... the US, where it's legal to eat, drink, text, and put on makeup, all at the same time while driving
Unless you are in Arizona, Missouri, Montana, or Texas, no it is not. All the US states, except these four, *explicitly* have laws the prohibit any driver texting while driving, and even Missouri and Texas still prohibit certain classes of drivers from texting while driving.
When did I suggest that I don't have electricity at home? I said I don't have a private garage and therefore do not have any place to charge it at home, unless you are suggesting that I run a 1000 foot or so extension cord from my apartment, spiral the cord all the way down the stairs into the public parking area, run the cord across the parking floor to my spot and plug my car in that way. The tripping hazard that this would likely cause for other people in my building alone would probably get me sued so fast I wouldn't even be able to afford to own either a condo or car.
It won't happen overnight, and this will slow the penetration of EVs into cities
This is true, but also incredibly ironic, since those who live in cities would be the most likely to benefit from EVs.
In densely populated areas it is pretty easy to add electric outlets adjacent to nearly every parking space.
No, it is not. In many places are talking about adding extensive wiring into places in the public parking areas where no plans were ever made to add electrical connectivity. This isn't cheap... coming in at many tens of thousands of dollars per charging station added. Now this per-unit cost can be reduced to somewhat more manageable levels if you get enough charging stations installed at once in a given location, but given that in such places where there wasn't any prior charging facilities near resident parking, very few people would even *have* electric cars or would currently be in the market to buy one, the number of people willing to front the capital to get it installed would be too low.... and so the initial costs would remain unjustifiably high. People who aren't in the market for an electric car but might get one if the charging facilities were already there just would expect somebody else to pay for it, and the result is that it doesn't get done at all.
In parts of a city where many or most buildings are more than 30 years old, there can be issues even with just getting the electrical infrastructure to the buildings that the city simply has not put there yet. Sure the cities will have the infrastructure on any new buildings, but people living in older parts of the city will continue to be stuck with not being able to own an EV on account of no ability to charge at home.
Second of all, religion is... well, it's basically insanity. Imagine that I stood up in public and declared that I found it justified to murder anyone who prefers Star Wars over Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter. I'd be hauled off to jail and/or a psychiatric evaluation before my second breath.
No, in fact you would not.... at least not in any society that actually practices religious freedom. Instead, you would likely only be ignored by people who didn't want to listen. Law enforcement would only get involved if you were giving the impression that you were intending to actually carry out said homicide, and not simply ranting like a loon.
The vast majority of people can and will recharge at night via a convenient plug
This assumes that a "vast majority" of people have a convenient plug for their own private use where they usually park their car at night.
You are right that the number of people that can do this is indeed in the majority, but I wouldn't call approximately 60% a particularly "vast" one. In highly densely populated areas, where commuter cars would otherwise often make even more sense, that number is often less than 50%.
[Response 3: I do not have a private garage and have no place to charge it at home]. While there are an ever growing number of public charging facilities, given that charging times are rarely less than 20 minutes, the time you spend just waiting in a line to charge you car at a public charging station can sometimes be an hour or more. Compared to waiting perhaps 5 to 10 minutes in a line up at a gas station where your car can be ready to go in about another 2 or 3 minutes.
This is actually my own sole objection to electric vehicles, really... and I doubt I'm alone.
... because he's running the country like a reality tv show and trying to boost his own ratings.
I can just hear him saying if he were asked to tone it down: "Why should I stop tweeting? Millions of people love my tweets, so they are really very popular. The people voted me in for president, and millions of people want to see what I'm going to tweet next, because you never know what I'll say or do next, and the people just love that about me! Are you sure your sources suggesting I tweet too often aren't fake news? Maybe I should tweet about that next."
I'm pretty sure that if things go that route, it will turn into a situation where one it will come down to each party saying that the other party is lying, and the default judgement would be to dismiss the case on lack of evidence.
Puhlease... while GWB might be in the bottom ten or so, I can't possibly see him as being *the* worst. I'm not from the USA, and not entirely up on knowing all of the US presidents, but I'm pretty sure there were at least half a dozen worse than him in the 19th century alone. Offhand, I can name two that were each certainly objectively worse: Pierce and Buchanan.
I'm not saying that dishonest people aren't out there... but I'm suggesting that when a majority of people don't have any incentive to be dishonest because they can meet not only their needs, but also have a reasonable ability to practically meet some or even many of their wants as well, the minority of people who *would* continue to be dishonest in such circumstances would tend to be kept honest by fear of getting caught by the honest people around them.
Now sometimes even that fear isn't necessarily enough to stop them, but if that's the case... then, well, the person is appropriately dealt with when they do get caught, which should be more likely to happen if most of the people around them are at least satisfied with their work situation, and have a positive work ethic. After all, the person you mentioned who was misappropriating funds did get caught... and evidently the people there are paid quite well, so it sort of illustrates my point.
I don't mind the proper use of the word "literally" at all, but it is quite common these days to find people using the word "literally" where "practically", "effectively", or sometimes even "virtually" often be far more factually reflective of the observation being made. Languages evolve, however... and it does indeed appear to me that the definition of "literally" is migrating towards a broader definition that can encompass a broader range of notions than it once did. I don't care for this personally, because the broadness encompasses terms that can be seen as nearly opposite in meaning to eachother, and this means that even sometimes entirely legitimate use of the term can be ambiguous.
I have similar objection to abuse of the word "virtually".
I thought that was already known. They were spreading propaganda. To what extent this propaganda actually determined the outcome of the election is something inherently unprovable, so I expect nothing will actually change
You can suggest that all you like, but It's not realistically likely. The us constitution describes the positions held by those in line of succession, and unless something were to happen to * everyone* in that list, a federal election sooner than otherwise scheduled would be legally problematic.
I don't care for the abuse on the word "literally" either, and I would have said something about its use myself if you had not. Assuming the report is accurate, he still didn't *literally* say it,
but I expect that more applicable term, "practically", would probably not have read as well in a headline. (not that I think that justifies using the word inappropriately, but I think I understand why they used the word that they did).
I can't imagine that the chairman did the company any favors in the here and now by openly suggesting that people who criticize the company's price gouging can go "copulate with themselves", however.
It's a bit more than "reportedly"... more like "practically". The exact terminology he apparently used was "copulate with themselves". So while technically yeah, he didn't *literally* say that the critics could go fuck themselves, it still strongly suggests that is precisely what he was meaning to say and simply decided to word it slightly differently... I would speculate to make himself appear as though he was above using the more expletive term.
Given the opportunity and a negligible chance of getting caught nearly everyone would start to steal things
I would suggest that this might only be true because not very many people are actually paid a respectable living wage in the first place (note, a living wage is not minimum wage.... where I live, a decent living wage is about 2.5 times higher than minimum wage).
I never said it was fine, I said that it wouldn't make any real difference, now... the election's long since over, and at this point, nothing is going to change any sooner than November, 2020.
You misread my meaning... I'm saying that it's not like they would suddenly turn around and change the ruling government over this, and in that sense, it doesn't really matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you are in Arizona, Missouri, Montana, or Texas, no it is not. All the US states, except these four, *explicitly* have laws the prohibit any driver texting while driving, and even Missouri and Texas still prohibit certain classes of drivers from texting while driving.
When did I suggest that I don't have electricity at home? I said I don't have a private garage and therefore do not have any place to charge it at home, unless you are suggesting that I run a 1000 foot or so extension cord from my apartment, spiral the cord all the way down the stairs into the public parking area, run the cord across the parking floor to my spot and plug my car in that way. The tripping hazard that this would likely cause for other people in my building alone would probably get me sued so fast I wouldn't even be able to afford to own either a condo or car.
This is true, but also incredibly ironic, since those who live in cities would be the most likely to benefit from EVs.
No, it is not. In many places are talking about adding extensive wiring into places in the public parking areas where no plans were ever made to add electrical connectivity. This isn't cheap... coming in at many tens of thousands of dollars per charging station added. Now this per-unit cost can be reduced to somewhat more manageable levels if you get enough charging stations installed at once in a given location, but given that in such places where there wasn't any prior charging facilities near resident parking, very few people would even *have* electric cars or would currently be in the market to buy one, the number of people willing to front the capital to get it installed would be too low.... and so the initial costs would remain unjustifiably high. People who aren't in the market for an electric car but might get one if the charging facilities were already there just would expect somebody else to pay for it, and the result is that it doesn't get done at all.
In parts of a city where many or most buildings are more than 30 years old, there can be issues even with just getting the electrical infrastructure to the buildings that the city simply has not put there yet. Sure the cities will have the infrastructure on any new buildings, but people living in older parts of the city will continue to be stuck with not being able to own an EV on account of no ability to charge at home.
No, in fact you would not.... at least not in any society that actually practices religious freedom. Instead, you would likely only be ignored by people who didn't want to listen. Law enforcement would only get involved if you were giving the impression that you were intending to actually carry out said homicide, and not simply ranting like a loon.
This assumes that a "vast majority" of people have a convenient plug for their own private use where they usually park their car at night.
You are right that the number of people that can do this is indeed in the majority, but I wouldn't call approximately 60% a particularly "vast" one. In highly densely populated areas, where commuter cars would otherwise often make even more sense, that number is often less than 50%.
I'm assuming that's only because you can charge it at home.
Or weren't you paying attention to the context of the reason to not get an EV?
So, nearly 15% of the total deaths related to airplane incidents over an almost 8 year period happened in a single day.
Are you sure "only" is the word you meant to use?
[Response 3: I do not have a private garage and have no place to charge it at home]. While there are an ever growing number of public charging facilities, given that charging times are rarely less than 20 minutes, the time you spend just waiting in a line to charge you car at a public charging station can sometimes be an hour or more. Compared to waiting perhaps 5 to 10 minutes in a line up at a gas station where your car can be ready to go in about another 2 or 3 minutes.
This is actually my own sole objection to electric vehicles, really... and I doubt I'm alone.
I can just hear him saying if he were asked to tone it down: "Why should I stop tweeting? Millions of people love my tweets, so they are really very popular. The people voted me in for president, and millions of people want to see what I'm going to tweet next, because you never know what I'll say or do next, and the people just love that about me! Are you sure your sources suggesting I tweet too often aren't fake news? Maybe I should tweet about that next."
I'm pretty sure that if things go that route, it will turn into a situation where one it will come down to each party saying that the other party is lying, and the default judgement would be to dismiss the case on lack of evidence.
[nt]
Puhlease... while GWB might be in the bottom ten or so, I can't possibly see him as being *the* worst. I'm not from the USA, and not entirely up on knowing all of the US presidents, but I'm pretty sure there were at least half a dozen worse than him in the 19th century alone. Offhand, I can name two that were each certainly objectively worse: Pierce and Buchanan.
You've highlighted the key problem I have with abuse of the term....to be less ambiguous, one could say something like "actually" instead.
I wasn't suggesting that you did... I asked why you think it is a big thing.
I'm not saying that dishonest people aren't out there... but I'm suggesting that when a majority of people don't have any incentive to be dishonest because they can meet not only their needs, but also have a reasonable ability to practically meet some or even many of their wants as well, the minority of people who *would* continue to be dishonest in such circumstances would tend to be kept honest by fear of getting caught by the honest people around them.
Now sometimes even that fear isn't necessarily enough to stop them, but if that's the case... then, well, the person is appropriately dealt with when they do get caught, which should be more likely to happen if most of the people around them are at least satisfied with their work situation, and have a positive work ethic. After all, the person you mentioned who was misappropriating funds did get caught... and evidently the people there are paid quite well, so it sort of illustrates my point.
Could you explain why you think it is such a big thing if it can't be proven to have changed the outcome of the election?
I have similar objection to abuse of the word "virtually".
I thought that was already known. They were spreading propaganda. To what extent this propaganda actually determined the outcome of the election is something inherently unprovable, so I expect nothing will actually change
You can suggest that all you like, but It's not realistically likely. The us constitution describes the positions held by those in line of succession, and unless something were to happen to * everyone* in that list, a federal election sooner than otherwise scheduled would be legally problematic.
I don't care for the abuse on the word "literally" either, and I would have said something about its use myself if you had not. Assuming the report is accurate, he still didn't *literally* say it, but I expect that more applicable term, "practically", would probably not have read as well in a headline. (not that I think that justifies using the word inappropriately, but I think I understand why they used the word that they did).
I can't imagine that the chairman did the company any favors in the here and now by openly suggesting that people who criticize the company's price gouging can go "copulate with themselves", however.
It's a bit more than "reportedly"... more like "practically". The exact terminology he apparently used was "copulate with themselves". So while technically yeah, he didn't *literally* say that the critics could go fuck themselves, it still strongly suggests that is precisely what he was meaning to say and simply decided to word it slightly differently... I would speculate to make himself appear as though he was above using the more expletive term.
I would suggest that this might only be true because not very many people are actually paid a respectable living wage in the first place (note, a living wage is not minimum wage.... where I live, a decent living wage is about 2.5 times higher than minimum wage).
I never said it was fine, I said that it wouldn't make any real difference, now... the election's long since over, and at this point, nothing is going to change any sooner than November, 2020.
You misread my meaning... I'm saying that it's not like they would suddenly turn around and change the ruling government over this, and in that sense, it doesn't really matter.