hydropower must be produced and consumed relatively close to one another or you lose it all in transmission inefficiency.
Lose it ALL? It's nice to be close, but you don't need to be THAT close. Switzerland is at most 350 km in width, a span that is easily covered by existing transmission technology. For example, the Pacific DC intertie, which moves hydro power from the Columbia to southern California, is 1370 km. This is only one of dozens of long-haul power transmission lines in the US. Yes, you lose some power to transmission inefficiency but it's hardly an insurmountable problem, particularly in a place as small as Switzerland.
Given that domestic power consumption is insignificant compared to industrial and commercial use, how relevant is this? How is power consumption overall affected?
Insignificant? Domestic power consumption is 37% of total power consumption (source). That's more that industrial or commercial consumption, how is it insignificant?
I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
If you can't discern fact from fiction, then read primary sources and quit listening to biased news. Here is a link to the report released by the intelligence agencies:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
The whole "Russia tried to influence the election" thing is bullshit.
So ALL of the intelligence agencies are wrong? Here, I'll quote Fox News for you since any other source is just "Fake News" from the liberal MSM:
On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump’s candidacy.
Russia didn't "try to influence the election", they DID influence the election. The question being investigated by the special counsel is if the President or his staff colluded with them to do it, not if it happened.
Really? Not in my country. According to this, 70% of Americans live in single-family homes and 80% want to. In the UK, 65% own their homes and according to this article "in countries such as Britain, Croatia and Norway, more than 80 percent of people live in houses."
If you are going to make up "facts" as you go along you shouldn't be so blatant, that one was easily refutable.
I'll give you Comey, but Gingrich is certainly part of "Trump's team". He worked as a consultant for Trump's campaign, was considered as a VP candidate for Trump and just had his (3rd) wife appointed to an ambassadorship by Trump. Since she has no diplomatic experience, one would assume it is political compensation to Newt. If that's not on Trump's team I don't know what is.
It makes a lot of sense for them to align, after all they both created a Contract with America (Newt's) (Donald's) on which they both failed to deliver.
Unlike both Barack Obama and Joseph Biden (and even John McCain), Sarah Palin actually did have executive experience — she previously ran her town as a mayor and her State as a governor. So, on the subject of experience you are objectively and verifiably wrong [imgflip.com]. Four Pinocchios...
Please, she was the mayor of a town of 7000 people and the governor of a state with fewer people than 47 of the 50 states (around 700,000 people, fewer than many congressional districts) for less than 2 years before the election and couldn't even finish that job. Contrast with Obama, who was an Illinois state senator for 8 years, representing around the same number of people as Alaska has in total, and a US senator 4 years, representing around 6 million people. You are really touting being the mayor of Wasilla as "executive experience"? This shows me you aren't interested in reasoned discussion, you are so blindly partisan that it's not worth the effort.
if you are not telling both sides of the story all you are telling is propaganda
You assume that every issue has 2 sides (and only 2 sides) and each is equally valid. That's certainly not the case for a ton of issues, like the "vaccination" issue or the "evolution" issue or the "pizzagate" issue or the "climate change" issue. I agree that the media has become too polarized but it's really just a reflection of the electorate - people WANT to live in their bubbles and only hear about things they agree with. Journalists used to want to inform the public, these days it's all about what gets eyeballs, the more sensationalist the better. It's certainly not a new phenomenon ("if it bleeds, it leads" is a pretty old saying) but it seems like the internet has allowed the sensationalism and polarization to become more pronounced.
I would have, if he was still year 2000 John McCain. Instead, he chose someone with no experience, qualifications or talent to be his running mate. Sorry, I just couldn't support putting someone like Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency even if it meant having a decent person as president. Didn't vote for Obama that year either, like usual it was a choice between a turd and a douche.
That requirement wasn't for welfare, it was for SNAP, basically modern food stamps. Perhaps the people who dropped out just didn't feel like jumping through a bunch of hoops to get the small benefit that SNAP provides. For example, according to this calculator, a family of 4 that makes $36k a year will receive $134 per month in SNAP benefits. It's a lot lower for childless or single people, for example a single person making only $15k per year (and paying $12k per year in rent) only qualifies for a $36/mo benefit. I couldn't find any analysis of the demographics of the people who stopped claiming benefits after the change but there is certainly a level where people who formerly claimed benefits would no longer do so due to the more extensive documentation requirements. Do you have any data to back up your assertion that they are "too lazy to work" or could there be other factors at play? Perhaps it is the people who are working the hardest that no longer claim benefits, because their benefit is lower (because they have a higher income than non-working people) and they have less free time to make claims. If you have data on exactly which people were removed from the SNAP rolls I would love to see it, otherwise your assertion is just an opinion and very possibly false.
Actually it does... Studies have shown that cutting taxes on the poor and increasing them on the rich generates economic growth, where as if you cut it on the rich and raise it on the poor it constricts the economy.
That's odd, the people currently in power have assured me that cutting taxes on the rich (according to the Treasury secretary, the "biggest tax cut in history") is what generates economic growth, in fact it will generate so much growth that we don't even need to reduce government spending to pay for the proposed $3-$7 TRILLION (10 year) reduction in revenue.
noun 1. a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.
In modern society that should probably read "conflicts with governmental or corporate policy" but you get the gist of it.
Yes, because it's not the power company who is emitting the carbon, they are doing it on behalf of the customer. If the customer is using power that generates pollution, why shouldn't they pay for it? If the power source is not competitive when externalities are paid for then maybe we shouldn't be using it.
So companies wouldn't have to pay property tax? If that's the case then all property will be owned by companies which then lease it to people and no property tax will be paid. Why would I pay tax if I could easily create a corporation which buys the property and leases it to me at cost? There would be no tax owed by my corporation, since it makes no money and there would be no tax owed by me since I don't own property.
I'm just trying to point out that in the quest to simplify and remove loopholes you can complicate and create new loopholes.
But Trump has proposed increasing the military budget by $54 billion (to $639B) which is more that the state department's entire budget, including all foreign aid. People keep electing republicans because they say they'll shrink the government but history has shown it never happens. If anything, republicans spend MORE than democrats but are less likely to pay for it. Just like today, where Trump has proposed a massive tax cut (mostly for the wealthy) while simultaneously proposing increased spending. Where are all the tea party revolutionaries that were so against any spending (to the point of shutting the government down and getting the US credit rating downgraded, which cost REAL money) during the Obama administration?
Just like the abortion issue, small government is an issue that republicans campaign on but never deliver. You would think that people would realize they are never getting what they voted for but for some reason they just keep voting republican again and again even though abortion is still legal and government is still massive.
WATSON also needs to have access to the communication of political leaders to avoid their insider trading related to political decision making.
You're hilarious. Do you actually expect that politicians have to follow the same rules as you? Congress and the President are exempt from insider trading laws. They make the laws and there is a shitload of money to be made so they just exempted themselves. Because fuck you, that's why.
A lot of people look at the VHA (which is a single-payer healthcare system in the US) and say, "I don't want that."
Apparently those are people who don't use the VA, people who use it rate it higher than private hospitals (source). Medicare patients are more satisfied than private patients as well (source). People think they "don't want that" because they have been brainwashed into thinking that any government healthcare is bad. They aren't using evidence to make that judgement, it's based solely on political ideology.
Single payer is less expensive, gives higher patient satisfaction and has better patient outcomes but we can't have it because there is big money to be made in healthcare and the politicians immediately shut down any attempt to cut out the middleman. From a businessman's view healthcare is a great business -- customers rarely have any choice on buying it, prices are very murky and complex and the consumer doesn't directly pay - there is a middleman that pays the bill (and that middleman makes a bunch of money too). People who would be better off supporting a single-payer system won't do so because they have been told by their "leaders" (who take their marching orders from business) that it will inevitably lead to a communist state. Even when congress passes something that might be useful, like Medicare part D, they prohibit the government negotiating with the pharma companies because it might cut into the profits of their corporate masters. It's infuriating to me that the handouts to healthcare businesses are so transparent yet most people act like they don't notice. Making massive profits off of people's medical misfortune should be a shameful activity but in the US it is lauded and further enshrined into law.
How is that fake carbon accounting? Wood is a renewable resource. Certainly it's not ideal to burn wood for power but at least it isn't adding additional CO2 to the air like fossil fuels.
No offense, but your nephew is very possibly guilty of the offense, no matter how you try to frame it and how "darkly" the administrator talked. There are a variety of reasons he could have attempted something like that, eliminating one motive does not mean there are no other motives. This sounds like a classic presentation of "My snowflake doing something wrong? Impossible!" syndrome (MSDSWIS to its sufferers). If it were my child, I certainly would demand to see any evidence against him but I certainly wouldn't get all huffy and threaten the administrator like your brother [in-law] did, no matter how technically accomplished I am.
According to the article, it's so they can recall the packs. Here is the quote from the CEO:
"The first closed loop food safety system that allows us to remotely disable Produce Packs if there is, for example, a spinach recall. In these scenarios, we’re able to protect our consumers in real-time."
I don't know about you, but I have never been affected by a food "recall" and I don't know why they would anticipate such a need happening. I know there have been recalls of food (even the spinach in their example) but they are usually pretty narrow in scope and in my view shouldn't need a machine enforcing them. If you put bad spinach into your product, how about sending me an email, or calling me, or publicizing it through the media? Once I buy something I would like to do what I want with it, in most situations I no longer want the company involved. If I want to squeeze expired packets or packets from another manufacturer, that's my business.
Why does the balance need to be sent to the card at all? POS terminal sends "I need to authorize a $30.47 charge", bank sends back "Approved" or "Denied" along with a transaction ID. Why would the POS terminal ever need to know a balance associated with a card?
Slashdot Mirror
hydropower must be produced and consumed relatively close to one another or you lose it all in transmission inefficiency.
Lose it ALL? It's nice to be close, but you don't need to be THAT close. Switzerland is at most 350 km in width, a span that is easily covered by existing transmission technology. For example, the Pacific DC intertie, which moves hydro power from the Columbia to southern California, is 1370 km. This is only one of dozens of long-haul power transmission lines in the US. Yes, you lose some power to transmission inefficiency but it's hardly an insurmountable problem, particularly in a place as small as Switzerland.
Given that domestic power consumption is insignificant compared to industrial and commercial use, how relevant is this? How is power consumption overall affected?
Insignificant? Domestic power consumption is 37% of total power consumption (source). That's more that industrial or commercial consumption, how is it insignificant?
I keep reading articles how the Russians hacked this or that and then a few paragraphs down; "we have no evidence the Russians are involved.".
If you can't discern fact from fiction, then read primary sources and quit listening to biased news. Here is a link to the report released by the intelligence agencies:
https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...
Here's a spoiler:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
The whole "Russia tried to influence the election" thing is bullshit.
So ALL of the intelligence agencies are wrong? Here, I'll quote Fox News for you since any other source is just "Fake News" from the liberal MSM:
Here's a link to the actual report, please point out the errors:
https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...
Russia didn't "try to influence the election", they DID influence the election. The question being investigated by the special counsel is if the President or his staff colluded with them to do it, not if it happened.
Most people live in flats.
Really? Not in my country. According to this, 70% of Americans live in single-family homes and 80% want to. In the UK, 65% own their homes and according to this article "in countries such as Britain, Croatia and Norway, more than 80 percent of people live in houses."
If you are going to make up "facts" as you go along you shouldn't be so blatant, that one was easily refutable.
I'll give you Comey, but Gingrich is certainly part of "Trump's team". He worked as a consultant for Trump's campaign, was considered as a VP candidate for Trump and just had his (3rd) wife appointed to an ambassadorship by Trump. Since she has no diplomatic experience, one would assume it is political compensation to Newt. If that's not on Trump's team I don't know what is.
It makes a lot of sense for them to align, after all they both created a Contract with America (Newt's) (Donald's) on which they both failed to deliver.
as you can see in the US where 45,000 people per year avoidably die (American Journal of Public Health 2009) from being uninsured
"Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care"
- A guy who just voted to eliminate coverage for those most in need
Unlike both Barack Obama and Joseph Biden (and even John McCain), Sarah Palin actually did have executive experience — she previously ran her town as a mayor and her State as a governor. So, on the subject of experience you are objectively and verifiably wrong [imgflip.com]. Four Pinocchios...
Please, she was the mayor of a town of 7000 people and the governor of a state with fewer people than 47 of the 50 states (around 700,000 people, fewer than many congressional districts) for less than 2 years before the election and couldn't even finish that job. Contrast with Obama, who was an Illinois state senator for 8 years, representing around the same number of people as Alaska has in total, and a US senator 4 years, representing around 6 million people. You are really touting being the mayor of Wasilla as "executive experience"? This shows me you aren't interested in reasoned discussion, you are so blindly partisan that it's not worth the effort.
if you are not telling both sides of the story all you are telling is propaganda
You assume that every issue has 2 sides (and only 2 sides) and each is equally valid. That's certainly not the case for a ton of issues, like the "vaccination" issue or the "evolution" issue or the "pizzagate" issue or the "climate change" issue. I agree that the media has become too polarized but it's really just a reflection of the electorate - people WANT to live in their bubbles and only hear about things they agree with. Journalists used to want to inform the public, these days it's all about what gets eyeballs, the more sensationalist the better. It's certainly not a new phenomenon ("if it bleeds, it leads" is a pretty old saying) but it seems like the internet has allowed the sensationalism and polarization to become more pronounced.
I would have, if he was still year 2000 John McCain. Instead, he chose someone with no experience, qualifications or talent to be his running mate. Sorry, I just couldn't support putting someone like Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency even if it meant having a decent person as president. Didn't vote for Obama that year either, like usual it was a choice between a turd and a douche.
That requirement wasn't for welfare, it was for SNAP, basically modern food stamps. Perhaps the people who dropped out just didn't feel like jumping through a bunch of hoops to get the small benefit that SNAP provides. For example, according to this calculator, a family of 4 that makes $36k a year will receive $134 per month in SNAP benefits. It's a lot lower for childless or single people, for example a single person making only $15k per year (and paying $12k per year in rent) only qualifies for a $36/mo benefit. I couldn't find any analysis of the demographics of the people who stopped claiming benefits after the change but there is certainly a level where people who formerly claimed benefits would no longer do so due to the more extensive documentation requirements. Do you have any data to back up your assertion that they are "too lazy to work" or could there be other factors at play? Perhaps it is the people who are working the hardest that no longer claim benefits, because their benefit is lower (because they have a higher income than non-working people) and they have less free time to make claims. If you have data on exactly which people were removed from the SNAP rolls I would love to see it, otherwise your assertion is just an opinion and very possibly false.
Actually it does... Studies have shown that cutting taxes on the poor and increasing them on the rich generates economic growth, where as if you cut it on the rich and raise it on the poor it constricts the economy.
That's odd, the people currently in power have assured me that cutting taxes on the rich (according to the Treasury secretary, the "biggest tax cut in history") is what generates economic growth, in fact it will generate so much growth that we don't even need to reduce government spending to pay for the proposed $3-$7 TRILLION (10 year) reduction in revenue.
noun
1. a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.
In modern society that should probably read "conflicts with governmental or corporate policy" but you get the gist of it.
The costs are simply passed on to the customer.
Yes, because it's not the power company who is emitting the carbon, they are doing it on behalf of the customer. If the customer is using power that generates pollution, why shouldn't they pay for it? If the power source is not competitive when externalities are paid for then maybe we shouldn't be using it.
Do you mean like the way the Koch brothers used their money and power to put Jeb Bush in the White House?
Do you think Trump would have gotten to the White House if he wasn't wealthy?
So companies wouldn't have to pay property tax? If that's the case then all property will be owned by companies which then lease it to people and no property tax will be paid. Why would I pay tax if I could easily create a corporation which buys the property and leases it to me at cost? There would be no tax owed by my corporation, since it makes no money and there would be no tax owed by me since I don't own property.
I'm just trying to point out that in the quest to simplify and remove loopholes you can complicate and create new loopholes.
But Trump has proposed increasing the military budget by $54 billion (to $639B) which is more that the state department's entire budget, including all foreign aid. People keep electing republicans because they say they'll shrink the government but history has shown it never happens. If anything, republicans spend MORE than democrats but are less likely to pay for it. Just like today, where Trump has proposed a massive tax cut (mostly for the wealthy) while simultaneously proposing increased spending. Where are all the tea party revolutionaries that were so against any spending (to the point of shutting the government down and getting the US credit rating downgraded, which cost REAL money) during the Obama administration?
Just like the abortion issue, small government is an issue that republicans campaign on but never deliver. You would think that people would realize they are never getting what they voted for but for some reason they just keep voting republican again and again even though abortion is still legal and government is still massive.
WATSON also needs to have access to the communication of political leaders to avoid their insider trading related to political decision making.
You're hilarious. Do you actually expect that politicians have to follow the same rules as you? Congress and the President are exempt from insider trading laws. They make the laws and there is a shitload of money to be made so they just exempted themselves. Because fuck you, that's why.
In your FAILURE section you forgot:
current_ceo += golden_parachute;
Missing that would be considered a MAJOR bug by management.
A lot of people look at the VHA (which is a single-payer healthcare system in the US) and say, "I don't want that."
Apparently those are people who don't use the VA, people who use it rate it higher than private hospitals (source). Medicare patients are more satisfied than private patients as well (source). People think they "don't want that" because they have been brainwashed into thinking that any government healthcare is bad. They aren't using evidence to make that judgement, it's based solely on political ideology.
Single payer is less expensive, gives higher patient satisfaction and has better patient outcomes but we can't have it because there is big money to be made in healthcare and the politicians immediately shut down any attempt to cut out the middleman. From a businessman's view healthcare is a great business -- customers rarely have any choice on buying it, prices are very murky and complex and the consumer doesn't directly pay - there is a middleman that pays the bill (and that middleman makes a bunch of money too). People who would be better off supporting a single-payer system won't do so because they have been told by their "leaders" (who take their marching orders from business) that it will inevitably lead to a communist state. Even when congress passes something that might be useful, like Medicare part D, they prohibit the government negotiating with the pharma companies because it might cut into the profits of their corporate masters. It's infuriating to me that the handouts to healthcare businesses are so transparent yet most people act like they don't notice. Making massive profits off of people's medical misfortune should be a shameful activity but in the US it is lauded and further enshrined into law.
How is that fake carbon accounting? Wood is a renewable resource. Certainly it's not ideal to burn wood for power but at least it isn't adding additional CO2 to the air like fossil fuels.
No offense, but your nephew is very possibly guilty of the offense, no matter how you try to frame it and how "darkly" the administrator talked. There are a variety of reasons he could have attempted something like that, eliminating one motive does not mean there are no other motives. This sounds like a classic presentation of "My snowflake doing something wrong? Impossible!" syndrome (MSDSWIS to its sufferers). If it were my child, I certainly would demand to see any evidence against him but I certainly wouldn't get all huffy and threaten the administrator like your brother [in-law] did, no matter how technically accomplished I am.
According to the article, it's so they can recall the packs. Here is the quote from the CEO:
"The first closed loop food safety system that allows us to remotely disable Produce Packs if there is, for example, a spinach recall. In these scenarios, we’re able to protect our consumers in real-time."
I don't know about you, but I have never been affected by a food "recall" and I don't know why they would anticipate such a need happening. I know there have been recalls of food (even the spinach in their example) but they are usually pretty narrow in scope and in my view shouldn't need a machine enforcing them. If you put bad spinach into your product, how about sending me an email, or calling me, or publicizing it through the media? Once I buy something I would like to do what I want with it, in most situations I no longer want the company involved. If I want to squeeze expired packets or packets from another manufacturer, that's my business.
Why does the balance need to be sent to the card at all? POS terminal sends "I need to authorize a $30.47 charge", bank sends back "Approved" or "Denied" along with a transaction ID. Why would the POS terminal ever need to know a balance associated with a card?
You've never heard of subscription porn sites? And yeah, they pretty much are rich beyond imagining.