We had a similar problem here in the states, hundreds of millions of dead bodies in the streets because they couldn't afford health insurance (not to mention actual health care)... we got Obamacare as a fix, and now the streets only have living homeless people in them.
Son, this is slashdot, not twitter. Try to speak using actual words not 140 character or fewer catchphrases. I know that trying to engage your brain might make your head explode, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
I'm aware, hence you continuing to try to divert from the subject at hand.
I bet you think 350 million a week is going to go to the NHS because it was written on the side of a bus. What a nupty!
Bad news... I'm not a UK resident. It's as if you don't even know who/what you are arguing against.
The referendum was organised by our government which means its purpose was to instruct our government on what to do.
In general, elections are organized by governments, some of which include referendums, some of which are legally binding, others not. In the case of this one, the wording and statements from those who put forth the referendum was clear. If the voters choose leave, they will initiate that result, if not, not. It's rather like when a politician runs on a given platform and you are shocked & horrified when they actually do what they said they were gone to do.
This comes from the person who can barely nuderstand words at the best of times and once that high hurdle is crossed cannot actually understand the meaning of the assembled sentance.
Perhaps you should work on your typing & spelling skills before you cast any more poorly thrown stones?
Good to see that #fakenews is over in the UK as well.
we voted to get the government to tell the EU we're leaving.
You can claim that if you want, but it kinda differs from the wording of the referendum:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Lets also just ignore all of the campaigning for the meaning of leaving prior to as well.
We can vote to get the government to tell the EU we don't want to leave any more.
You can... if you can convince the government to have another ballot initiative... and that isn't going to happen. Of course even if that magical ballot initiative were to be agreed to and voted on tomorrow... given the nature of article 50... no, it's still going to go through, like it or not.
It is interesting that the poorly thought & delivered arguments in your post echo your signature.
He'd at least be getting something out of the energy use compared to earth hour... which, if you believe CO2 is a threat, leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere without associated benefit.
Hear me out... when you think about how most of our energy in this country is produced, it's not simply plugging in a storage medium into the electrical line, but instead the transformation of the chemical properties of coal or gas, or relying on the radioactive properties of fissile material to heat water & create steam... which then gets run through turbines to generate electricity.
When demand on the power grid takes a sudden turn, they can't quickly turn down the heat on the generation of steam (without causing them a longer & more expensive startup). You can adjust the properties of a nuclear reactor to slow the process more quickly by comparison, but given ~60+% of our power comes from fossil fuels (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3), it means that how it handles the drop in load is more impactful.
What do you do when you've a coal or gas powered plant which is suddenly producing too much energy? You can only store so much steam (which builds pressure), and you don't want to simply extinguish the fire (because re-firing a burn is amazingly expensive carbon wise, they don't just set a match to the coal, but get it started with a good bit of fuel oil). Your easiest option... is to dump the excess stream in a way that it will not go through turbines to generate electricity... effectively meaning that the carbon releasing burning that that went into generating the dumped steam... was wasted.
Source: an uncle of mine spent several decades running power plants at a multi-state power co-op... and each year at earth hour chuckles at the needless release of carbon by those who are trying to lower it... and he doesn't subscribe to the anthropomorphic theory on global warming.
A few years back someone I know touted how great the Facebook IPO was going to be and that he was happy to have them make him money... that back on May 18, 2012... a Friday.
The following Monday he was up in arms about how there were lawsuits pending about the overvaluation and that he got out before things got 'too bad', but not much above the eventual price a day or two later. Hearing this I chuckled, then purchased some FB out of pure spite (and believing it to be then properly valued).
Ever since then, I've held on to those shares... which are up nearly 400%... all because I didn't view them (a small part of my 'life savings') as vital to anything in the short term.
Long term thinking my friend... always think long term... which in retrospect I wish I would have done more of as I only purchased two shares:)
The US is 3 times worse than the UK for health outcomes vs expenditure
I will admit... leaving patients out in the parking lot in an ambulance is a fantastic way of reducing costs... though do their turning for the worst end up counting in the final figures you claim to cite?
And worse (for the Democrats)... helped to lead to the wiping out massive portions of their backbench and bullpen for years to come as a result of their narrow mindedness.
Obama's legacy, may just end up being the difficulty the Democrats have fielding a viable candidate for the Presidency for years to come.
It's only hilarious because the Democrats let the Republicans have a seat at the table.
Then you should be able to name the specific provisions or amendments which came as a direct result of a republican sitting at the table... and not general hand waving towards Romney and Massachusetts.
So how come the Republicans couldn't repeal it with both houses and the presidency?
Nice attempt at distraction... but I think we are still talking about the original enactment... and not the failed attempts to repeal it in whole... granted even Gruber admits, the individual mandate is the key requirement, which as we heard tonight again... is dead... all thanks to Obama's favorite tool... a pen and a phone.
I'm tired of hearing the term "big government" or the claim that it's the source of all our problems.
Would you prefer ear muffs? Or to stick your head in the sand for a while longer?... Because I wouldn't expect it to end anytime soon.
That is a distraction from the real cause which is big business which now essentially owns the government
I'm sorry that you are in effect supporting a full 8 years of Trump.
Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan, unlike most of you Bernie Bro's, I can see that you are going to split the Democrat party into pieces... a fact no one on the right is going to shed a tear for.
For me, the day "Citizens Divided" passed was the end of our democracy.
Odd how again, your focus is on the 'big businesses'... and not say... the labor unions who also benefited from that... well until recently as the 'fair share fees' keep getting chiseled away at.
Calling it "united" was a slap in the face to all of America.
Except that refers to the name of one of the parties involved... again... why let facts get in the way of a good screed?
They won. I suppose you could argue that gerrymandering, voter suppression and our generally corrupt system let them win unfairly.
Honest question... for those thinking they only one because of gerrymandering or voter suppression... how would they be successful at such things if they hadn't won previously and been in a position to implement polices rules that they think benefit their own party?
Same Q can be asked about the Democrats... not 9 years ago there was talk of a permanent Democrat majority... which started to unfold come the 2010 election. During their time in power in different state or federal positions, they were not able to implement policies that they thought would benefit their own party?... or were they just too honest and decent to do so? Or are they going about it from a different direction? https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Woosh... you utterly missed the point... but lets play along for a minute and ignore the fact I said "Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic".
Sorry, but I have Comcast, and their video services are broadcast on the same old channels that the analog TV signals were carried on.
I'm aware... in fact, I've got 'building DTV systems' on my resume from 2003-2007 so I am very aware of how their systems work, so much so that when a Comcast tech comes to my house (every 2 months for the last couple of years) I can provided more detailed signal monitoring logs than they have.
I've got ATSC tuners on that cable and they can still pull off the few unencrypted channels there, while showing me the existence all of the encrypted ones. I can't watch them, but I can get the channel and stream numbers and names for them all. My Homerun devices can even tell me the frequencies for the channels.
And? I've a couple of HDHomeRun's as well.. one in the next room with a CableCARD, the other out of state plugged into an antenna and a Raspberry Pi... do you have a point yet?
But in any case, what you've just said means that Comcast does not sum up your bandwidth on their private network that you pay for in one lump on your cable TV bill, but does sum up the bandwidth that goes across the public internet and through their border gateways where it costs them money to expand.
Serious question... which do you think costs more to maintain/expand: all of the wiring to/from houses & the head end and their private network... or from their private network to the different backbones? The answer may disturb you. Doubly so when you consider how much/little of their private network is physically private vs hosted on a public cloud service which is locked down via private routes.
I'm not surprised at that, and find little reason to be excited either way. They can't charge or cap your TV service -- they can tell what you are watching through the STB backchannel (but not for a DTA that has none) and the data is there 24/7 whether you watch it or not.
Which is where the 'woosh' comes in of you completely missing the point. Yes, when I sit down on my X1 set top box or a other QAM capable receiver (ideally with a CableCARD)... there are a multitude of channels to be had... which are broadcast to all on the network, regardless of the potential receivers ability to decode the channel, or even if they are tuned to the channel or not. If my neighbor happens to tune to the local ABC eight and a half minutes into the program I am watching... there is no additional load on the system. If 10,000 people suddenly switch channels... ditto.
That isn't the problem.
Recall I said "you binge watching something via the X1 platform and your Comcast provided set top box doesn't". Again, specifically calling out their X1 platform... but this actually goes back older. When you opt to watch some VOD program... the DOCSIS part of the box kicks in. Lets imagine you and your neighbor sit down to watch the same VOD program at the same time in different houses, there is a doubling of cost upon the network. Don't believe me? Imagine your neighbor has an overactive bladder... so they pause frequently to take care of business... do you think the box would cache everything that was also simultaneously (in some's mind) being sent to you? Nope, the latest gen of X1 boxes don't even have a hard drive inside, instead streaming even DVR recordings from the 'private' cloud via DOCSIS.
If Aereo still existed... the DVR side of things might be an issue, but lets just skip it for a moment.
Excuse me? Shall I show you my cable bill and the list of channels I a
They also lacked specifics as to how Obama's NN rules made things worse.
Case in point... Comcast's bandwidth cap. 1 terabyte. You go over and you pay quite a bit for overages. Or for $50/month (at least in my area) more, you can have the cap removed. Already paying for the faster 'blast' speed tier? That just means you will hit the cap faster than those who don't.
Worse, this cap actually creates an environment beneficial to them and hostile to non Comcast streaming services... despite the rules.
Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic, on which Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, YouTube all traverse. The dirty little secret of the latest generation of Comcast boxes, is that they are pretty simple boxes with a cable modem inside which streams all but live shows. Even the latest generation of DVRs don't have a hard drive inside, they just stream from a private cloud. While your binge watching of something on Netflix traverses the public internet and counts against your bandwidth cap... you binge watching something via the X1 platform and your Comcast provided set top box doesn't. Sure, both use DOCSIS to communicate to the head office... one exits to the public internet, the other remains on a private network.
This means that as data usage increases due to higher degrees of consumption, cord cutting, or 4k video from streaming services, your use of Comcast's services is essentially 'free', while you only have a limited capacity for the external providers.
It's the far right Christians who keep the war on drugs going.
Wait... Obama was a far right Christian?
You'd think given his eagerness to use a pen and a phone when he couldn't get his addenda passed legislatively, he would have done more to reduce the number of DEA raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in states where it was legal.
If you are coming for my friends, you get a punch in the face. Minimum.
I hope for your sake you are simply talking big on the internet... because if you act on what you are saying...
A punch in the face is basically a gentle wakeup call.
You are looking at assault charges at best, and getting you or your friend shot at worst.
Like many supportive of Antifa, you try to portray your actions as defensive or against evil... however under American law, self-defense goes out the window when there is no immediate threat. Do you fear they might act via the ballot box? That doesn't justify assault. Or do you think that at some point in the future they are going to go door to door, rounding up people they don't like and force them out of the country at gunpoint? Still doesn't justify assault when you are advocating for it.
Given the propensity and acceptance of masked violence on the left (Antifa being the latest incarnation), there is going to come a time when a pack of masked rioters in black are swinging clubs or rocks at someone on the ground who they view as an enemy, and there will be an armed person (likely on the other side, but possibly just a bystander) will see the immediate and potentially life threatening assault going on, draw their weapon and fire upon the attackers... possibly killing some.
Like it or not, what I describe above would likely lead to the shooter not even being charged, because acting in self-defense of ones self or others where there is a credible and/or immediate threat is generally justified. Beating someone who you think has bad ideas and may do something you disagree with in the future isn't.
It is still a production problem... it just depends on what kind of production.
Wind, solar and hydro are all great, in theory. For all three, you can rather quickly turn down the level of generation by disabling some turbines, closing some water outlets/inlets, or pointing solar panels in other directions... but they come with their own problems: requiring the wind to be blowing, the sun to be shining and the water levels to be high enough... they are good for peak & ideal times, but less so for base loads.
Nuclear is pretty straight forward... rods go in or out and affect the amount of heat generated. Heat leads to steam, steam can either be run through turbines depending on demand or dumped into environment (sorry to the poor birds flying by).
Natural gas, you can treat similarly (but not identically) in terms of turning down production and dumping excess steam if you don't want to run too much through your turbines.
Coal is a whole other matter. Load levels for coal are projected days and weeks into the future as you don't have the ease of a few pipes feeding the whole thing. You can slow the rate at which coal is added to the system, but what is there is going to keep burning for a while... and in the case of a low demand for the thermal energy... will often get dumped.
Source: Many long conversations with an uncle who be rather senior in a multi-state power co-op. While personally & professionally in favor of nuclear, he also understood the less than well known pitfalls of the other systems.
He was also the one who confirmed my theory on the silliness of 'Earth Hour'. Where such a sudden downturn in electrical consumption sees different carbon costs to dumping the thermal energy (though he is not a believer in man made 'climate change').
Nuclear: None Natural gas: Low (given the ease of turning down the input). Coal: High.
Keep that in mind: Quick & unexpected downturns in power consumption to save the earth, can actually result in a net positive expenditure of carbon emissions... and in this case, it may be more desirable to have people use the energy (either leaving their lights/heat on when not at home, mining for bitcoin, or looking for aliens with Seti@home) than have the thermal energy be dumped.
Great... if you targeted Kubernetes on day one. Oh you didn't? Because your software was built and working more than three years ago? or because you didn't take those things into consideration so early on? Darn.
It's still not impossible... just good luck to you.
I've been part of a team which ported a legacy system, originally running on a single machine, then a cluster at a co-location site, to finally fully being in AWS... it was an amazing amount of work. Had it been known what platform options would exist years in the future... choices would have been different, though at the time they were focused on building a viable product, and not making sure they could hop infrastructure to infrastructure as the winds changed.
If Amazon fails to provide good service at a fair price, their customers can go elsewhere without much trouble.
Can... but at what cost? Back in the days of Microsoft's dominance, companies could pick up and leave Windows... porting all of their software to *some random platform*, and paying oodles to their vendors to do the same.
How likely is that?
The dirty little secret of many cloud services is they are sticky... deliberately so.
You could port the custom _____ system your company made targeting AWS to Azure or something else... however unless the system was architected deliberately from the beginning with the idea of portability (which most cloud services are not).
Even if the platform is easy to re-target, the underlying data may not be.
I've been involved in projects where it was known up front that once customers have a few petabytes in one particular cloud, they were less incentivized to move.
Well, we've got a tax break for private jet owners added in
I know reading is hard... but couldn't you even make it to the 6th paragraph of the article you linked to?
"This provision in no way cuts taxes for private jet owners," said Jennifer Donahue, a spokeswoman for Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) who sponsored Senate legislation on the matter.
which is both of quesitonable constitutionality due to the double taxation
Slashdot Mirror
The electrical costs of most manufacturing is less than the labor cost, which has long been the reason for outsourcing
To quote former President Obama:
Honest Q: When has the North Korean economy not been crippled?
We had a similar problem here in the states, hundreds of millions of dead bodies in the streets because they couldn't afford health insurance (not to mention actual health care)... we got Obamacare as a fix, and now the streets only have living homeless people in them.
I never said it did on it's own.
I never said it did.
Who is arguing otherwise here?
Yes, it could have, instead it did what it said it was going to do... act upon the result of the referendum, which ever way it went.
I know, it's a strange things when politicians do what they say they are going to do.
To quote our former American President: "elections have consequences."
No doubt, and also good reasons to do what the electorate told them to do, as it's a good way to remain in power.
Perhaps you should argue against things actually said, rather than things that weren't.
I'm aware, hence you continuing to try to divert from the subject at hand.
Bad news... I'm not a UK resident. It's as if you don't even know who/what you are arguing against.
In general, elections are organized by governments, some of which include referendums, some of which are legally binding, others not. In the case of this one, the wording and statements from those who put forth the referendum was clear. If the voters choose leave, they will initiate that result, if not, not. It's rather like when a politician runs on a given platform and you are shocked & horrified when they actually do what they said they were gone to do.
Perhaps you should work on your typing & spelling skills before you cast any more poorly thrown stones?
Good to see that #fakenews is over in the UK as well.
You can claim that if you want, but it kinda differs from the wording of the referendum:
Lets also just ignore all of the campaigning for the meaning of leaving prior to as well.
You can... if you can convince the government to have another ballot initiative... and that isn't going to happen. Of course even if that magical ballot initiative were to be agreed to and voted on tomorrow... given the nature of article 50... no, it's still going to go through, like it or not.
It is interesting that the poorly thought & delivered arguments in your post echo your signature.
He'd at least be getting something out of the energy use compared to earth hour... which, if you believe CO2 is a threat, leads to more CO2 in the atmosphere without associated benefit.
Hear me out... when you think about how most of our energy in this country is produced, it's not simply plugging in a storage medium into the electrical line, but instead the transformation of the chemical properties of coal or gas, or relying on the radioactive properties of fissile material to heat water & create steam... which then gets run through turbines to generate electricity.
When demand on the power grid takes a sudden turn, they can't quickly turn down the heat on the generation of steam (without causing them a longer & more expensive startup). You can adjust the properties of a nuclear reactor to slow the process more quickly by comparison, but given ~60+% of our power comes from fossil fuels (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3), it means that how it handles the drop in load is more impactful.
What do you do when you've a coal or gas powered plant which is suddenly producing too much energy? You can only store so much steam (which builds pressure), and you don't want to simply extinguish the fire (because re-firing a burn is amazingly expensive carbon wise, they don't just set a match to the coal, but get it started with a good bit of fuel oil). Your easiest option... is to dump the excess stream in a way that it will not go through turbines to generate electricity... effectively meaning that the carbon releasing burning that that went into generating the dumped steam... was wasted.
Source: an uncle of mine spent several decades running power plants at a multi-state power co-op... and each year at earth hour chuckles at the needless release of carbon by those who are trying to lower it... and he doesn't subscribe to the anthropomorphic theory on global warming.
Apparently you are a pretty poor investor.
A few years back someone I know touted how great the Facebook IPO was going to be and that he was happy to have them make him money... that back on May 18, 2012... a Friday.
The following Monday he was up in arms about how there were lawsuits pending about the overvaluation and that he got out before things got 'too bad', but not much above the eventual price a day or two later. Hearing this I chuckled, then purchased some FB out of pure spite (and believing it to be then properly valued).
Ever since then, I've held on to those shares... which are up nearly 400%... all because I didn't view them (a small part of my 'life savings') as vital to anything in the short term.
Long term thinking my friend... always think long term... which in retrospect I wish I would have done more of as I only purchased two shares :)
I will admit... leaving patients out in the parking lot in an ambulance is a fantastic way of reducing costs... though do their turning for the worst end up counting in the final figures you claim to cite?
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...
https://www.theguardian.com/so...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...
And worse (for the Democrats)... helped to lead to the wiping out massive portions of their backbench and bullpen for years to come as a result of their narrow mindedness.
Obama's legacy, may just end up being the difficulty the Democrats have fielding a viable candidate for the Presidency for years to come.
Then you should be able to name the specific provisions or amendments which came as a direct result of a republican sitting at the table... and not general hand waving towards Romney and Massachusetts.
Nice attempt at distraction... but I think we are still talking about the original enactment... and not the failed attempts to repeal it in whole... granted even Gruber admits, the individual mandate is the key requirement, which as we heard tonight again... is dead... all thanks to Obama's favorite tool... a pen and a phone.
Would you prefer ear muffs? Or to stick your head in the sand for a while longer? ... Because I wouldn't expect it to end anytime soon.
I'm sorry that you are in effect supporting a full 8 years of Trump.
Don't get me wrong... I'm no fan, unlike most of you Bernie Bro's, I can see that you are going to split the Democrat party into pieces... a fact no one on the right is going to shed a tear for.
Odd how again, your focus is on the 'big businesses'... and not say... the labor unions who also benefited from that... well until recently as the 'fair share fees' keep getting chiseled away at.
Except that refers to the name of one of the parties involved... again... why let facts get in the way of a good screed?
Honest question... for those thinking they only one because of gerrymandering or voter suppression... how would they be successful at such things if they hadn't won previously and been in a position to implement polices rules that they think benefit their own party?
Same Q can be asked about the Democrats... not 9 years ago there was talk of a permanent Democrat majority... which started to unfold come the 2010 election. During their time in power in different state or federal positions, they were not able to implement policies that they thought would benefit their own party? ... or were they just too honest and decent to do so? Or are they going about it from a different direction? https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Woosh... you utterly missed the point... but lets play along for a minute and ignore the fact I said "Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic".
I'm aware... in fact, I've got 'building DTV systems' on my resume from 2003-2007 so I am very aware of how their systems work, so much so that when a Comcast tech comes to my house (every 2 months for the last couple of years) I can provided more detailed signal monitoring logs than they have.
And? I've a couple of HDHomeRun's as well.. one in the next room with a CableCARD, the other out of state plugged into an antenna and a Raspberry Pi... do you have a point yet?
Serious question... which do you think costs more to maintain/expand: all of the wiring to/from houses & the head end and their private network... or from their private network to the different backbones? The answer may disturb you. Doubly so when you consider how much/little of their private network is physically private vs hosted on a public cloud service which is locked down via private routes.
Which is where the 'woosh' comes in of you completely missing the point. Yes, when I sit down on my X1 set top box or a other QAM capable receiver (ideally with a CableCARD)... there are a multitude of channels to be had... which are broadcast to all on the network, regardless of the potential receivers ability to decode the channel, or even if they are tuned to the channel or not. If my neighbor happens to tune to the local ABC eight and a half minutes into the program I am watching... there is no additional load on the system. If 10,000 people suddenly switch channels... ditto.
That isn't the problem.
Recall I said "you binge watching something via the X1 platform and your Comcast provided set top box doesn't". Again, specifically calling out their X1 platform... but this actually goes back older. When you opt to watch some VOD program... the DOCSIS part of the box kicks in. Lets imagine you and your neighbor sit down to watch the same VOD program at the same time in different houses, there is a doubling of cost upon the network. Don't believe me? Imagine your neighbor has an overactive bladder... so they pause frequently to take care of business... do you think the box would cache everything that was also simultaneously (in some's mind) being sent to you? Nope, the latest gen of X1 boxes don't even have a hard drive inside, instead streaming even DVR recordings from the 'private' cloud via DOCSIS.
If Aereo still existed... the DVR side of things might be an issue, but lets just skip it for a moment.
If that were true... wouldn't the MSM be pushing it a bit more? Instead we have CNN on what? Day 2 or 3 of talking about a white truck.
We could call him a 'grammar Nazi', to satisfy your ask... however I imagine he is more of a 'grammar Marxist' ;)
They also lacked specifics as to how Obama's NN rules made things worse.
Case in point... Comcast's bandwidth cap. 1 terabyte. You go over and you pay quite a bit for overages. Or for $50/month (at least in my area) more, you can have the cap removed. Already paying for the faster 'blast' speed tier? That just means you will hit the cap faster than those who don't.
Worse, this cap actually creates an environment beneficial to them and hostile to non Comcast streaming services... despite the rules.
Remember, the rules only covered internet traffic, on which Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, YouTube all traverse. The dirty little secret of the latest generation of Comcast boxes, is that they are pretty simple boxes with a cable modem inside which streams all but live shows. Even the latest generation of DVRs don't have a hard drive inside, they just stream from a private cloud. While your binge watching of something on Netflix traverses the public internet and counts against your bandwidth cap... you binge watching something via the X1 platform and your Comcast provided set top box doesn't. Sure, both use DOCSIS to communicate to the head office... one exits to the public internet, the other remains on a private network.
This means that as data usage increases due to higher degrees of consumption, cord cutting, or 4k video from streaming services, your use of Comcast's services is essentially 'free', while you only have a limited capacity for the external providers.
Welcome to the world which NN created.
Wait... Obama was a far right Christian?
You'd think given his eagerness to use a pen and a phone when he couldn't get his addenda passed legislatively, he would have done more to reduce the number of DEA raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in states where it was legal.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/sta...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.politico.com/story...
http://www.sfgate.com/politics...
Take off your hate goggles for a bit and look around a bit more.
I hope for your sake you are simply talking big on the internet... because if you act on what you are saying...
You are looking at assault charges at best, and getting you or your friend shot at worst.
Like many supportive of Antifa, you try to portray your actions as defensive or against evil... however under American law, self-defense goes out the window when there is no immediate threat. Do you fear they might act via the ballot box? That doesn't justify assault. Or do you think that at some point in the future they are going to go door to door, rounding up people they don't like and force them out of the country at gunpoint? Still doesn't justify assault when you are advocating for it.
Given the propensity and acceptance of masked violence on the left (Antifa being the latest incarnation), there is going to come a time when a pack of masked rioters in black are swinging clubs or rocks at someone on the ground who they view as an enemy, and there will be an armed person (likely on the other side, but possibly just a bystander) will see the immediate and potentially life threatening assault going on, draw their weapon and fire upon the attackers... possibly killing some.
Like it or not, what I describe above would likely lead to the shooter not even being charged, because acting in self-defense of ones self or others where there is a credible and/or immediate threat is generally justified. Beating someone who you think has bad ideas and may do something you disagree with in the future isn't.
It is still a production problem... it just depends on what kind of production.
Wind, solar and hydro are all great, in theory. For all three, you can rather quickly turn down the level of generation by disabling some turbines, closing some water outlets/inlets, or pointing solar panels in other directions... but they come with their own problems: requiring the wind to be blowing, the sun to be shining and the water levels to be high enough... they are good for peak & ideal times, but less so for base loads.
Nuclear is pretty straight forward... rods go in or out and affect the amount of heat generated. Heat leads to steam, steam can either be run through turbines depending on demand or dumped into environment (sorry to the poor birds flying by).
Natural gas, you can treat similarly (but not identically) in terms of turning down production and dumping excess steam if you don't want to run too much through your turbines.
Coal is a whole other matter. Load levels for coal are projected days and weeks into the future as you don't have the ease of a few pipes feeding the whole thing. You can slow the rate at which coal is added to the system, but what is there is going to keep burning for a while... and in the case of a low demand for the thermal energy... will often get dumped.
Source: Many long conversations with an uncle who be rather senior in a multi-state power co-op. While personally & professionally in favor of nuclear, he also understood the less than well known pitfalls of the other systems.
He was also the one who confirmed my theory on the silliness of 'Earth Hour'. Where such a sudden downturn in electrical consumption sees different carbon costs to dumping the thermal energy (though he is not a believer in man made 'climate change').
Nuclear: None
Natural gas: Low (given the ease of turning down the input).
Coal: High.
Keep that in mind: Quick & unexpected downturns in power consumption to save the earth, can actually result in a net positive expenditure of carbon emissions... and in this case, it may be more desirable to have people use the energy (either leaving their lights/heat on when not at home, mining for bitcoin, or looking for aliens with Seti@home) than have the thermal energy be dumped.
Did they serve pizza on the Lolita Express when Bill flew on it 26 times?
Great... if you targeted Kubernetes on day one. Oh you didn't? Because your software was built and working more than three years ago? or because you didn't take those things into consideration so early on? Darn.
It's still not impossible... just good luck to you.
This comic often comes to mind in such cases: https://dzone.com/articles/ent...
I've been part of a team which ported a legacy system, originally running on a single machine, then a cluster at a co-location site, to finally fully being in AWS... it was an amazing amount of work. Had it been known what platform options would exist years in the future... choices would have been different, though at the time they were focused on building a viable product, and not making sure they could hop infrastructure to infrastructure as the winds changed.
Can... but at what cost? Back in the days of Microsoft's dominance, companies could pick up and leave Windows... porting all of their software to *some random platform*, and paying oodles to their vendors to do the same.
How likely is that?
The dirty little secret of many cloud services is they are sticky... deliberately so.
You could port the custom _____ system your company made targeting AWS to Azure or something else... however unless the system was architected deliberately from the beginning with the idea of portability (which most cloud services are not).
Even if the platform is easy to re-target, the underlying data may not be.
I've been involved in projects where it was known up front that once customers have a few petabytes in one particular cloud, they were less incentivized to move.
I know reading is hard... but couldn't you even make it to the 6th paragraph of the article you linked to?
What is your opinion of the estate tax?