All it will take is some enterprising megacorp with the legal muscle to patent this combo (and defend the patents) and you can effectively raised margin on concrete 10x at least.
Why would someone pay 10x the markup on concrete when properly done concrete lasts a decade, and when it needs repair it's usually not due to 'cracking' but structural problems (roots, water, bulging soil, etc.) that won't be fixed with something like this?
(assuming it's $1 profit a 50lb bag, people aren't going to start paying 3x current prices for cement. I don't care how good it is, people won't do it due to the time until return.)
It may have application, but in a very limited use (dams, bridges, and that sort of thing? you'd have to make it water-resistant) where repair/replacement is impossible.
I think the next time I'm (fucking) forced to fly (for work), I'll do something similar: I'll insist that I must be frisked by nobody other than a member of the opposite sex (assuming there is one) due to past traumatic experiences of abuse.
Even better, I'll get a note from a psychologist friend of mine who hates this kind of shit saying that anything otherwise might result in a psychological regression.
You do what Israel is doing: learn how to profile based on behavior. YOu need fewer people, and you need less equipment (but you need to have those people know what they're doing). Israelis travel hassle-free (except when they come over here or go to Arab lands, of course). I expect no less myself: if they can manage to do that with the daily threat of a Muslim shooting up a mall and have it occur very infrequently, we can do the same thing here.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this policy is being put in place under a very solidly Democrat Party government. What incentive would the DNC have to push the Republicans into power?
(Do not kid yourself: they're controlled by the same power base.)
Most people aren't aware that you can find (say) all/most plumbing companies in your area through Google Maps.
From personal experience, I've found that one is usually more complete than the other for a specific type of listing. Sometimes it's the phone book, and other times it's the Internet. For instance, I was looking for a machine shop several months ago, and the local phone book had listings which Google wasn't aware of. Last week, I was looking for a HVAC cleaning company, and Google Maps had a couple more companies which were oddly missing from the YP.
I work in IT but I will use the YP for maybe 50% of my 'local company' lookups. The numbers listed online are often 'incorrect' - the right company, but an old number or one that calls (for instance) the Police Department's investigations dept. instead of dispatch.
The Carolinas have several somethings which California does not:
* Hard workers. I know the South has a stereotype of laziness, but when it comes to "get'r'done", Southerners are pretty good about it compared to Californians. * Cost of living. It's not as bad as California. * Taxes. In this alone, they'll be making more money. * Reliable infrastructure. From what I've heard about California power and telcom Internet reliability, there's only room for improvement. * The Carolinas are humid. As I understand things, California is not. Moist air is easier to cool than dry air.
I wonder if Western NC and VA residents will still be stuck on dialup, or if they'll finally get an upgrade since they are so close to the data stores?
I highly doubt there are many places in the US where towns do not have access to broadband. I live in SD, and there are precious few places without a suitable carrier. (I lived in a 'population center' of about 1300 people, an hour from the nearest 50k+ populated area. I had 5/2 Mbit cable.)
The cost is in the distribution. In many cases, phone books are profitable due to the menagerie of advertising they contain. There are quite a few for-profit companies out there doing this, but I imagine doing the leg work to make them profitable isn't something the utilities want to do.
The white pages haven't been the primary utility in phone books for a long time. It's the yellow pages.
Phone books actually are fairly effective advertising vehicles for companies: a person new to town can open it up and quickly find out what's available in their locality for hardware stores, attorneys, groceries, etc. They're effective to advertise in, because pretty much everyone keeps one around the house "just in case".
For white pages, you get the number of the person you want to contact from the person themselves, more often than not. When there are 20 Michael and Jane Sarkowskis in a town, there's little use in the white pages. (This scenario is slightly different in a town under somewhere around 50k, I imagine, but with how much and how often most people live in different towns than where they work these days...)
I'm surprised that phone books are considered a loss-leader of sorts. There are still for-profit phone book companies out there which manage to stick by, even doing fairly well. The companies which advertise in them evidently see a benefit to doing so, because they keep doing it.
BFS makes the classic trade offs which Linus and almost all others absolutely agree is a bad decision for core inclusion. BFS trades performance for latency.
This is typical for a "computer scientist". Bad decision from a "using hardware effectively", sure. But if I'm waiting for the computer because the kernel is being efficient, it doesn't matter much, does it? I'd rather penalize system efficiency to see gains in my own. That's why we're not using a Babbage machine.
Basically you get really good interactive performance in exchange for massively losses in over all throughput and efficiency.
My efficiency, or the computer's? If I say "switch windows now" and I have to wait a quarter second, there's a problem with the software: the hardware is capable of doing so, and so am I. I should not have to upgrade my hardware to get a poor implementation to perform quicker; I should simply be able to have the implementation made better - particularly for something as low-level as kernel scheduling.
I use awesome. I can have an unlimited number of 'tags', on which I can place an unlimited number of premutations of various windows. It's possible to do this automagically, as well (so certain tags - eg 'www' - always have the same apps on them, and 'work' may have any number of the same apps, as well as others - and they can be/get automatically launched to the same tag each time they start, as well.). I can switch to any given tab (as I've got it set up - the default) with two key strokes or the mouse. I can tile half a dozen different ways, layer, or allow the tag to go 'unmanaged' (applications do their own thing). I can change any way of changing windows, etc. fairly trivially within the config file. It's quite a nice situation.
12 or so years ago, you could build a Linux kernel while watching fullscreen 600Mb video (divx? I don't remember) and/or browse the web. I did it, and I was giddy the first time due to the huge contrast from Windows 98.
What you're probably referring to is the drawing lag for X toolkits. The lag on Android is likely a symptom of slow flash cards/controllers and blocking, combined with not 'prettifying' the UI while the application is waiting to load (or hiding it, as is done elsewhere - Windows/OSX).
I'd personally really prefer being able to prioritize items myself. Give me an editor/API (/proc?)/config file to say "this gets priority, leave this alone, or conditionally give focused window priority") and I'll be happy.
I've considered writing a script to re-nice things for me automagically to my preferences, but haven't gotten around to it. Userland control of userland processes seems to make more sense to me.
Eh, he's got a fairly low UID. He joined probably sometime in '97 or '98, so assuming he was at least 15 at the time (making him 27, and at least old enough to have gotten into this stuff when he was younger), he might remember that archaic stuff, too.:)
I think your time schedule is off, by the way. By '94 (Linux 1.2), sure, those things were around, but they were really, really expensive. More realistically, most people were still on 9600 baud and low-end 486 equipment, I'd think. (Most people I knew, were. Many still using 386s, too.)
Starting in '95 or so, things started changing rapidly, though.
I remember, about 8-10 years ago, how this wasn't the case. It was quite evidently better than Windows in this regard, particularly if you didn't upgrade your hardware on a 2-year cycle (eg. waiting until it died) or tried running on significantly older hardware. Performance, on the desktop, was great. 2.6 seems to have progressively nixed it.
The first time I tried compiling a kernel, I was astounded at how I was still able to play fullscreen 600Mb encoded DVDs (can't remember what they were encoded in, but the quality was decent).
I remember building a kernel in '99-2000 or so on a P133 with 64Mb of RAM (running Stormix). Netscape was still responsive. Switching to a different application did't really take all that long.
These days, Linux performance on the desktop, this regard, is worse than Windows. It's a fucking travesty. Using the anticipatory scheduler helps significantly (or did, until they removed it from the kernel), but it was hardly much more than a stopgap measure.
I am pleased as fucking punch that this is finally 'fixed'. Like, I'm giddy to the point where I doubt I'm going to get any work done today.
Where can I download prebuilt kernels for my distro of choice? Surely someone is building them.
Kill? I suppose it depends on your definition of "kill".
They did kill OpenSolaris. The code, process, and community was destroyed and made unavailable to the community as a whole; it's now (essentially) freeware/shareware. Support, what's that?
Thankfully, OSol was forked, and we now have several viable alternatives - a couple of which do what people need 'better' than Solaris itself (ie 'gobs of clustered network storage').
As for Solaris in general... Solaris, particularly due to ZFS, is the biggest reason why Oracle bought Sun. The other properties are circumstantial and, I'd argue, largely inconsequential to Oracle's ends. Virtualbox might play in there somewhere, and I'm sure Java will as well (largely due to licensing anti-competitive behavior on Oracle's part).
Actually, nuclear is a good option. By weight, a small reactor is probably a bit more efficient than solar panels, and refueling and expanding would be significantly cheaper than replacing the panels/doing a new installation of panels. Not only that, but the reactor heat would/could go to good use: 'waste heat' wouldn't be, so it'd have additional added efficiency.
We only did one experiment on this in the 90's, learned amazing stuff, but inexplicably we designated the experiment a "failure" and decided to learn nothing from it. All similar research was abandoned.
Actually, there was more than one test - it was just at the same site.
There are many problems with a biosphere, particularly one started 'from scratch' on an alien planet. Available soil is one of those, as is outside environmental (sunlight, gamma, etc.) conditions. Ultimately, the system is very sensitive to change due to their relatively small size: one animal is not very easily adapted for. The time and planning for such an endeavor is, additionally, quite expensive.
Ultimately, such a facility on Mars would not likely be possible without mechanical air scrubbing, large A/C condensers, and of course, nuclear power. Trying to sustain the habitat is one thing, but practicality in the face of the scale of the project is another.
Assuming they live for a couple years in the process, it might actually be cheaper. Much of that prisoner cost is in things like healthcare; they get every little whim and need fulfilled, often better than people in the military or on private health insurance. (I once met a guy who had both hips and knees replaced while in prison. He didn't need the second knee replaced, but wanted it done to be 'consistent'.)
Yep. At least back when the US colonization was occurring, there were no expectations of support from "back home".
Any settlers to Mars would need certain things provided to them, regularly, for the foreseeable future (at least a year or two):
* air * food * water
Nobody capable of handling the low-G environment and able to improve the living situation there is going to mess around with that when the agency funding the trips says, "we're only sending you there, for financial reasons". That does not invoke a feeling of security. What if they can't afford to launch an air payload 12 months down the road?
Furthermore, settlers in the US West at least had the opportunity to come home. They had their wagons. They had their tools, and a small degree of food. Provided they didn't die from something else, "leaving" was always an option. Not so for Mars-bound "colonists".
This sounds like a very, very bad idea. At the very least it's a political nightmare waiting to happen. "They left my brother/sister/daughter/son on Mars to die of asphyxiation because they wouldn't provide him with the promised air!" Maybe it'd work when/if there's an established permanent base (ie not requiring as regular resupply and somewhat able to grow food and produce air), but not until.
You forgot PF correction. I'm not sure how it'd impact cost, exactly, but I know it plays into the picture. If people start charging at night, using a higher power factor (ie industrial), night-time electric costs will go up (2x or so). For now, it might make sense.
I find it hard to believe that the Leaf can drive roughly a mile on 2,500 watt hours. (Why does it use an A/C motor instead of a DC one? That doesn't make sense to me.)
Also, 100 mile range? Let me know when there are EVs out there that are actually usable for daily driving - and for 'daily driving' I don't mean 'average daily driving' I mean 'able to deal with that one day a month when you're in the car all day running errands, going out to dinner, etc.'. If they hit 200 miles/charge, it'd be a bit more practical. Even then, it kinda puts a crimp in cross-state trips - you'd likely need a second vehicle or to pay exorbitant public transit fees if you felt so inclined to visit the family.
Um, no? Believe it or not, there are quite a few households where there are neither game platforms nor trendy Apple gadgets (Adults typically live here.)
No kidding - particularly as it pertains to mobile handsets.
Mobiles have a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and processing power available to them, compared to available storage.
A streamed movie weighs in at around 500Mb-2Gb of space, depending on the bitrate sampled. Are you really going to spend the money on extra storage just to store these movies to SD cards when and watching them again is trivial via Netflix, and almost everyone has access to such things? The only outside reason you might want to have them downloaded is if you intend to watch them 'offline' or your network performance is spotty/dropping out. You're not going to keep them on flash cards indefinitely - and there are certainly easier ways to pirate films, if that's your aim.
Yeah, and nobody leaves there stove on for 8 hours at a time. Doing that 3-5 times a week? Are you serious? That'd cost more than gasoline, especially in places like California where the electric cost is high. (I don't care if that's "at night", it's still expensive.)
Unless electricity drops substantially or gas increases markedly, the energy density of gasoline will be substantially more economical than EVs for some time now - even with a 10-15mpg vehicle.
first, the government will offer limited money on a limited-time basis for this. the corporations will have the paperwork in months before it occurs. those companies - corporations and telcos, mostly - will use up said funds.
then, the corporations and telcos will 'offer' consumers the opportunity to upgrade 'ahead of the curve' once their own infrastructure is on ipv6. they will, of course, 'pass the cost on to customers'.
the smaller shops - the ones which don't qualify for the government assistance, don't hear about it, or simply don't have the resources (no telling the handout will cover the full cost of a migration) to implement ipv6 will be saddled with the bulk of the cost. there will be shysters who will prey on the uninformed with high prices for something which is, essentially, free.
Slashdot Mirror
All it will take is some enterprising megacorp with the legal muscle to patent this combo (and defend the patents) and you can effectively raised margin on concrete 10x at least.
Why would someone pay 10x the markup on concrete when properly done concrete lasts a decade, and when it needs repair it's usually not due to 'cracking' but structural problems (roots, water, bulging soil, etc.) that won't be fixed with something like this?
(assuming it's $1 profit a 50lb bag, people aren't going to start paying 3x current prices for cement. I don't care how good it is, people won't do it due to the time until return.)
It may have application, but in a very limited use (dams, bridges, and that sort of thing? you'd have to make it water-resistant) where repair/replacement is impossible.
That is a pretty good idea.
I think the next time I'm (fucking) forced to fly (for work), I'll do something similar: I'll insist that I must be frisked by nobody other than a member of the opposite sex (assuming there is one) due to past traumatic experiences of abuse.
Even better, I'll get a note from a psychologist friend of mine who hates this kind of shit saying that anything otherwise might result in a psychological regression.
No.
You do what Israel is doing: learn how to profile based on behavior. YOu need fewer people, and you need less equipment (but you need to have those people know what they're doing). Israelis travel hassle-free (except when they come over here or go to Arab lands, of course). I expect no less myself: if they can manage to do that with the daily threat of a Muslim shooting up a mall and have it occur very infrequently, we can do the same thing here.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this policy is being put in place under a very solidly Democrat Party government. What incentive would the DNC have to push the Republicans into power?
(Do not kid yourself: they're controlled by the same power base.)
Most people aren't aware that you can find (say) all/most plumbing companies in your area through Google Maps.
From personal experience, I've found that one is usually more complete than the other for a specific type of listing. Sometimes it's the phone book, and other times it's the Internet. For instance, I was looking for a machine shop several months ago, and the local phone book had listings which Google wasn't aware of. Last week, I was looking for a HVAC cleaning company, and Google Maps had a couple more companies which were oddly missing from the YP.
I work in IT but I will use the YP for maybe 50% of my 'local company' lookups. The numbers listed online are often 'incorrect' - the right company, but an old number or one that calls (for instance) the Police Department's investigations dept. instead of dispatch.
The dead own property in Illinois? Interesting.
The Carolinas have several somethings which California does not:
* Hard workers. I know the South has a stereotype of laziness, but when it comes to "get'r'done", Southerners are pretty good about it compared to Californians.
* Cost of living. It's not as bad as California.
* Taxes. In this alone, they'll be making more money.
* Reliable infrastructure. From what I've heard about California power and telcom Internet reliability, there's only room for improvement.
* The Carolinas are humid. As I understand things, California is not. Moist air is easier to cool than dry air.
I wonder if Western NC and VA residents will still be stuck on dialup, or if they'll finally get an upgrade since they are so close to the data stores?
I highly doubt there are many places in the US where towns do not have access to broadband. I live in SD, and there are precious few places without a suitable carrier. (I lived in a 'population center' of about 1300 people, an hour from the nearest 50k+ populated area. I had 5/2 Mbit cable.)
The cost is in the distribution. In many cases, phone books are profitable due to the menagerie of advertising they contain. There are quite a few for-profit companies out there doing this, but I imagine doing the leg work to make them profitable isn't something the utilities want to do.
The white pages haven't been the primary utility in phone books for a long time. It's the yellow pages.
Phone books actually are fairly effective advertising vehicles for companies: a person new to town can open it up and quickly find out what's available in their locality for hardware stores, attorneys, groceries, etc. They're effective to advertise in, because pretty much everyone keeps one around the house "just in case".
For white pages, you get the number of the person you want to contact from the person themselves, more often than not. When there are 20 Michael and Jane Sarkowskis in a town, there's little use in the white pages. (This scenario is slightly different in a town under somewhere around 50k, I imagine, but with how much and how often most people live in different towns than where they work these days...)
I'm surprised that phone books are considered a loss-leader of sorts. There are still for-profit phone book companies out there which manage to stick by, even doing fairly well. The companies which advertise in them evidently see a benefit to doing so, because they keep doing it.
BFS makes the classic trade offs which Linus and almost all others absolutely agree is a bad decision for core inclusion. BFS trades performance for latency.
This is typical for a "computer scientist". Bad decision from a "using hardware effectively", sure. But if I'm waiting for the computer because the kernel is being efficient, it doesn't matter much, does it? I'd rather penalize system efficiency to see gains in my own. That's why we're not using a Babbage machine.
Basically you get really good interactive performance in exchange for massively losses in over all throughput and efficiency.
My efficiency, or the computer's? If I say "switch windows now" and I have to wait a quarter second, there's a problem with the software: the hardware is capable of doing so, and so am I. I should not have to upgrade my hardware to get a poor implementation to perform quicker; I should simply be able to have the implementation made better - particularly for something as low-level as kernel scheduling.
I use awesome. I can have an unlimited number of 'tags', on which I can place an unlimited number of premutations of various windows. It's possible to do this automagically, as well (so certain tags - eg 'www' - always have the same apps on them, and 'work' may have any number of the same apps, as well as others - and they can be/get automatically launched to the same tag each time they start, as well.). I can switch to any given tab (as I've got it set up - the default) with two key strokes or the mouse. I can tile half a dozen different ways, layer, or allow the tag to go 'unmanaged' (applications do their own thing). I can change any way of changing windows, etc. fairly trivially within the config file. It's quite a nice situation.
No, it hasn't always been the case.
12 or so years ago, you could build a Linux kernel while watching fullscreen 600Mb video (divx? I don't remember) and/or browse the web. I did it, and I was giddy the first time due to the huge contrast from Windows 98.
What you're probably referring to is the drawing lag for X toolkits. The lag on Android is likely a symptom of slow flash cards/controllers and blocking, combined with not 'prettifying' the UI while the application is waiting to load (or hiding it, as is done elsewhere - Windows/OSX).
I'd personally really prefer being able to prioritize items myself. Give me an editor/API (/proc?)/config file to say "this gets priority, leave this alone, or conditionally give focused window priority") and I'll be happy.
I've considered writing a script to re-nice things for me automagically to my preferences, but haven't gotten around to it. Userland control of userland processes seems to make more sense to me.
Eh, he's got a fairly low UID. He joined probably sometime in '97 or '98, so assuming he was at least 15 at the time (making him 27, and at least old enough to have gotten into this stuff when he was younger), he might remember that archaic stuff, too. :)
I think your time schedule is off, by the way. By '94 (Linux 1.2), sure, those things were around, but they were really, really expensive. More realistically, most people were still on 9600 baud and low-end 486 equipment, I'd think. (Most people I knew, were. Many still using 386s, too.)
Starting in '95 or so, things started changing rapidly, though.
I remember, about 8-10 years ago, how this wasn't the case. It was quite evidently better than Windows in this regard, particularly if you didn't upgrade your hardware on a 2-year cycle (eg. waiting until it died) or tried running on significantly older hardware. Performance, on the desktop, was great. 2.6 seems to have progressively nixed it.
The first time I tried compiling a kernel, I was astounded at how I was still able to play fullscreen 600Mb encoded DVDs (can't remember what they were encoded in, but the quality was decent).
I remember building a kernel in '99-2000 or so on a P133 with 64Mb of RAM (running Stormix). Netscape was still responsive. Switching to a different application did't really take all that long.
These days, Linux performance on the desktop, this regard, is worse than Windows. It's a fucking travesty. Using the anticipatory scheduler helps significantly (or did, until they removed it from the kernel), but it was hardly much more than a stopgap measure.
I am pleased as fucking punch that this is finally 'fixed'. Like, I'm giddy to the point where I doubt I'm going to get any work done today.
Where can I download prebuilt kernels for my distro of choice? Surely someone is building them.
Kill? I suppose it depends on your definition of "kill".
They did kill OpenSolaris. The code, process, and community was destroyed and made unavailable to the community as a whole; it's now (essentially) freeware/shareware. Support, what's that?
Thankfully, OSol was forked, and we now have several viable alternatives - a couple of which do what people need 'better' than Solaris itself (ie 'gobs of clustered network storage').
As for Solaris in general... Solaris, particularly due to ZFS, is the biggest reason why Oracle bought Sun. The other properties are circumstantial and, I'd argue, largely inconsequential to Oracle's ends. Virtualbox might play in there somewhere, and I'm sure Java will as well (largely due to licensing anti-competitive behavior on Oracle's part).
Actually, nuclear is a good option. By weight, a small reactor is probably a bit more efficient than solar panels, and refueling and expanding would be significantly cheaper than replacing the panels/doing a new installation of panels. Not only that, but the reactor heat would/could go to good use: 'waste heat' wouldn't be, so it'd have additional added efficiency.
We only did one experiment on this in the 90's, learned amazing stuff, but inexplicably we designated the experiment a "failure" and decided to learn nothing from it. All similar research was abandoned.
Actually, there was more than one test - it was just at the same site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Second_mission
There are many problems with a biosphere, particularly one started 'from scratch' on an alien planet. Available soil is one of those, as is outside environmental (sunlight, gamma, etc.) conditions. Ultimately, the system is very sensitive to change due to their relatively small size: one animal is not very easily adapted for. The time and planning for such an endeavor is, additionally, quite expensive.
Ultimately, such a facility on Mars would not likely be possible without mechanical air scrubbing, large A/C condensers, and of course, nuclear power. Trying to sustain the habitat is one thing, but practicality in the face of the scale of the project is another.
Assuming they live for a couple years in the process, it might actually be cheaper. Much of that prisoner cost is in things like healthcare; they get every little whim and need fulfilled, often better than people in the military or on private health insurance. (I once met a guy who had both hips and knees replaced while in prison. He didn't need the second knee replaced, but wanted it done to be 'consistent'.)
Yep. At least back when the US colonization was occurring, there were no expectations of support from "back home".
Any settlers to Mars would need certain things provided to them, regularly, for the foreseeable future (at least a year or two):
* air
* food
* water
Nobody capable of handling the low-G environment and able to improve the living situation there is going to mess around with that when the agency funding the trips says, "we're only sending you there, for financial reasons". That does not invoke a feeling of security. What if they can't afford to launch an air payload 12 months down the road?
Furthermore, settlers in the US West at least had the opportunity to come home. They had their wagons. They had their tools, and a small degree of food. Provided they didn't die from something else, "leaving" was always an option. Not so for Mars-bound "colonists".
This sounds like a very, very bad idea. At the very least it's a political nightmare waiting to happen. "They left my brother/sister/daughter/son on Mars to die of asphyxiation because they wouldn't provide him with the promised air!" Maybe it'd work when/if there's an established permanent base (ie not requiring as regular resupply and somewhat able to grow food and produce air), but not until.
You forgot PF correction. I'm not sure how it'd impact cost, exactly, but I know it plays into the picture. If people start charging at night, using a higher power factor (ie industrial), night-time electric costs will go up (2x or so). For now, it might make sense.
I find it hard to believe that the Leaf can drive roughly a mile on 2,500 watt hours. (Why does it use an A/C motor instead of a DC one? That doesn't make sense to me.)
Also, 100 mile range? Let me know when there are EVs out there that are actually usable for daily driving - and for 'daily driving' I don't mean 'average daily driving' I mean 'able to deal with that one day a month when you're in the car all day running errands, going out to dinner, etc.'. If they hit 200 miles/charge, it'd be a bit more practical. Even then, it kinda puts a crimp in cross-state trips - you'd likely need a second vehicle or to pay exorbitant public transit fees if you felt so inclined to visit the family.
The OP could just do what I did... I rebuilt all my binaries with the project names substituted with my own. So it's really mine.
Um, no? Believe it or not, there are quite a few households where there are neither game platforms nor trendy Apple gadgets (Adults typically live here.)
No kidding - particularly as it pertains to mobile handsets.
Mobiles have a disproportionate amount of bandwidth and processing power available to them, compared to available storage.
A streamed movie weighs in at around 500Mb-2Gb of space, depending on the bitrate sampled. Are you really going to spend the money on extra storage just to store these movies to SD cards when and watching them again is trivial via Netflix, and almost everyone has access to such things? The only outside reason you might want to have them downloaded is if you intend to watch them 'offline' or your network performance is spotty/dropping out. You're not going to keep them on flash cards indefinitely - and there are certainly easier ways to pirate films, if that's your aim.
Yeah, and nobody leaves there stove on for 8 hours at a time. Doing that 3-5 times a week? Are you serious? That'd cost more than gasoline, especially in places like California where the electric cost is high. (I don't care if that's "at night", it's still expensive.)
Unless electricity drops substantially or gas increases markedly, the energy density of gasoline will be substantially more economical than EVs for some time now - even with a 10-15mpg vehicle.
first, the government will offer limited money on a limited-time basis for this. the corporations will have the paperwork in months before it occurs. those companies - corporations and telcos, mostly - will use up said funds.
then, the corporations and telcos will 'offer' consumers the opportunity to upgrade 'ahead of the curve' once their own infrastructure is on ipv6. they will, of course, 'pass the cost on to customers'.
the smaller shops - the ones which don't qualify for the government assistance, don't hear about it, or simply don't have the resources (no telling the handout will cover the full cost of a migration) to implement ipv6 will be saddled with the bulk of the cost. there will be shysters who will prey on the uninformed with high prices for something which is, essentially, free.