You said it yourself. They are more used to the unit kWh. Most people either did not take physics in school or do not remember it. Most do not know the difference between kW and kWh (they will say kilowatt-hour but then shorten it to kilowatt later in the conversation). Not defending TFS or TFA, they should get it right. But the parent is right in that most people think in terms of energy per unit time, mainly because that is what they pay for.
I have 3 different bank accounts, 3 different credit cards, a HSA, a Roth IRA, and a 401k that I should probably make sure have secure passwords. (And I am sure there are a couple more non-financial ones that should also be secure). In an ideal world, that would be 9 different 6-8 digit random character passwords. That is assuming that all of the other accounts (like/.) have less secure passwords. That doesn't even take into account changing the password semi-regularly. Even if you feel it is unnecessary, some websites enforce it on you. I am a pretty smart guy, but I might have a little trouble keeping them straight. How many different 6-8 digit random character strings do you have memorized? And how often do you change passwords on your account? Do you change them all at once (and memorize all new passwords), or do you spread it out?
It only doesn't seem hard if you are not doing it right.
I feel that I am more likely to mistype weird capitalizations, numbers, and symbols than a much longer string of words with (possibly) normal punctuation.
Depends on how you define a "good" password. If I have to store my passwords in a note-taking program on my phone (probably without any encryption), then how "good" are they really? Or on a post-it note stuck on the monitor. Or written on the bottom of the keyboard. That is the fine line you have to walk with security. You want to make it as hard as possible for the bad guys, but that adds complication/inconvenience for your customers. And if you make it too inconvenient, then your customers will circumvent it and add new points of entry for the bad guys.
I wasn't trying to make it political. The article seems to imply that the amount of brownouts and blackouts that we have in this country is relatively minor and rare. Do you have any statistics you could cite that would support your claim that our grid is stressed already and would be unable to handle more electric cars?
They would probably be more likely to take a car instead of plane/bus/train, or take more vacations. But, I doubt that would in any way increase enough to counteract the fuel savings they have throughout the year from having a more fuel-efficient commute.
I recently read this which seems to counter your claim (it is Rick Santorum claiming that Obama has made our power grid worse - got a "Pants on Fire" rating). Also, as things currently stand, most people would charge their cars at night which are not peak hours (so would actually help the power grid be more stable).
Ah... a clear headed, and hopefully informed and intelligent, opponent. I apologize for my previous remark. I was pissed off by his post and was trying to troll him a little to make myself feel better. A hypocritical moment of weakness on my part.
I had another response that claims that Obama was "Breitbarted" and backs it with this link. I am at work right now so unable to research it fully (or watch the videos), but it contradicts your article and seems to back it with primary sources (C-SPAN). I will research it further tonight, but I would appreciate any rebuttal you want to supply.
I realize that the grandparent was exceptionally rude, but you do harm by responding in kind.
I agree, but I was pissed off by his post, so had to do a little trolling of my own to make myself feel better. The debate was already shot to crap anyway. I had a moment of weakness and for that I apologize (to you, not to him). Thank you very much for the citation, though. I was starting to be very disappointed in Obama. The picture that this thread was painting of him seemed to be counter to the one that I have seen. While he does have his faults, and I will have to do more research to confirm your citation, it seems that the issue is at least more complicated than people are making it out to be.
Jesus Christ. All I did was ask for a cite. You provided it. Then you were a dick. I don't claim to know everything. But, when someone says something that is counter to what I think is the case, then I ask for proof. Discourse such as yours is why uninformed people decide to stay that way. Thank you for your part in keeping America ignorant. I am sure the Republican party (the party of ignorance) would be proud of you.
You need to provide a citation for that one. From all I have read, Obama signed the NDAA under protest because of those two lines, and did not want them in there. Why would he have previously "asked" for them?
You seem to have missed the part where he said "solutions it can implement". What else could government do to solve problems besides passing laws/regulations, adjusting taxes, or going to war?
It is impossible to differentiate giving money to people like Warren Buffett who will realize the opportunities that allowed them to get where they are and the selfish bastards who think the world revolves around them (rich republicans?). If they don't want to pay taxes to support the system that created them, too bad. My government will take it by force. They can always move to another country. But, they don't move because they want the benefits without paying the costs. Instead they just bitch about it and then buy politicians to write the laws in their favor. Much like those who are opposed to the individual healthcare mandate. They will take advantage of the hospitals and doctors who are not allowed to refuse them care if they have a heart attack, but they don't want to have to pay for those benefits by buying health insurance. Why does it seem that all the parasites (rich and poor) are republicans?
If they do not think the opportunities that this country provides are worth the costs of providing those opportunities, then they can leave. They can say "fuck you" all they want, but they are still going to have to pay their taxes.
Please, enlighten us. How is Warren Buffett going to dodge the "Buffett Rule"? Or, are you just assuming that he is a greedy old bastard because that is the only type of person you understand? Warren Buffett understands that redistributing wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes hurts the economy as a whole. As the Parent said, our problem is lack of demand. If the middle class was earning more money, they would buy more products, which would help the economy, which would give the rich more money. As the saying goes, "A rising tide raises all boats". Even the luxury yachts. The problem would be that the rich would only see their income increase by the same or maybe a slightly lower percentage than the middle class. So, while they would have more wealth (everyone's wealth would increase on average, there is not a finite amount of wealth), they would have less power (power is finite because it is relative to everyone else's power). So, that is why they try to convince the unwashed masses that they should pay less taxes. I think Buffett is just a good man who wants what is best for this country. And, he realizes that what is best for this country in the long term is what is best for him personally (he doesn't seem to be a man who cares as much about power).
They are paying their fair share when the income inequality stops increasing. Right now, if you are rich, you are likely to become more rich solely because you are rich. And, then (thanks to the conservative activism of judges on the Supreme Court) you can "invest" that money in politics (through SuperPACs) to then decrease your taxes and get government handouts (military contracts, no-bid government contracts, get rid of government regulations to socialize your costs, bailouts) so that you make even more money.
This country was originally designed to give people the opportunities to excel. If you make more money, then you got more of the intended benefits of the system, and you should contribute more to the system. And then we should use that money to give everyone at least the same basic opportunities (food, shelter, a good education) so that this country can work its way back towards being an actual meritocracy and stop the shift to becoming an aristocracy.
Is it really enough to say that costs are rising due to supply and demand? Who is making all of this money? It has to be going somewhere. I do not think that state schools are allowed to make a profit, so is it going to higher salaries? Or, are their costs rising? I have seen so many posts that complain about the high price of higher education, but they don't say where the money is going. If all of this money is going to line someone's pockets, then I might get angry. But, if it is going to reducing class sizes, then is that really that bad? Or if it is going to infrastructure improvements. Computers have advanced a lot since the 90s. To stay on the cutting edge, or at least competitive with other schools, they probably had to replace their computers every few years. I have not seen studies that actually try to discover where the money is going (or at least people don't talk about them if they were done), and that bothers me. Because, if schools are actually using the money to attempt to give students a higher quality education, then that needs to factor into the argument. Maybe they do not need to spend as much as they do because they will reach a point of diminishing returns. But, if it is more expensive due to the need for our workforce to be more familiar with technology, I don't think we should focus solely on cost at the expense of a good education. And, it is possible that this increase in price is necessary for our workforce to stay competitive. If that is the case (not saying it is or isn't, just if), then I am willing to pay it to keep this country growing.
Because high crop yield frees land for other uses including forest, and because it frees labor for leisure or other productive use.
The article talks about crop yield based upon amount produced per acre. Increasing the amount produced per acre does not mean that you are reducing the labor per produce. I do not know which is more labor intensive, but if you are trying to make that argument you should provide some facts.
I know that in 1st world countries, populations are not primarily controlled by the availability of food. And their population does not seem to be growing explosively. So, I do not think that it "stands to reason" that if there is food, humans will multiply.
No... not a uniquely GOP pastime, just primarily a GOP pastime. Keep in mind that Obama threatened to veto the NDAA, and ended up signing it under protest. While I will grant you that there are democrats who allowed the indefinite detention provision to be in that bill, to single out Obama is a little unfair.
Why should they not have to get a warrant to do a reverse lookup of your phone number? If the information is not publicly available, why should the police not have to get a judge's approval?
I am pretty sure the xfinity app allows you to watch shows on-demand. Can that also be done with Multicast? If so, why can't Netflix and Youtube use multicast?
Slashdot Mirror
You said it yourself. They are more used to the unit kWh. Most people either did not take physics in school or do not remember it. Most do not know the difference between kW and kWh (they will say kilowatt-hour but then shorten it to kilowatt later in the conversation). Not defending TFS or TFA, they should get it right. But the parent is right in that most people think in terms of energy per unit time, mainly because that is what they pay for.
I have 3 different bank accounts, 3 different credit cards, a HSA, a Roth IRA, and a 401k that I should probably make sure have secure passwords. (And I am sure there are a couple more non-financial ones that should also be secure). In an ideal world, that would be 9 different 6-8 digit random character passwords. That is assuming that all of the other accounts (like /.) have less secure passwords. That doesn't even take into account changing the password semi-regularly. Even if you feel it is unnecessary, some websites enforce it on you. I am a pretty smart guy, but I might have a little trouble keeping them straight. How many different 6-8 digit random character strings do you have memorized? And how often do you change passwords on your account? Do you change them all at once (and memorize all new passwords), or do you spread it out?
It only doesn't seem hard if you are not doing it right.
I feel that I am more likely to mistype weird capitalizations, numbers, and symbols than a much longer string of words with (possibly) normal punctuation.
Depends on how you define a "good" password. If I have to store my passwords in a note-taking program on my phone (probably without any encryption), then how "good" are they really? Or on a post-it note stuck on the monitor. Or written on the bottom of the keyboard. That is the fine line you have to walk with security. You want to make it as hard as possible for the bad guys, but that adds complication/inconvenience for your customers. And if you make it too inconvenient, then your customers will circumvent it and add new points of entry for the bad guys.
Of course... if I can't memorize it, how the hell is anyone else going to memorize it?
I wasn't trying to make it political. The article seems to imply that the amount of brownouts and blackouts that we have in this country is relatively minor and rare. Do you have any statistics you could cite that would support your claim that our grid is stressed already and would be unable to handle more electric cars?
They would probably be more likely to take a car instead of plane/bus/train, or take more vacations. But, I doubt that would in any way increase enough to counteract the fuel savings they have throughout the year from having a more fuel-efficient commute.
I recently read this which seems to counter your claim (it is Rick Santorum claiming that Obama has made our power grid worse - got a "Pants on Fire" rating). Also, as things currently stand, most people would charge their cars at night which are not peak hours (so would actually help the power grid be more stable).
Ah... a clear headed, and hopefully informed and intelligent, opponent. I apologize for my previous remark. I was pissed off by his post and was trying to troll him a little to make myself feel better. A hypocritical moment of weakness on my part.
I had another response that claims that Obama was "Breitbarted" and backs it with this link. I am at work right now so unable to research it fully (or watch the videos), but it contradicts your article and seems to back it with primary sources (C-SPAN). I will research it further tonight, but I would appreciate any rebuttal you want to supply.
I realize that the grandparent was exceptionally rude, but you do harm by responding in kind.
I agree, but I was pissed off by his post, so had to do a little trolling of my own to make myself feel better. The debate was already shot to crap anyway. I had a moment of weakness and for that I apologize (to you, not to him). Thank you very much for the citation, though. I was starting to be very disappointed in Obama. The picture that this thread was painting of him seemed to be counter to the one that I have seen. While he does have his faults, and I will have to do more research to confirm your citation, it seems that the issue is at least more complicated than people are making it out to be.
Jesus Christ. All I did was ask for a cite. You provided it. Then you were a dick. I don't claim to know everything. But, when someone says something that is counter to what I think is the case, then I ask for proof. Discourse such as yours is why uninformed people decide to stay that way. Thank you for your part in keeping America ignorant. I am sure the Republican party (the party of ignorance) would be proud of you.
You insult me and add no useful information. Is your news source Fox News(sic) ? I would expect as much.
You need to provide a citation for that one. From all I have read, Obama signed the NDAA under protest because of those two lines, and did not want them in there. Why would he have previously "asked" for them?
You seem to have missed the part where he said "solutions it can implement". What else could government do to solve problems besides passing laws/regulations, adjusting taxes, or going to war?
It is impossible to differentiate giving money to people like Warren Buffett who will realize the opportunities that allowed them to get where they are and the selfish bastards who think the world revolves around them (rich republicans?). If they don't want to pay taxes to support the system that created them, too bad. My government will take it by force. They can always move to another country. But, they don't move because they want the benefits without paying the costs. Instead they just bitch about it and then buy politicians to write the laws in their favor. Much like those who are opposed to the individual healthcare mandate. They will take advantage of the hospitals and doctors who are not allowed to refuse them care if they have a heart attack, but they don't want to have to pay for those benefits by buying health insurance. Why does it seem that all the parasites (rich and poor) are republicans?
If they do not think the opportunities that this country provides are worth the costs of providing those opportunities, then they can leave. They can say "fuck you" all they want, but they are still going to have to pay their taxes.
Please, enlighten us. How is Warren Buffett going to dodge the "Buffett Rule"? Or, are you just assuming that he is a greedy old bastard because that is the only type of person you understand? Warren Buffett understands that redistributing wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper classes hurts the economy as a whole. As the Parent said, our problem is lack of demand. If the middle class was earning more money, they would buy more products, which would help the economy, which would give the rich more money. As the saying goes, "A rising tide raises all boats". Even the luxury yachts. The problem would be that the rich would only see their income increase by the same or maybe a slightly lower percentage than the middle class. So, while they would have more wealth (everyone's wealth would increase on average, there is not a finite amount of wealth), they would have less power (power is finite because it is relative to everyone else's power). So, that is why they try to convince the unwashed masses that they should pay less taxes. I think Buffett is just a good man who wants what is best for this country. And, he realizes that what is best for this country in the long term is what is best for him personally (he doesn't seem to be a man who cares as much about power).
They are paying their fair share when the income inequality stops increasing. Right now, if you are rich, you are likely to become more rich solely because you are rich. And, then (thanks to the conservative activism of judges on the Supreme Court) you can "invest" that money in politics (through SuperPACs) to then decrease your taxes and get government handouts (military contracts, no-bid government contracts, get rid of government regulations to socialize your costs, bailouts) so that you make even more money.
This country was originally designed to give people the opportunities to excel. If you make more money, then you got more of the intended benefits of the system, and you should contribute more to the system. And then we should use that money to give everyone at least the same basic opportunities (food, shelter, a good education) so that this country can work its way back towards being an actual meritocracy and stop the shift to becoming an aristocracy.
Is it really enough to say that costs are rising due to supply and demand? Who is making all of this money? It has to be going somewhere. I do not think that state schools are allowed to make a profit, so is it going to higher salaries? Or, are their costs rising? I have seen so many posts that complain about the high price of higher education, but they don't say where the money is going. If all of this money is going to line someone's pockets, then I might get angry. But, if it is going to reducing class sizes, then is that really that bad? Or if it is going to infrastructure improvements. Computers have advanced a lot since the 90s. To stay on the cutting edge, or at least competitive with other schools, they probably had to replace their computers every few years. I have not seen studies that actually try to discover where the money is going (or at least people don't talk about them if they were done), and that bothers me. Because, if schools are actually using the money to attempt to give students a higher quality education, then that needs to factor into the argument. Maybe they do not need to spend as much as they do because they will reach a point of diminishing returns. But, if it is more expensive due to the need for our workforce to be more familiar with technology, I don't think we should focus solely on cost at the expense of a good education. And, it is possible that this increase in price is necessary for our workforce to stay competitive. If that is the case (not saying it is or isn't, just if), then I am willing to pay it to keep this country growing.
Organic does not mean "without human help or input". It is more supposed to mean sustainable and environmentally friendly farming practices.
Because high crop yield frees land for other uses including forest, and because it frees labor for leisure or other productive use.
The article talks about crop yield based upon amount produced per acre. Increasing the amount produced per acre does not mean that you are reducing the labor per produce. I do not know which is more labor intensive, but if you are trying to make that argument you should provide some facts.
I know that in 1st world countries, populations are not primarily controlled by the availability of food. And their population does not seem to be growing explosively. So, I do not think that it "stands to reason" that if there is food, humans will multiply.
No... not a uniquely GOP pastime, just primarily a GOP pastime. Keep in mind that Obama threatened to veto the NDAA, and ended up signing it under protest. While I will grant you that there are democrats who allowed the indefinite detention provision to be in that bill, to single out Obama is a little unfair.
Why should they not have to get a warrant to do a reverse lookup of your phone number? If the information is not publicly available, why should the police not have to get a judge's approval?
I am pretty sure the xfinity app allows you to watch shows on-demand. Can that also be done with Multicast? If so, why can't Netflix and Youtube use multicast?