It's nice that the FCC is trying to bring about change, but device rental fees are a MASSIVE revenue stream for cable companies. IF they allow this, expect cable rates to go up $10/month. Or more.
And if they want to raise rates on that portion of their service, fine. We can decide if we want it based on its own inherent value. That's different than advertising a certain rate, but then you can't get service unless you pay a box ransom fee.
Feelings have nothing to do with it. I was just pointing out what seems to be done to excess here, and that is using sweeping generalizations when trying to make some point. Picking apart my initial response was an odd reply for someone that agrees.
Your petty comments after each line are just that, petty, and none of them speak to your original point about some fundamental (in their DNA) opposition that truck owners have to electrical. As I stated, and you seem to agree by avoiding the point, it makes no sense to generalize truck users as their are many differing requirements.
As to whether it make sense or not for Tesla to sell one, I really don't care nor did I say one way or the other.
Pickup buyers are not going to go electric, it's not in their DNA.
I see the mistake of trying to generalize the entire pickup market as one group. There are many groups. There are those who need pickups for their work. There are those who use primarily for recreation, sporting activities (transporting bikes/kayaks/camping etc). There are those (like me) who have an old pickup but its not the primary driver, to handle a number of things such as hauling, camping, etc (if you don't drive it much, efficiency is less important). There are those who are simply truck enthusiasts, of whom some like bigger powerful trucks, some like luxury trucks and simply like the feel of driving a truck. There are some who found a small pickup to be more economical than a car and handy as well.
Most of those folks might very well buy and electric truck if it could suit their usage patterns and was economical. I'd buy one if it met my needs and budget.
Because renting is expensive. Because renting is very inconvenient, particularly if you have no rental places nearby (as I do). Because rental places don't always have the car you need when you need it. Because sometimes I need to leave on short notice. Because I like to drive my own vehicle, which I am comfortable with, I know how it handles, I bought it because I want to drive it. Because I already have all my stuff in my vehicle and I don't want to move transfer it twice just to go on a trip. Because my vehicle is sitting in my driveway and i can load it up at my convenience, I can start a day before my trip if necessary and I can leave stuff in it upon my return. Because I'd have to sign a contract and be responsible for a vehicle that is not mine. Because if I scrape a fender I have a complete bureaucratic and expensive mess on my hands rather than being able to handle it all myself.
Now, any, many, or few might apply to any given person. I really don't care if they do or don't.
Another way to help people is always welcome. I'm not sure the Get Well Card industry would agree with redirecting their income though. The 'Big Card' lobby will fight this!
It seems that they actually were in a position to quickly identify and respond to the threat. That doesn't happen by accident. And without knowing details of the attack, many here will simply make unfounded assumptions about what was done wrong.
There are plenty of cable routing/tracking tools that are used for design and construction of facilities. Its fairly simple but does require discipline to use it even if they decide to change a cable route or type, etc. But if they had done it right, they'd know already which cables in place can be re-used for some of the future needs.
So at best he is working from a flawed data set that has to make a load of assumptions and guesses.
I'm not sure the study was even necessary, as it is stating the obvious. I've always known that certain conspiracies theories are completely ridiculous just based on the number of people that would have to be involved. Of course, there are those prone to believe in conspiracies, to whom simple logical analysis doesn't apply.
Schools started not having class in summer well before AC was common. I assume a hot summer classroom was not an ideal learning experience, plus a lot of farm kids were needed at home during the summer months.
Let the schools have it. For a good part of the year the schools are in use during solar peaks anyhow (unlike homes), and during the summer they conserve as best they can, so they could pad their budgets a bit on top of the power savings.
Start with low income area, struggling schools first.
I think there is a good market out there for a very thin monitor driven by an auxilliary box with only one thin cable between the two. Yes, there would be a chunk of the market that just wants an integrated TV, but even Joe Average these days is often using an AVR and/or soundbar. The high end market is competitive, there is room no doubt. There are also a crapload of housewives that would like a thin monitor flat on the wall.
Solar subsidies like paying rooftop solar producers retail rates is a wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy. It's time for it to stop.
We are essentially paying part of the power bills for those people who are in a position to install solar and take advantage of all the financial help. I have always felt the best thing to do is take all that solar incentive money and use it to buy solar panels for schools. Then the schools get the financial benefit, we still get solar panels installed, and those that want solar in their homes will still install it (if it is as good a deal as the solar industry claims).
If you mean "minimum load" then, yes, they're ahead because they never send any to the grid in the first place. If you men "their average load," not so -- they're paying for the extra KW when the air conditioning kicks on and getting back a fraction when the AC is off.So in the course of an hour, they're behind by quite a bit.
They are way ahead of where they'd be if they had to use batteries to store their power instead of depending on the grid, which make the whole approach viable to start with.
Oil, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear ALL benefit from government subsidies and regulations. It's the only reason our power grid covers the majority of our nation, as it would never have been "economically" feasible otherwise. If you don't believe that, just look at high speed internet and how many areas are under served not because they can't be profitable, but because they're not profitable enough, if you have to build the infrastructure too.
This is where the government beats industry, determining social benefits that override economic ones, and championing them.
And another reason that ALL forms of generation get subsidized is that the government knows the lower cost, reliable and available power is key to a thriving economy. Renewables get much greater subsidies that any other source has gotten or is getting if you calculate in on a MWH generated and to be generated basis. Of course, renewables subsidies are more based on carbon reduction than cost reduction and availability/reliability.
And, in the middle of the day, ask yourself, where is most of that power being consumed? In the home or in commercial properties, industry, and businesses? Most people size their residential solar to handle their own usage, but they have excess during the day when they are not at home, and their neighbors are not at home.
Probably is perfectly appropriate when we are talking about overall behavior, as there are always exceptions when talking individual homes.
They wouldn't have *had* to build to handle power coming back if the entire system had been allowed to naturally turn into a power circuit instead of an out and back again distribution network.
The argument was that you were supplying the electricity right at the point of consumption (it just flows to your neighbor), hence you aren't incurring all of the transmission costs of typical retail power.
That argument doesnt hold water. Even local neighborhood infrastructure has a significant cost. When excess solar is available from one home is probably when it is least needed in nearby homes, and solar itself still depends on support from the greater generation/transmission system to be economically viable to begin with as battery storage is still cost prohibitve.
You misunderstood. The smarts can still exist in the box where the tuners are and the video processing occurs. The only piece that would be eliminated is the speakers.
so like a samsung TV + samsung evolution kit? They release a new evolution kit every 1 - 2 years to give the TV support for newest cabling standards and codecs. (that's about all i know about it, so don't ask me additional questions)
i think this is a step in the right direction; if it does what i'm hoping it does, i would no longer be afraid to buy an expensive TV. at the moment, i refuse to buy something that won't support standards common in 2 years. this gives one a path of upgradability.
Kind of like that, but take it out of the monitor cabinet and move it to a box to place by the AVR.
what you're describing is called a computer monitor.
I'm surprised there aren't a lot of 'monitor only' media products. No need for mine to have speakers or smarts, just on/off and video processing & picture adjustments. In fact, I'd like to see a thinner product that moves all the tuner/video processor/inputs to a separate box.
Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns.
That kind of statement, which is far from reality, is rooted in the inability to understand that a very large number of thoughtful, educated, and engaged citizens are against gun control. It makes those that are for it feel better about themselves, I suppose.
I have a gun that I inhereted from my Dad. It is kept in a safe place, unloaded, and the ammo is in a separate safe place. I don't see sense in legislating smartguns, but I certainly would entertain having one.
I also call BS on the statement that 'nobody will want them' is a primary argument of those against legislation. I've never heard that argument.
Slashdot Mirror
If Apply does make a car, they should call it the Apple "Peeler".
It's nice that the FCC is trying to bring about change, but device rental fees are a MASSIVE revenue stream for cable companies. IF they allow this, expect cable rates to go up $10/month. Or more.
And if they want to raise rates on that portion of their service, fine. We can decide if we want it based on its own inherent value. That's different than advertising a certain rate, but then you can't get service unless you pay a box ransom fee.
Feelings have nothing to do with it. I was just pointing out what seems to be done to excess here, and that is using sweeping generalizations when trying to make some point. Picking apart my initial response was an odd reply for someone that agrees.
Your petty comments after each line are just that, petty, and none of them speak to your original point about some fundamental (in their DNA) opposition that truck owners have to electrical. As I stated, and you seem to agree by avoiding the point, it makes no sense to generalize truck users as their are many differing requirements.
As to whether it make sense or not for Tesla to sell one, I really don't care nor did I say one way or the other.
Pickup buyers are not going to go electric, it's not in their DNA.
I see the mistake of trying to generalize the entire pickup market as one group. There are many groups. There are those who need pickups for their work. There are those who use primarily for recreation, sporting activities (transporting bikes/kayaks/camping etc). There are those (like me) who have an old pickup but its not the primary driver, to handle a number of things such as hauling, camping, etc (if you don't drive it much, efficiency is less important). There are those who are simply truck enthusiasts, of whom some like bigger powerful trucks, some like luxury trucks and simply like the feel of driving a truck. There are some who found a small pickup to be more economical than a car and handy as well.
Most of those folks might very well buy and electric truck if it could suit their usage patterns and was economical. I'd buy one if it met my needs and budget.
You can't think of any reasons? Here are a few;
Because renting is expensive. Because renting is very inconvenient, particularly if you have no rental places nearby (as I do). Because rental places don't always have the car you need when you need it. Because sometimes I need to leave on short notice. Because I like to drive my own vehicle, which I am comfortable with, I know how it handles, I bought it because I want to drive it. Because I already have all my stuff in my vehicle and I don't want to move transfer it twice just to go on a trip. Because my vehicle is sitting in my driveway and i can load it up at my convenience, I can start a day before my trip if necessary and I can leave stuff in it upon my return. Because I'd have to sign a contract and be responsible for a vehicle that is not mine. Because if I scrape a fender I have a complete bureaucratic and expensive mess on my hands rather than being able to handle it all myself.
Now, any, many, or few might apply to any given person. I really don't care if they do or don't.
Another way to help people is always welcome. I'm not sure the Get Well Card industry would agree with redirecting their income though. The 'Big Card' lobby will fight this!
It seems that they actually were in a position to quickly identify and respond to the threat. That doesn't happen by accident. And without knowing details of the attack, many here will simply make unfounded assumptions about what was done wrong.
There are plenty of cable routing/tracking tools that are used for design and construction of facilities. Its fairly simple but does require discipline to use it even if they decide to change a cable route or type, etc. But if they had done it right, they'd know already which cables in place can be re-used for some of the future needs.
So at best he is working from a flawed data set that has to make a load of assumptions and guesses.
I'm not sure the study was even necessary, as it is stating the obvious. I've always known that certain conspiracies theories are completely ridiculous just based on the number of people that would have to be involved. Of course, there are those prone to believe in conspiracies, to whom simple logical analysis doesn't apply.
http://time.com/3997033/conspi...
Schools started not having class in summer well before AC was common. I assume a hot summer classroom was not an ideal learning experience, plus a lot of farm kids were needed at home during the summer months.
Let the schools have it. For a good part of the year the schools are in use during solar peaks anyhow (unlike homes), and during the summer they conserve as best they can, so they could pad their budgets a bit on top of the power savings.
Start with low income area, struggling schools first.
I think there is a good market out there for a very thin monitor driven by an auxilliary box with only one thin cable between the two. Yes, there would be a chunk of the market that just wants an integrated TV, but even Joe Average these days is often using an AVR and/or soundbar. The high end market is competitive, there is room no doubt. There are also a crapload of housewives that would like a thin monitor flat on the wall.
Solar subsidies like paying rooftop solar producers retail rates is a wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy. It's time for it to stop.
We are essentially paying part of the power bills for those people who are in a position to install solar and take advantage of all the financial help. I have always felt the best thing to do is take all that solar incentive money and use it to buy solar panels for schools. Then the schools get the financial benefit, we still get solar panels installed, and those that want solar in their homes will still install it (if it is as good a deal as the solar industry claims).
If you mean "minimum load" then, yes, they're ahead because they never send any to the grid in the first place. If you men "their average load," not so -- they're paying for the extra KW when the air conditioning kicks on and getting back a fraction when the AC is off.So in the course of an hour, they're behind by quite a bit.
They are way ahead of where they'd be if they had to use batteries to store their power instead of depending on the grid, which make the whole approach viable to start with.
Oil, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear ALL benefit from government subsidies and regulations. It's the only reason our power grid covers the majority of our nation, as it would never have been "economically" feasible otherwise. If you don't believe that, just look at high speed internet and how many areas are under served not because they can't be profitable, but because they're not profitable enough, if you have to build the infrastructure too.
This is where the government beats industry, determining social benefits that override economic ones, and championing them.
And another reason that ALL forms of generation get subsidized is that the government knows the lower cost, reliable and available power is key to a thriving economy. Renewables get much greater subsidies that any other source has gotten or is getting if you calculate in on a MWH generated and to be generated basis. Of course, renewables subsidies are more based on carbon reduction than cost reduction and availability/reliability.
And, in the middle of the day, ask yourself, where is most of that power being consumed? In the home or in commercial properties, industry, and businesses? Most people size their residential solar to handle their own usage, but they have excess during the day when they are not at home, and their neighbors are not at home.
Probably is perfectly appropriate when we are talking about overall behavior, as there are always exceptions when talking individual homes.
They wouldn't have *had* to build to handle power coming back if the entire system had been allowed to naturally turn into a power circuit instead of an out and back again distribution network.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
The argument was that you were supplying the electricity right at the point of consumption (it just flows to your neighbor), hence you aren't incurring all of the transmission costs of typical retail power.
That argument doesnt hold water. Even local neighborhood infrastructure has a significant cost. When excess solar is available from one home is probably when it is least needed in nearby homes, and solar itself still depends on support from the greater generation/transmission system to be economically viable to begin with as battery storage is still cost prohibitve.
You misunderstood. The smarts can still exist in the box where the tuners are and the video processing occurs. The only piece that would be eliminated is the speakers.
so like a samsung TV + samsung evolution kit? They release a new evolution kit every 1 - 2 years to give the TV support for newest cabling standards and codecs. (that's about all i know about it, so don't ask me additional questions)
i think this is a step in the right direction; if it does what i'm hoping it does, i would no longer be afraid to buy an expensive TV. at the moment, i refuse to buy something that won't support standards common in 2 years. this gives one a path of upgradability.
Kind of like that, but take it out of the monitor cabinet and move it to a box to place by the AVR.
what you're describing is called a computer monitor.
I'm surprised there aren't a lot of 'monitor only' media products. No need for mine to have speakers or smarts, just on/off and video processing & picture adjustments. In fact, I'd like to see a thinner product that moves all the tuner/video processor/inputs to a separate box.
Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns.
That kind of statement, which is far from reality, is rooted in the inability to understand that a very large number of thoughtful, educated, and engaged citizens are against gun control. It makes those that are for it feel better about themselves, I suppose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yup, EMPs have been created, nobody is arguing that. Now, where exactly does it say what it takes to take out the entire grid?
I have a gun that I inhereted from my Dad. It is kept in a safe place, unloaded, and the ammo is in a separate safe place. I don't see sense in legislating smartguns, but I certainly would entertain having one.
I also call BS on the statement that 'nobody will want them' is a primary argument of those against legislation. I've never heard that argument.