Wind doesn't get that much. Solar gets some, but still not as much as fossil fuels. The large grants for home solar look to be almost non existent now.
I'm saying that singling out "leasing", rather than the generic "financing" made you a liar. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. The rest is irrelevant.
So you were lying when you were bashing "leases". The problem isn't "leases" it's "financing."
And when you borrow for your car, you are allowed to do absolute anything you want with it. The only restriction is that if you are thought to be deliberately vandalizing it when you think the bank will repo it, you are liable for the damage.
You talked about contract phones being like leased cars, then made false statements about car leases. Changing the subject won't make you any less of an ignorant liar. That you go on the offensive when your lies are pointed out, and dance the pedantic dance "my lies were close enough to the truth that they count" proves they were intentional lies.
Why not point out that things you own outright are still not owned outright? The IRS can take your TV. The state government can take your home. Even if both are fully paid off and lien free, not paying fed taxes can get your shit seized, and not paying property tax will get your house seized. So owning outright doesn't give any more protection than borrowed against. And, so long as you keep up on your payments, liened things, borrowed against, are "yours" in ever legal definition of the word. The bank *can't* seize it.
The oil companies receive more than the solar and wind companies do. Power is not subsidized equally.
If you gave 1/3 the equivalent percentage to nuclear, for instance, you'd see a mass rush to build.
Nuclear got (gets?) more than solar ever did. The liability limits, guaranteed loans, and such are worth billions. Nuclear is uneconomical in the US because the for-profit nuclear companies want a 10% return on day-1, and a plant takes 10+ years to build in the curent regulatory environment. If you can build a plant, it's profitable, but nobody is trying. The subsidies are already there, but the wrong ones for the investment landscape.
And as the sun comes from behind the clouds and generation increases, the sun heats up houses and businesses, causing usage to spike. Aside from the people telling us the grid is so fragile it's a miracle it's working right now, nobody is calling that a problem.
Transmission is fine in India. The generation is insufficient. Since people profit from generation in the US, it's up to date. Transmission not as much, so it's not up to date.
Lose your job? If you own the car, you can sell it. A lease? You're probably upside-down.
If you own the car you are likely as much or more upside down than if you have it leased. Selling a leased car is allowed, as is turning it in early. You have *more* options with a lease, not fewer. You can sell it by transferring the lease, or by buying out the lease then selling the 100% owned car, options you don't get if you buy it.
So you can't really just do what you want when you lease a car as opposed to owning one.
You obviously have been told that leasing is a bad idea, and never tried it. I leased a car once. The manufacturer inventives made it much cheaper to lease (then buy out at the end) then buy. So I leased. The rules would have allowed me to do anything I wanted to to it, so long as the retail value is not diminished below the same car without mods. Also, I could do *anything* I wanted to it, so long as it was reversed. There were no restrictions at all.
Oh, and there were no requirements I plate it. Just that I insure it, same as every other financing option.
When you count the manufacturer incentives, leases are often much cheaper (and no less "free") than buying. Your aggressive ignorance won't change that.
I've bought new twice. 0% 60 months left me never upside down on my first new car. 0% lease, with a good buy out, making payments small, while still keeping the 3-year buy-out small. Both times, it worked out better than buying a 1-year used (the sweet-spot for the warranty desiring new-car haters).
Not at the moment, but sometimes I do. All it takes is a frosty power line in upstate NY to kill power for millions for days. That doesn't sound state of the art, but archaic and barely adequate.
There's enough solar and wind to power the world. Anyone who says there isn't is a liar. If every house in the US were to have its roof covered in PV, the results would generate more power in a day than used in a day in those houses. If every building were covered, it'd generate more power than used everywhere in the US. Do the roads, and you'd have enough for 10 years from now, with power usage increasing at current rate, and everyone switching to electric cars.
The power is there. We just refuse to use it. Wind and hydro and other renewables would help cover off times, and there are a variety of batteries already in use around the globe (the hydro plant I toured in China stores excess baseline generated overnight for use for the next day's peak, but it could easily run the other way around).
I have seen people fly to a different state to buy a car (new or used) and have it delivered or drive it back. Living in Alaska, I have no choice for some things (it's the one dealer in the state, or nothing), so people buy from Seattle and ship it to Alaska, or fly down and drive it back. Cross-state vehicle sales isn't as doubtful as you think.
When my mother moved to Alaska, she bought a "new" car (used Subaru) to drive up (used cars are expensive in Alaska). She bought it in Texas. From a Texas dealer. And registered it in Alaska, without ever having it registered in Texas. Done that way to avoid Texas sales tax, but common and suggested by the Texas dealer (presumably legal, or someone would have stopped them, right?).
The "best" solution would have been to have a windowed viewing that would display the page in the requested window size (with permission of the viewer). Instead, I still find myself with large bars along the side of the browser from the explicitly unused area of the screen. Even in "late" 2014.
And even if the contract was for a single launch, there would still be a contract, unless you are advocating for handshake deals.
When you read with context, you are wrong, and he's right. A spot contract would be done, but not a sole-source contract (the usual one) or other exclusive longer-term contracts.
My experience is that a directory makes it easier to find new things that are interesting, and a search engine makes it easier to find what you are looking for. They are different things for different purposes.
That was a problem long before tablets. I still run across sites hard coded for a specific resolution. Previously 640x480, but higher later, but still hard coded for a single resolution. And assuming full-screen display.
In current usage, it's now an English, not Latin word meaning "retired, but wishing to use the pre-retirement title". Like how all Presidents of the USA are "president". President Bill Clinton is still "president" by title, even if "retired".
And make no mistake, it's an English word, like so many foreign words, used without great change for a meaning slightly different than the "original".
It's not "wrong". It's language. That's how English works. Much like the original definition of broadband defines 56kbps dial-up as "broadband" and 100 Gbps fibre as "not broadband (baseband). Now, "broadband" means "fast" and baseband means nothing. Language evolves. Even in ways we don't like.
The after effects sound like the longer term effects of a stroke. I'd guess that both kill some brain cells (or at least fry some pathways). Most of the time, a well treated stroke victim has subtle changes. It's the 80+ year old victims who already could only just barely dress themselves who have a stroke that end up massicely affected. "aged 30 years in a stroke (of lightning)" when you are already feeling like 120 years old leaves you 150 years old, and that's the traditional drooling incontinent stroke victim. That and the untreated stroke victim - the one where they had the stroke sometime in the night, and didn't get any treatment until noon the next day, so they went 16 hours with an untreated blockage or bleed.
For me, I had a massive stroke at 35. Treated within a couple hours (at the hospital within 15 minutes of the first symptom), and the only effects are the very subtle ones. Nobody guesses that I had a stroke, let alone that was one of the biggest the stroke specialists had ever seen. But I know the difference. It does affect energy levels and patience.
I had a 2-year MRI, and 25%+ of my brain was still "darker" than the rest. At least with a stroke, the MRI will show exactly where the damage is, years later. The lightning would affect random connections spread to where there's no identifiable damage area. We aren't smart enough to be able to see brain damage as minor and random as the effects reported here.
I had a problem with my brakes. On my Subaru Impreza WRX, they didn't work when I went over wet railroad tracks with the brakes applied (the ABS back-off algorithm wouldn't allow best braking). This would, on a road I regularly took, double my stopping distance. It was a major safety issue. When I noticed the problem, I looked online and found it a common problem. Subaru issued a voluntary recall to replace the ABS controller (the entire ECU, since they were linked). I called the dealer, scheduled the repair, gave the TSB number and confirmed they'd have the parts in. They called back "when the parts were in" and I took it in.
The next day, they called and asked me for the TSB number, as there were "no recalls for my vehicle". I took in two separate TSBs (the one I wanted, and one more I got that I didn't care about). They confirmed that there were, in fact, "TSBs" for my car, but the two I had marked "voluntary recall" were not recalls.
Despite giving the TSB number and indicating it was an ECU change and to not schedule me without having the parts in, I picked up my car that day, and waited another 3 months for them to get the part in. When it was finally changed (with a bill of $150 for warranty safety recall work done, because they needed to charge for their test-drive time), the car stopped much better, despite the TSB assuring me the NTSB didn't see any fault in the ABS, nor improvement with the new ECU. Apparently stopping with 100 ft to spare or rolling into an intersection because the brakes didn't work was all in my head.
But Thank God for Continental Subaru, who saw to my safety by scheduling me for a service without the parts on hand to complete it, being ignorant about what TSBs are issued for the cars they sell, arguing with me about which TSB I wanted done, and charging me for getting a safety recall done. Though I'm not sure a manufacturer could do any worse if they tried.
You need to change the law first, THEN you can sell cars legally.
I take away from that that Tesla needs to have its only sales office in AK or OR (someplace without sales tax) and "sell" the car elsewhere and deliver it to the buyer. Moving the sale location invalidates the Iowa law, and is easier than changing law.
Because the laws in Iowa apply to Iowa manufacturers and CA manufacturers the same.
Proof, are there any blue laws in your area? Good, now open a store that violates them. Then claim that you are selling beer from out of state, thus it's interstate commerce and unregulatable by the local/state government. You can argue all you like. You may even be right. You will lose.
GM blamed them too some degree for their bankruptcy back in 2008.
Like they blamed unions. The unions formed in response to their poor treatment of workers. Then every union contract that was in effect was signed by GM. But it's the union's fault GM forced them into existence and worked with them.
GM backed the creation of these rules. It was an anti-competitive rule to raise the barriers of entry against smaller makers. GM helped make those laws, then complains about them years later, like they had no hand in making them.
These aren't NEW, they aren't getting 'legislated out of existence' they failed to build a business model that fits the current laws.
The law says that a dealer in Iowa can't be the manufacturer. The federal law (should trump Iowa law) says that states can't restrict interstate commerce.
Iowa says it's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer. Iowa is violating US law to block these drives and sales.
That's illegal. If a warranty place is not convenient, you have the right to pay a mechanic to do the work, and collect from the manufacturer for the repair.
Where are you where it's not allowed to get warranty work covered under warranty from a 3rd party? There may be some places in the US where you couldn't claim lack of access to an authorized shop, but that doesn't change your rights and their responsibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Wind doesn't get that much. Solar gets some, but still not as much as fossil fuels. The large grants for home solar look to be almost non existent now.
I'm saying that singling out "leasing", rather than the generic "financing" made you a liar. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying. The rest is irrelevant.
So you were lying when you were bashing "leases". The problem isn't "leases" it's "financing."
And when you borrow for your car, you are allowed to do absolute anything you want with it. The only restriction is that if you are thought to be deliberately vandalizing it when you think the bank will repo it, you are liable for the damage.
You talked about contract phones being like leased cars, then made false statements about car leases. Changing the subject won't make you any less of an ignorant liar. That you go on the offensive when your lies are pointed out, and dance the pedantic dance "my lies were close enough to the truth that they count" proves they were intentional lies.
Why not point out that things you own outright are still not owned outright? The IRS can take your TV. The state government can take your home. Even if both are fully paid off and lien free, not paying fed taxes can get your shit seized, and not paying property tax will get your house seized. So owning outright doesn't give any more protection than borrowed against. And, so long as you keep up on your payments, liened things, borrowed against, are "yours" in ever legal definition of the word. The bank *can't* seize it.
If you gave 1/3 the equivalent percentage to nuclear, for instance, you'd see a mass rush to build.
Nuclear got (gets?) more than solar ever did. The liability limits, guaranteed loans, and such are worth billions. Nuclear is uneconomical in the US because the for-profit nuclear companies want a 10% return on day-1, and a plant takes 10+ years to build in the curent regulatory environment. If you can build a plant, it's profitable, but nobody is trying. The subsidies are already there, but the wrong ones for the investment landscape.
And as the sun comes from behind the clouds and generation increases, the sun heats up houses and businesses, causing usage to spike. Aside from the people telling us the grid is so fragile it's a miracle it's working right now, nobody is calling that a problem.
Transmission is fine in India. The generation is insufficient. Since people profit from generation in the US, it's up to date. Transmission not as much, so it's not up to date.
Lose your job? If you own the car, you can sell it. A lease? You're probably upside-down.
If you own the car you are likely as much or more upside down than if you have it leased. Selling a leased car is allowed, as is turning it in early. You have *more* options with a lease, not fewer. You can sell it by transferring the lease, or by buying out the lease then selling the 100% owned car, options you don't get if you buy it.
So you can't really just do what you want when you lease a car as opposed to owning one.
You obviously have been told that leasing is a bad idea, and never tried it. I leased a car once. The manufacturer inventives made it much cheaper to lease (then buy out at the end) then buy. So I leased. The rules would have allowed me to do anything I wanted to to it, so long as the retail value is not diminished below the same car without mods. Also, I could do *anything* I wanted to it, so long as it was reversed. There were no restrictions at all.
Oh, and there were no requirements I plate it. Just that I insure it, same as every other financing option.
When you count the manufacturer incentives, leases are often much cheaper (and no less "free") than buying. Your aggressive ignorance won't change that.
I've bought new twice. 0% 60 months left me never upside down on my first new car. 0% lease, with a good buy out, making payments small, while still keeping the 3-year buy-out small. Both times, it worked out better than buying a 1-year used (the sweet-spot for the warranty desiring new-car haters).
Not at the moment, but sometimes I do. All it takes is a frosty power line in upstate NY to kill power for millions for days. That doesn't sound state of the art, but archaic and barely adequate.
There's enough solar and wind to power the world. Anyone who says there isn't is a liar. If every house in the US were to have its roof covered in PV, the results would generate more power in a day than used in a day in those houses. If every building were covered, it'd generate more power than used everywhere in the US. Do the roads, and you'd have enough for 10 years from now, with power usage increasing at current rate, and everyone switching to electric cars.
The power is there. We just refuse to use it. Wind and hydro and other renewables would help cover off times, and there are a variety of batteries already in use around the globe (the hydro plant I toured in China stores excess baseline generated overnight for use for the next day's peak, but it could easily run the other way around).
Most of the electric grid systems are upgraded as needed,
In the US "as needed" means 20 years after needed. How is it in Germany?
There's no restriction on moding a leased car. The restriction is against returning it at the end of the term worth less because of them.
I have seen people fly to a different state to buy a car (new or used) and have it delivered or drive it back. Living in Alaska, I have no choice for some things (it's the one dealer in the state, or nothing), so people buy from Seattle and ship it to Alaska, or fly down and drive it back. Cross-state vehicle sales isn't as doubtful as you think.
When my mother moved to Alaska, she bought a "new" car (used Subaru) to drive up (used cars are expensive in Alaska). She bought it in Texas. From a Texas dealer. And registered it in Alaska, without ever having it registered in Texas. Done that way to avoid Texas sales tax, but common and suggested by the Texas dealer (presumably legal, or someone would have stopped them, right?).
The "best" solution would have been to have a windowed viewing that would display the page in the requested window size (with permission of the viewer). Instead, I still find myself with large bars along the side of the browser from the explicitly unused area of the screen. Even in "late" 2014.
And even if the contract was for a single launch, there would still be a contract, unless you are advocating for handshake deals.
When you read with context, you are wrong, and he's right. A spot contract would be done, but not a sole-source contract (the usual one) or other exclusive longer-term contracts.
My experience is that a directory makes it easier to find new things that are interesting, and a search engine makes it easier to find what you are looking for. They are different things for different purposes.
That was a problem long before tablets. I still run across sites hard coded for a specific resolution. Previously 640x480, but higher later, but still hard coded for a single resolution. And assuming full-screen display.
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
In current usage, it's now an English, not Latin word meaning "retired, but wishing to use the pre-retirement title". Like how all Presidents of the USA are "president". President Bill Clinton is still "president" by title, even if "retired".
And make no mistake, it's an English word, like so many foreign words, used without great change for a meaning slightly different than the "original".
It's not "wrong". It's language. That's how English works. Much like the original definition of broadband defines 56kbps dial-up as "broadband" and 100 Gbps fibre as "not broadband (baseband). Now, "broadband" means "fast" and baseband means nothing. Language evolves. Even in ways we don't like.
The after effects sound like the longer term effects of a stroke. I'd guess that both kill some brain cells (or at least fry some pathways). Most of the time, a well treated stroke victim has subtle changes. It's the 80+ year old victims who already could only just barely dress themselves who have a stroke that end up massicely affected. "aged 30 years in a stroke (of lightning)" when you are already feeling like 120 years old leaves you 150 years old, and that's the traditional drooling incontinent stroke victim. That and the untreated stroke victim - the one where they had the stroke sometime in the night, and didn't get any treatment until noon the next day, so they went 16 hours with an untreated blockage or bleed.
For me, I had a massive stroke at 35. Treated within a couple hours (at the hospital within 15 minutes of the first symptom), and the only effects are the very subtle ones. Nobody guesses that I had a stroke, let alone that was one of the biggest the stroke specialists had ever seen. But I know the difference. It does affect energy levels and patience.
I had a 2-year MRI, and 25%+ of my brain was still "darker" than the rest. At least with a stroke, the MRI will show exactly where the damage is, years later. The lightning would affect random connections spread to where there's no identifiable damage area. We aren't smart enough to be able to see brain damage as minor and random as the effects reported here.
Like Continental Subaru?
I had a problem with my brakes. On my Subaru Impreza WRX, they didn't work when I went over wet railroad tracks with the brakes applied (the ABS back-off algorithm wouldn't allow best braking). This would, on a road I regularly took, double my stopping distance. It was a major safety issue. When I noticed the problem, I looked online and found it a common problem. Subaru issued a voluntary recall to replace the ABS controller (the entire ECU, since they were linked). I called the dealer, scheduled the repair, gave the TSB number and confirmed they'd have the parts in. They called back "when the parts were in" and I took it in.
The next day, they called and asked me for the TSB number, as there were "no recalls for my vehicle". I took in two separate TSBs (the one I wanted, and one more I got that I didn't care about). They confirmed that there were, in fact, "TSBs" for my car, but the two I had marked "voluntary recall" were not recalls.
Despite giving the TSB number and indicating it was an ECU change and to not schedule me without having the parts in, I picked up my car that day, and waited another 3 months for them to get the part in. When it was finally changed (with a bill of $150 for warranty safety recall work done, because they needed to charge for their test-drive time), the car stopped much better, despite the TSB assuring me the NTSB didn't see any fault in the ABS, nor improvement with the new ECU. Apparently stopping with 100 ft to spare or rolling into an intersection because the brakes didn't work was all in my head.
But Thank God for Continental Subaru, who saw to my safety by scheduling me for a service without the parts on hand to complete it, being ignorant about what TSBs are issued for the cars they sell, arguing with me about which TSB I wanted done, and charging me for getting a safety recall done. Though I'm not sure a manufacturer could do any worse if they tried.
You need to change the law first, THEN you can sell cars legally.
I take away from that that Tesla needs to have its only sales office in AK or OR (someplace without sales tax) and "sell" the car elsewhere and deliver it to the buyer. Moving the sale location invalidates the Iowa law, and is easier than changing law.
Because the laws in Iowa apply to Iowa manufacturers and CA manufacturers the same.
Proof, are there any blue laws in your area? Good, now open a store that violates them. Then claim that you are selling beer from out of state, thus it's interstate commerce and unregulatable by the local/state government. You can argue all you like. You may even be right. You will lose.
Tesla is a CA company trying to sell interstate to Iowa customers. Iowa is blocking that interstate commerce.
GM blamed them too some degree for their bankruptcy back in 2008.
Like they blamed unions. The unions formed in response to their poor treatment of workers. Then every union contract that was in effect was signed by GM. But it's the union's fault GM forced them into existence and worked with them.
GM backed the creation of these rules. It was an anti-competitive rule to raise the barriers of entry against smaller makers. GM helped make those laws, then complains about them years later, like they had no hand in making them.
These aren't NEW, they aren't getting 'legislated out of existence' they failed to build a business model that fits the current laws.
The law says that a dealer in Iowa can't be the manufacturer. The federal law (should trump Iowa law) says that states can't restrict interstate commerce.
Iowa says it's illegal for a Californian company to sell to an Iowan buyer. Iowa is violating US law to block these drives and sales.
That's illegal. If a warranty place is not convenient, you have the right to pay a mechanic to do the work, and collect from the manufacturer for the repair.
Where are you where it's not allowed to get warranty work covered under warranty from a 3rd party? There may be some places in the US where you couldn't claim lack of access to an authorized shop, but that doesn't change your rights and their responsibilities.
As popular as it is to make this gripe this country was founded on democratic process.
Yes, a "democracy" where only rich old white men could vote.