How about personal freedom. How about you have a right to your own body. If you can abort a fetus certainly you can decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette.
Its not like they are going to ban them, so you will be able to exercise that right. They simply will put in a age limit, which makes sense, and require warning labels.
The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes.
I have no problem with regulating them, as they have been shown to be quite habit forming for the under-age. Allowing legal purchase only over a certain age makes complete sense to me. They are not being banned.
Of course, with regulation comes a good excuse to levy new taxes to pay for it.
Of course they chose to not report it, but don't think for a second they would to the same for Trump. If you haven't seen them pass along things in that manner many times in the past you'd have to be blind.
They reported the claim, they reported is was not verified. If he actually made the claim then they are both accurate. If you want to see poor reporting, how about repeating third party claims with no mention or attempt to even discuss verification. We see that from all the news organizations, but I suppose that does not bother you when it suits your agenda.
That discussion you are imagining never took place with me invovled. I had and still have only one point to make in this thread, and that is when comparing the cost of energy, you must use MWh.
Not having a very clear option/choice up front before it deletes local content is pretty bad if that's the case. There are many obvious reasons to keep a local copy. It is one way for Cook to achieve the 'can't live without' goal.
So, it appears at least they reported accurately and fully disclosed. Lets watch if other news agencies so explicitly include that type of information going forward when accusing others of things.
The question now is, which criminal do we believe? Hillary or the Hacker?
It doesn't rain in Dubai. Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy, which then use it to create steam to run generators.
The project appears to be PV, not CSP. CSP has seen its share of challenges, and it is more expensive than PV. CSP is pretty much dead in the US;
Well, it certainly does always come down to money of course. ESPN has been quite reluctant to move outside its cable world because of the overall lucrative Disney contracts with cable. They knew, as did the cable companies, that sports kept a lot of subscribers, so in essence that formed a content lock of ESPN sports tied to cable. Even ESPN3 required a cable TV account.
But, now ESPN itself is not enough to keep so many cable subscribers paying those high cable bills. So ESPN has to start moving to IPTV, thus breaking the lock. Its only a matter of time before FOX Sports moves in that direction.
Yes, there are also technical challenges with streaming. Those will be addressed. I think a lot of customers will be OK with paying a lot less and getting lower quality video. I watch a lot on ESPN3 and, while clearly a step back from true HDTV, it satisfies my hunger for watching my teams. The technical issues will be dealt with as IPTV sports expands. There will be a lot of challenges along the way.
In this case, very low per MWh bids are most likely going to have a requirement to purchase 100% of the output for a very long period. But low bids often come with other terms that can easily show up as change-orders or cost adders. Things like riders for covering costs for maintenance or natural events come to mind, but contract writers can be quite clever.
But if they can use the power that time of day, which is likely, it might be a very good deal. Considering they have very high costs for coal, which I assume is do to shipping it from afar.
There are different ways to look at it. Aren't all decisions are based (largely) on past influences? Maybe when things matter less, we spend less time thinking about it, and then certain influences become stronger. If we allow that to happen willingly, isn't that still free will? If I willingly allow myself to be guided down a path, its still free will. If I don't care and let others take over so I don't have to think, that's free will as well.
There can be suggestions made to you before you choose that animal that will, unknowing to you, push you to choose a certain one. You certainly made that choice of your own free will, IMO, but you just don't realize certain influences of the extent of how much they impacted your decision. In that sense, we fool ourselves, which could be called an illusion.
Uggh. So, if there are two houses on one lot, you would call that one house, or one building? If that is how you twist reality when its convenient, I guess there is no point in discussion of the facts.
Football fans need more than just ESPN. During the college and pro seasons I watch multiple ESPN stations, FoxSports, the NFL Network, and all of the broadcast networks that broadcast games live..
I think once the scales start tipping enough. Those other sports networks are gong to have to move like ESPN is doing. They can't afford to lose younger viewers, because they may not get them back. I used to think it would be locked up a lot longer but I'm starting to see the ice break.
I used to think that, but that was before they started cutting their movie selection and wasting money on a handful of self-made shows instead. Now it's just turning into Hulu.
I never really watched much of the movie content anyhow. I watch much more TV series and original content. I am happy with them producing more, I hope a lot more.
If Netflix provided the movie theatre experience, I would cancel my service.
Ha!. I was wondering why that would even be mentioned. I suppose if they really wanted a movie experience, they'd need to do it via Oculus Rift, where you can look around at all the people disturbing you, and maybe even get stuck in a bad seat.
With ESPN now talking to HULU, we are moving closer to a break of the sports content lock that cable has held, and hopefully we'll have IPTV choices to suit our needs from true competitors. Cable is going to have to adjust. With smartphone habits overtaking TV watching anyhow, its a matter of time.
Fish, with question mark, was just a suggested answer. No, meat was not implied, actually getting it from the sea was kind of implied as that would not require significant land use. But biological feed was meant as plant or animal matter.
Most of the processes suggested require their own land use input at some point, unless it is a sea based input, even if we are just talking about the basic nutrient feed. Unless you farm the sea for the feed, I don't see getting a 99% reduction in land use.
Maybe just yeast would be better, eliminating the extraction processing steps. To produce yeast en-mass requires its own processing, molasses and other nutrients. I still see land use required in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
How about personal freedom. How about you have a right to your own body. If you can abort a fetus certainly you can decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette.
Its not like they are going to ban them, so you will be able to exercise that right. They simply will put in a age limit, which makes sense, and require warning labels.
The only reason they are being treated with suspicion is the believe that they will de-stigmatize smoking of actual cigarettes.
I have no problem with regulating them, as they have been shown to be quite habit forming for the under-age. Allowing legal purchase only over a certain age makes complete sense to me. They are not being banned.
Of course, with regulation comes a good excuse to levy new taxes to pay for it.
Of course they chose to not report it, but don't think for a second they would to the same for Trump. If you haven't seen them pass along things in that manner many times in the past you'd have to be blind.
Sorry, your claim was: to compare the cost of building a plant, you need to use MWh.
A complete fabrication by you. Point to where in this discussion I said that. If you can't, please apologize and then stop.
They reported the claim, they reported is was not verified. If he actually made the claim then they are both accurate. If you want to see poor reporting, how about repeating third party claims with no mention or attempt to even discuss verification. We see that from all the news organizations, but I suppose that does not bother you when it suits your agenda.
That discussion you are imagining never took place with me invovled. I had and still have only one point to make in this thread, and that is when comparing the cost of energy, you must use MWh.
Not having a very clear option/choice up front before it deletes local content is pretty bad if that's the case. There are many obvious reasons to keep a local copy. It is one way for Cook to achieve the 'can't live without' goal.
This seems like another example of the cure being worse than the disease.
So, it appears at least they reported accurately and fully disclosed. Lets watch if other news agencies so explicitly include that type of information going forward when accusing others of things.
The question now is, which criminal do we believe? Hillary or the Hacker?
It doesn't rain in Dubai. Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy, which then use it to create steam to run generators.
The project appears to be PV, not CSP. CSP has seen its share of challenges, and it is more expensive than PV. CSP is pretty much dead in the US;
https://www.technologyreview.c...
The only "content lock" is money.
Well, it certainly does always come down to money of course. ESPN has been quite reluctant to move outside its cable world because of the overall lucrative Disney contracts with cable. They knew, as did the cable companies, that sports kept a lot of subscribers, so in essence that formed a content lock of ESPN sports tied to cable. Even ESPN3 required a cable TV account.
But, now ESPN itself is not enough to keep so many cable subscribers paying those high cable bills. So ESPN has to start moving to IPTV, thus breaking the lock. Its only a matter of time before FOX Sports moves in that direction.
Yes, there are also technical challenges with streaming. Those will be addressed. I think a lot of customers will be OK with paying a lot less and getting lower quality video. I watch a lot on ESPN3 and, while clearly a step back from true HDTV, it satisfies my hunger for watching my teams. The technical issues will be dealt with as IPTV sports expands. There will be a lot of challenges along the way.
In this case, very low per MWh bids are most likely going to have a requirement to purchase 100% of the output for a very long period. But low bids often come with other terms that can easily show up as change-orders or cost adders. Things like riders for covering costs for maintenance or natural events come to mind, but contract writers can be quite clever.
But if they can use the power that time of day, which is likely, it might be a very good deal. Considering they have very high costs for coal, which I assume is do to shipping it from afar.
There are different ways to look at it. Aren't all decisions are based (largely) on past influences? Maybe when things matter less, we spend less time thinking about it, and then certain influences become stronger. If we allow that to happen willingly, isn't that still free will? If I willingly allow myself to be guided down a path, its still free will. If I don't care and let others take over so I don't have to think, that's free will as well.
There can be suggestions made to you before you choose that animal that will, unknowing to you, push you to choose a certain one. You certainly made that choice of your own free will, IMO, but you just don't realize certain influences of the extent of how much they impacted your decision. In that sense, we fool ourselves, which could be called an illusion.
Free Willy was just story, it wasn't real.
Uggh. So, if there are two houses on one lot, you would call that one house, or one building? If that is how you twist reality when its convenient, I guess there is no point in discussion of the facts.
Football fans need more than just ESPN. During the college and pro seasons I watch multiple ESPN stations, FoxSports, the NFL Network, and all of the broadcast networks that broadcast games live..
I think once the scales start tipping enough. Those other sports networks are gong to have to move like ESPN is doing. They can't afford to lose younger viewers, because they may not get them back. I used to think it would be locked up a lot longer but I'm starting to see the ice break.
I used to think that, but that was before they started cutting their movie selection and wasting money on a handful of self-made shows instead. Now it's just turning into Hulu.
I never really watched much of the movie content anyhow. I watch much more TV series and original content. I am happy with them producing more, I hope a lot more.
If Netflix provided the movie theatre experience, I would cancel my service.
Ha!. I was wondering why that would even be mentioned. I suppose if they really wanted a movie experience, they'd need to do it via Oculus Rift, where you can look around at all the people disturbing you, and maybe even get stuck in a bad seat.
With ESPN now talking to HULU, we are moving closer to a break of the sports content lock that cable has held, and hopefully we'll have IPTV choices to suit our needs from true competitors. Cable is going to have to adjust. With smartphone habits overtaking TV watching anyhow, its a matter of time.
Yeah, I had some tangential thought in mind and just stuck in in there, but yes, it is out of place. My apologies.
I facepalmed the quote from the summary, which I quoted.
because Temperature is inseparable from Pressure when determining the boiling point.
Fish, with question mark, was just a suggested answer. No, meat was not implied, actually getting it from the sea was kind of implied as that would not require significant land use. But biological feed was meant as plant or animal matter.
Most of the processes suggested require their own land use input at some point, unless it is a sea based input, even if we are just talking about the basic nutrient feed. Unless you farm the sea for the feed, I don't see getting a 99% reduction in land use.
Maybe just yeast would be better, eliminating the extraction processing steps. To produce yeast en-mass requires its own processing, molasses and other nutrients. I still see land use required in the end.