Knowing a few current and former CA home builders, I'll point out:
Building permits regularly take 13-15 months to get approved. This raises costs as builders carry the financing much longer than many regions, which is reflected in new and rehabbed housing prices. You know why. That's where that problem lies, and the solution is both obvious and impossible.
Codes and ordinances raise costs and prices also. This of course is the refrain you hear everywhere. Mandating solar power will change housing design and construction, and will increase costs and prices. This is a code and ordinance problem. One of many in CA.
Many builders have left the market because they believed their contributions were no longer desired by government. And government rules in CA. Lots of them have gone to other states and are doing fine.
Arizona just rejected a Proposition that would have mandated 'clean energy' , as it stated in the proposition, 'regardless of cost...'. Thankfully. Since this California requirement will add at least $20,000 to the cost of a new house, and probably similar costs per unit for multi housing, and likely more as the market figures out they can charge more for mandated solar than they were for optional, either houses get smaller and 'less', or they price more buyers out of the market. And in case you hadn't figured this out yet, the powers to be in California do not care. Not one bit.
My Nexus 7/2013 tablet shipped with Jelly Bean (just escaped ICS) and got updates from 2013 to 2015. Then I got thirdf-party updates to Nougat.
Sadly, this tablet had serious hardware issues, from touch panel to general display to WiFi problems. Sad, it was superb in every other way. But it drove me to a Surface Pro 3 which is just what I want. Oh, actually, I want a 6, but...
This whole 'perfectly good working hardware' is tired. I can still whip up 486-class PCs, but why would I expect them to be useful today? Ignore security, HTML has gone past anything that old OS would have ever had.
My G1 is from the 4.0 era, but while it still works, I need better software. And memory is just so much more useful today, we have Android features that just need better hardware.
But, BUT the real problem is that there is no real manufacturer support for older revs, because it costs money, and isn't profitable.
0) Bear in mind that some of those taxes are paid by the owners of those shiny new homes. Seems fair, though perhaps not equitable.
1) Growth, for whatever reason, does bring impacts. Some years ago a town near my old home in Maine levied a $30,000 or so charge on all new homes build within town boundaries, as an offset of costs for utilities construction and other costs. I don;t recall that it actually deterred new home building as much as expected, but it did minimize the burden, and the town was actually trying to limit growth without being denied the ability to actually refuse new home permits, s a legal challenge made that more expensive than charging builders up front. Growth management ('Planning' for the conventional) is a big deal, and communities that don't do it well suffer the consequences. Modern planning of course looks different, consider the differences between Boston MA and Gilbert AZ.
2) My commute is slower over the past year, in the morning due to the construction workers all hustling to their jobs, something much less prevalent in 2016 and early 2017, and in the evening due to all the new office workers, since I live within reach of 5 of the top job markets in America. The price of success.
3) One benefit to you is all those new businesses opening up to serve the new residents. Traffic a sign of success also.
I wonder how this applies to people under 21 in DC who work and earn pay that is taxed.
Or rent apartments and pay that rent.
Or even own property and pay taxes on that property.
Then again, knowing the special case DC is, perhaps they don't pay. And we do. It's possible that I am mistaken, that it is the word 'pay' that is misunderstood, for public transportation in American is by no definition free, and while it's pedantic, someone pays. Losing sight of that is leading to misunderstandings and questionable choices
Surprisingly I live in a house that was built as part is a subdivision. And the roads into that subdivision were indeed built by the subdivider and home builder.
It's not the norm, but it is done. And it's not exceptionally unusual for subdividers to actually pay for the community to build those roads, and to maintain them.
My commute is 40 miles each way. 4 days a week, though on an annual basis about 180 days.
Morning, 45 minutes, no delays.
Evening, 50-75 minutes, delays 5-30 minutes, average about 15 minutes. Yearly, about 1350 minutes. 22 hours, close enough.
And this is nowhere near the worst commute in the US.
Yes, yes, they pay me more than enough to justify the ride. And no, telecommuting or working from home would diminish my productivity. Late next year I'll move to a location about 15 minutes closer. Woot.
*What's* not enough data? The summary noted plans from 600MB to 4GB, and the.cu TLD 'bonus' of 300MB.
Which number were you referring to as 'not enough'? 4GB is enough for even a savvy Cuban user with nothing yesterday, unless you think they are more focused on YouTube BS than actual information, and your 'propaganda' comment seems to indicate you don't believe that.
Sheesh. Of course it's not enough. Oh, wait, going from zero, 300MB might be useful if the Miami exiles pump up some texty sites to inflame the population. Which I encourage them to do.
Companies do not prosper by spending more than they need to. They can prosper by retaining talent and paying the market rate, but paying more, or keep more talent than useful, is not good for anyone. Reference General Motors.
"The same ones that LIED on a FISA application to illegally wiretap Trump's campaign/administration for over a year?"
No, no, no, the ones that actually setup meetings with fake premises to try and do something (not yet apparent) to ensnare Trump campaign peoples. You knlw, the ones that approved travel documents for Russian lawyers to come and talk with Democrat operatives, Obama administration people, and then a meeting with Trumpies that went nowhere...
Those ones. Which then led to engaging British ex- and ex-officio intelligence operatives, Australian diplomats, and a few US Democrat operatives, to try and bait more Trumpies into anything that could be mistaken for interest in opposition research, then drafting a US Web journalism outlet to pretend it had confirmation of this, so that they could convince a FISA court they had actionable intelligence, when in fact they had merely fabrications and Democrat opposition research material.
Those were known as 'blue laws'. There was a time you couldn't actually do much in much of American on a Sunday.
But all legislation is someone's morality. Any law is spawned by perceived need, which may be 'real' to a majority, or by a desire. So blue laws were eventually mostly abandoned in the US. So also, since all politics is local, religious displays have been removed across the country, mostly from 'public' property', in deference to the requests and assertions of minorities, that this constituted a government-sponsored or endorsed establishment of religion. Some would argue that this is only because there is no competing or alternative display either permitted or extant, which strikes me as arguing 'If I don't, you can't either'... But this is accepted as observing the principle put forward of a 'separation of church and state', which some propose is 'church subservient to state'. An argument ongoing. Not many candidates have promised to remove religious symbols from every public venue, so they have no specific promises to honor or be held to, but if you examine 'religion' as less commonly but well defined as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance", you can see much that would meet that definition, and much of it is not merely permitted by government, some is pursued by governmental powers.
One reason I reject the ranked-choice voting method is the result of the California experiment in free primaries, the 'jungle primary' system. If states hold primary elections to permit political parties to choose nominees for a general and final election, why would you permit members of a generally regarded as an opposition party to have any direct say in 'your' party's process? Really? Would you permit the head coach of the opposing team join your planning meetings? Would you share with the batter the signals you give to your pitcher? At the bridge table, do you lay your cards down before you bet? My concern with ranked-choice is that it defers a final, definite decision to multiple layers of decision making. It purports to solve the 'problem' of candidates not reaching a plurality, or even winning with a paucity of votes. But most American jurisdictions hold elections decided by the most votes won of the whole. The complaint that 'spoilers' unduly influence the result doesn't convince me - this affects all political spheres, and ranked-choice does offer a way to diminish the spoiler effect, but it actually empowers it to get past the first test. Since ti still results in a single winner, ranked-choice doesn't lift up marginal candidates, it just leaves them being counted twice and found wanting. Twice.
It's seeming that there's a movement to institute ranked-choice to solve the 'problem' of close results. If we cannot count slips of paper, discern the marker/crayon/ink marks on them, and determine the results of the exercise, we should reconsider our competence in such simple matters, and go back to simpler methods. Really, we can't count votes? Watch - many of the contentious elections are only so because of fraud. Sad, but to claim that politics is rife with corruption in every area EXCEPT vote counting is naive on its face.
Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.
I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.
It does seem like prior restraint to me. The last time that was a big issue was when the government was trying to hide bad actions form us, but that was before many of you were concerned with anything beyond your next meal. Without looking it up first, I bet a quick look into 'prior restraint' will help you consider of this is a good thing or not.
'Sharia' is not only a Arabic word, it is virtually exclusively used to describe Islamic law, based on teachings in the Q'uran, to govern secular and non-secular duties. No one I've heard or read to now has ever claimed it would be used to describe any Christian activity or regulation. Save for, remarkably, a few virulent anti-right outlets that are the exception that proves the rule.
The summary link claiming to be about the article, " FBI set up a fake FedEx website and created rigged Word document", goes somewhere entirely unrelated.
"there is probably some police agency out to catch you."
There is ALWAYS some police agency out to catch you. In this sort of crime, they are usually unable to actually catch you. You rush off the failed attempts and keep on.
This is excellent, however, if these articles discourage all but the very best to try.
Slashdot Mirror
I expect costs to increase after the mandate both increases demand and justifies higher prices.
Knowing a few current and former CA home builders, I'll point out:
Building permits regularly take 13-15 months to get approved. This raises costs as builders carry the financing much longer than many regions, which is reflected in new and rehabbed housing prices. You know why. That's where that problem lies, and the solution is both obvious and impossible.
Codes and ordinances raise costs and prices also. This of course is the refrain you hear everywhere. Mandating solar power will change housing design and construction, and will increase costs and prices. This is a code and ordinance problem. One of many in CA.
Many builders have left the market because they believed their contributions were no longer desired by government. And government rules in CA. Lots of them have gone to other states and are doing fine.
Arizona just rejected a Proposition that would have mandated 'clean energy' , as it stated in the proposition, 'regardless of cost...'. Thankfully. Since this California requirement will add at least $20,000 to the cost of a new house, and probably similar costs per unit for multi housing, and likely more as the market figures out they can charge more for mandated solar than they were for optional, either houses get smaller and 'less', or they price more buyers out of the market. And in case you hadn't figured this out yet, the powers to be in California do not care. Not one bit.
Not one bit.
My Nexus 7/2013 tablet shipped with Jelly Bean (just escaped ICS) and got updates from 2013 to 2015. Then I got thirdf-party updates to Nougat.
Sadly, this tablet had serious hardware issues, from touch panel to general display to WiFi problems. Sad, it was superb in every other way. But it drove me to a Surface Pro 3 which is just what I want. Oh, actually, I want a 6, but...
This whole 'perfectly good working hardware' is tired. I can still whip up 486-class PCs, but why would I expect them to be useful today? Ignore security, HTML has gone past anything that old OS would have ever had.
My G1 is from the 4.0 era, but while it still works, I need better software. And memory is just so much more useful today, we have Android features that just need better hardware.
But, BUT the real problem is that there is no real manufacturer support for older revs, because it costs money, and isn't profitable.
TFB.
0) Bear in mind that some of those taxes are paid by the owners of those shiny new homes. Seems fair, though perhaps not equitable.
1) Growth, for whatever reason, does bring impacts. Some years ago a town near my old home in Maine levied a $30,000 or so charge on all new homes build within town boundaries, as an offset of costs for utilities construction and other costs. I don;t recall that it actually deterred new home building as much as expected, but it did minimize the burden, and the town was actually trying to limit growth without being denied the ability to actually refuse new home permits, s a legal challenge made that more expensive than charging builders up front. Growth management ('Planning' for the conventional) is a big deal, and communities that don't do it well suffer the consequences. Modern planning of course looks different, consider the differences between Boston MA and Gilbert AZ.
2) My commute is slower over the past year, in the morning due to the construction workers all hustling to their jobs, something much less prevalent in 2016 and early 2017, and in the evening due to all the new office workers, since I live within reach of 5 of the top job markets in America. The price of success.
3) One benefit to you is all those new businesses opening up to serve the new residents. Traffic a sign of success also.
"people under 21 do not pay for transportation."
I wonder how this applies to people under 21 in DC who work and earn pay that is taxed.
Or rent apartments and pay that rent.
Or even own property and pay taxes on that property.
Then again, knowing the special case DC is, perhaps they don't pay. And we do. It's possible that I am mistaken, that it is the word 'pay' that is misunderstood, for public transportation in American is by no definition free, and while it's pedantic, someone pays. Losing sight of that is leading to misunderstandings and questionable choices
Surprisingly I live in a house that was built as part is a subdivision. And the roads into that subdivision were indeed built by the subdivider and home builder.
It's not the norm, but it is done. And it's not exceptionally unusual for subdividers to actually pay for the community to build those roads, and to maintain them.
It does happen.
My commute is 40 miles each way. 4 days a week, though on an annual basis about 180 days.
Morning, 45 minutes, no delays.
Evening, 50-75 minutes, delays 5-30 minutes, average about 15 minutes. Yearly, about 1350 minutes. 22 hours, close enough.
And this is nowhere near the worst commute in the US.
Yes, yes, they pay me more than enough to justify the ride. And no, telecommuting or working from home would diminish my productivity. Late next year I'll move to a location about 15 minutes closer. Woot.
I do not think that word means what you may think it means.
"That's really not enough data"
*What's* not enough data? The summary noted plans from 600MB to 4GB, and the .cu TLD 'bonus' of 300MB.
Which number were you referring to as 'not enough'? 4GB is enough for even a savvy Cuban user with nothing yesterday, unless you think they are more focused on YouTube BS than actual information, and your 'propaganda' comment seems to indicate you don't believe that.
Sheesh. Of course it's not enough. Oh, wait, going from zero, 300MB might be useful if the Miami exiles pump up some texty sites to inflame the population. Which I encourage them to do.
Companies do not prosper by spending more than they need to. They can prosper by retaining talent and paying the market rate, but paying more, or keep more talent than useful, is not good for anyone. Reference General Motors.
Christmas 2019? That's maybe 2 CPU releases from here. And being a TMO subscriber, I'm way more interested in Band 71 than early 5G.
Oh, how about both? Yeah, baby. w/e.
"The same ones that LIED on a FISA application to illegally wiretap Trump's campaign/administration for over a year?"
No, no, no, the ones that actually setup meetings with fake premises to try and do something (not yet apparent) to ensnare Trump campaign peoples. You knlw, the ones that approved travel documents for Russian lawyers to come and talk with Democrat operatives, Obama administration people, and then a meeting with Trumpies that went nowhere...
Those ones. Which then led to engaging British ex- and ex-officio intelligence operatives, Australian diplomats, and a few US Democrat operatives, to try and bait more Trumpies into anything that could be mistaken for interest in opposition research, then drafting a US Web journalism outlet to pretend it had confirmation of this, so that they could convince a FISA court they had actionable intelligence, when in fact they had merely fabrications and Democrat opposition research material.
Oh yeah, those same ones. That;s right, I forget.
Those were known as 'blue laws'. There was a time you couldn't actually do much in much of American on a Sunday.
But all legislation is someone's morality. Any law is spawned by perceived need, which may be 'real' to a majority, or by a desire. So blue laws were eventually mostly abandoned in the US. So also, since all politics is local, religious displays have been removed across the country, mostly from 'public' property', in deference to the requests and assertions of minorities, that this constituted a government-sponsored or endorsed establishment of religion. Some would argue that this is only because there is no competing or alternative display either permitted or extant, which strikes me as arguing 'If I don't, you can't either'... But this is accepted as observing the principle put forward of a 'separation of church and state', which some propose is 'church subservient to state'. An argument ongoing. Not many candidates have promised to remove religious symbols from every public venue, so they have no specific promises to honor or be held to, but if you examine 'religion' as less commonly but well defined as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance", you can see much that would meet that definition, and much of it is not merely permitted by government, some is pursued by governmental powers.
One reason I reject the ranked-choice voting method is the result of the California experiment in free primaries, the 'jungle primary' system. If states hold primary elections to permit political parties to choose nominees for a general and final election, why would you permit members of a generally regarded as an opposition party to have any direct say in 'your' party's process? Really? Would you permit the head coach of the opposing team join your planning meetings? Would you share with the batter the signals you give to your pitcher? At the bridge table, do you lay your cards down before you bet? My concern with ranked-choice is that it defers a final, definite decision to multiple layers of decision making. It purports to solve the 'problem' of candidates not reaching a plurality, or even winning with a paucity of votes. But most American jurisdictions hold elections decided by the most votes won of the whole. The complaint that 'spoilers' unduly influence the result doesn't convince me - this affects all political spheres, and ranked-choice does offer a way to diminish the spoiler effect, but it actually empowers it to get past the first test. Since ti still results in a single winner, ranked-choice doesn't lift up marginal candidates, it just leaves them being counted twice and found wanting. Twice.
It's seeming that there's a movement to institute ranked-choice to solve the 'problem' of close results. If we cannot count slips of paper, discern the marker/crayon/ink marks on them, and determine the results of the exercise, we should reconsider our competence in such simple matters, and go back to simpler methods. Really, we can't count votes? Watch - many of the contentious elections are only so because of fraud. Sad, but to claim that politics is rife with corruption in every area EXCEPT vote counting is naive on its face.
Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.
I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.
It does seem like prior restraint to me. The last time that was a big issue was when the government was trying to hide bad actions form us, but that was before many of you were concerned with anything beyond your next meal. Without looking it up first, I bet a quick look into 'prior restraint' will help you consider of this is a good thing or not.
'Sharia' is not only a Arabic word, it is virtually exclusively used to describe Islamic law, based on teachings in the Q'uran, to govern secular and non-secular duties. No one I've heard or read to now has ever claimed it would be used to describe any Christian activity or regulation. Save for, remarkably, a few virulent anti-right outlets that are the exception that proves the rule.
No, you're not correct on this.
Not in the US, I believe.
Loads of subtext unwritten.
The summary link claiming to be about the article, " FBI set up a fake FedEx website and created rigged Word document", goes somewhere entirely unrelated.
When did that happen?
I work for a financial company. a big one, and some of our clients complain bitterly about how difficult it is to change things like bank information.
They ought to get a copy of this article. We have reasons why we make it not difficult, but accurate.
Don't read much real news, do you? The FBI is righteous in this example, but not so much in others.
Nonetheless, perfect is the enemy of good.
"there is probably some police agency out to catch you."
There is ALWAYS some police agency out to catch you. In this sort of crime, they are usually unable to actually catch you. You rush off the failed attempts and keep on.
This is excellent, however, if these articles discourage all but the very best to try.
Oh, you just send agents to the vendor explaining what it was, and they find a way to avoid interfering with 'legitimate' law enforcement.
Because, simply, someday they will call for help also.
Will this also cover purchasing event tickets? Please?
And define 'bot' to include the seller's own processes to withhold tickets form the market, in secret, to later scalp them for further profit?
"he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US"
This is as tired as any left-wing trope. Really, if Christians had ever wanted this, it would now be old news.