Retail rate net metering is going away. It's no way to finance a grid when the lights have to stay on at night. And yes, I'm in a northeastern state. The early adopters get a sweet deal for a few years on the backs of their neighbors (who pay for the early adopter's electricity at night), but that can't continue.
It's entirely possible to oppose Islamic values, morality and terrorism while still objecting to mistreatment or unwarranted discrimination against Muslims.
In practice, this sentiment presents as ignoring the Islamic motivation of mass murders. That's why Europe's left wing leaders are largely paralyzed in the face of the continued slaughter of their citizens. They fear being called "Islamophobes" more than they wish to prevent the murder of their fellow citizens.
Also, you do know that Islamic Terrorists are right wing, right?
That's a funny definition, considering the left does it's best to accommodate violent, expansionist Islam whenever it gets the chance. Why? Because somehow Muslims got to the top of the left-wing victim hierarchy. It probably has to do with the fact that both the left and Islam wants to destroy western society, plus the left recoils at confronting actual evil- they're much more likely to go after Christians who won't bake a cake than a mosque that sends money to ISIS.
And if you live in the United States it's a fact that there is more right wing terror acts than Left wing.
Only if you start counting after 9/11, stop counting before the Orlando massacre, and count 'incidents' instead of deaths, and generally forget about how the left covers for Islamic murder in anyway possible. Guy screams 'ALLAH ACKBAR' before he presses 'Detonate', and people like you say 'We may never know his true motivations.' So yeah, since the left isn't much interested in stopping Islamic terrorism- or even naming it- I'm pinning that on you guys.
You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative.
Again, a bunch of rubbish. You're upset that the left doesn't utterly dominate the news, and that conservatives get a voice. Some 80-90% of Journalists are card-carrying liberals (use your google-fu) who will happily engage in the latest left-wing hysterics, while downplaying or ignoring any bad news for the Dem team.
Jokes aside, at least in the US nothing's going to change unless our electoral system does. Right now about 55,000 coal miners in swing states are holding our national elections hostage trying to hold onto jobs made increasingly irrelevant by fracking and cheap natural gas... With our electoral system it doesn't matter how you vote because we don't weigh each person's vote equally. Which was after all the entire point. It keeps change to a minimum and protects landowner's interests.
Or another way to look at it is that a bunch of loons in a handful of California cities make the Democrats still competitive in national elections, while they bleed seats at the state level. For the most part they jam their ideas into force through the courts, because only a vocal few actually support the left's plans for the United States.
That's a fun game to play. Let's continue. Say California secedes. Well, plenty of cities, states and counties in California would rather stick with the United States. If parts of the country can split off and become independent, parts of the state can split off too- and stay with the nation. The 'People's Republic of California' then becomes a handful of cities with thin corridors between them, the large landmass of the state stays with the US, and Democrats become irrelevant.
I see where you're going with this and I like it! Down with the Democrats politics of division and envy!
White supremest and other alt-right groups have killed far more people since 9/11 than any other group, including jihadists. Hell, the FBI just blocked another Oklahoma city bombing by a white supremest. BLM pales by comparison and for the most part, BLM has been peaceful and at its core, the group espouses peaceful demonstrations. The second deadliest terror attack in this country was carried out by white supremest in Oklahoma City. Then there are the 9 people killed in a Charleston church, or the six people killed at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
The cited count starts after 9/11 and stops before the Orlando massacre. Plus it ignores what's going on in Europe. If you cherry pick your date ranges like that you can make anything you like seem true. "White Supremacists kill more people than Muslim terrorists if you don't count a bunch of days and locations where Muslim terrorists have killed people."
My apologies i read your comment more carefully- stealing ballots would require the collusion of the registrar. How honest are these people? Considering the Democrats went on a campaign to capture secretary of state seats so they could put their thumb on the scales at that level, a few dirty registrars aren't out of the question.
As part of a qualitative evaluation of Islam vs. Christianity, we can also compare your statement on the permissibity of Muslim lies to the direction to Christians in Revelations c.2 v.10b: "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life."
Once you let lying into your system as a legitimate behavior, all bets are out the window. That's one of the many reasons Christians are not given such license. And if you'll lie about one thing, why wouldn't you lie about another? See Taqiyaa about Taqiyya http://raymondibrahim.com/2014...
Actually Muslims are specifically allowed by the Koran and Hadith to lie about being Muslim in order to save their hides. See Taqiyaa, kitman, and the various other officially sanctioned types of deception. Christians are expected to proclaim their faith though it may cost their lives, and many have done so. Another poster mentions St. Peter as denying his faith, but those three denials occurred four days before the capstone of the Christian faith was put in place- the ressurection of Christ.
Your average computer can likely reject more heat to room-temperature ambient air than a refrigerator can move from the inside to the outside. All from quick internet searches..... Assuming a 1kW power supply at a 100% load, you need to move 1kW of heat outside the fridge just to maintain temperature. Assuming a coefficient of performance of 4, you need 250 watts of electrical consumption just to hold the current temperature. The guy in the linked video used a dorm fridge, lets see if I can find some power draw specs on one of those....
No, I can't... but someone tested their dorm fridge and found a running power consumption of 145 watts. So if your dorm fridge is significantly more powerful than the random forum guy's random fridge, you might be able to maintain the fridge temperature equal to the ambient temperature (like the guy in the video did for a bit).
A walk-in restaurant freezer would likely have the cooling capacity to allow you to try the effect of colder air on your machine- or you could just stick it outside for a while on a cold winter day.
Uhm, no. It's not about porn. It's about control over, and access to, what people say to each other in private.
The death toll in this attack is roughly equal to the number of people who have died in the UK because of DUI. The only difference is that DUI deaths are so common and so continuous that they're rarely front page news, much less international news.
You're not particularly offended that someone actually wants to go out of their way to kill you? That's perfectly fine with you?
In the US, you have on average, 650 gun deaths per week. 500 can be attributed to 'Christians'. Less than one per week can be attributed to 'Muslim Extremists'..
Any statistic about guns cited by a milquetoast left-winger can be taken for a lie; this one is no different. For starters, "gun deaths" is a rubbish category because it's dominated by suicides; a vast majority of the remainder are gang-bangers offing each other without any sort of religious motivation. (Included in the latter are 18-25 year olds who still mysteriously qualify as 'children' for left-wing agitprop purposes). You keep whittling down the garbage in your statistic and you'll find the very rare abortion clinic murderer who actually cites service to God as his motivation; these folks are vanishingly few in a country of 300 million +.
Equating Islam and Christianity is a dangerous lie. You are willfully ignorant of vital differences in theology, and ignore the wildly different societies that spring forth as a consequence.
Let's say that all of that were true, what's your argument? That they don't deserve clean water because they litter? Help me understand that position.
It's pretty clear, but I'll spell it out: The protesters are not adults to be taken seriously. They can't even manage the environmental stewardship issues that are well within their control. We're certainly not going to let them impose mob rule on infrastructure projects that have passed all the required regulatory approvals.
One more time... what's your argument? That because they are [insert literally anything here], that in a first world democratic nation they do not deserve a basic survival commodity of clean water?
So what else don't they deserve? Protection of the law? Freedom of speech?
Land of the free, home of the [people I approve of]
There was no threat to clean water that wasn't addressed in the regulatory process that approved the pipeline to begin with. Tell me, what fault do you find with the laws, regulations, and agencies involved?
You don't have a serious answer because you're not a serious person. At best you're engaging in an emotional outburst that lets you paint yourself as the embattled hero. I'm not required to take you seriously. Yes, you have a right to the protection of law and freedom of speech. You don't have the right to trespass and destroy when you don't like the outcome of a legally made decision.
I just hope you feel the same way when it's your water at stake.
There is no issue raised by the protesters that wasn't an item covered by the array of regulatory reviews that where required before construction could even begin. What fault do you find with the process that approved the pipeline and route? Where did the 50 agencies involved go wrong?
Let's say that all of that were true, what's your argument? That they don't deserve clean water because they litter? Help me understand that position.
It's pretty clear, but I'll spell it out: The protesters are not adults to be taken seriously. They can't even manage the environmental stewardship issues that are well within their control. We're certainly not going to let them impose mob rule on infrastructure projects that have passed all the required regulatory approvals.
= = = has stated that they absolutely refuse to use the EMV chip, and only will do swipe, citing speed over security = = =
I'm surprised that more high-volume retail locations haven't done the same: the chip is painfully slow compared to the swipe strip, and if you are processing 100s per hour it can really put a crimp in customer flow.
I have seen precisely one POS terminal that read a chip as fast as a swipe. It's possible. Unfortunately I don't recall where.
Lock down information sources such as the news media. Ensure that all information which is released is fully vetted to support government policies and decrees.
Once information is fully controlled, police activity to enforce government policy can proceed unabated with little fear of meeting organized resistance. President Trump appears to have learned quite well from history.
If by 'learned quite well from history', you include the last 8 years, then you're making a reasonable point. Obama spent 8 years weaponizing the federal government, and then handed it over to Trump. Think about that next time your champion is elected.
My two year Plantronics headset can sense when it's being worn. I imagine the air pods have the same features, and that the designers worked it into the program.
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
Is it still in 'good faith' when you make absolutely zero effort to validate a 'story' because it fits your prejudices or serves your political interests?
We're both engaging in conjecture, you seem upset that my conjecture is different from yours. Perhaps you'd be happier on something that isn't so much a discussion board as a proclamation board?
Maybe it costs 1.6 billion to build a new factory in Mexico, and $700 million modernizing an existing plant in the United States. Under the previous rules they thought were going to be in place, they would have recouped the $900 million dollar difference. Trump's plan is to incentivize building in the US, disincentivize building elsewhere- and this changes the risks and calculations associated with the project. So I wouldn't say the 'Narrative is clearly not true.' With Gruber, Rhodes, and Clinton continuously lying to the America public I can see where you'd get the idea that a 'narrative' would be pushed regardless of the facts on the ground, but please consider that not everyone operates that way.
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.
So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'
Slashdot Mirror
Retail rate net metering is going away. It's no way to finance a grid when the lights have to stay on at night. And yes, I'm in a northeastern state.
The early adopters get a sweet deal for a few years on the backs of their neighbors (who pay for the early adopter's electricity at night), but that can't continue.
It's entirely possible to oppose Islamic values, morality and terrorism while still objecting to mistreatment or unwarranted discrimination against Muslims.
In practice, this sentiment presents as ignoring the Islamic motivation of mass murders. That's why Europe's left wing leaders are largely paralyzed in the face of the continued slaughter of their citizens. They fear being called "Islamophobes" more than they wish to prevent the murder of their fellow citizens.
Also, you do know that Islamic Terrorists are right wing, right?
That's a funny definition, considering the left does it's best to accommodate violent, expansionist Islam whenever it gets the chance. Why? Because somehow Muslims got to the top of the left-wing victim hierarchy. It probably has to do with the fact that both the left and Islam wants to destroy western society, plus the left recoils at confronting actual evil- they're much more likely to go after Christians who won't bake a cake than a mosque that sends money to ISIS.
And if you live in the United States it's a fact that there is more right wing terror acts than Left wing.
Only if you start counting after 9/11, stop counting before the Orlando massacre, and count 'incidents' instead of deaths, and generally forget about how the left covers for Islamic murder in anyway possible. Guy screams 'ALLAH ACKBAR' before he presses 'Detonate', and people like you say 'We may never know his true motivations.' So yeah, since the left isn't much interested in stopping Islamic terrorism- or even naming it- I'm pinning that on you guys.
You're just noticing the Left more because the Right owns the media and is using it to push it's narrative.
Again, a bunch of rubbish. You're upset that the left doesn't utterly dominate the news, and that conservatives get a voice. Some 80-90% of Journalists are card-carrying liberals (use your google-fu) who will happily engage in the latest left-wing hysterics, while downplaying or ignoring any bad news for the Dem team.
What a load of crap. You're comparing the possible loss of a speaker system to the starvation and murder of millions.
and we create a better world for nothing?
Jokes aside, at least in the US nothing's going to change unless our electoral system does. Right now about 55,000 coal miners in swing states are holding our national elections hostage trying to hold onto jobs made increasingly irrelevant by fracking and cheap natural gas... With our electoral system it doesn't matter how you vote because we don't weigh each person's vote equally. Which was after all the entire point. It keeps change to a minimum and protects landowner's interests.
Or another way to look at it is that a bunch of loons in a handful of California cities make the Democrats still competitive in national elections, while they bleed seats at the state level. For the most part they jam their ideas into force through the courts, because only a vocal few actually support the left's plans for the United States.
That's a fun game to play. Let's continue. Say California secedes. Well, plenty of cities, states and counties in California would rather stick with the United States. If parts of the country can split off and become independent, parts of the state can split off too- and stay with the nation. The 'People's Republic of California' then becomes a handful of cities with thin corridors between them, the large landmass of the state stays with the US, and Democrats become irrelevant.
I see where you're going with this and I like it! Down with the Democrats politics of division and envy!
(end sarcasm)
White supremest and other alt-right groups have killed far more people since 9/11 than any other group, including jihadists. Hell, the FBI just blocked another Oklahoma city bombing by a white supremest. BLM pales by comparison and for the most part, BLM has been peaceful and at its core, the group espouses peaceful demonstrations. The second deadliest terror attack in this country was carried out by white supremest in Oklahoma City. Then there are the 9 people killed in a Charleston church, or the six people killed at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
The cited count starts after 9/11 and stops before the Orlando massacre. Plus it ignores what's going on in Europe. If you cherry pick your date ranges like that you can make anything you like seem true. "White Supremacists kill more people than Muslim terrorists if you don't count a bunch of days and locations where Muslim terrorists have killed people."
My apologies i read your comment more carefully- stealing ballots would require the collusion of the registrar. How honest are these people?
Considering the Democrats went on a campaign to capture secretary of state seats so they could put their thumb on the scales at that level, a few dirty registrars aren't out of the question.
It sounds like the best system.... for party operatives to drive around and steal ballots out of selected mailboxes or neighborhoods.
As part of a qualitative evaluation of Islam vs. Christianity, we can also compare your statement on the permissibity of Muslim lies to the direction to Christians in Revelations c.2 v.10b:
"Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life."
Once you let lying into your system as a legitimate behavior, all bets are out the window. That's one of the many reasons Christians are not given such license. And if you'll lie about one thing, why wouldn't you lie about another? See Taqiyaa about Taqiyya http://raymondibrahim.com/2014...
Actually Muslims are specifically allowed by the Koran and Hadith to lie about being Muslim in order to save their hides. See Taqiyaa, kitman, and the various other officially sanctioned types of deception.
Christians are expected to proclaim their faith though it may cost their lives, and many have done so.
Another poster mentions St. Peter as denying his faith, but those three denials occurred four days before the capstone of the Christian faith was put in place- the ressurection of Christ.
Your average computer can likely reject more heat to room-temperature ambient air than a refrigerator can move from the inside to the outside.
All from quick internet searches.....
Assuming a 1kW power supply at a 100% load, you need to move 1kW of heat outside the fridge just to maintain temperature.
Assuming a coefficient of performance of 4, you need 250 watts of electrical consumption just to hold the current temperature. The guy in the linked video used a dorm fridge, lets see if I can find some power draw specs on one of those....
No, I can't... but someone tested their dorm fridge and found a running power consumption of 145 watts. So if your dorm fridge is significantly more powerful than the random forum guy's random fridge, you might be able to maintain the fridge temperature equal to the ambient temperature (like the guy in the video did for a bit).
A walk-in restaurant freezer would likely have the cooling capacity to allow you to try the effect of colder air on your machine- or you could just stick it outside for a while on a cold winter day.
Uhm, no. It's not about porn. It's about control over, and access to, what people say to each other in private.
The death toll in this attack is roughly equal to the number of people who have died in the UK because of DUI. The only difference is that DUI deaths are so common and so continuous that they're rarely front page news, much less international news.
You're not particularly offended that someone actually wants to go out of their way to kill you? That's perfectly fine with you?
In the US, you have on average, 650 gun deaths per week. 500 can be attributed to 'Christians'. Less than one per week can be attributed to 'Muslim Extremists'..
Any statistic about guns cited by a milquetoast left-winger can be taken for a lie; this one is no different. For starters, "gun deaths" is a rubbish category because it's dominated by suicides; a vast majority of the remainder are gang-bangers offing each other without any sort of religious motivation. (Included in the latter are 18-25 year olds who still mysteriously qualify as 'children' for left-wing agitprop purposes). You keep whittling down the garbage in your statistic and you'll find the very rare abortion clinic murderer who actually cites service to God as his motivation; these folks are vanishingly few in a country of 300 million +.
"Faith never disappears, it merely changes it's object." De Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Equating Islam and Christianity is a dangerous lie. You are willfully ignorant of vital differences in theology, and ignore the wildly different societies that spring forth as a consequence.
Let's say that all of that were true, what's your argument? That they don't deserve clean water because they litter? Help me understand that position.
It's pretty clear, but I'll spell it out: The protesters are not adults to be taken seriously. They can't even manage the environmental stewardship issues that are well within their control. We're certainly not going to let them impose mob rule on infrastructure projects that have passed all the required regulatory approvals.
One more time... what's your argument? That because they are [insert literally anything here], that in a first world democratic nation they do not deserve a basic survival commodity of clean water?
So what else don't they deserve? Protection of the law? Freedom of speech?
Land of the free, home of the [people I approve of]
There was no threat to clean water that wasn't addressed in the regulatory process that approved the pipeline to begin with. Tell me, what fault do you find with the laws, regulations, and agencies involved?
You don't have a serious answer because you're not a serious person. At best you're engaging in an emotional outburst that lets you paint yourself as the embattled hero. I'm not required to take you seriously. Yes, you have a right to the protection of law and freedom of speech. You don't have the right to trespass and destroy when you don't like the outcome of a legally made decision.
I just hope you feel the same way when it's your water at stake.
There is no issue raised by the protesters that wasn't an item covered by the array of regulatory reviews that where required before construction could even begin. What fault do you find with the process that approved the pipeline and route? Where did the 50 agencies involved go wrong?
Let's say that all of that were true, what's your argument? That they don't deserve clean water because they litter? Help me understand that position.
It's pretty clear, but I'll spell it out: The protesters are not adults to be taken seriously. They can't even manage the environmental stewardship issues that are well within their control. We're certainly not going to let them impose mob rule on infrastructure projects that have passed all the required regulatory approvals.
I'm surprised that more high-volume retail locations haven't done the same: the chip is painfully slow compared to the swipe strip, and if you are processing 100s per hour it can really put a crimp in customer flow.
I have seen precisely one POS terminal that read a chip as fast as a swipe. It's possible. Unfortunately I don't recall where.
Lock down information sources such as the news media. Ensure that all information which is released is fully vetted to support government policies and decrees.
Once information is fully controlled, police activity to enforce government policy can proceed unabated with little fear of meeting organized resistance. President Trump appears to have learned quite well from history.
If by 'learned quite well from history', you include the last 8 years, then you're making a reasonable point. Obama spent 8 years weaponizing the federal government, and then handed it over to Trump. Think about that next time your champion is elected.
My two year Plantronics headset can sense when it's being worn. I imagine the air pods have the same features, and that the designers worked it into the program.
>
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
Is it still in 'good faith' when you make absolutely zero effort to validate a 'story' because it fits your prejudices or serves your political interests?
We're both engaging in conjecture, you seem upset that my conjecture is different from yours. Perhaps you'd be happier on something that isn't so much a discussion board as a proclamation board?
Maybe it costs 1.6 billion to build a new factory in Mexico, and $700 million modernizing an existing plant in the United States. Under the previous rules they thought were going to be in place, they would have recouped the $900 million dollar difference. Trump's plan is to incentivize building in the US, disincentivize building elsewhere- and this changes the risks and calculations associated with the project.
So I wouldn't say the 'Narrative is clearly not true.' With Gruber, Rhodes, and Clinton continuously lying to the America public I can see where you'd get the idea that a 'narrative' would be pushed regardless of the facts on the ground, but please consider that not everyone operates that way.
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.
So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'