I think you are underestimating how fast things can change as technology improves.
Apartment land lords will have to get with the times and install chargers are market pressure grows. Those that do not, are going to start losing tenants.
Look, at some point solar cells on the roof will be so cheap it will be a no brainer. Already you can get free solar cells from Solar City. If an apartment manager wanted free solar cells powering a half dozen charging stations, they could do so right now, at very little cost. That would be a big attraction for new tenants.
And there are disruptive technologies being developed that might change the entire paradigm. It didn't take us 100 years to build our current oil infrastructure. More like, we have been building infrastructure as the market called for it, for 100 years. If it disappeared over night, I but we could rebuild it a lot faster, especially given modern technology.
But there are lots of other factors influencing cost that are changing every year. The falling cost of solar/wind isn't going to suddenly reverse direction. Eventually solar will be so cheap it will be a no-brainer to put cells on your roof and charge your car for free. It might take another 10-15 years, but that is coming. (You can already get free solar cells from Solar City, but that comes with a long lease, which isn't for everyone).
As for apartment dwellers, land lords will have to get with the times or people will move to more modern buildings. If I were an apartment manager, at some point the price point would make sense to install solar on the roof and provide free or cheap charging as an attraction for new tenants.
The cost of solar is just one thing that I think is going to influence the overall attractiveness and cost efficiency of electric cars. Other factors include batteries getting better over time, the possibility of passive charging being embedded in roadways and parking garages (like over the air charging). And probably dozens of new things we can't even fathom right now.
The high price will probably get fixed with time but to go on holiday with the family I need a car with a large range that can be refuelled quickly. While I would love to have an electric car with that capability for around the same price as a petrol driven one that is not something I see happening any time soon.
Once in a blue moon I need to move houses. I don't own a moving van to account for that once every few year event. Likewise, a couple times a year I buy lots of lumber or rocks for landscaping/building. I don't own a Ford F350 for that either.
The money you save on gas, oil/filter changes, etc.. with an electric, should more than cover having to rent a gas car for those 1-2 times per year you drive long distances. If you are unable to get the 7,500 federal rebate on an electric, it will make the roi take long of course. But those prices are only going to get better with time. Unlike gas, which will get worse with time.
REMARKS
Get-Help cannot find the Help files for this cmdlet on this computer. It is displaying only partial help.
-- To download and install Help files for the module that includes this cmdlet, use Update-Help.
-- To view the Help topic for this cmdlet online, type: "Get-Help Invoke-WebRequest -Online" or
go to http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=217035.
Maybe my powershell is not modern enough to have that command?
Windows PowerShell Copyright (C) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
PS C:\Users\jwhitene> $html = invoke-webrequest http://slashdot.org The term 'invoke-webrequest' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program. Che ck the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again. At line:1 char:26 + $html = invoke-webrequest http://slashdot.org
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (invoke-webrequest:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException
The only thing that's still missing is engaging the brain and thinking critically given the volume of information.
But that is a huge issue that has gotten worse over time. The vast majority of people will never be very good at analyzing sources or critically thinking. Most people are able to cherry pick articles and "data" from this new massive volume to support any view they were already predisposed to believe.
There needs to be stronger disincentives to lying or using mistruths/partial truths, both in journalism and in politics. I'm not exactly sure how to go about that without rethinking freedom of speech issues, but I can't see our country getting better without some sort of change.
Lots of journalist would disagree with you. The rise of for-profit news/cable news (post 60 minutes), and the internet have changed things in both good and bad ways. And people that work in the industry think there is more bad than good.
For instance, while the overall integrity of journalism may be the same as it was 50 years ago, people can now consume news in a bubble that conforms to their pre-formed beliefs. Google often delivers content it thinks you want to see based on prior searches. People tend to unfriend people on Facebook if they post things that don't follow their own philosophies, etc..
So while it might be true that the quality of journalism is the same as it has ever been, the way the news reaches people is drastically different, and not for the better.
I don't think there are more or less lies being spread around than in the past, it just happens to be much easier to propagate lies and the rewriting of history with the internet.
Combine the ease in which a lie can spread, with everyone existing in "news bubbles" (tailor your facebook feed, only upvote things you like, only get news from one organization, etc..) that conform to their beliefs, and that explains a lot of the hyper-partisan politics of the last 20 years.
Giving a homeless person a free apartment is cheaper than leaving them on the street. Sometimes things are counter-intuitive. Basic income is one of those things.
Did they change, or did the environment change around them?
Scientists have always made statements with political implications. And.... we used to give their statements great weight. Now half the country just goes "stupid liberal scientist, he is totally involved in the global warming conspiracy".
Seems like the country has gone to crap in terms of science reporting and understanding, not that scientists are all of a sudden more political.
I just did a google search for 'c programmer job' and got thousands of results. Randomly clicked a few and they look real. Monster had a lot also. http://www.monster.com/jobs/search/?q=c-programmer
so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.
And these false notions are intentionally reinforced everyday by politicians. They even admit using people's perceptions of things over facts in order to win as politicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsw1vUpc6Ug (last 5 minutes, but the whole clip is good).
You are forgetting about lots of the powers a president has that congress cannot touch. You are also forgetting about an open supreme court justice seat, which will impact law in this country for decades.
You saw how much Obama got done with the current house/senate? Basically nothing for the last 6 years. The same will happen to Clinton unless the makeup of congress changes drastically.
I hope you are not in a swing state. Voting third party when a supreme court nomination (likely more than 1 in the next 4 years) is up for grabs has multiple decades long impact.
Theoretically we are a functioning democracy. Practically speaking, we are an oligarchy based on policy outcome. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
" It's the millions that flood in without any registration that are the problem."
Proof please: that it is A) actually a flood of millions coming from Mexico illegally every years, and B) that they are a drain on the economy or otherwise a 'problem'.
Because all the data I've seen on 'A' says illegal immigration is down and that the net is negative with Mexico. More Mexicans leaving than coming. The number one source of illegal immigrants right now are students over staying visas, primarily from asian countries.
And on B, all the data I've found says that illegal immigrants are actually a boon to the economy. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc.., but don't get a lot of the benefits because they don't have the right paper work to claim them.
I don't care that the DNC favored Hillary, but I do care that they claimed in public, and in their written rules to being an impartial organization, when in fact they were the exact opposite.
If they want to flat out pick a candidate and have no primaries, that is fine. They are a private club, not a public government office. They can make up any rules they want. The problem is that they broke their own rules.
I am 100% certain the RNC was doing similar things against Trump behind the scenes as well. The difference is Trump is just masterful using/misusing/abusing media. Bernie's campaign lacked those media skills.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are underestimating how fast things can change as technology improves.
Apartment land lords will have to get with the times and install chargers are market pressure grows. Those that do not, are going to start losing tenants.
Look, at some point solar cells on the roof will be so cheap it will be a no brainer. Already you can get free solar cells from Solar City. If an apartment manager wanted free solar cells powering a half dozen charging stations, they could do so right now, at very little cost. That would be a big attraction for new tenants.
And there are disruptive technologies being developed that might change the entire paradigm. It didn't take us 100 years to build our current oil infrastructure. More like, we have been building infrastructure as the market called for it, for 100 years. If it disappeared over night, I but we could rebuild it a lot faster, especially given modern technology.
Or... you know, you could just rent a car for the 1-2 times a year that electric won't work for you.
I don't own a moving van because I move houses every 10 years. I don't own a long bed truck because I buy lumber 1-2 times per year. Etc...
That's going to change if everyone gets an EV.
But there are lots of other factors influencing cost that are changing every year. The falling cost of solar/wind isn't going to suddenly reverse direction. Eventually solar will be so cheap it will be a no-brainer to put cells on your roof and charge your car for free. It might take another 10-15 years, but that is coming. (You can already get free solar cells from Solar City, but that comes with a long lease, which isn't for everyone).
As for apartment dwellers, land lords will have to get with the times or people will move to more modern buildings. If I were an apartment manager, at some point the price point would make sense to install solar on the roof and provide free or cheap charging as an attraction for new tenants.
The cost of solar is just one thing that I think is going to influence the overall attractiveness and cost efficiency of electric cars. Other factors include batteries getting better over time, the possibility of passive charging being embedded in roadways and parking garages (like over the air charging). And probably dozens of new things we can't even fathom right now.
The high price will probably get fixed with time but to go on holiday with the family I need a car with a large range that can be refuelled quickly. While I would love to have an electric car with that capability for around the same price as a petrol driven one that is not something I see happening any time soon.
Once in a blue moon I need to move houses. I don't own a moving van to account for that once every few year event. Likewise, a couple times a year I buy lots of lumber or rocks for landscaping/building. I don't own a Ford F350 for that either.
The money you save on gas, oil/filter changes, etc.. with an electric, should more than cover having to rent a gas car for those 1-2 times per year you drive long distances. If you are unable to get the 7,500 federal rebate on an electric, it will make the roi take long of course. But those prices are only going to get better with time. Unlike gas, which will get worse with time.
"No more parsing the text output of one command to create input to another."
Why is this preferable?
When I did get-help for invoke-webrequest, it looks even smaller than the typical man page.
PS C:\Users\jwhitene> Get-Help invoke-webrequest
NAME
Invoke-WebRequest
SYNTAX
Invoke-WebRequest [-Uri] [-UseBasicParsing] [-WebSession ] [-SessionVariable ]
[-Credential ] [-UseDefaultCredentials] [-CertificateThumbprint ] [-Certificate
] [-UserAgent ] [-DisableKeepAlive] [-TimeoutSec ] [-Headers ]
[-MaximumRedirection ] [-Method {Default | Get | Head | Post | Put | Delete | Trace |
Options | Merge | Patch}] [-Proxy ] [-ProxyCredential ] [-ProxyUseDefaultCredentials] [-Body
] [-ContentType ] [-TransferEncoding {chunked | compress | deflate | gzip | identity}]
[-InFile ] [-OutFile ] [-PassThru] []
ALIASES
iwr
wget
curl
REMARKS
Get-Help cannot find the Help files for this cmdlet on this computer. It is displaying only partial help.
-- To download and install Help files for the module that includes this cmdlet, use Update-Help.
-- To view the Help topic for this cmdlet online, type: "Get-Help Invoke-WebRequest -Online" or
go to http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=217035.
Maybe my powershell is not modern enough to have that command?
Windows PowerShell
Copyright (C) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
PS C:\Users\jwhitene> $html = invoke-webrequest http://slashdot.org
The term 'invoke-webrequest' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program. Che
ck the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again.
At line:1 char:26
+ $html = invoke-webrequest http://slashdot.org
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (invoke-webrequest:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException
The only thing that's still missing is engaging the brain and thinking critically given the volume of information.
But that is a huge issue that has gotten worse over time. The vast majority of people will never be very good at analyzing sources or critically thinking. Most people are able to cherry pick articles and "data" from this new massive volume to support any view they were already predisposed to believe.
There needs to be stronger disincentives to lying or using mistruths/partial truths, both in journalism and in politics. I'm not exactly sure how to go about that without rethinking freedom of speech issues, but I can't see our country getting better without some sort of change.
Lots of journalist would disagree with you. The rise of for-profit news/cable news (post 60 minutes), and the internet have changed things in both good and bad ways. And people that work in the industry think there is more bad than good.
For instance, while the overall integrity of journalism may be the same as it was 50 years ago, people can now consume news in a bubble that conforms to their pre-formed beliefs. Google often delivers content it thinks you want to see based on prior searches. People tend to unfriend people on Facebook if they post things that don't follow their own philosophies, etc..
So while it might be true that the quality of journalism is the same as it has ever been, the way the news reaches people is drastically different, and not for the better.
I don't think there are more or less lies being spread around than in the past, it just happens to be much easier to propagate lies and the rewriting of history with the internet.
Combine the ease in which a lie can spread, with everyone existing in "news bubbles" (tailor your facebook feed, only upvote things you like, only get news from one organization, etc..) that conform to their beliefs, and that explains a lot of the hyper-partisan politics of the last 20 years.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how
Giving a homeless person a free apartment is cheaper than leaving them on the street. Sometimes things are counter-intuitive. Basic income is one of those things.
Yeah, lets send all physical mail as postcards right? No need to hide our bills, letters to lovers, or anything else in an envelope, right?
Did they change, or did the environment change around them?
Scientists have always made statements with political implications. And.... we used to give their statements great weight. Now half the country just goes "stupid liberal scientist, he is totally involved in the global warming conspiracy".
Seems like the country has gone to crap in terms of science reporting and understanding, not that scientists are all of a sudden more political.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/05/18/Why-Hillary-Clinton-Was-Right-Boko-Haram
I just did a google search for 'c programmer job' and got thousands of results. Randomly clicked a few and they look real. Monster had a lot also. http://www.monster.com/jobs/search/?q=c-programmer
so you are making shit up and ignoring facts while truly believing every word you say, You are not lying. You are also not correct.
And these false notions are intentionally reinforced everyday by politicians. They even admit using people's perceptions of things over facts in order to win as politicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsw1vUpc6Ug (last 5 minutes, but the whole clip is good).
You are forgetting about lots of the powers a president has that congress cannot touch. You are also forgetting about an open supreme court justice seat, which will impact law in this country for decades.
You saw how much Obama got done with the current house/senate? Basically nothing for the last 6 years. The same will happen to Clinton unless the makeup of congress changes drastically.
I hope you are not in a swing state. Voting third party when a supreme court nomination (likely more than 1 in the next 4 years) is up for grabs has multiple decades long impact.
No one supports Clintons unless they are paid too or threatened.
Was Trump bribed or threatened when he said Hillary would make a great president in 2008?
Theoretically we are a functioning democracy. Practically speaking, we are an oligarchy based on policy outcome. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=74b1c0aff1ae5324589a28152cc6112a
No, but they can deny you entry if you don't cooperate. And some countries can seize your devices if you refuse to log into them.
" It's the millions that flood in without any registration that are the problem."
Proof please: that it is A) actually a flood of millions coming from Mexico illegally every years, and B) that they are a drain on the economy or otherwise a 'problem'.
Because all the data I've seen on 'A' says illegal immigration is down and that the net is negative with Mexico. More Mexicans leaving than coming. The number one source of illegal immigrants right now are students over staying visas, primarily from asian countries.
And on B, all the data I've found says that illegal immigrants are actually a boon to the economy. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc.., but don't get a lot of the benefits because they don't have the right paper work to claim them.
explaining how she approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia in return for massive bribes.
Your article does not say that.
Like all of Hillary's "scandals" over the years, not one shred of proof, but a whole bunch of innuendo.
6. Wants to treat people differently under the law based on protected classes like religion.
I don't care that the DNC favored Hillary, but I do care that they claimed in public, and in their written rules to being an impartial organization, when in fact they were the exact opposite.
If they want to flat out pick a candidate and have no primaries, that is fine. They are a private club, not a public government office. They can make up any rules they want. The problem is that they broke their own rules.
I am 100% certain the RNC was doing similar things against Trump behind the scenes as well. The difference is Trump is just masterful using/misusing/abusing media. Bernie's campaign lacked those media skills.