So what you're saying is that transportation and energy use policies should be based upon a pretty infrequent set of scenarios. With that logic, why not build thirty lane highways to wine country, or fuck it, have a helicopter standing by?
It must really suck when reality just completely fucks over your moronic claim. I'm going to be generous and assume you're just a fucking idiot ignorant of just about every fact on climate change, and not in fact a dishonorable immoral liar.
And how many people who live in that region of Canada drive that route with any regularity, as a percentage of overall population of the region? Just how common do you imagine your commute scenario to be?
Average commute times in the US are 25.4 minutes. Just how many people do you think your scenario cover as a percentage of the population of the United States?
How many suburbs are so far away that newer EVs can't make the drive without a charge? Seriously, you're reaching very hard to try to justify continuing use of gasoline-burning vehicles where that justification is shrinking rapidly.
And no one says that all uses of gasoline or diesel vehicles are out, or that EVs are for everyone, but if urbanization is your argument, it's absurd. According to this site, average commute times in the United States are 25.4 minutes.
I live on Vancouver Island. The distance to the nearest large urban center is an hour's drive, and it's a drive I make maybe every three or four weeks. In fact, to get to Vancouver, in actual "driving" terms (ie. not riding a ferry) is about an hour and a half. Yes, if you live in Prairies, the drive between, say, Edmonton and Calgary is pretty long, but really, what percentage of the Canadian population do you imagine makes that trip on a regular basis?
Once again we see people trying to argue against EV's based on driving patterns that only a pretty small fraction of the population actually partake of.
What percentage of the population do you imagine needs to travel 2-3 hours from home to work? You're describing what is, in most developed nations, and most certainly in urban areas where most of the people in developed nations live, is a minority vehicle requirement.
So just to be clear, you want transportation and energy policies based upon the commutes of a pretty small percentage of Americans.
What it proves is that the US has urbanization demographics roughly similar to other developed nations, thus making the argument that the US is somehow extra special a little absurd. China's urbanization hasn't even reached 60% yet, and yet it is pushing towards electric vehicles.
I posted the links above. The US's urbanization is largely the same as Europe's larger countries, and in fact, China hasn't even reached 60% urbanization yet. The only real exceptions are relatively small countries like Belgium and Luxembourg. Heck, Germany has a higher rural population per capita than the US.
That's only logical if there isn't some other reason to switch from fossil fuels. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of experts in atmospheric and oceanic sciences happen to have a reason why we should encourage the transition to vehicles powered renewables sooner rather than later.
Over 80% of Americans live in urban areas. That's roughly similar to France and Spain, and only slightly lower than the UK, and in fact higher than Germany. It's also far far higher than the percentage of the Chinese population living in urban capita.
Or I can just open multiple SSH sessions and not have to rely on Microsoft at all. I'm sorry, it's clear they have a substandard product, and if you're using this Ubuntu-on-Windows, by this bug alone, you're using an inferior technology. I have no idea what your complaints about drivers are about, since I haven't any of the issues you claim. My guess is you're just another MS shill, but now that the official message is "Ubuntu is good so long is it is running under Windows", your messaging has to adjust.
Pretty good shape for what? I can download Ubuntu and throw it on a box for, well, the cost of the machine (and I've got several lying around). If I want to move data around I've got everything from Samba to ssh copying, and even NFS. What is it exactly that running Ubuntu under Windows grants me? As it stands, at the moment, I'd be pretty buggered with this update. Microsoft's QA on their own products has gone down the crapper, why would I want the same level of incompetence responsible for my BASH session?
In the long term Microsoft is fearful that the whole computing world is shifting beneath their feet, and they need to try to stay relevant. I'm sure there some of the old the old Triple-E evilness here, but in reality they're watching the PC fading as a platform (no, it won't die quickly, but it is doomed), so trying to get more developers to use their platform, even if it means they're running a fucking BASH shell and developing with vi is better than them not using a Microsoft product at all.
For myself, I can't see any reason to use this Ubuntu-on-Windows. I have Linux test systems and I have Windows test systems. I can move data between them easily and don't have to deal with the idiosyncrasies of one fucking up the other when one is running under the other. I certainly no development advantage when I can run Linux for free.
All I'm seeing right now is Congress is going to start moving to claw back the Presidency's legislatively enabled executive powers. There's already some movement to strip the Executive of creating tariffs https://www.markettamer.com/bl... so I imagine one legacy of Trump may be a much weaker presidency for years to come.
It's also important to note that taxes were in fact a lot higher and unions a lot more powerful in that golden age. The industrial boom meant workers had a lot more overall economic power, and it also meant governments spent a lot more on infrastructure. It wasn't just companies who were building like crazy, so were governments. With the Reagan era came the notion that the only thing you need to do is cut taxes and magic will happen.
By and large the Boomers are leaving the work force, and it is that massive wealth retention that that generation holds that is at least partly to explain. These people are living longer than their parents, and creating a huge demographic bubble that is raising all sorts of costs. I can't really think of any population boom, at least in the West, quite like the Baby Boom. Maybe in the wake of the Black Death or something when populations rebounded, but the Baby Boom is a pretty unique demographic phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, you have an undefined variable. So define "regularly".
That don't help you much either:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/...
Only 23% of Americans drive more than 20 miles one way to work.
So what you're saying is that transportation and energy use policies should be based upon a pretty infrequent set of scenarios. With that logic, why not build thirty lane highways to wine country, or fuck it, have a helicopter standing by?
It must really suck when reality just completely fucks over your moronic claim. I'm going to be generous and assume you're just a fucking idiot ignorant of just about every fact on climate change, and not in fact a dishonorable immoral liar.
And once again, the average American's commute time is 25.4 minutes.
And how many people who live in that region of Canada drive that route with any regularity, as a percentage of overall population of the region? Just how common do you imagine your commute scenario to be?
Average commute times in the US are 25.4 minutes. Just how many people do you think your scenario cover as a percentage of the population of the United States?
How many suburbs are so far away that newer EVs can't make the drive without a charge? Seriously, you're reaching very hard to try to justify continuing use of gasoline-burning vehicles where that justification is shrinking rapidly.
And no one says that all uses of gasoline or diesel vehicles are out, or that EVs are for everyone, but if urbanization is your argument, it's absurd. According to this site, average commute times in the United States are 25.4 minutes.
I live on Vancouver Island. The distance to the nearest large urban center is an hour's drive, and it's a drive I make maybe every three or four weeks. In fact, to get to Vancouver, in actual "driving" terms (ie. not riding a ferry) is about an hour and a half. Yes, if you live in Prairies, the drive between, say, Edmonton and Calgary is pretty long, but really, what percentage of the Canadian population do you imagine makes that trip on a regular basis?
Once again we see people trying to argue against EV's based on driving patterns that only a pretty small fraction of the population actually partake of.
What percentage of the population do you imagine needs to travel 2-3 hours from home to work? You're describing what is, in most developed nations, and most certainly in urban areas where most of the people in developed nations live, is a minority vehicle requirement.
So just to be clear, you want transportation and energy policies based upon the commutes of a pretty small percentage of Americans.
What it proves is that the US has urbanization demographics roughly similar to other developed nations, thus making the argument that the US is somehow extra special a little absurd. China's urbanization hasn't even reached 60% yet, and yet it is pushing towards electric vehicles.
I posted the links above. The US's urbanization is largely the same as Europe's larger countries, and in fact, China hasn't even reached 60% urbanization yet. The only real exceptions are relatively small countries like Belgium and Luxembourg. Heck, Germany has a higher rural population per capita than the US.
That's only logical if there isn't some other reason to switch from fossil fuels. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of experts in atmospheric and oceanic sciences happen to have a reason why we should encourage the transition to vehicles powered renewables sooner rather than later.
The large majority of Canada's populace live in urban centers (81%).
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/table...
Over 80% of Americans live in urban areas. That's roughly similar to France and Spain, and only slightly lower than the UK, and in fact higher than Germany. It's also far far higher than the percentage of the Chinese population living in urban capita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course, I could just run Ubuntu, and then it would be completely like Ubuntu.
Or I can just open multiple SSH sessions and not have to rely on Microsoft at all. I'm sorry, it's clear they have a substandard product, and if you're using this Ubuntu-on-Windows, by this bug alone, you're using an inferior technology. I have no idea what your complaints about drivers are about, since I haven't any of the issues you claim. My guess is you're just another MS shill, but now that the official message is "Ubuntu is good so long is it is running under Windows", your messaging has to adjust.
They don't have DNS where you work?
Pretty good shape for what? I can download Ubuntu and throw it on a box for, well, the cost of the machine (and I've got several lying around). If I want to move data around I've got everything from Samba to ssh copying, and even NFS. What is it exactly that running Ubuntu under Windows grants me? As it stands, at the moment, I'd be pretty buggered with this update. Microsoft's QA on their own products has gone down the crapper, why would I want the same level of incompetence responsible for my BASH session?
In the long term Microsoft is fearful that the whole computing world is shifting beneath their feet, and they need to try to stay relevant. I'm sure there some of the old the old Triple-E evilness here, but in reality they're watching the PC fading as a platform (no, it won't die quickly, but it is doomed), so trying to get more developers to use their platform, even if it means they're running a fucking BASH shell and developing with vi is better than them not using a Microsoft product at all.
For myself, I can't see any reason to use this Ubuntu-on-Windows. I have Linux test systems and I have Windows test systems. I can move data between them easily and don't have to deal with the idiosyncrasies of one fucking up the other when one is running under the other. I certainly no development advantage when I can run Linux for free.
All I'm seeing right now is Congress is going to start moving to claw back the Presidency's legislatively enabled executive powers. There's already some movement to strip the Executive of creating tariffs https://www.markettamer.com/bl... so I imagine one legacy of Trump may be a much weaker presidency for years to come.
Just an FYI, many Indians ARE Muslims.
Taxes were higher during the post-war economic boom.
It's also important to note that taxes were in fact a lot higher and unions a lot more powerful in that golden age. The industrial boom meant workers had a lot more overall economic power, and it also meant governments spent a lot more on infrastructure. It wasn't just companies who were building like crazy, so were governments. With the Reagan era came the notion that the only thing you need to do is cut taxes and magic will happen.
By and large the Boomers are leaving the work force, and it is that massive wealth retention that that generation holds that is at least partly to explain. These people are living longer than their parents, and creating a huge demographic bubble that is raising all sorts of costs. I can't really think of any population boom, at least in the West, quite like the Baby Boom. Maybe in the wake of the Black Death or something when populations rebounded, but the Baby Boom is a pretty unique demographic phenomenon.