There are two solutions to this. One is to make it harder to publish again.
You're making the (incorrect, I would say) assumption that making stuff hard to publish meant that if something was published it was better. But something being published in the traditional and formal sense of the word simply means that, well, it was published. An agent liked it enough to bring it to a publisher who liked it enough to publish it. There are a millions ways that this can occur, such as a well-known author publishing a crappy work to a nobody author's dad being friends with an agent or publisher, etc.
We have already seen that a large percentage of our Christian Right extremists in the USA and Canada do not believe in sexual equality or egalitarianism, or freedom of speech. I worry this will give them ideas.
So...what you're saying is, that as long as people believe what you believe regarding sexual equality or egalitarianism, for example, they can believe whatever they want to believe, right?
But otherwise, their beliefs are dangerous, and must be...wait for it...wait for it...censored. Or better yet, criminalized.
All that to say that I hope you realize that you're doing the exact same thing as the people you obviously despise. I do recognize you won't be able to handle the cognitive dissonance of this idea and my typing has been a waste of a couple minutes, but I thought I'd point it out anyways, just for the heck of it.
When I was a kid, only us geeks had computers. You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts.
This was where I stopped reading your post. Maybe the rest was good. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe I'm an idiot. Maybe I'm not. But that was where I stopped reading it.
That always struck me as a little improbable. You mean you're just going to eat that thing right after you pressed it against a disgusting fingerprint scanner?
Totally. No way the gazillions of dollars or revenge or whatever you'd get from your perfect crime would be worth that.
Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.
Don't worry -- as long as the television is cool, as you've indicated, its lower temperature should be undetectable to the infared scanner that the "pigs" use.
I'd like to add that many municipal regulations and even state laws violate their own state's bills of rights. It's easy enough to be distracted at a federal level by the great comma/militia debate, but the states' bills of rights are nearly always more explicit than the federal 2nd amendment.
For example IL Article 1, Sec. 22 states: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. WI Article 1, Sec. 25 states: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Some states also also have specific amendments that state a right to trap, fish and hunt, like WI's Article 1, Sec. 26, which gets intertwined in the whole firearms issue.
I recognize that if one doesn't like guns, he probably doesn't care about paltry state constitutions. But if that's the case, then change these articles, so that one doesn't even have to worry about being intellectually dishonest, even if he is not so practically-speaking.
Ha ha ha - did you...wait...sorry...ha ha ha...did...sorry...did you just say that a cable news show host is not manipulative? And then try to somehow hedge by using a silly (afaik)?
I admittedly don't know anything about this case. I haven't even RTFA! But on reading your post, I do wonder what the difference is between using and abusing the system. He tried and lost. That would suggest no abuse at all, just use.
Good point. You are right about the cost of utilities as well as selling back to the utility, but I did mean to include said costs, albeit I didn't explicitly focus on compounding savings associated with it.
Essentially, however, (and I say this very respectfully) your pointing this out is nitpicking because the 10 year CD I used as an example is practically ridiculous; your use of 15-30 is much more accurate. The longer it takes to recoup the cost of the solar investment, the more money you can make via an financial investment, even one that earns less than 5%.
My point is that if you're looking to save a butt-load of money, adding solar isn't the way to do it even if your fellow taxpayers are footing half the bill and especially when you live in a place where good "solar days" are, for all intents and purposes, few and far between. Ultimately, the only way to settle the "discussion" would be for you to keep track and check back in, in 8 years and see if your estimates proved true.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much money you may save in the long run if you can't handle the upfront costs. That's the spot I'm in.
Also, something else I am curious about it the maintenance of solar rigs. This might factor into things more than people think...or maybe not. I just don't know.
And yet others obviously don't see how long it would actually take to actually break even on it -- especially if you're financing the cost of putting it up with borrowed money, your own or somebody else's.
If you want to make it about cost savings, put 27000 USD into your favorite low-risk savings vehicle. Then wait the estimated amount of time it would take for you to break even on the 27000 you spent for the 6kW solar rig. Compare your cost savings from the solar rig vs. the investment. If you put your dough, for example, in a 10 year CD at 3.25%, you'd come away with ~10000. Then subtract what you (supposedly, by estimate) would have saved with the solar setup. Or...what if you invested half of that 27000, and spent the other half weatherproofing your home (also tax benefits there)?
A local guy put a 2kW rig on his roof. He was proud of his work, which is fine, but admitted it would take him 53 years to break even on the cost of the materials and install. I don't know how much maintenance is involved in solar configurations.
It wasn't about cost savings. That's fine if you have money to spend on the cause du jour. I just don't have that kind of money and my state doesn't either (Michigan). Truth be told, my country doesn't either.
As an American who consistently (not occasionally) reads Europeans write comments similar to yours in regards to US papers being right-leaning compared to...well...you didn't actually make a comparison to any European papers, I find your finding exceedingly hilarious and can only assume that you don't read that many US papers...
...which is probably a good choice, but doesn't excuse your silly generalizations.
Amen. Another rule that should ALWAYS be followed is "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS". In many states it's posted "Slower traffic keep right" which is a joke because fewer people deem themselves to be "slower traffic", seemingly oblivious to the 5 or 6 cars waiting behind them.
This is compounded by 4 lane roads that only give drivers 2 choices of speed as well as drillrods (and all of Los Angeles) who think changing lanes is some sort of attempt for emotional rape or assault and react accordingly.
It looks like Tolkien & co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed.
Less savvy or just not very forward thinking in terms of technology.
[nerd-speak]
Tolkien pretty much gave away the movie rights because he (and whom else ever in his camp) never thought you could even make a movie out the LOTR. Would you have wanted to see a film adaptation using early 1970's film technology? Not as fun to watch if the Balrog looks Godzilla and the
Nazgûl like some kind of Medieval Mothras, not to mention Treebeard looking worse than he even did in the films, or primitive miniatures making the cities of Middle Earth look like something made of Lego(s).
Technology may have been Saruman's downfall, but it allowed for a pretty cool set of movies.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two solutions to this. One is to make it harder to publish again.
You're making the (incorrect, I would say) assumption that making stuff hard to publish meant that if something was published it was better. But something being published in the traditional and formal sense of the word simply means that, well, it was published. An agent liked it enough to bring it to a publisher who liked it enough to publish it. There are a millions ways that this can occur, such as a well-known author publishing a crappy work to a nobody author's dad being friends with an agent or publisher, etc.
So your filtering idea is better.
We have already seen that a large percentage of our Christian Right extremists in the USA and Canada do not believe in sexual equality or egalitarianism, or freedom of speech. I worry this will give them ideas.
So...what you're saying is, that as long as people believe what you believe regarding sexual equality or egalitarianism, for example, they can believe whatever they want to believe, right?
But otherwise, their beliefs are dangerous, and must be...wait for it...wait for it...censored. Or better yet, criminalized.
All that to say that I hope you realize that you're doing the exact same thing as the people you obviously despise. I do recognize you won't be able to handle the cognitive dissonance of this idea and my typing has been a waste of a couple minutes, but I thought I'd point it out anyways, just for the heck of it.
and when I vaguely become aware
Yes.
When I was a kid, only us geeks had computers. You went to school and you looked for other freaks and outcasts.
This was where I stopped reading your post. Maybe the rest was good. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe I'm an idiot. Maybe I'm not. But that was where I stopped reading it.
I apologize for the generalization. Its wrong on my part, as you justly point out.
Hmmm...you must be new here...
Looked just like a normal Fiesta.
And therein lay the problem.
OT - But Gagarin never said the "quote" you're using in your sig.
That always struck me as a little improbable. You mean you're just going to eat that thing right after you pressed it against a disgusting fingerprint scanner?
Totally. No way the gazillions of dollars or revenge or whatever you'd get from your perfect crime would be worth that.
Even geeks can be territorial.
Your use of the word "even" here is a strong indicator that you don't understand geeks.
Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.
Don't worry -- as long as the television is cool, as you've indicated, its lower temperature should be undetectable to the infared scanner that the "pigs" use.
Hey - This is completely off-topic but your sig is ridiculous.
I'd like to add that many municipal regulations and even state laws violate their own state's bills of rights. It's easy enough to be distracted at a federal level by the great comma/militia debate, but the states' bills of rights are nearly always more explicit than the federal 2nd amendment.
For example IL Article 1, Sec. 22 states: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. WI Article 1, Sec. 25 states: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Some states also also have specific amendments that state a right to trap, fish and hunt, like WI's Article 1, Sec. 26, which gets intertwined in the whole firearms issue.
I recognize that if one doesn't like guns, he probably doesn't care about paltry state constitutions. But if that's the case, then change these articles, so that one doesn't even have to worry about being intellectually dishonest, even if he is not so practically-speaking.
Ha ha ha - did you...wait...sorry...ha ha ha...did...sorry...did you just say that a cable news show host is not manipulative? And then try to somehow hedge by using a silly (afaik)?
I admittedly don't know anything about this case. I haven't even RTFA! But on reading your post, I do wonder what the difference is between using and abusing the system. He tried and lost. That would suggest no abuse at all, just use.
Good point. You are right about the cost of utilities as well as selling back to the utility, but I did mean to include said costs, albeit I didn't explicitly focus on compounding savings associated with it.
Essentially, however, (and I say this very respectfully) your pointing this out is nitpicking because the 10 year CD I used as an example is practically ridiculous; your use of 15-30 is much more accurate. The longer it takes to recoup the cost of the solar investment, the more money you can make via an financial investment, even one that earns less than 5%.
My point is that if you're looking to save a butt-load of money, adding solar isn't the way to do it even if your fellow taxpayers are footing half the bill and especially when you live in a place where good "solar days" are, for all intents and purposes, few and far between. Ultimately, the only way to settle the "discussion" would be for you to keep track and check back in, in 8 years and see if your estimates proved true.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter how much money you may save in the long run if you can't handle the upfront costs. That's the spot I'm in.
Also, something else I am curious about it the maintenance of solar rigs. This might factor into things more than people think...or maybe not. I just don't know.
And yet others obviously don't see how long it would actually take to actually break even on it -- especially if you're financing the cost of putting it up with borrowed money, your own or somebody else's.
If you want to make it about cost savings, put 27000 USD into your favorite low-risk savings vehicle. Then wait the estimated amount of time it would take for you to break even on the 27000 you spent for the 6kW solar rig. Compare your cost savings from the solar rig vs. the investment. If you put your dough, for example, in a 10 year CD at 3.25%, you'd come away with ~10000. Then subtract what you (supposedly, by estimate) would have saved with the solar setup. Or...what if you invested half of that 27000, and spent the other half weatherproofing your home (also tax benefits there)?
A local guy put a 2kW rig on his roof. He was proud of his work, which is fine, but admitted it would take him 53 years to break even on the cost of the materials and install. I don't know how much maintenance is involved in solar configurations.
It wasn't about cost savings. That's fine if you have money to spend on the cause du jour. I just don't have that kind of money and my state doesn't either (Michigan). Truth be told, my country doesn't either.
There are people out of control in Chicago right now
Like its mayor, Richard Daley.
About 90% of people in the world *are* stupid.
But, let me guess...not you, right?
As an American who consistently (not occasionally) reads Europeans write comments similar to yours in regards to US papers being right-leaning compared to...well...you didn't actually make a comparison to any European papers, I find your finding exceedingly hilarious and can only assume that you don't read that many US papers...
...which is probably a good choice, but doesn't excuse your silly generalizations.
Please please please mod this informative with all your might.
Don't ever *EVER* call beer off-topic, alright?
Amen. Another rule that should ALWAYS be followed is "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS". In many states it's posted "Slower traffic keep right" which is a joke because fewer people deem themselves to be "slower traffic", seemingly oblivious to the 5 or 6 cars waiting behind them.
This is compounded by 4 lane roads that only give drivers 2 choices of speed as well as drillrods (and all of Los Angeles) who think changing lanes is some sort of attempt for emotional rape or assault and react accordingly.
Mmm...yellow cake...with radioactive frosting...
It looks like Tolkien & co where less saavy 40 years ago, and essentially signed up to get screwed.
Less savvy or just not very forward thinking in terms of technology.
[nerd-speak]
Tolkien pretty much gave away the movie rights because he (and whom else ever in his camp) never thought you could even make a movie out the LOTR. Would you have wanted to see a film adaptation using early 1970's film technology? Not as fun to watch if the Balrog looks Godzilla and the Nazgûl like some kind of Medieval Mothras, not to mention Treebeard looking worse than he even did in the films, or primitive miniatures making the cities of Middle Earth look like something made of Lego(s).
Technology may have been Saruman's downfall, but it allowed for a pretty cool set of movies.
[/nerd-speak]
Anyone else curious why this is flamebait?