Yes, it's not a good car for people that make frequent long trips, or those that drive a lot for work, but don't have access to a company car for it.
It's also not a good car for people that have to street park, which I suspect is a far larger percentage of the population than those that the range is a limiting factor. Additionally, those that live in condos or apartments where they can't get a reserved spot with a charger are similarly limited.
It is a great choice for a suburban car, especially in a two car household.
Renewable WILL be economically efficient (even ignoring the massive spillover costs of fossil fuels, and even ignoring global warming) quite soon. In some cases it already is.
The country that makes it an "almost every case" situation is going to have a thriving and huge industry. As German companies bought the 80s - 90s wave of US innovtion (because it wasn't immediately viable) and Chinese companies are beginning to buy this wave, what we're going to end up with is marginally less expensive energy with the profits going overseas. Subsidies were about future longterm exports.
Though I do agree that government betting on companies is bad (Solyndra), subsidies that all innovators can get equally to get a decade or so ahead of the rest of the world in innovation seem like a no brainer.
Fund with a tax on a small part of the spillover cost of fossil fuels (or just shift the existing subsidy budget, and don't let them keep measuring natural gas density after a bend in a pipe line).
A solid 25-50% of us (left leaning AGW zealots) want more nukes.
The problem is very few want them close by, and not many on the right want them either.
Nobody wants to take the risk of a Nuke they pushed for going bad politically, no company is willing to take the risk of a Nuke going bad (the risk is extremely socialized), the same lobby that doesn't want renewables doesn't want Nukes.
Basically they are a non-starter, in the US they were even before Fukashima, but now they are pretty much globally.
I'm pretty sure the plan is to set a cap, and then zero rate partners.
Netflix probably realized they're fucked if that happens, because people won't blame the ISP for the cap, they'll decide Netflix it too expensive to use, I'm so glad at least Comcast TV doesn't break the budget.
Netflix works at 1.5mbps (throttle on T-mobile for unlimited video, not sure about a T1).
It is standard definition, but it handles it far better than youtube in my experience (it [netflix] does a good job of finding the bandwidth, streaming at a slightly lower quality until there's a decent buffer, and then using most of the bandwidth if needed).
It seems just as likely that this is a misinformation campaign to sow distrust of American vendors, or even all others, while their product is backdoored by the Russian government.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it seems just as likely with the Russian propaganda machine being so efficient.
Did cable TV ever provide Network content without ads?
When I was young, it already had ads (mid 80s), but I assume that crept in with the explosion of channels for not much money, and the inclusion of broadcast content.
Primarily because they seem to be resisting the "become TV" urge, and instead are focusing on becoming a premium channel.
Basically that's what they are, they charge a rate similar to that (between Showtime and HBO monthly), and they produce content without commercials.
Also, they're not desperate, they're making approximately 200 million/year (though I don't know how they amortize the new content acquisition, they could be cashflow negative).
I'm more worried about Hulu going back to ads, much of their exclusive to streaming content was designed for ads (I guess it's not exclusive anymore with Google, Playstation, etc, getting current TV), and I suspect they lose money.
I see a future with ad supported content on Youtube, and some exclusive streaming services. In therory, Google should be able to get more money per an ad viewer minute than a Network (targeted), hopefully that can be enough to surmount the extra cost of streaming individually.
Google could take the local affiliate station, and the producer of content the network cut, and it should all work as a business model.
Obviously that's overly simple, or we'd already have broad appeal network quality content on Youtube in a large scale, but in theory it works.
You have to be in an almost insignificant minority to have access go fiber, but not cable, in the US.
I really doubt that's the reason.
Your sibling post mentions DSL, which makes sense. Where I am they don't offer over 3/1.5 anymore, but if it was reliable 3, even that would get Netflix (I have cable up to 300 available).
There may be a small minority that that does cellular only and Netflix too, but I doubt it's many.
There's an entire generation growing up that isn't used to commercials that aren't product placement. The networks are going to all basically need to go to a subscription model.
They're not a monopoly on content providing anymore though, their monopoly lies in the providing of data last mile.
I expect cable to get cheaper, and internet to get more expensive. Heck, they already offer a stripped down package for free (I actually had to beg them for give me internet alone for the price of internet + 5 channels).
My prediction, internet will creep to $100/month, a serious cable package will be $30 (with more content than the dish, Sony, or google options), and if you get those two, you can tack on premium channels for less than if you don't have the $30 package.
Slashdot Mirror
There was one briefly.
it offered very little fuel economy improvement, as it was designed primarily for the torque.
Yes, it's not a good car for people that make frequent long trips, or those that drive a lot for work, but don't have access to a company car for it.
It's also not a good car for people that have to street park, which I suspect is a far larger percentage of the population than those that the range is a limiting factor. Additionally, those that live in condos or apartments where they can't get a reserved spot with a charger are similarly limited.
It is a great choice for a suburban car, especially in a two car household.
I thought it was the coldest thing he could make (alcohol mixed with ice) and his mouth.
I know nothing about vat grown meat, but genetic testing/sequencing plummeted in price quite fast.
I suspect the real difficulty will be finding the magic that makes it tasty, but that marginal cost of production will be quite low.
I'm not arguing with that, but it seems unnecessary to then tell people they are below a 4th grader's ability to understand.
A simple, "don't be stupid, look at the units, and understand it's cumulative" would be harsh enough, and may even get someone to think.
I agree that it's obviously not temperature.
But I doubt the concept of Area Integrated OHC would mean anything to a 4th-5th grader.
And it wouldn't shock me if a large percentage quantity read heat content as temperature (though not OHC).
Here's the issue as I see it.
Renewable WILL be economically efficient (even ignoring the massive spillover costs of fossil fuels, and even ignoring global warming) quite soon. In some cases it already is.
The country that makes it an "almost every case" situation is going to have a thriving and huge industry. As German companies bought the 80s - 90s wave of US innovtion (because it wasn't immediately viable) and Chinese companies are beginning to buy this wave, what we're going to end up with is marginally less expensive energy with the profits going overseas. Subsidies were about future longterm exports.
Though I do agree that government betting on companies is bad (Solyndra), subsidies that all innovators can get equally to get a decade or so ahead of the rest of the world in innovation seem like a no brainer.
Fund with a tax on a small part of the spillover cost of fossil fuels (or just shift the existing subsidy budget, and don't let them keep measuring natural gas density after a bend in a pipe line).
A solid 25-50% of us (left leaning AGW zealots) want more nukes.
The problem is very few want them close by, and not many on the right want them either.
Nobody wants to take the risk of a Nuke they pushed for going bad politically, no company is willing to take the risk of a Nuke going bad (the risk is extremely socialized), the same lobby that doesn't want renewables doesn't want Nukes.
Basically they are a non-starter, in the US they were even before Fukashima, but now they are pretty much globally.
I don't get it.
They can make more than $15/hour not working, but chose to work for less than $15/hour?
the general person living like it's 1700 because of concentration of resources would be a pretty huge failure of capitalism.
Those 6/10 are able to spend more, creating jobs in other places.
Are you saying ACA creates high deductible insurance?
Most people I know were moved over to high deductible insurance in the early 00s, as costs were already increasing.
It's more than that.
Uber doesn't pay drivers enough, this allows them to keep the low fares, and pay the driver more.
Tipping had become pretty much mandatory anyway (to keep a rating high enough for future rides), this just makes that part more honest.
Food start to finish becomes less expensive relative to cost of living due to automation/technology.
Also, the meager base pay becomes relatively less.
Further, good and superb are completely culturally subjective (right or wrong).
I'm pretty sure the plan is to set a cap, and then zero rate partners.
Netflix probably realized they're fucked if that happens, because people won't blame the ISP for the cap, they'll decide Netflix it too expensive to use, I'm so glad at least Comcast TV doesn't break the budget.
Netflix works at 1.5mbps (throttle on T-mobile for unlimited video, not sure about a T1).
It is standard definition, but it handles it far better than youtube in my experience (it [netflix] does a good job of finding the bandwidth, streaming at a slightly lower quality until there's a decent buffer, and then using most of the bandwidth if needed).
This:
It seems just as likely that this is a misinformation campaign to sow distrust of American vendors, or even all others, while their product is backdoored by the Russian government.
I'm not saying that's the case, but it seems just as likely with the Russian propaganda machine being so efficient.
Follow up question:
Did cable TV ever provide Network content without ads?
When I was young, it already had ads (mid 80s), but I assume that crept in with the explosion of channels for not much money, and the inclusion of broadcast content.
I don't see it.
Primarily because they seem to be resisting the "become TV" urge, and instead are focusing on becoming a premium channel.
Basically that's what they are, they charge a rate similar to that (between Showtime and HBO monthly), and they produce content without commercials.
Also, they're not desperate, they're making approximately 200 million/year (though I don't know how they amortize the new content acquisition, they could be cashflow negative).
I'm more worried about Hulu going back to ads, much of their exclusive to streaming content was designed for ads (I guess it's not exclusive anymore with Google, Playstation, etc, getting current TV), and I suspect they lose money.
I see a future with ad supported content on Youtube, and some exclusive streaming services. In therory, Google should be able to get more money per an ad viewer minute than a Network (targeted), hopefully that can be enough to surmount the extra cost of streaming individually.
Google could take the local affiliate station, and the producer of content the network cut, and it should all work as a business model.
Obviously that's overly simple, or we'd already have broad appeal network quality content on Youtube in a large scale, but in theory it works.
You have to be in an almost insignificant minority to have access go fiber, but not cable, in the US.
I really doubt that's the reason.
Your sibling post mentions DSL, which makes sense. Where I am they don't offer over 3/1.5 anymore, but if it was reliable 3, even that would get Netflix (I have cable up to 300 available).
There may be a small minority that that does cellular only and Netflix too, but I doubt it's many.
There's an entire generation growing up that isn't used to commercials that aren't product placement. The networks are going to all basically need to go to a subscription model.
How do you get Netflix without cable?
Are there places with broadband, but not cable?
They're not a monopoly on content providing anymore though, their monopoly lies in the providing of data last mile.
I expect cable to get cheaper, and internet to get more expensive. Heck, they already offer a stripped down package for free (I actually had to beg them for give me internet alone for the price of internet + 5 channels).
My prediction, internet will creep to $100/month, a serious cable package will be $30 (with more content than the dish, Sony, or google options), and if you get those two, you can tack on premium channels for less than if you don't have the $30 package.
They'll keep their $100-150/household.
The line in juicy about the phone bill as a boast always gives me a chuckle when I hear it now.
They weren't for a month at a time.
I still play xcom, I'll have it as long as ps3 is supported, and I keep paying the subscription.