tech matures. It looks quite nice and has a good range, in my biased view as an owner. I don't care about resale value, as I hand the keys back and get a new one in a month.
Oops, mis-read your previous comment as once per *day*!
Still, for the edge case you describe -- once per car -- why not just hire an ICE car for that single day? You could afford the hire charge out of the gas and maintenance savings...that's what we've done in the past. Although, tbh, our new car will do ~180 miles on a charge, so it would only need a single charge half-way through a 300 mile journey, and for us the kids would need a decent break half-way through a journey of that length anyway. Obviously, that requires a charger at the destination. Or at least a socket and a granny cable.
Um. Battery packs are showing 80% state of health at 100k+ miles. So battery pack replacement might be regular, but is not going to be frequent. McKinsey did a study estimating that an EV might routinely be expected to travel 1m miles(!) before being scrapped, which changes the economics of the market dramatically.
If you want to charge fast, then yes you will need a lot of power
While true, this isn't the whole picture, which is actually rosier than that. The faster you charge, the less time you're charging, obviously... so even if people charged using three phase 32A (ie 22kW) at home, it's not necessarily an issue, because each person's car will be charging for a relatively shorter amount of time than would be the case for a standard socket. My new Zoe will have a 40kWh battery and thus will charge from 0 to 100% in about 2 hours off a 22kW charger. And of course, most cars won't start at zero or need to go to 100%, and charging can be delayed to go from say midnight to 2am or 2am to 4pm. And in the future, we'll see smart charging, ie the car and the grid can talk to each other to figure out when to charge to smooth out demand.
This is silly. These manufacturers are all in different places and there's no point being broad-brush. Tesla's first-mover advantage is considerable -- their profitability per vehicle is significantly ahead of their competitors. However, the Leaf and the Zoe mean Nissan-Renault are in a strong position in the mass-market in Europe, and Renault has a new low-cost product for China. If it can gain a toe-hold there, that will make a big difference. VW and BMW have the ambition, and the e-Golf and i3 are good in their own ways, but it's a looong road forward for them. Other manufacturers are significantly behind.
Slashdot Mirror
From the same summary that you think you read: "diabetes also factored into last year's increase"
Processed foods and high sugar drinks are causative for diabetes
I wasn't claiming there were no pro-Remain voices in the media, was I?
I was responding to your specific claim that there was a "massive onslaught of Remain propaganda across all platforms, including the national media". That claim implies that no pro-Brexit voices could really be heard in the national media, which is ridiculous hyperbole, and you should be ashamed of it. So is the use of the word propaganda, unless you are willing to use the same word to describe pro-Brexit opinion. The truth is, there was plenty of very vociferous pro-Brexit campaigning in the national media, and there was plenty of vociferous anti-Brexit campaigning too.
And by the way, on the topic of propaganda, I challenge you to find an equally vile front page headline as "Enemies of the people" and its vile deployment -- with photos -- against three judges who made a decision that the Mail disagreed with as favouring Remain. It has no equivalent in any Remain-supporting newspaper.
Ohhhhhh, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Express, the Times and the Telegraph were all pro-Remain were they?
Do they not count as "the national media" in your weird world?
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
All of those services I've ever used have been really fucking irritating: take forever to navigate through, laggy, struggling to interpret what I say correctly, and you typically have to repeat security info to the human you eventually do talk to. A shitty experience.
The fact that the events happened a while ago does not make this old news. It only came to light now and that is why it is new news. I'm glad to be able to clear that confusion up for you. What's old news is the fact that the President himself has used an unsecured phone from the outset and conducts business pertaining to national security in insecure locations, such as dining rooms with members of the public present. It would be new news if he went to jail for that. It would also be the right thing to happen, but it won't.
I'm glad you think that what we know about what Ivanka did so far is unimportant. Personally, I'm not much minded to just take the word of people who clearly have an interest in downplaying the severity of the breach, but I'm thrilled for you that you think they're trustworthy.
I was being sarcastic.
Because the orange man keeps on doing so much bad stuff. The floods of bad stuff are so gigantic that Slashdot barely covers any of it, and yet it still dominates the feed.
Thank goodness the President's daughter has no kind of official role in the Administration, otherwise you might look like a pillock who's attempting to be disingenuous by leaving out pertinent facts that even those with only a passing acquaintance with American politics are already aware of.
It would also risk exacerbating the cult of personality, though, because individual name recognition would count for even more
Um. I know you're very busy getting all indignant and stuff, but if you have a minute, I'd like to point out that the Secretary of State is not an elected official. So your sentence makes no sense.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
"Trump probably has in mind how a century of putting out wildfires in the American west has caused forests to grow dense with trees, making large, hot fires more common than they once were. This is not the predominant cause, however, of the fires currently making the news. To comprehend what is currently taking place in California, you have to comprehend how it has historically burned – and the vast changes now occurring across the landscape."
The rest of the article provides insight into how climate change affects fires; the fact that many wildfires happen in non-forested areas; and how clear-cutting is an ineffective technique.
All those fancy degrees, and you had to resort to ad hominem because, in your own words, you had "no idea wtf [I was] talking about". I mean, if you're as clever as you think you are, you should be able to figure out what I meant even if it didn't make sense to you at first reading, even if you thought the logic was all twisted -- and then respond to it with some kind of piercingly brilliant argument that lanced straight through the heart of my assertions. Instead, you had to resort to the sort of thing a 5 year old would find a bit childish: "talking about babies? Hah, well you're just a great big baby yourself". I mean, c'mon dude. Have some self-respect: if you're going to use an insult because you can't think of an argument, at least use an insult consonant with your expensive education.
You have no idea what I'm talking about? Surely you can't be that stupid. Surely no-one can. The point is blindingly obvious: if happiness is earned, then babies can't have access to happiness, because they have yet to do anything to earn that happiness. And given that you're apparently ridiculously stupid, let me state for the avoidance of doubt that I'm using the word "earn" in the same sense you originally used it: not actual financial earnings, but actions that are deserving of reward (in this case, happiness). Babies can't act in that way. Which goes to show you are a hypocrite, complaining about absurd over-simplification and then making an absurd over-simplification of your own in the very same post.
Yup. There's obviously tons of important ancillary benefits that come prior to this stage as well: less noise, less vibration damage, less brake dust, etc. And there's also lower CO2 due to cars lasting longer because fewer moving parts.
Run me through the logic of EVs becoming economically infeasible once the pack degrades again? Because packs that have been going for 100k miles are still showing 80% or better SoH, and charging is still something a large proportion of folks could in principle do at home with off-street wall-boxes, and night-time electricity is pretty damn cheap.
All you're doing is shifting the CO2 emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack.
Think about that "all" for a bit. Also the "CO2" in front of "emissions".
You get to shift 100% of tailpipe emissions of all types, not just CO2, out of city centres and suburbs to large scale powerplants that can run at maximum efficiency with much more effective scrubbers. That's a set of major gains right there.
He means that the word for bomb in Hebrew is , while the word for war is , and as you can see they share only one letter, .
So what did you mean by this? It's like a sub-David Brent witticism. At least he was right about "team" and "me".
Soooo....you know how you don't like absurd over-simplifications? And you know how you then said "Happiness is EARNED"? Don't you think that might be an, um, absurd over-simplification? Or do you think babies should not be happy?
Zoe can be bought with battery. Although many buy new on a PCP (finance) deal so they can trade in as tech matures. It looks quite nice and has a good range, in my biased view as an owner. I don't care about resale value, as I hand the keys back and get a new one in a month.
Oops, mis-read your previous comment as once per *day*!
Still, for the edge case you describe -- once per car -- why not just hire an ICE car for that single day? You could afford the hire charge out of the gas and maintenance savings...that's what we've done in the past. Although, tbh, our new car will do ~180 miles on a charge, so it would only need a single charge half-way through a 300 mile journey, and for us the kids would need a decent break half-way through a journey of that length anyway. Obviously, that requires a charger at the destination. Or at least a socket and a granny cable.
Um. Battery packs are showing 80% state of health at 100k+ miles. So battery pack replacement might be regular, but is not going to be frequent. McKinsey did a study estimating that an EV might routinely be expected to travel 1m miles(!) before being scrapped, which changes the economics of the market dramatically.
It does indeed.
How typical do you think your driving patterns are? 1% of the US population? 90%? 0.1%?
If you want to charge fast, then yes you will need a lot of power
While true, this isn't the whole picture, which is actually rosier than that. The faster you charge, the less time you're charging, obviously... so even if people charged using three phase 32A (ie 22kW) at home, it's not necessarily an issue, because each person's car will be charging for a relatively shorter amount of time than would be the case for a standard socket. My new Zoe will have a 40kWh battery and thus will charge from 0 to 100% in about 2 hours off a 22kW charger. And of course, most cars won't start at zero or need to go to 100%, and charging can be delayed to go from say midnight to 2am or 2am to 4pm. And in the future, we'll see smart charging, ie the car and the grid can talk to each other to figure out when to charge to smooth out demand.
This is silly.
These manufacturers are all in different places and there's no point being broad-brush.
Tesla's first-mover advantage is considerable -- their profitability per vehicle is significantly ahead of their competitors.
However, the Leaf and the Zoe mean Nissan-Renault are in a strong position in the mass-market in Europe, and Renault has a new low-cost product for China. If it can gain a toe-hold there, that will make a big difference.
VW and BMW have the ambition, and the e-Golf and i3 are good in their own ways, but it's a looong road forward for them.
Other manufacturers are significantly behind.