More production means more tax revenue only if the relative change of production is greater than the relative change of tax rate. It's not sufficient for the relative change of production to be positive.
Then they'd be shocked to find that production moves to their country, and they end up with higher tax revenue as the end result of lower tax rates - something Ireland figured out a long time ago.
Merely moving production into Germany is not sufficient for that outcome.
So the all the experts focusing for decades mostly on Mars plans because of problems with Venus are "nutters" because a random slashdotter says Venus actually makes more sense....right, that makes sense, too!
It's a good thing that the universe doesn't care about legalese and only about laws of physics. Imagine then how the history of technology over centuries would have looked like if it did.
How can they be official Apple batteries if Apple isn't selling them?
Do they morph into a different unit once it's certain for the universe that Apple won't sell them? Or do they keep the same design, dimensions, parameters, manufacturing line, hands of workers assembling them...?
You must be young if you believe that. Unrealistic would not be the word I would use. Someone calling themselves a social conservative these days are trying to preserve social norms from the 50s. To call it unrealistic implies fiction or something that never existed, when clearly it did. You could use words like archaic, outdated, even backward thinking and still fall within the realm of civil discord. Unrealistic does not exactly fit here. Most were raised in a 3day per week church-going household that still lived by those social norms. So to them its very real and proven to have worked at one time.
But none of what you wrote makes even the views on sex from the 50's any more realistic. Merely people believing in things doesn't make those beliefs realistic; see religion. Coincidentally, their increased frequency is applicable to the 1950s, too.
Me, well I'm trying to keep my kids maintaining a healthy baseline of normalcy without trying to stiffel them more than absolutely necessary to prevent them obtaining some unhealthy or unrealistic view/opinion on things.
In countries like Germany, where the primary power grid is still largely coal powered, building and operating an electric vehicle can take ten years before being a net CO2 reduction over a diesel vehicle.
The question is if electric vehicles should be even counted into average consumption, which is what coal generation in Germany is feeding into. Given that an electric vehicle's battery is a buffer for electricity on its path from the generator to the vehicle's motor, electric vehicles are the obvious outlet for any peaks of intermittent renewable generation. This may be especially pressing in Germany which already has significant contribution of intermittent renewables on its grid. At that point, inferring a ten year period of CO2 payback from the average percentage of coal electricity in German grid becomes meaningless because the marginal percentage of coal electricity, which would be applicable to the electric vehicles in an opportunistic charging scenario, will be vastly lower.
if the expected functional lifespan of the battery pack is less than the break-even point
I wouldn't be afraid about that. According to a paper I linked elsewhere in this thread, there's already a 50% total CO2 reduction after 180000 miles driven by a full-size vehicle, which means that the break-even point comes *way* sooner. Meanwhile, you have Tesla model S cars (which are still probably the state-of-the-art in full-size BEVs, battery-wise, and even more importantly, they're the vehicles of this type that have been on the roads for the longest time in decent numbers) with <10% degradation at over 200000 miles, so it's definitely technically possible to do even better than 180000 miles.
Slashdot Mirror
Pentium III with RDRAM
Wasn't that supposed to be Pentium 4, or did I miss something about P III's back then?
Clearly this is a situation where there's no old code that could be exploited because it has never been put into practice.
It's very likely that we won't see 7nm or 5nm for another few years
Actually, you'll probably see 7nm next year.
...or research new algorithms. Nah, can't have that!
Look, the world is changing whether you like it or not.
That's a great argument for climate change. :-p
Well, just light up a natural forest as it still stands, then.
Or a moisture vaporator, if maintained by someone whose name sounds suspiciously close to "Skywater".
More production means more tax revenue only if the relative change of production is greater than the relative change of tax rate. It's not sufficient for the relative change of production to be positive.
Then they'd be shocked to find that production moves to their country, and they end up with higher tax revenue as the end result of lower tax rates - something Ireland figured out a long time ago.
Merely moving production into Germany is not sufficient for that outcome.
Robert Silverberg style?
But that would be treating her like an object, and we've already dismissed Smalltalk, haven't we?
Perhaps for you, it was Clojure, but for me, the best closure was Clozure CL.
Plus, the script they use on Java probably wouldn't work for Finnish anyway.
Ahh, so Bethesda hired a lot of Finns to develop TES 4:Oblivion...that would explain it.
So the all the experts focusing for decades mostly on Mars plans because of problems with Venus are "nutters" because a random slashdotter says Venus actually makes more sense....right, that makes sense, too!
Funny how when you read it too quickly, it comes out as "Poisoned Mission with Mercury"...
It's a good thing that the universe doesn't care about legalese and only about laws of physics. Imagine then how the history of technology over centuries would have looked like if it did.
How can they be official Apple batteries if Apple isn't selling them?
Do they morph into a different unit once it's certain for the universe that Apple won't sell them? Or do they keep the same design, dimensions, parameters, manufacturing line, hands of workers assembling them...?
You must be young if you believe that. Unrealistic would not be the word I would use. Someone calling themselves a social conservative these days are trying to preserve social norms from the 50s. To call it unrealistic implies fiction or something that never existed, when clearly it did. You could use words like archaic, outdated, even backward thinking and still fall within the realm of civil discord. Unrealistic does not exactly fit here. Most were raised in a 3day per week church-going household that still lived by those social norms. So to them its very real and proven to have worked at one time.
But none of what you wrote makes even the views on sex from the 50's any more realistic. Merely people believing in things doesn't make those beliefs realistic; see religion. Coincidentally, their increased frequency is applicable to the 1950s, too.
"I don't think it's fine for children to see horrific violence."
"So you think it's fine for children to see horrific violence?"
...ehhhh? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
no, but they could give her a very, very, unrealistic outlook on sex
...unlike the views of many conservative Americans. Oh, wait...
as a libertarian
Me, well I'm trying to keep my kids maintaining a healthy baseline of normalcy without trying to stiffel them more than absolutely necessary to prevent them obtaining some unhealthy or unrealistic view/opinion on things.
You don't see the irony?
They're essentially fast pedestrians and slow, low-mass wheeled vehicles, so the laws of physics say they should be on the sidewalks
I didn't notice that there were laws of physics related to sidewalks. Forces, charges, voltages, sure...but sidewalks?
Survival during launch is incredible. Has this ever happened before?
It actually happens most of the time.
In countries like Germany, where the primary power grid is still largely coal powered, building and operating an electric vehicle can take ten years before being a net CO2 reduction over a diesel vehicle.
The question is if electric vehicles should be even counted into average consumption, which is what coal generation in Germany is feeding into. Given that an electric vehicle's battery is a buffer for electricity on its path from the generator to the vehicle's motor, electric vehicles are the obvious outlet for any peaks of intermittent renewable generation. This may be especially pressing in Germany which already has significant contribution of intermittent renewables on its grid. At that point, inferring a ten year period of CO2 payback from the average percentage of coal electricity in German grid becomes meaningless because the marginal percentage of coal electricity, which would be applicable to the electric vehicles in an opportunistic charging scenario, will be vastly lower.
if the expected functional lifespan of the battery pack is less than the break-even point
I wouldn't be afraid about that. According to a paper I linked elsewhere in this thread, there's already a 50% total CO2 reduction after 180000 miles driven by a full-size vehicle, which means that the break-even point comes *way* sooner. Meanwhile, you have Tesla model S cars (which are still probably the state-of-the-art in full-size BEVs, battery-wise, and even more importantly, they're the vehicles of this type that have been on the roads for the longest time in decent numbers) with <10% degradation at over 200000 miles, so it's definitely technically possible to do even better than 180000 miles.