Future? Socialism is already the present. Name one road anywhere in the USA that pays for itself 100% with gas taxes and user fees.
And name one Republican who doesn't support the usual practice of cities forcing developers to build more parking than what the market would build of its own accord. (Ok, that's actually dirigism which is more closely associated with Fascism than Socialism, but close enough.)
It's ironic that those who try to distance themselves the most from Socialism are among the most guilty of creating it.
Or the car wouldn't hit that pedestrian because it knows better than to drive faster than is reasonable and prudent when its sight is obstructed by that row of parked cars. This is especially important in residential areas where children may be playing.
they must produce at some minimum power output levels in times when this electricity is not needed.
Where electricity is always priced at market equilibrium, all electricity is consumed and therefore "needed" by some definition of the word.
So during the ramp-up time close to sunset, the additional electricity causes the equilibrium price to fall, people consume more electricity at that time because it's cheap (perhaps to cook dinner or do laundry) and suddenly that electricity becomes "needed."
The report hinted at this solution: "The resource mix would also benefit from...demand side response capabilities to help meet real-time system conditions."
The fine should be proportional to the ability of the vehicle to cause damage (kinetic energy a.k.a. 1/2m*v^2), not speed. So someone going 30 in a 25 zone in a 4,000 pound car would be fined 20 times as much as someone doing the same thing on a 200 pound scooter.
But justice in the USA is mainly about revenge. Legal types even have a fancy name for it: "retribution." Protecting society is a secondary purpose, but that doesn't require the death penalty. It only requires keeping people locked up until they are no longer a danger, but we can't even get that right.
If the main purpose of justice were rehabilitation, there would be no killing in the name of justice, and people wouldn't come out of prisons more dangerous to society than when they went in. And prisons would be much nicer places, more like hospitals or universities than like dungeons.
Please explain how the length of time of license revocation and the means of getting it back is all the difference between zero-tolerance and not-zero-tolerance.
Because the main purpose of justice in the USA is revenge, which legal types call "retribution." If the main purpose of justice was to protect the public, drunk drivers would lose their licenses instead of being thrown in prison (prison should be reserved for those who drive without a license), and they wouldn't automatically get their licenses back (or become eligible to be re-licensed) after serving their time. Instead, they would be required to pass a medical-psychological assessment as in Germany.
...when they made the memory in the new Mac Minis impossible to upgrade and reduced their performance. The late 2012 quad-core model is still the fastest, best one they ever made.
Ideally we should have 100 percent saturation with every frequency being used by someone.
But you're suggesting a price floor of $0 or whatever the application fee would be, and because price floors cause surpluses, your idea would not achieve 100% spectrum ownership, much less 100% saturation..
Or each allocation should be auctioned for a 1-year lease.
And if you stop doing something with it then you should lose the lease.
Unless you pay for another year.
The problem with "first come first served" is and has always been that 99% of the time you're shortchanging either buyers or sellers (in this case, taxpayers are the sellers), and you're creating either shortages or surpluses. Ask Venezuela how their subsidies are doing.
It isn't a good idea to completely deplete a lithium-ion battery on a regular basis. Keeping its charge above 25% makes makes an 18-hour battery a 13.5-hour battery, which means it must be charged 1.8 times a day, unless you charge it overnight while you sleep.
Still, its battery life is a step back from conventional watches. If you're going to invent a new mousetrap, you should try to make it at least as good as the old one in every way--no regressions.
Sometimes it's better to do the right thing based on the best information you have at the time, than delay the right thing for decades so you can prove it in court against people with a financial interest to get the rules reversed.
But if your information isn't close to 100% complete and perfect, or if there's a reasonable chance the law will create unintended consequences, then the law should have a sunset clause. It's really quite irresponsible to pass a law under those conditions without one.
Slashdot Mirror
Future? Socialism is already the present. Name one road anywhere in the USA that pays for itself 100% with gas taxes and user fees.
And name one Republican who doesn't support the usual practice of cities forcing developers to build more parking than what the market would build of its own accord. (Ok, that's actually dirigism which is more closely associated with Fascism than Socialism, but close enough.)
It's ironic that those who try to distance themselves the most from Socialism are among the most guilty of creating it.
Or the car wouldn't hit that pedestrian because it knows better than to drive faster than is reasonable and prudent when its sight is obstructed by that row of parked cars. This is especially important in residential areas where children may be playing.
Yes, there are.
Where electricity is always priced at market equilibrium, all electricity is consumed and therefore "needed" by some definition of the word.
So during the ramp-up time close to sunset, the additional electricity causes the equilibrium price to fall, people consume more electricity at that time because it's cheap (perhaps to cook dinner or do laundry) and suddenly that electricity becomes "needed."
The report hinted at this solution: "The resource mix would also benefit from...demand side response capabilities to help meet real-time system conditions."
The fine should be proportional to the ability of the vehicle to cause damage (kinetic energy a.k.a. 1/2m*v^2), not speed. So someone going 30 in a 25 zone in a 4,000 pound car would be fined 20 times as much as someone doing the same thing on a 200 pound scooter.
But how come it's worth a million bucks?
But justice in the USA is mainly about revenge. Legal types even have a fancy name for it: "retribution." Protecting society is a secondary purpose, but that doesn't require the death penalty. It only requires keeping people locked up until they are no longer a danger, but we can't even get that right.
If the main purpose of justice were rehabilitation, there would be no killing in the name of justice, and people wouldn't come out of prisons more dangerous to society than when they went in. And prisons would be much nicer places, more like hospitals or universities than like dungeons.
Unfortunately, we are not a very smart nation.
The zero-one-infinity rule says otherwise.
Is that big-endian or little-endian?
Sure, plug one of these into one of these into one of the USB-C slots on the Chromebook.
Please explain how the length of time of license revocation and the means of getting it back is all the difference between zero-tolerance and not-zero-tolerance.
It wouldn't be the first time they did something like that.
Oh yes, I keep thinking we still believe in "innocent until proven guilty." Thanks for the correction.
Because the main purpose of justice in the USA is revenge, which legal types call "retribution." If the main purpose of justice was to protect the public, drunk drivers would lose their licenses instead of being thrown in prison (prison should be reserved for those who drive without a license), and they wouldn't automatically get their licenses back (or become eligible to be re-licensed) after serving their time. Instead, they would be required to pass a medical-psychological assessment as in Germany.
That may be true, but it comes at the expense of repairability.
I bought my 2012 Mac Mini with 4GB of memory, then paid OWC $114.99 for 16GB for which Apple wanted $300. (Or maybe it was $400.)
At least OSX Yosemite was a free upgrade.
...when they made the memory in the new Mac Minis impossible to upgrade and reduced their performance. The late 2012 quad-core model is still the fastest, best one they ever made.
Rubbish.
Seriously, the value of trash is below zero because not only will nobody take it for free, you have to pay someone to take it away.
Not if you're hoping to make a profit.
But you're suggesting a price floor of $0 or whatever the application fee would be, and because price floors cause surpluses, your idea would not achieve 100% spectrum ownership, much less 100% saturation..
Or each allocation should be auctioned for a 1-year lease.
Unless you pay for another year.
The problem with "first come first served" is and has always been that 99% of the time you're shortchanging either buyers or sellers (in this case, taxpayers are the sellers), and you're creating either shortages or surpluses. Ask Venezuela how their subsidies are doing.
It isn't a good idea to completely deplete a lithium-ion battery on a regular basis. Keeping its charge above 25% makes makes an 18-hour battery a 13.5-hour battery, which means it must be charged 1.8 times a day, unless you charge it overnight while you sleep.
Still, its battery life is a step back from conventional watches. If you're going to invent a new mousetrap, you should try to make it at least as good as the old one in every way--no regressions.
But aren't we close to 100% sure what causes smog?
I agree, and that's why I didn't say it should be 100%.
But if your information isn't close to 100% complete and perfect, or if there's a reasonable chance the law will create unintended consequences, then the law should have a sunset clause. It's really quite irresponsible to pass a law under those conditions without one.
Inelastic demand will pay for storage as long as energy prices are not below market equilibrium. So there's still no problem.