Illegal immigrants come to the US to get a job, and they know full well that they can't legally work. That's why there is a thriving underground labor market. No minimum wage, no taxes, all off the books, and no matter how badly you treat your workers they can't sue you or make a big public fuss. A lot of businesses see the appeal in that.
But someone has to set policy for all of you, otherwise you just have anarchy. Then someone shoots you in the street to take your wallet.
Safety means rules. Rules mean enforcement. Enforcement means you need a government, backed up by the use of force. Without government, property is owned by whoever has the best weapons and gang at their back to maintain their ownership.
People in a repressive country can have trouble with the idea of #2 existing. Look at the Jyllands-Posten riots, which saw a string of protests against all things Danish following a newspaper publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed. To the protesters the logic behind these was quite reasonable: The Danish government had taken no action to prevent the publication of the cartoons, which could only mean they approved the publication, therefore the entire country was to be held responsible. This lead to widespread boycotts of Danish businesses, and several violent mob attacks on Danish embassies.
Because the laws of physics are not being cooperative. Electricity, especially when renewables are involved, is dynamic by nature - supply fluctuates constantly, demand fluctuates constantly, and it is quite difficult to store any for later use. Such a good ideally needs a market that can react just as quickly. If you use fixed prices then you will need more excess production capacity.
It's the 30 minutes part that makes it look fake to me.
A minute or two I could buy. A mistake, a prank, a very dissatisfied employee seeking revenge, a hacker somehow gaining access to their media bank. It's very unlikely, but it could happen - but if it did the people watching the feeds would very quickly put an end to it, even if that means a hurried phone call down to the technical staff with an instruction to pull the cables out. You're right, there's no way it could last for thirty minutes.
You can pick some sources that support your view, but that isn't the point I was making. How do you even define 'hard left?' Where does the regular left end, and hard left begin? What is the relation between them - does the regular left condemn the hard at all? Who speaks on behalf of them? How might you conduct a survey of this ill-defined demographic?
You can't even make the claim you made without first defining some terms that are very difficult to clearly define - especially as everyone involved will naturally try to define it in such a way that any undesirables are not part of their group, and ideally are part of a rival. Without some way to address this issue, it's basically a meaningless non-claim.
The same works on the other side too. You don't have to spend too much time on biased websites to see what's going on: The right-leaning ones are full of stories about extreme social justice campaigners who want to ban gendered pronouns and demand any man accused of rape be jailed without trial, and the left-leaning ones are full of stories about religious nutcases who want to abolish driving licenses because the number on them is the mark of the beast or call for the government to jail the author of Game of Thones for producing obscene material*. People focus on the extremes of their opponents in order to taint even the more moderate people by association, and this in turn perpetuates the us-vs-them mentality that makes American politics both so entertaining and so dysfunctional.
You can go with 'republican' and 'democrat' a bit more safely, as membership or support of a political party is well-defined and easy to survey - though you may still have a few issues with people who support a party they dislike only because they dislike the other side more, as their own views may not closely resemble the party platform.
Removing environmental regulations would reduce the cost of burning coal. Not enough to revive the industry, but enough to postpone the death. Even if it's doomed in the long term, a mini-boom is all Trump needs. Just long enough to coincide with the 2020 election.
Don't forget demand management. A lot of processes are not time-sensitive, and high-speed bidding markets are a very well established technology now. The price of electricity could vary minute-by-minute with supply.
The wind picks up, the price plummets, and all across the state air-conditioners kick in, cars start charing and pumps start filling tanks. When the wind dies down, the price shoots up, and those devices cease to operate - left to wait until the price falls, or the need for their services becomes so imminent that they have to accept the higher price.
It would mean less wasted capacity, and lower cost of power if you are prepared to wait a bit. Like the Economy 7 system, but far more dynamic.
Tesla hasn't actually made any money yet. It's losing money, fast. It's still considered a successful company because it's projected to make a *lot* of money in a few more years, which was enough to get the required initial investment.
That's exactly the plan - they are available in 'solar' and 'dummy' versions. You use the dummy version in the shade. They are visually indistinguishable from street height.
To be more accurate, they all failed - the old-school tiles shattered into pieces. The solar one held together, but cracked to the point the panel would be destroyed. Either way you still have to replace the tile, but at least the solar ones would ensure the hailstone doesn't come through the ceiling of the room below.
A few p2p clients have tried that approach, like the OFF System. It didn't catch on because the overheads are just nasty (As much as doubling the amount you need to download for OFF).
It's also legally uncertain. Judges are fully capable of recognising when someone is trying to deliberately subvert the intent of the law, and usually frown upon it - if there is any way they can find you liable, they will.
Even if the financial sector does move out of London, it will take many years. Every major financial service company has at least a regional office there, and many have their main office in London. Relocating such a business operation isn't something that can be done overnight.
I agree that TPP would be a bad thing. But the reasons that Trump opposes it are not...
I was going to say not good reasons, but now that I think about it, and have done some googling, I can't actually find any specific reason Trump ever gave for opposing it. He described it as a "horrible deal" but that's as specific as he has ever gotten. He did say "It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone." But China is not a signatory to the deal, so that makes no sense.
It's a close election in a winner-takes-all system. Whenever that happens, it means that someone just got 51% of the vote and yet won 100% of the power at stake. this means 49% of the population are feeling disenfranchised, and thus angry. Anger leads to protests, a few of which will turn into riots. If the election had gone the other way, it would be Trump supporters holding protests and occasionally rioting.
The exaggeration has reached the point I genuinely don't know what side you are on. But this is politics - where it is impossible to produce satire that cannot be mistaken for the real thing.
I wouldn't expect it to be just one side with another - it would depend mostly on how far from center you are. But while people might like the idea of a tidy symmetry, where left and right are equal opposites of one another, there's no reason that has to be true. It could just be that right-leaning websites tend to distort the truth more then left-leaning websites, even though the far-right and far-left extremes will both be lying continually.
Slashdot Mirror
Illegal immigrants come to the US to get a job, and they know full well that they can't legally work. That's why there is a thriving underground labor market. No minimum wage, no taxes, all off the books, and no matter how badly you treat your workers they can't sue you or make a big public fuss. A lot of businesses see the appeal in that.
But someone has to set policy for all of you, otherwise you just have anarchy. Then someone shoots you in the street to take your wallet.
Safety means rules. Rules mean enforcement. Enforcement means you need a government, backed up by the use of force. Without government, property is owned by whoever has the best weapons and gang at their back to maintain their ownership.
Can you still call it terrorism if it's carried out too ineptly to inspire terror?
To be somewhat fair, disengaging hasn't worked any better. Decades of embargos have not brought freedom to Cuba, Iran or North Korea.
People in a repressive country can have trouble with the idea of #2 existing. Look at the Jyllands-Posten riots, which saw a string of protests against all things Danish following a newspaper publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed. To the protesters the logic behind these was quite reasonable: The Danish government had taken no action to prevent the publication of the cartoons, which could only mean they approved the publication, therefore the entire country was to be held responsible. This lead to widespread boycotts of Danish businesses, and several violent mob attacks on Danish embassies.
Because the laws of physics are not being cooperative. Electricity, especially when renewables are involved, is dynamic by nature - supply fluctuates constantly, demand fluctuates constantly, and it is quite difficult to store any for later use. Such a good ideally needs a market that can react just as quickly. If you use fixed prices then you will need more excess production capacity.
It's the 30 minutes part that makes it look fake to me.
A minute or two I could buy. A mistake, a prank, a very dissatisfied employee seeking revenge, a hacker somehow gaining access to their media bank. It's very unlikely, but it could happen - but if it did the people watching the feeds would very quickly put an end to it, even if that means a hurried phone call down to the technical staff with an instruction to pull the cables out. You're right, there's no way it could last for thirty minutes.
You can pick some sources that support your view, but that isn't the point I was making. How do you even define 'hard left?' Where does the regular left end, and hard left begin? What is the relation between them - does the regular left condemn the hard at all? Who speaks on behalf of them? How might you conduct a survey of this ill-defined demographic?
You can't even make the claim you made without first defining some terms that are very difficult to clearly define - especially as everyone involved will naturally try to define it in such a way that any undesirables are not part of their group, and ideally are part of a rival. Without some way to address this issue, it's basically a meaningless non-claim.
The same works on the other side too. You don't have to spend too much time on biased websites to see what's going on: The right-leaning ones are full of stories about extreme social justice campaigners who want to ban gendered pronouns and demand any man accused of rape be jailed without trial, and the left-leaning ones are full of stories about religious nutcases who want to abolish driving licenses because the number on them is the mark of the beast or call for the government to jail the author of Game of Thones for producing obscene material*. People focus on the extremes of their opponents in order to taint even the more moderate people by association, and this in turn perpetuates the us-vs-them mentality that makes American politics both so entertaining and so dysfunctional.
You can go with 'republican' and 'democrat' a bit more safely, as membership or support of a political party is well-defined and easy to survey - though you may still have a few issues with people who support a party they dislike only because they dislike the other side more, as their own views may not closely resemble the party platform.
*All examples based on true events.
Removing environmental regulations would reduce the cost of burning coal. Not enough to revive the industry, but enough to postpone the death. Even if it's doomed in the long term, a mini-boom is all Trump needs. Just long enough to coincide with the 2020 election.
Don't forget demand management. A lot of processes are not time-sensitive, and high-speed bidding markets are a very well established technology now. The price of electricity could vary minute-by-minute with supply.
The wind picks up, the price plummets, and all across the state air-conditioners kick in, cars start charing and pumps start filling tanks. When the wind dies down, the price shoots up, and those devices cease to operate - left to wait until the price falls, or the need for their services becomes so imminent that they have to accept the higher price.
It would mean less wasted capacity, and lower cost of power if you are prepared to wait a bit. Like the Economy 7 system, but far more dynamic.
I'd say 'citation needed' but I don't think you can cite something so generalised.
I was outdated. They are finally in profit now.
Tesla hasn't actually made any money yet. It's losing money, fast. It's still considered a successful company because it's projected to make a *lot* of money in a few more years, which was enough to get the required initial investment.
That's exactly the plan - they are available in 'solar' and 'dummy' versions. You use the dummy version in the shade. They are visually indistinguishable from street height.
He was comparing to 'posh shingles' - the expensive ceramic type that the panels are designed to mimic. Not the cheap, commonplace asphalt tiles.
To be more accurate, they all failed - the old-school tiles shattered into pieces. The solar one held together, but cracked to the point the panel would be destroyed. Either way you still have to replace the tile, but at least the solar ones would ensure the hailstone doesn't come through the ceiling of the room below.
The same reasoning you used: Valuing potentiality. Does it really matter if that life is denied before or after conception?
The hobbyist market most places is too dispersed for the catchment area of a physical store.
A few p2p clients have tried that approach, like the OFF System. It didn't catch on because the overheads are just nasty (As much as doubling the amount you need to download for OFF).
It's also legally uncertain. Judges are fully capable of recognising when someone is trying to deliberately subvert the intent of the law, and usually frown upon it - if there is any way they can find you liable, they will.
Even if the financial sector does move out of London, it will take many years. Every major financial service company has at least a regional office there, and many have their main office in London. Relocating such a business operation isn't something that can be done overnight.
The left is a brainless mob. The right is a brainless mob. And the middle just ignores politics to protect their sanity.
I agree that TPP would be a bad thing. But the reasons that Trump opposes it are not ...
I was going to say not good reasons, but now that I think about it, and have done some googling, I can't actually find any specific reason Trump ever gave for opposing it. He described it as a "horrible deal" but that's as specific as he has ever gotten. He did say "It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone." But China is not a signatory to the deal, so that makes no sense.
It's a close election in a winner-takes-all system. Whenever that happens, it means that someone just got 51% of the vote and yet won 100% of the power at stake. this means 49% of the population are feeling disenfranchised, and thus angry. Anger leads to protests, a few of which will turn into riots. If the election had gone the other way, it would be Trump supporters holding protests and occasionally rioting.
The exaggeration has reached the point I genuinely don't know what side you are on. But this is politics - where it is impossible to produce satire that cannot be mistaken for the real thing.
I wouldn't expect it to be just one side with another - it would depend mostly on how far from center you are. But while people might like the idea of a tidy symmetry, where left and right are equal opposites of one another, there's no reason that has to be true. It could just be that right-leaning websites tend to distort the truth more then left-leaning websites, even though the far-right and far-left extremes will both be lying continually.