Stay out of my car, my pocketbook, my life, and my government. We, The People will decide how to live our lives, not you, the enviro-commies.
Wow. If you don't want an EV then don't buy one. There are a lot of people for whom an EV would be the perfect car who would want one (myself included). That option does not exist right now mostly because of the economics and technology limitations but that is likely to change. I wonder why this is a problem for you. I did not notice anywhere in previous posts the suggestion that you, or anyone should be forced to live a certain way. Indeed, the only people being forced to live a certain way are those who would rather have an EV. And the only thing forcing them to live this way is the lack of this choice in the marketplace. The good news is that this is probably changing and so everyone can be happy.
As for people staying out of pocketbooks, I agree completely. To the point that my tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the extremely profitable oil and gas conglomerates. Subsidies should only go to emerging technologies that can be good for the country and should stop as soon as they become profitable, in my opinion.
The power needs in the extreme northern and southern are less, because far fewer people live there. The peak for electric usage is in the summer, with the sun shining. If solar thermal is perfect for taking care of the peak (which it is) then we need far fewer coal/natural gas plants. If you can then store energy for hours (with molten salt you can) then the solar option works for a good bit of non-peak as well. Your assertion (at least in the US) that we need a lot of the power when the sun is not shining is not quite true. Solar thermal as a means to electricity makes a lot of sense. It cannot provide 100%, but on the other hand it doesn't need to.
Ok, so most installations of photoshop are pirated. And you know this because you think it's true, but have nothing to back up this assertion. Nicely done.
I am/was responding to the original assertion by someone else that a company was unethical requiring photoshop skills for new hires, essentially saying that doing so was tantamount to supporting piracy. I called BS. I gave good reasons (every college I have been to to teach/lecture/study has provided photoshop and offered classes). Then you jumped in and said a lot of things, but apparently just wanted to mouth off.
And the only evidence that you have to support it is the assertion that you make. I still call BS, as no one I know who uses photoshop has pirated it. Most people I know don't know what photoshop is. Perhaps you are a student and think that most students have pirated photoshop, I would again disagree, but would agree that most people who have pirated photoshop are students. But of the people who use photoshop, only a small subset are students.
Ahhh, you have nothing more than poor wit to stand on. I see. So "most people" are pirating photoshop becuase you've heard of piracy on the internet, peer to peer file sharing, and an unfunny website with cats that have thought bubbles. I consider myself schooled. But if you do come up with a meaningful argument I'm anxious to hear it.
I find it interesting that throughout this you speak for "most people" without ever qualifying how it is you do so. I speak for myself, and happen to know quite a few people who use the products the same way. I call BS still . . . who are you to speak for "most people"?
But if your house is on a private road, and the photographer took a picture of your house from your private property then that would be a problem. TFA leads me to believe this is what happened. And if it is then Google should pay.
because only the *inside* of a house is truly private.
This is a slippery slope. I believe that my "private" property is private. For anyone to publish photos of this should require my permission. Your 747 postulation is already covered I belive. I'm too lazy to look up the details but there are provisions for aerial and other types that don't show much detail.
I guess it depends, but I use illustrator/photoshop and In Design daily. InDesign is the best layout program I have found, granted amongst a bunch of freeware which is lacking. And for graphic arts illustrator cannot be beat either. Photoshop is actually what I use the least . . . just putting renderings of proposed buildings into site photographs etc. GoLive was also useful, I know there are a bunch of other offerings, but as a student I used it to build a publication for a design contest and got paid $500 . . . so GoLive paid for the entire suite and then some.
I thought then, and still think that 300 for photoshop, illustrator, go live, in design, and acrobat was a good price. But you are correct about the functionality. I use PS 7 at work and find it to be no different from CS.
" . . . those students [illegally] obtained photoshop."
I call BS. I just got out of grad school and Adobe CS could be had for $299 (the educational version). The computer labs for the department all had CS and then CS2, probably now have CS3. There were students with illegal copies on their laptop, but for the most part everyone had access to perfectly legal versions. I would guess that most schools of art, architecture, and photography would have at least this.
It appears that we could go round and round about this ad nauseum. Perhaps I missed the implication of the US being in a glass house meaning that somehow we can't or don't have the right to point out the abuse of others, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. I saw that more in line of speaking to the superiority complex that we can have when criticizing others. But in the end I think we agree . . . abuse of power is bad no matter where it happens, which is everywhere it seems. I don't happen to be a moral relativist about it, more bad is still bad, and just becuase we might not be on the extreme end of it does in no way make it more acceptable.
I don't think anyone would argue with you there, but it still doesn't excuse the abuse of power. So to put up a strawman like that is essentially being an apologist.
I agree. The difference that I see is code written within a corp not as a part of the OSS movement is developed with deployment in mind, not with the attitude that others are going to also use this code. This leads to poor documentation (esp in code commenting) and generally sloppy coding. Now, OSS may not be better, but I would hazard a guess to say that it is. Writing code that you know other coders are going to use in other applications/ projects as a matter of pride would lead to better organization, commenting, etc. Of course I may be completely wrong . . .
So the label gets 2.40 per CD in your new model, with the artist only getting $1. The marketing/ promotion (1.20 again yours) is also a label item. This really is BS. The artist pays for that weather or not they are being marketed. I say give the artist the bulk of that money, and let them pay separately for marketing. The label should be allowed to make a profit, but double billing once for profit and once for overhead just ensures the pork . . . there is no incentive for the label to find a more efficient business model. And again for the retail . . . they have a mark up but >20% per CD? The artist and consumer are getting screwed. When I bill for my time I expect the loaded rate to be no more than 50% of the total. That is for time, why should something with an infinite shelf life be loaded so greatly (a multiple of more than 10, vs what I use of 2). The artists are pulling a big cart, loaded up with a bunch of fat cats smoking some really good cigars (or something).
Modern art and architecture have a variety of meanings. Necessarily so because the industrial revolution led to an explosion in availabilty of information, material choices, etc. For instance the availability of steel and glass let to changes in the way buildings were conceived and constructed. The facade could be multi-layered, allowing an exploration of what transparency meant. This was an interesting time too in that photography was emerging as a communicative medium, and artists responded with some interesting analysis of what representation was all about (eg, "this is not a pipe"). I have found that the multiplicity of interpretations makes modernism as an art movement very hard to classify. But to say that it has no meaning is obtuse.
And to further the point, there has really been no innovation that has led to better mileage since the late 70s. At that point you could buy VW rabbit that got 35 mpg, a chevy citation that got a bit more than 40mpg, and a few others, one by renault IIRC (le car?), that were pretty good. Now it is 30 years later and that is still what we have, except now some of them are hybrid and really not doing much better than the high mileage IC counterparts. Perhaps this will spark innovation from more companies than the just the all electric leaders (aptera and tesla).
The point is that you said the equivalent of: "No. They suck." If you had said, "they suck because they only go 100 miles and I hate to have to plug my car in every night." it would have contributed more than just the "nuh huh" kind of reply. I was trying to get you to give some degree of weight to the "they suck" argument. In the movie the claim was made that electric car technology exists today that would answer the need of 90% (I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but they had a large number there) of todays communting needs. I was skeptical of that, so did some informal polling to see if it jived, and here in the SW sprawl I found that it did. And the people who had the cars loved them so much that they picketed, protested, and arranged financing to buy them. The people who drove these cars disagree with you. This is like you arguing that no one lives in montana after we all watched a documentary which included interviews with people who live in montana:)
I don't think you are putting it in the right perspective with regards to the physics. What do you say to this? See the last paragraph where they look at drive train total power density. As for the lifetime of battery packs, there is a lot of innovation being made. If the ev takes off, then it will be like hard drives being expensive back in the early 80s.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. If you don't want an EV then don't buy one. There are a lot of people for whom an EV would be the perfect car who would want one (myself included). That option does not exist right now mostly because of the economics and technology limitations but that is likely to change. I wonder why this is a problem for you. I did not notice anywhere in previous posts the suggestion that you, or anyone should be forced to live a certain way. Indeed, the only people being forced to live a certain way are those who would rather have an EV. And the only thing forcing them to live this way is the lack of this choice in the marketplace. The good news is that this is probably changing and so everyone can be happy.
As for people staying out of pocketbooks, I agree completely. To the point that my tax dollars should not be used to subsidize the extremely profitable oil and gas conglomerates. Subsidies should only go to emerging technologies that can be good for the country and should stop as soon as they become profitable, in my opinion.
Regarding your sig. what did the suckers ever do to you that you wish to insult them so?
The power needs in the extreme northern and southern are less, because far fewer people live there. The peak for electric usage is in the summer, with the sun shining. If solar thermal is perfect for taking care of the peak (which it is) then we need far fewer coal/natural gas plants. If you can then store energy for hours (with molten salt you can) then the solar option works for a good bit of non-peak as well. Your assertion (at least in the US) that we need a lot of the power when the sun is not shining is not quite true. Solar thermal as a means to electricity makes a lot of sense. It cannot provide 100%, but on the other hand it doesn't need to.
Ok, so most installations of photoshop are pirated. And you know this because you think it's true, but have nothing to back up this assertion. Nicely done.
I am/was responding to the original assertion by someone else that a company was unethical requiring photoshop skills for new hires, essentially saying that doing so was tantamount to supporting piracy. I called BS. I gave good reasons (every college I have been to to teach/lecture/study has provided photoshop and offered classes). Then you jumped in and said a lot of things, but apparently just wanted to mouth off.
And the only evidence that you have to support it is the assertion that you make. I still call BS, as no one I know who uses photoshop has pirated it. Most people I know don't know what photoshop is. Perhaps you are a student and think that most students have pirated photoshop, I would again disagree, but would agree that most people who have pirated photoshop are students. But of the people who use photoshop, only a small subset are students.
Ahhh, you have nothing more than poor wit to stand on. I see. So "most people" are pirating photoshop becuase you've heard of piracy on the internet, peer to peer file sharing, and an unfunny website with cats that have thought bubbles. I consider myself schooled. But if you do come up with a meaningful argument I'm anxious to hear it.
I find it interesting that throughout this you speak for "most people" without ever qualifying how it is you do so. I speak for myself, and happen to know quite a few people who use the products the same way. I call BS still . . . who are you to speak for "most people"?
because only the *inside* of a house is truly private.
This is a slippery slope. I believe that my "private" property is private. For anyone to publish photos of this should require my permission. Your 747 postulation is already covered I belive. I'm too lazy to look up the details but there are provisions for aerial and other types that don't show much detail.
I guess it depends, but I use illustrator/photoshop and In Design daily. InDesign is the best layout program I have found, granted amongst a bunch of freeware which is lacking. And for graphic arts illustrator cannot be beat either. Photoshop is actually what I use the least . . . just putting renderings of proposed buildings into site photographs etc. GoLive was also useful, I know there are a bunch of other offerings, but as a student I used it to build a publication for a design contest and got paid $500 . . . so GoLive paid for the entire suite and then some.
I thought then, and still think that 300 for photoshop, illustrator, go live, in design, and acrobat was a good price. But you are correct about the functionality. I use PS 7 at work and find it to be no different from CS.
" . . . those students [illegally] obtained photoshop." I call BS. I just got out of grad school and Adobe CS could be had for $299 (the educational version). The computer labs for the department all had CS and then CS2, probably now have CS3. There were students with illegal copies on their laptop, but for the most part everyone had access to perfectly legal versions. I would guess that most schools of art, architecture, and photography would have at least this.
It appears that we could go round and round about this ad nauseum. Perhaps I missed the implication of the US being in a glass house meaning that somehow we can't or don't have the right to point out the abuse of others, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. I saw that more in line of speaking to the superiority complex that we can have when criticizing others. But in the end I think we agree . . . abuse of power is bad no matter where it happens, which is everywhere it seems. I don't happen to be a moral relativist about it, more bad is still bad, and just becuase we might not be on the extreme end of it does in no way make it more acceptable.
I don't think anyone would argue with you there, but it still doesn't excuse the abuse of power. So to put up a strawman like that is essentially being an apologist.
fjfjfjf fjfj fjfjfjfj fj fjfj fjfjfj fjfjfj
I agree. The difference that I see is code written within a corp not as a part of the OSS movement is developed with deployment in mind, not with the attitude that others are going to also use this code. This leads to poor documentation (esp in code commenting) and generally sloppy coding. Now, OSS may not be better, but I would hazard a guess to say that it is. Writing code that you know other coders are going to use in other applications/ projects as a matter of pride would lead to better organization, commenting, etc. Of course I may be completely wrong . . .
So the label gets 2.40 per CD in your new model, with the artist only getting $1. The marketing/ promotion (1.20 again yours) is also a label item. This really is BS. The artist pays for that weather or not they are being marketed. I say give the artist the bulk of that money, and let them pay separately for marketing. The label should be allowed to make a profit, but double billing once for profit and once for overhead just ensures the pork . . . there is no incentive for the label to find a more efficient business model. And again for the retail . . . they have a mark up but >20% per CD? The artist and consumer are getting screwed. When I bill for my time I expect the loaded rate to be no more than 50% of the total. That is for time, why should something with an infinite shelf life be loaded so greatly (a multiple of more than 10, vs what I use of 2). The artists are pulling a big cart, loaded up with a bunch of fat cats smoking some really good cigars (or something).
Modern art and architecture have a variety of meanings. Necessarily so because the industrial revolution led to an explosion in availabilty of information, material choices, etc. For instance the availability of steel and glass let to changes in the way buildings were conceived and constructed. The facade could be multi-layered, allowing an exploration of what transparency meant. This was an interesting time too in that photography was emerging as a communicative medium, and artists responded with some interesting analysis of what representation was all about (eg, "this is not a pipe"). I have found that the multiplicity of interpretations makes modernism as an art movement very hard to classify. But to say that it has no meaning is obtuse.
I'm an insurance salesman you insensitive clod!
And to further the point, there has really been no innovation that has led to better mileage since the late 70s. At that point you could buy VW rabbit that got 35 mpg, a chevy citation that got a bit more than 40mpg, and a few others, one by renault IIRC (le car?), that were pretty good. Now it is 30 years later and that is still what we have, except now some of them are hybrid and really not doing much better than the high mileage IC counterparts. Perhaps this will spark innovation from more companies than the just the all electric leaders (aptera and tesla).
51
The mods are tripping again.
The point is that you said the equivalent of: "No. They suck." If you had said, "they suck because they only go 100 miles and I hate to have to plug my car in every night." it would have contributed more than just the "nuh huh" kind of reply. I was trying to get you to give some degree of weight to the "they suck" argument. In the movie the claim was made that electric car technology exists today that would answer the need of 90% (I'm pulling that number out of my ass, but they had a large number there) of todays communting needs. I was skeptical of that, so did some informal polling to see if it jived, and here in the SW sprawl I found that it did. And the people who had the cars loved them so much that they picketed, protested, and arranged financing to buy them. The people who drove these cars disagree with you. This is like you arguing that no one lives in montana after we all watched a documentary which included interviews with people who live in montana :)
Please may I subscribe to your newsletter.
I don't think you are putting it in the right perspective with regards to the physics. What do you say to this? See the last paragraph where they look at drive train total power density. As for the lifetime of battery packs, there is a lot of innovation being made. If the ev takes off, then it will be like hard drives being expensive back in the early 80s.