It certainly doesn't make sense to plow money in to maintaining roads that are not being used. But there is also a cost with abandoning roads, so the overall benefit must be determined on a road by road basis. But that certainly is a departure from the general assumption that we must maintain all roads.
Do you shut down a road, or let it die a slow death?
I have and use both devices. FireTV is best for sitting back and watching Movies, etc. I like the Chromecast better when I am 'surfing' around youtube or bouncing back and forth between ESPN3 streams, as you can find the next up item on your tablet whilst the existing video is playing. It is particularly nice when exploring music videos on Youtube.
The Chromecast tab-casting features are nice in the kitchen, where my wife will pull up a recipe on her laptop and show it on the kitchen TV. FireTV casting features are clumsy to get started.
You can load Kodi on the FireTV. If I could only have one, I'd have to keep the FTV.
Yes, Kodi is primarily targeted for those who put their movie collections on a LAN server. It is also very nice for playing your music collection.
There are plugins for KODI, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and others, that provide a nice way to stream internet video from a wide variety of places, as well as internet radio plugins. Plugins for the network tv shows that are streamed free exist, so you can watch Shark Tank episodes. The performance of those plugins varies, but there are a lot to choose from and can provide and entertaining browse on occasion.
Best thing.... its free. So you can try it with no risk.
Again - the point of the government is to manage society working together. You are effectively saying "I don't want to be part of a society or attempt to contribute anything to it".
No, and I don't see how you could possibly read that into my responses. I could take the same approach and assume that you are OK with any and all tax credits, no matter what they are for, or who benefits the most... but that would be just as ridiculous.
I fully understand the usefulness of incentives and subsidies. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them, or how they are implemented. I disagree with how renewables incentives are structured. I don't disagree with having them at all. I see now a policy that favors the wealthy and is not accessible to huge groups of people. I don't like that.
If I use my money to take the risks and inves,t and I make money, then it is I who will pay for whatever I use that money for. If FB wants to pay their power bill via investments, that would be absolutely wonderful and I'd be all behind that. But that is much different than getting a handout.
From what little I've read, China also has a real-estate bubble situation, so that could compound their issues if the market doesn't start seeing some support or rebound.
Of course, they are not powered only by renewables, but also by the conventional grid when wind is not blowing. The windmills happen to generate more than need during certain times, so they take credit for that.
That's all fine, but they don't say how many taxpayer $$ are taken to help pay this power bill. I don't use facebook and I don't want my tax $$ paying for their power. They have plenty of money to afford this higher cost option without government help.
I think there are folks that just buy 'the newest thing' and don't really think much about its real world usefulness. Nothing wrong with those folks, but they are certainly very likely to buy stuff that eventually fails because most new products do fail, and many truly innovative products get outclassed by following products.
Like I said, I was clearly not talking about HEVs. Why you could not catch on to the obvious is not something I care to debate. I perfectly understand there are different classes of vehicles, again you are just stating the obvious, but that does not require one to only discuss all of them as a whole. Your inability to separate them in this discussion is your problem, not mine. I know exactly which vehicles I am talking about, and I have explicitly told you.
If you want to discuss the market issues with HEV's, that is a different debate and there are a different, but overlapping, set of reasons for lagging sales. It would be stupid to conflate that discussion with a discussion of pure EVs.
As I've said before in most of the EVs I'm actually talking about range is not an issue at all because they have a gas tank.
NO THEY DON'T. Hybrids Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have gas tanks, Electric Vehicles (EVs) don't. If you want to tout your technology you'd better be more precise in what you are talking about to start with.
I personally think EVs are a great technology, than that they are evolving more and more to meet the greater market need, but are not yet to the point where they do meet the needs of the larger market segments. And the real world data from the market reflects that. I can accept that there is something to learn about the product itself from what the market tells us, you clearly don't think so. And you rely on conflating EVs with HEVs to make you points. I have clearly been discussing EVs all along, even told you that, and you still conflate because you know your arguments don't stand when talking about EVs. So, as I said, good day.
I don't think you understood my point. I certainly was not comparing the risks nor the exposure to them, nor debating the accuracy of stats or how they are presented. That is a different discussion and I don't disagree with your take.
IN that frame, I think you will find that vulnerability is not the defining factor when it comes to peoples interest in shark attacks. You'll find that surfers and farmers alike are more interested in shark attack stories than fatal bee stings. Mountain hikers and city slickers are more interested in bear attack stories, and so forth. It has little to do with accuracy of risk perception, and more to do with the nature of the event.
People don't care if shark attacks are less of a risk than bees. Sharks are friggin predators and predator attacks are what rings people's bells. Maybe it is an instinctual thing.
Sharks, grizzly bears, mountain lions, alligators, wolves.. attacks on humans get big news. Bees are not scary. A swarm of killer bees maybe, cause that seems more 'predatorial'.
It doesn't mean we run around scared of these things, it just gets our attention. The biggest 'predator' (in quotes because its not a food thing) of humans is humans. And they are all around us!
Most folks understand that the risk of shark bite is very small. They continue to swim even with the media reports. But when there a multiple shark bites in a relatively small area in a short period of time, and those bites resulted in very serious injuries, it is only natural for a person in that area to hesitate to let their kids in the water. In that case, there helps to be some re-assurance that it is an anomaly or a spike caused by some temporary environmental change, rather than a trend. So it is good that the media is also reporting various attempts to explain the spike.
Shark bites get media attention because that is what people want to read about. Don't just blame the media.
Slashdot Mirror
There are few things that bug me more than a page load delay waiting for an ad url to respond.
It certainly doesn't make sense to plow money in to maintaining roads that are not being used. But there is also a cost with abandoning roads, so the overall benefit must be determined on a road by road basis. But that certainly is a departure from the general assumption that we must maintain all roads.
Do you shut down a road, or let it die a slow death?
and/or change the email address in the account and see if the messages start coming to the new address.
LOL... I didn't see those drivers coming!
Do you think you'll be able to get one on Mars?
How many drivers does it take to drive a driverless car?
...and those that want to believe the lies will find more reasons to do so.
I have and use both devices. FireTV is best for sitting back and watching Movies, etc. I like the Chromecast better when I am 'surfing' around youtube or bouncing back and forth between ESPN3 streams, as you can find the next up item on your tablet whilst the existing video is playing. It is particularly nice when exploring music videos on Youtube.
The Chromecast tab-casting features are nice in the kitchen, where my wife will pull up a recipe on her laptop and show it on the kitchen TV. FireTV casting features are clumsy to get started.
You can load Kodi on the FireTV. If I could only have one, I'd have to keep the FTV.
Yes, Kodi is primarily targeted for those who put their movie collections on a LAN server. It is also very nice for playing your music collection.
There are plugins for KODI, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and others, that provide a nice way to stream internet video from a wide variety of places, as well as internet radio plugins. Plugins for the network tv shows that are streamed free exist, so you can watch Shark Tank episodes. The performance of those plugins varies, but there are a lot to choose from and can provide and entertaining browse on occasion.
Best thing.... its free. So you can try it with no risk.
Again - the point of the government is to manage society working together. You are effectively saying "I don't want to be part of a society or attempt to contribute anything to it".
No, and I don't see how you could possibly read that into my responses. I could take the same approach and assume that you are OK with any and all tax credits, no matter what they are for, or who benefits the most... but that would be just as ridiculous.
I fully understand the usefulness of incentives and subsidies. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them, or how they are implemented. I disagree with how renewables incentives are structured. I don't disagree with having them at all. I see now a policy that favors the wealthy and is not accessible to huge groups of people. I don't like that.
I don't know the government subsidy/tax credit, what is the law in Texas regarding wind power? Is there any real subsidy?
There are a variety of renewables credits/subsidies, both federal and state. You can find some of the choices here (this is the Texas list);
http://energy.gov/savings/sear...
If I use my money to take the risks and inves,t and I make money, then it is I who will pay for whatever I use that money for. If FB wants to pay their power bill via investments, that would be absolutely wonderful and I'd be all behind that. But that is much different than getting a handout.
From what little I've read, China also has a real-estate bubble situation, so that could compound their issues if the market doesn't start seeing some support or rebound.
I don't want to pay FB's power bill. Period. I have nothing against renewables. I don't want increased taxes anywhere.
I think if we are going to use our tax $$ to pay for power bills, it should be limited to public schools, and maybe lower income people.
Of course, they are not powered only by renewables, but also by the conventional grid when wind is not blowing. The windmills happen to generate more than need during certain times, so they take credit for that.
That's all fine, but they don't say how many taxpayer $$ are taken to help pay this power bill. I don't use facebook and I don't want my tax $$ paying for their power. They have plenty of money to afford this higher cost option without government help.
I RTFA but they didn't mention any energy storage component. What do they do when the wind isn't ideal?
You create wind using accounting tricks.
It may be attractive, but it is not very promising.
So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about.
Where are we gonna put the solar panels?
I think there are folks that just buy 'the newest thing' and don't really think much about its real world usefulness. Nothing wrong with those folks, but they are certainly very likely to buy stuff that eventually fails because most new products do fail, and many truly innovative products get outclassed by following products.
My Zune still works fine and I'm typing this on a first gen SurfacePro,.....
So, what new products have you bought recently?
Like I said, I was clearly not talking about HEVs. Why you could not catch on to the obvious is not something I care to debate. I perfectly understand there are different classes of vehicles, again you are just stating the obvious, but that does not require one to only discuss all of them as a whole. Your inability to separate them in this discussion is your problem, not mine. I know exactly which vehicles I am talking about, and I have explicitly told you.
If you want to discuss the market issues with HEV's, that is a different debate and there are a different, but overlapping, set of reasons for lagging sales. It would be stupid to conflate that discussion with a discussion of pure EVs.
As I've said before in most of the EVs I'm actually talking about range is not an issue at all because they have a gas tank.
NO THEY DON'T. Hybrids Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have gas tanks, Electric Vehicles (EVs) don't. If you want to tout your technology you'd better be more precise in what you are talking about to start with.
I personally think EVs are a great technology, than that they are evolving more and more to meet the greater market need, but are not yet to the point where they do meet the needs of the larger market segments. And the real world data from the market reflects that. I can accept that there is something to learn about the product itself from what the market tells us, you clearly don't think so. And you rely on conflating EVs with HEVs to make you points. I have clearly been discussing EVs all along, even told you that, and you still conflate because you know your arguments don't stand when talking about EVs. So, as I said, good day.
I don't think you understood my point. I certainly was not comparing the risks nor the exposure to them, nor debating the accuracy of stats or how they are presented. That is a different discussion and I don't disagree with your take.
IN that frame, I think you will find that vulnerability is not the defining factor when it comes to peoples interest in shark attacks. You'll find that surfers and farmers alike are more interested in shark attack stories than fatal bee stings. Mountain hikers and city slickers are more interested in bear attack stories, and so forth. It has little to do with accuracy of risk perception, and more to do with the nature of the event.
People don't care if shark attacks are less of a risk than bees. Sharks are friggin predators and predator attacks are what rings people's bells. Maybe it is an instinctual thing.
Sharks, grizzly bears, mountain lions, alligators, wolves.. attacks on humans get big news. Bees are not scary. A swarm of killer bees maybe, cause that seems more 'predatorial'.
It doesn't mean we run around scared of these things, it just gets our attention. The biggest 'predator' (in quotes because its not a food thing) of humans is humans. And they are all around us!
Most folks understand that the risk of shark bite is very small. They continue to swim even with the media reports. But when there a multiple shark bites in a relatively small area in a short period of time, and those bites resulted in very serious injuries, it is only natural for a person in that area to hesitate to let their kids in the water. In that case, there helps to be some re-assurance that it is an anomaly or a spike caused by some temporary environmental change, rather than a trend. So it is good that the media is also reporting various attempts to explain the spike.
Shark bites get media attention because that is what people want to read about. Don't just blame the media.