Labor isn't the cost (except for GM, and others with horrible management). The environmental cost is the issue. Toyota makes cars in the US for a cost difference less than shipping them from Japan.
I had a Motorola Timeport World Phone in 2000. Lost it in a parking lot. Found it later. Had been run over at least once. Still worked, essentially undamaged, though the batter cover was problematic to get on and off after (but once one, stayed on).
The cost of production in the US is the environmental cost, not the labor cost. Making "dirty" electronics is cheap. Cleaning the pollution at the plant is not. The amout of labor used to make a device isn't that much.
Even so, I still expect people to go for the slave labour Macbook at $1699 instead of the $1899 "proudly manufactured in the USA" model, when given a choice. Especially when no one is looking.
That's why the US version would have a special red/white/blue color scheme.
It takes a lot of power to melt snow off a roof. Off elevated panels that have snow building up on them? Almost none. LED stoplights have small heaters (5W or so), with a re-designed shroud to stay snow-free. Though vertical, on a slant, there wouldn't need to be much power at all to melt the first 1/10th mm for the rest to slide off.
So, hydro isn't "renewable" when it doesn't fit your narrative? coal/gas is cheap when you don't consider the pollution expelled. When you account for that, renewables are closer in price (cheaper here than coal, but apparently not where you are).
Nope. The "infrastructure" was paid for by the state. The oil companies refused to drill until the State of Alaska built the pipeline. Of course, The State of Alaska paid the cost of building it, but sold it to a private company (Alyeska). Your lies are lies.
And yes, the "Eskimos" [sic] did. The natives did mine oil, using it for heat, before the white man showed them how to pump it out in large amounts. That's how the white man found the oil. They saw the natives using it, then looked around where they were getting it from.
If you are curious, the "AK" in my username is the state abbreviation for Alaska. No, that wasn't a coincidence. But feel free to lecture me on Alaska. It's like when my 5 year old sees me playing a video game and proceeds to describe the plot and controls. Though it's cuter when it's a 5 year old being condescending to someone who knows more than they do.
Yet, I've seen it in operation. Funny how everything "impossible" and fucking stupid has been done and works much better in reality than the nay-sayers say.
The English Colonies in North America didn't grant English citizenship to the locals. So I guess the "colonies" weren't colonies. The definitions of "colonies" I found didn't require the definition you gave. The colonists are generally linked to the home country (the US military occupiers are US citizens), but the natives are undefined, and often not citizens, as we see today in the Middle East.
Nope. Protecting the people is. Business interests aren't people. Though you've hit on the good reason why the taxes need to be higher on the rich. Tax 90% of all income over $5M a year (gross, not AGI) would be a good place to start. The rich benefit from wars. The poor never do. If China invaded the US and won, the homeless guy in San Fran might see a change in the uniform of the person who orders him to not sleep on the park bench, but no other change to his life. But Bill Gates and such would see a huge difference when MS is nationalized.
The (current) military exists solely to protect the profits of the 1%, and serves no other purpose. Taxing the middle class for that is absurd.
The decrease in stability increased price/profit. This was a subsidy because it was an expense by the government to generate profit for a private corporation. Much like the $0 cost loan guarantees were called "subsidies". Oil company profits were up, the price doesn't matter to whether it was a subsidy.
The world would have to stop spinning (so the solar panels were always lot and at a perfect angle with zero clouds) with all the panels moved to the equator, while the wind would have to be a constant gale at all wind locations..
Nope. The capacity of an installed solar panel is the sum or average of expected generation over a day/month/year, so it takes generation time and location into account.
And the wind around here is a yearly average as the given power level, and at least here, wind generates more than all the petrochemicals in the same grid. But then, I'm not in the US.
The proof renewables work is all the lies told by those who hate them. If they didn't work, then they wouldn't need to lie so much to make them look bad.
All the oil pumped out of the ground in Alaska is a "gift" from Alaska to the oil companies (though the free gift is then taxed). When you count the trillions of dollars of petrochemical subsidies, the few millions on renewables isn't even a rounding error.
So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?
They don't share their methods. They say to try to keep anyone from gaming the results, but from insiders, it's because it's not consistent or logical. It's easier to justify numbers in court and such (as they get sued) if they have 100% perfection, or no process. If you have a process and it fails 1% of the time, that failure in process can be justification for a lawsuit, but "opinions" can't be sued.
As you note, they did a report of a car before they had enough data. Not the first time, not the last. They paid out Suzuki when they invented a new test, explicitly designed to flip the Sidekick and were sued for it.
CR doesn't accept advertisements, except for/from themselves, and when they have something to sensationalize, they do, to get in the news.
That sounds like a good idea. Like the $1 you can donate on your taxes, political donations are allowed, only to the general fund, and you can give it in the name of someone, but not earmarked. Then, the funds would be distributed in a set manner. I would set the distribution such that a 3rd party candidate could make a profit running an unwinnable campaign, and the major parties would see a cut in funding, but since it would be the major parties voting on it, I don't think that would ever fly.
That's one of the issues with CR's reporting. 100 people with problems with a cupholder would rate as "poor" while 2 with a blown engine would rate as "good", when the sum of cost of 100 cupholders is less than two engines, so the upkeep cost of the "reliable" car is higher than the "unreliable" car.
Disney owns Buena Vista, and nobody cares about that. Disney/Marvel seemed to ruffle more feathers, especially here. And both of those are creators, not creator and distributor.
In most acquisitions of this type, if approved, AT&T would have to sell in areas where they'd be the only choice. So you'd remain with two choices. Likely AT&T and Comcast (as the phone company would tend to keep the phone system, and that'd mean they'd have to sell the cable, and Comcast is the biggest in that area now, and would likely profit from the merger in the short term).
Not by Bush, but by the CIA. When the CIA asserts that Saddam Hussein is buying Yellow Cake, do you really want Congress ignoring that when passing laws?
And funny how conservatives insist we worship the presidency when a Republican is in office, and the opposite when the office is held by a Democrat.
TW also gave to Republicans and Trump. Most organizations double-donate, to hedge their bets. The donations are less an indication of who they want to see, and more an indication of who they think will win, as the more they give, the more influence they expect. It's simple bribery. Except without a result pre-planned. So like a bribery retainer. And perfectly legal. If you don't like it, get the Republican Congress to end it. Oh, wait. They are explicitly for the bribery, and when the Democratic Party tried to end it, the Republicans blocked that. Couldn't end the bribery, and actively working to promote and extend it. Though, maybe the Democratic Party proposed it as a publicity stunt, knowing the Republicans would block anything proposed, and the Dems wouldn't have supported their own thing, if it went to a final vote, but we'll never know, because the Republicans voted to extend bribery.
It's common in these for AT&T to agree to sell the cable franchise anywhere where they are already the local phone company. Such "restrictions" are common in these types of mergers, and don't reduce the customers available choices, but increase the area wher AT&T is one of the two choices. THe idea of a "natural monopoly" requiring government rules to establish and protect monopolies is the problem. A "natural monopoly" had a meaning in the start of phone service, where the 3 overlapping phone companies refused to intertie, to the point you couldn't call someone on the other network. Requiring FRAND intertie removes any need for monopolistic protections. Internet POPs are FRAND (in practice, if not in legislation). And that's fine. IF all local providers tie together at a central point with FRAND terms, there's no need to continue to defend monopolies. Perhaps adjust the USF fees to discourage cherry-picking of urban areas and better fund rural areas, but no need for a government-enforced monopoly.
That sounds like the militia, who want a farm they can retreat to so they don't get triggered. The liberals and conservatives have both gone so far in their respective directions, you can't tell them apart.
Slashdot Mirror
Labor isn't the cost (except for GM, and others with horrible management). The environmental cost is the issue. Toyota makes cars in the US for a cost difference less than shipping them from Japan.
I had a Motorola Timeport World Phone in 2000. Lost it in a parking lot. Found it later. Had been run over at least once. Still worked, essentially undamaged, though the batter cover was problematic to get on and off after (but once one, stayed on).
Even so, I still expect people to go for the slave labour Macbook at $1699 instead of the $1899 "proudly manufactured in the USA" model, when given a choice. Especially when no one is looking.
That's why the US version would have a special red/white/blue color scheme.
It takes a lot of power to melt snow off a roof. Off elevated panels that have snow building up on them? Almost none. LED stoplights have small heaters (5W or so), with a re-designed shroud to stay snow-free. Though vertical, on a slant, there wouldn't need to be much power at all to melt the first 1/10th mm for the rest to slide off.
So, hydro isn't "renewable" when it doesn't fit your narrative? coal/gas is cheap when you don't consider the pollution expelled. When you account for that, renewables are closer in price (cheaper here than coal, but apparently not where you are).
Nope. The "infrastructure" was paid for by the state. The oil companies refused to drill until the State of Alaska built the pipeline. Of course, The State of Alaska paid the cost of building it, but sold it to a private company (Alyeska). Your lies are lies.
And yes, the "Eskimos" [sic] did. The natives did mine oil, using it for heat, before the white man showed them how to pump it out in large amounts. That's how the white man found the oil. They saw the natives using it, then looked around where they were getting it from.
If you are curious, the "AK" in my username is the state abbreviation for Alaska. No, that wasn't a coincidence. But feel free to lecture me on Alaska. It's like when my 5 year old sees me playing a video game and proceeds to describe the plot and controls. Though it's cuter when it's a 5 year old being condescending to someone who knows more than they do.
You put them in the mountains in west Canada, and build a national grid to move the power where it's needed.
Yet, I've seen it in operation. Funny how everything "impossible" and fucking stupid has been done and works much better in reality than the nay-sayers say.
The English Colonies in North America didn't grant English citizenship to the locals. So I guess the "colonies" weren't colonies. The definitions of "colonies" I found didn't require the definition you gave. The colonists are generally linked to the home country (the US military occupiers are US citizens), but the natives are undefined, and often not citizens, as we see today in the Middle East.
Nope. Protecting the people is. Business interests aren't people. Though you've hit on the good reason why the taxes need to be higher on the rich. Tax 90% of all income over $5M a year (gross, not AGI) would be a good place to start. The rich benefit from wars. The poor never do. If China invaded the US and won, the homeless guy in San Fran might see a change in the uniform of the person who orders him to not sleep on the park bench, but no other change to his life. But Bill Gates and such would see a huge difference when MS is nationalized.
The (current) military exists solely to protect the profits of the 1%, and serves no other purpose. Taxing the middle class for that is absurd.
The decrease in stability increased price/profit. This was a subsidy because it was an expense by the government to generate profit for a private corporation. Much like the $0 cost loan guarantees were called "subsidies". Oil company profits were up, the price doesn't matter to whether it was a subsidy.
Wind, hydro, and geothermal provide at least part of my electricity on the darkest hour of the coldest night.
The world would have to stop spinning (so the solar panels were always lot and at a perfect angle with zero clouds) with all the panels moved to the equator, while the wind would have to be a constant gale at all wind locations..
Nope. The capacity of an installed solar panel is the sum or average of expected generation over a day/month/year, so it takes generation time and location into account.
And the wind around here is a yearly average as the given power level, and at least here, wind generates more than all the petrochemicals in the same grid. But then, I'm not in the US.
The proof renewables work is all the lies told by those who hate them. If they didn't work, then they wouldn't need to lie so much to make them look bad.
All the oil pumped out of the ground in Alaska is a "gift" from Alaska to the oil companies (though the free gift is then taxed). When you count the trillions of dollars of petrochemical subsidies, the few millions on renewables isn't even a rounding error.
So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?
They don't share their methods. They say to try to keep anyone from gaming the results, but from insiders, it's because it's not consistent or logical. It's easier to justify numbers in court and such (as they get sued) if they have 100% perfection, or no process. If you have a process and it fails 1% of the time, that failure in process can be justification for a lawsuit, but "opinions" can't be sued.
As you note, they did a report of a car before they had enough data. Not the first time, not the last. They paid out Suzuki when they invented a new test, explicitly designed to flip the Sidekick and were sued for it.
CR doesn't accept advertisements, except for/from themselves, and when they have something to sensationalize, they do, to get in the news.
That sounds like a good idea. Like the $1 you can donate on your taxes, political donations are allowed, only to the general fund, and you can give it in the name of someone, but not earmarked. Then, the funds would be distributed in a set manner. I would set the distribution such that a 3rd party candidate could make a profit running an unwinnable campaign, and the major parties would see a cut in funding, but since it would be the major parties voting on it, I don't think that would ever fly.
That's one of the issues with CR's reporting. 100 people with problems with a cupholder would rate as "poor" while 2 with a blown engine would rate as "good", when the sum of cost of 100 cupholders is less than two engines, so the upkeep cost of the "reliable" car is higher than the "unreliable" car.
Disney owns Buena Vista, and nobody cares about that. Disney/Marvel seemed to ruffle more feathers, especially here. And both of those are creators, not creator and distributor.
In most acquisitions of this type, if approved, AT&T would have to sell in areas where they'd be the only choice. So you'd remain with two choices. Likely AT&T and Comcast (as the phone company would tend to keep the phone system, and that'd mean they'd have to sell the cable, and Comcast is the biggest in that area now, and would likely profit from the merger in the short term).
So a politician who cares about their constituents is a bad politician? That seems an odd position.
Not by Bush, but by the CIA. When the CIA asserts that Saddam Hussein is buying Yellow Cake, do you really want Congress ignoring that when passing laws?
And funny how conservatives insist we worship the presidency when a Republican is in office, and the opposite when the office is held by a Democrat.
TW also gave to Republicans and Trump. Most organizations double-donate, to hedge their bets. The donations are less an indication of who they want to see, and more an indication of who they think will win, as the more they give, the more influence they expect. It's simple bribery. Except without a result pre-planned. So like a bribery retainer. And perfectly legal. If you don't like it, get the Republican Congress to end it. Oh, wait. They are explicitly for the bribery, and when the Democratic Party tried to end it, the Republicans blocked that. Couldn't end the bribery, and actively working to promote and extend it. Though, maybe the Democratic Party proposed it as a publicity stunt, knowing the Republicans would block anything proposed, and the Dems wouldn't have supported their own thing, if it went to a final vote, but we'll never know, because the Republicans voted to extend bribery.
It's common in these for AT&T to agree to sell the cable franchise anywhere where they are already the local phone company. Such "restrictions" are common in these types of mergers, and don't reduce the customers available choices, but increase the area wher AT&T is one of the two choices. THe idea of a "natural monopoly" requiring government rules to establish and protect monopolies is the problem. A "natural monopoly" had a meaning in the start of phone service, where the 3 overlapping phone companies refused to intertie, to the point you couldn't call someone on the other network. Requiring FRAND intertie removes any need for monopolistic protections. Internet POPs are FRAND (in practice, if not in legislation). And that's fine. IF all local providers tie together at a central point with FRAND terms, there's no need to continue to defend monopolies. Perhaps adjust the USF fees to discourage cherry-picking of urban areas and better fund rural areas, but no need for a government-enforced monopoly.
That sounds like the militia, who want a farm they can retreat to so they don't get triggered. The liberals and conservatives have both gone so far in their respective directions, you can't tell them apart.