Yes, I think that your replies show the small-minded lack of vision and smugness from those who have never moved. Never experienced life in different cultures. Perhaps you see it as a noble sacrifice. It's certainly a sacrifice -- much less of a sacrifice that I make by accepting the abuse that the TSA hands out.
My parents accepted that I moved to a different continent. They welcomed the fact that I could move thousands of miles away for what I hoped would be a better life. I wasn't the first in my family to move away.
You know that the USA was founded by people (presumably your ancestors) who moved away from their family, with the expectation that they would probably never see them again, don't you?
Now, I live in the situation that, due the to vagaries of US immigration law, I have children in two continents. So, to see one of my children, I accept that I need to suck it up when I fly and accept (but don't like) the abuse that the TSA hands out.
Not everyone has the liberty of living close to their parents. I would have thought that, as someone who has given up many opportunities in life to live close to parents, you would understand that I would go through a little inconvenience in order to meet face-to-face with family.
Did it ever occur to you that I moved 6000 miles away from my family before the insult that is today's airport "security"?
Yes, I do accept it. The alternative is not visiting my family. The alternative is not going to my parents' funerals. The alternative is not being able to do my job.
I accept it because the alternative is worse for me. Perhaps you are one of the 55% of Americans who don't have passports and live a parochial life, missing out on the many interesting things the world has to offer that are more than driving distance from your house. Perhaps you should open your eyes to the world.
So, yes, I accept it. I don't have to like it, but I do have to accept it.
Just because there are some companies that are scams does not make the overall concept a scam. Especially in the case of Solyndra: why did this company collapse? Because the cost of PV cells from their competitors declined faster than Solyndra anticipated. Or, to put it another way, PV cells because more affordable and more cost effective.
I could point to automotive companies that have gone out of business, does that make transportation by car a scam?
Incidentally, Solyndra had two buildings: guess who is in one? Musk's SolarCity.
Caps are a mathematical requirement. Without caps, Internet prices would be around what a dedicated line costs, which is about $7000/mo for an OC3 (155 Mbps).
OC3 is expensive because it requires dedicated lines, uses obsolete technology and may come with a minimum instantaneous bandwidth guarantee. It's not remotely comparable.
All I am ignoring is your assertion that you need to own a car.
All the issues you mention can and will be solved. You are just projecting from a limited vision of the future. The vision that I am looking at (and is being seriously considered by some major cities) is one in which only autonomous vehicles are allowed in the city. Once you have that restriction in place, many things are possible. For example, lots of space is freed up because there is no longer a need for people to park their cars.
Autonomous cars won't need to park in residential streets. They will return to base.
You don't think that you will actually own an autonomous car, do you? That would make no sense. No, instead, you will pay a monthly fee for an autonomous car service.
The first ammendment does not protect fraud and lying.
Of course the first amendment protects lying. If it didn't, most politicians and SuperPACs would be in deep trouble.
So the question is: is this fraud? Well, apart from the fact that the original claim appears to have been debunked, who might have been defrauded? Not readers, because they pay nothing. Probably not advertisers, because the contracts probably cover this.
I think that those numbers must include industrial users.
For example, another page breaks down "retail" prices by US state, but the price for California electricity is too low to be an average price for residential users. The price quoted for California is close to the "Tier 1" rate charged by PG&E (who serve much of the state), but a large proportion of the population pay for electricity at "Tier 2" to "Tier 4" rates. These rates are much higher.
When I put money into a high risk venture, I expect equity. Not being the first to have whatever trinket you may produce and for only twice the street price.
Blame the laws that restrict risky investments to only the rich.
So - the smart thing to do (seemingly, at the time, after talking to lawyers) was to let the guy finish building the house - then he can get a mortgage - then he'll pay the money back - and everyone walks away a little older and wiser, but otherwise unscathed.
Only if he was telling the truth about the house. What verification was done on this? What if his real goal was to stall until a statute of limitations kicks in?
It's true that in Canada it is exceedingly difficult to seize a person's home
David claimed that he could not get the cash from the loans because the state of the house did not meet certain requirements. Hence, it's not his home: it's just a partially built house that he owns.
Of course, he may well be lying about the state of the house and his ability to draw cash from the loans.
In the UK, since the power generation was split up, there have been occasions when generators have bid negative prices to supply electricity into the grid. These were companies operating fossil-fueled generators at times when demand was low (middle of the night).
The first amendment doesn't allow you to make false claims or advertise falsely.
Of course the first amendment allows you to make false claims, except in very limited circumstances. As for false advertising, I am wiling to bet that any ad sales contracts have indemnification and integration clauses that makes Facebook immune to any false advertising claims. Remember that Facebook's users are not customers.
You should read the Wikipedia article about False Advertising -- especially the part about US laws, because the conditions under which the laws apply are very specific and I doubt that Facebook lying about its trending news would apply.
Because it's well understood that the stories reported by Fox News and NBC News are whatever Fox and NBC deem newsworthy. They don't pretend that the stories they've picked are "Trending" or "Shared" amongst regular users.
Do you want to claim that the news stories presented by Fox are "Fair and balanced"? Because, as you well know, Fox makes that claim for its reporting.
Because if something is being presented as being strictly based on popular interest, but is actually based on private interests, then that is misleading consumers. The other "news" organizations haven't been accused of advertising one methodology for presenting stories but actually using another.
Let me suggest that you are not being "Fair and balanced" here.
Because it made the headlines that Facebook may have a policy to suppress conservative views as a company strategy.
And if Facebook is doing this, so what? Have these Senators not heard of the First Amendment? Or is that part of the constitution only important when opaque Super PACs are supporting Republican candidates?
It's much more practical to install lots of chargers than lots of hydrogen stations. Most people can use a 110V outlet as long as they charge every night and drive a typical commute.
What's a reasonable time? It takes only a few seconds after arriving home to plug in an electric car. Is a few seconds reasonable?
For longer journeys, there are fast DC chargers which will charge Teslas or other brands to 80% charge in about 30 minutes. Unfortunately, there are 3 incompatible standards for the DC chargers.
It also equates particulate matter from tyre and brake wear to that of particulates in diesel emissions. Is this valid? Are the particles similarly sized?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I think that your replies show the small-minded lack of vision and smugness from those who have never moved. Never experienced life in different cultures. Perhaps you see it as a noble sacrifice. It's certainly a sacrifice -- much less of a sacrifice that I make by accepting the abuse that the TSA hands out. My parents accepted that I moved to a different continent. They welcomed the fact that I could move thousands of miles away for what I hoped would be a better life. I wasn't the first in my family to move away. You know that the USA was founded by people (presumably your ancestors) who moved away from their family, with the expectation that they would probably never see them again, don't you? Now, I live in the situation that, due the to vagaries of US immigration law, I have children in two continents. So, to see one of my children, I accept that I need to suck it up when I fly and accept (but don't like) the abuse that the TSA hands out. Not everyone has the liberty of living close to their parents. I would have thought that, as someone who has given up many opportunities in life to live close to parents, you would understand that I would go through a little inconvenience in order to meet face-to-face with family.
Did it ever occur to you that I moved 6000 miles away from my family before the insult that is today's airport "security"?
Yes, I do accept it. The alternative is not visiting my family. The alternative is not going to my parents' funerals. The alternative is not being able to do my job.
I accept it because the alternative is worse for me. Perhaps you are one of the 55% of Americans who don't have passports and live a parochial life, missing out on the many interesting things the world has to offer that are more than driving distance from your house. Perhaps you should open your eyes to the world.
So, yes, I accept it. I don't have to like it, but I do have to accept it.
Please tell me if visiting my relatives who live 6000 miles away is absolutely necessary.
It's easy to say "don't fly" -- for someone who doesn't fly anyway.
ALERT: Logic fail!
Just because there are some companies that are scams does not make the overall concept a scam. Especially in the case of Solyndra: why did this company collapse? Because the cost of PV cells from their competitors declined faster than Solyndra anticipated. Or, to put it another way, PV cells because more affordable and more cost effective.
I could point to automotive companies that have gone out of business, does that make transportation by car a scam?
Incidentally, Solyndra had two buildings: guess who is in one? Musk's SolarCity.
BS. If this were true, then how is it possible for Comcast to just increase their "cap" from 300GB to 1TB without a price increase of several times the existing price?
OC3 is expensive because it requires dedicated lines, uses obsolete technology and may come with a minimum instantaneous bandwidth guarantee. It's not remotely comparable.
All I am ignoring is your assertion that you need to own a car.
All the issues you mention can and will be solved. You are just projecting from a limited vision of the future. The vision that I am looking at (and is being seriously considered by some major cities) is one in which only autonomous vehicles are allowed in the city. Once you have that restriction in place, many things are possible. For example, lots of space is freed up because there is no longer a need for people to park their cars.
Except that no one will wait for "their" car, because they won't own one. They will subscribe to a car service.
You book your ride for the next morning in advance. It can get there on time (depending on how much you pay for your service).
You don't think that you will actually own an autonomous car, do you? That would make no sense. No, instead, you will pay a monthly fee for an autonomous car service.
Fox news did not get popular because of any lack of bias. Fox news got popular because it acted as an echo chamber for idiots like you.
Of course the first amendment protects lying. If it didn't, most politicians and SuperPACs would be in deep trouble.
So the question is: is this fraud? Well, apart from the fact that the original claim appears to have been debunked, who might have been defrauded? Not readers, because they pay nothing. Probably not advertisers, because the contracts probably cover this.
For example, another page breaks down "retail" prices by US state, but the price for California electricity is too low to be an average price for residential users. The price quoted for California is close to the "Tier 1" rate charged by PG&E (who serve much of the state), but a large proportion of the population pay for electricity at "Tier 2" to "Tier 4" rates. These rates are much higher.
Blame the laws that restrict risky investments to only the rich.
Only if he was telling the truth about the house. What verification was done on this? What if his real goal was to stall until a statute of limitations kicks in?
David claimed that he could not get the cash from the loans because the state of the house did not meet certain requirements. Hence, it's not his home: it's just a partially built house that he owns.
Of course, he may well be lying about the state of the house and his ability to draw cash from the loans.
In the UK, since the power generation was split up, there have been occasions when generators have bid negative prices to supply electricity into the grid. These were companies operating fossil-fueled generators at times when demand was low (middle of the night).
Of course the first amendment allows you to make false claims, except in very limited circumstances. As for false advertising, I am wiling to bet that any ad sales contracts have indemnification and integration clauses that makes Facebook immune to any false advertising claims. Remember that Facebook's users are not customers.
You should read the Wikipedia article about False Advertising -- especially the part about US laws, because the conditions under which the laws apply are very specific and I doubt that Facebook lying about its trending news would apply.
Do you want to claim that the news stories presented by Fox are "Fair and balanced"? Because, as you well know, Fox makes that claim for its reporting.
Let me suggest that you are not being "Fair and balanced" here.
And if Facebook is doing this, so what? Have these Senators not heard of the First Amendment? Or is that part of the constitution only important when opaque Super PACs are supporting Republican candidates?
Wow! You were lucky that one of those CRTs did not kill you.
Don't be coy with your criticism, say what you really mean!
It's much more practical to install lots of chargers than lots of hydrogen stations. Most people can use a 110V outlet as long as they charge every night and drive a typical commute.
What's a reasonable time? It takes only a few seconds after arriving home to plug in an electric car. Is a few seconds reasonable?
For longer journeys, there are fast DC chargers which will charge Teslas or other brands to 80% charge in about 30 minutes. Unfortunately, there are 3 incompatible standards for the DC chargers.
Manufacturers are already doing this. Replacing the spare tyre with a tyre sealer and inflation kit.
It also equates particulate matter from tyre and brake wear to that of particulates in diesel emissions. Is this valid? Are the particles similarly sized?