I can't believe you admit to owning an Apple product from last year! That alone proves you're not really supportive of Apple and just using the failed hardware as an excuse to bash the company like the hater you are...
/sarc (do I really need it? In the day and age of ACs, probably yes...)
You can check the historical record of how US voters feel about the direction of the country, and it's trending upward after a rather long, 10 year period of trending - or being - down.
I'm not sure I see the pollution problem? TFS says the county in WI already exceeds the O3levels, so IL is demanding that Foxconn not build there until the O3 levels are brought down. It says nothing about any additional O3 emissions from Foxconn; for all we know, the Foxconn plant may add zero additional O3.
IL was apparently content living with the existing O3 levels, but now that Foxconn is moving in, they raise a ruckus. To me, it sounds like either sour grapes against WI for getting the plant instead of IL (who was also bidding for it), or political hay because Trump.
It's amazing how Trump hasn't gotten shit actually accomplished
Well, other than a tax cut. And ending the Obamacare mandate. And moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And starting to build a real wall. And cutting 2+ regulations for every new regulation. And scaling back on Federal overreach. And pulling out of the Paris Accord. And pulling out of the Iran giveaway deal. And bringing North Korea to the table. And re-opening trade talks with China. And withdrawing from the TPP. And ending "catch and release" with illegal aliens. And 100 other things.
But, yeah, other than that, what's he actually accomplished?
So - what defines "junk food"? The link I used earlier shows what many people consider healthy is actually worse than a Big Mac. Is "junk food" food with a certain amount of calories per serving? Too much sugar? Fat content? This seems to me really just a move to try to do "feel good" actions rather than deal with the underlying issues which tend to be lack of exercise - not just diet, but the other side of things.
Well, it IS Australia, they did build the massive Darwin River Dam, that holds back a huge amount of water - and didn't put a single turbine on it... Not the best thinking there...
Does the dam have to be in SA? Why can't it be in another State? The added delay between spooling up additional output from a dam in Darwin for power in Port Lincoln should be about 10 milliseconds, given the speed of electricity. You can basically have generation spread everywhere and pay essentially zero penalty for "delay" of transmission, thanks to that 300,000 km/s velocity of electricity.
Most electronics will handle wide variations in frequency and voltage. Pretty much everything uses "universal" power supplies which will happily work from 47 to 63 Hz, and 100 to 264 VAC. This is probably more about the grid not shorting itself out, with a massively wide spacing between generation systems getting out of sync and trying to drive the grid at different frequencies or voltages.
Perchance, good sir, you can explain where one may procure a sub-$50K electric vehicle with a range of 320 miles? Absent that - continue on your trolling ways...
The Surface Pro 4 was released in November, 2015. NO ONE has lived with them for 3 years, in fact every single person who ever bought a Surface Pro 4 with this issue can get a fixed unit. Every single one.
If Government were actually interested in serving you, they'd also ban advertising of lots of things like tobacco, alcohol, and even foods that much worse for you than a Big Mac. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
Well, unless you have other estimates, it seems there are about 1700 Model 3s built per week. So they are finally getting close (other than a "push week" for show) to the goal promised for last October...
According to this, you cannot buy a sub-$50K Tesla that has 320 miles of range. They start at just above $50K, and that model has closer to 200 miles of range.
A fast tunnel bore is about 60 feet per day. He's claiming 13 MILES in 1 year; that would be about 200+ feet per day. I guess Musk is - once again - over-promising, and under-delivering. But that makes sense - an issue with Tesla came up, so time to pop out comments about another adventure to distract the masses!
So it's basically Morocco, and no one else. The US is listed as "critically insufficient", presumably because we pulled out of the Paris Accord (an accord, mind you, that was never officially agreed to by the US). Yet per the US Secretary General
"We have seen in the cities, and we have seen in many states, a very strong commitment to the Paris agreement, to the extent that some indicators are moving even better than in the recent past," Guterres told reporters at UN headquarters in New York.
"There are expectations that, independently of the position of the administration, the U.S. might be able to meet the commitments made in Paris as a country."
So we pulled out, and are still on target to reach the original goals. Pretty much everyone else - save economic powerhouse Morocco, is failing.
Why do you think you cannot invest AND clean up the planet? The reality is that the better your economy, the LESS polluted you are. Pulling people out of poverty - growing the GDP of nations, and hence the world, helps immensely in cleaning up the planet. So why your false choice? Why have Government make the choice for you?
Which countries have met the PCA guidelines, or are on track to do so? HINT: it's a short list, limited to the ONE country that has pulled out. All others, who stayed in the PCA, are on-track to exceed their commitments.
Precisely. NOAA is handling it, and their funding was 100% maintained. NASA is refocusing on space and exploration. Additionally, people here don't understand that funding comes from Congress - not the President. If a program's funding was cut, it was cut by Congress.
A mortgage tool would work; not sure why you need to inflate your payments? Just take $10K, 4% rate, and 30 years - that's $48 per month to cover the cost. So unless you get an average of $48 per month in electric savings and maintenance costs are zero - the solar system costs you more than if you never got it. And that's assuming a $10K cost; a lot of the numbers I've seen tossed around are $20-$25K, which would put that break-even dollar value to $119 per month.
No, that is exactly how it works. I invest $10K into a stock fund, and I get $800-$1000 per year in actual money back. Not in potential savings (provided the system doesn't break), but in actual cash. The ROI is nice and good and well-defined.
This solar requirement assumes you'll save $50 per month in electricity costs, thus breaking even in about 27-28 years, meaning the last few years of your mortgage will be "cash ahead". But the return is about the same as you'd get from investing - meaning it's a net zero, other than a forcing of cash-up-front, and potential maintenance issues in the future. In other words - no gains in income, but a potential liability.
Yeah, I don't have AC (I live about 3 blocks from the ocean, we get maybe4 days a year where the inside of the house breaks 80 deg), and we use the furnace about 40-50 times a year, for 30-50 minutes to take the chill out. A cold night here is 50, a hot day is 85. Nice and mild. But hey, new houses will now have to have a big solar system that won't pay for itself, and will add to monthly mortgages and maintenance/cleaning chores because environment!
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe you admit to owning an Apple product from last year! That alone proves you're not really supportive of Apple and just using the failed hardware as an excuse to bash the company like the hater you are...
/sarc (do I really need it? In the day and age of ACs, probably yes...)
You can check the historical record of how US voters feel about the direction of the country, and it's trending upward after a rather long, 10 year period of trending - or being - down.
I'm not sure I see the pollution problem? TFS says the county in WI already exceeds the O3levels, so IL is demanding that Foxconn not build there until the O3 levels are brought down. It says nothing about any additional O3 emissions from Foxconn; for all we know, the Foxconn plant may add zero additional O3.
IL was apparently content living with the existing O3 levels, but now that Foxconn is moving in, they raise a ruckus. To me, it sounds like either sour grapes against WI for getting the plant instead of IL (who was also bidding for it), or political hay because Trump.
It's amazing how Trump hasn't gotten shit actually accomplished
Well, other than a tax cut. And ending the Obamacare mandate. And moving the embassy to Jerusalem. And starting to build a real wall. And cutting 2+ regulations for every new regulation. And scaling back on Federal overreach. And pulling out of the Paris Accord. And pulling out of the Iran giveaway deal. And bringing North Korea to the table. And re-opening trade talks with China. And withdrawing from the TPP. And ending "catch and release" with illegal aliens. And 100 other things.
But, yeah, other than that, what's he actually accomplished?
So - what defines "junk food"? The link I used earlier shows what many people consider healthy is actually worse than a Big Mac. Is "junk food" food with a certain amount of calories per serving? Too much sugar? Fat content? This seems to me really just a move to try to do "feel good" actions rather than deal with the underlying issues which tend to be lack of exercise - not just diet, but the other side of things.
Well, it IS Australia, they did build the massive Darwin River Dam, that holds back a huge amount of water - and didn't put a single turbine on it... Not the best thinking there...
Does the dam have to be in SA? Why can't it be in another State? The added delay between spooling up additional output from a dam in Darwin for power in Port Lincoln should be about 10 milliseconds, given the speed of electricity. You can basically have generation spread everywhere and pay essentially zero penalty for "delay" of transmission, thanks to that 300,000 km/s velocity of electricity.
Most electronics will handle wide variations in frequency and voltage. Pretty much everything uses "universal" power supplies which will happily work from 47 to 63 Hz, and 100 to 264 VAC. This is probably more about the grid not shorting itself out, with a massively wide spacing between generation systems getting out of sync and trying to drive the grid at different frequencies or voltages.
Now if only they could figure out how to actually make a profit...
Perchance, good sir, you can explain where one may procure a sub-$50K electric vehicle with a range of 320 miles? Absent that - continue on your trolling ways...
The Surface Pro 4 was released in November, 2015. NO ONE has lived with them for 3 years, in fact every single person who ever bought a Surface Pro 4 with this issue can get a fixed unit. Every single one.
If Government were actually interested in serving you, they'd also ban advertising of lots of things like tobacco, alcohol, and even foods that much worse for you than a Big Mac. This is grandstanding, pure and simple.
Well, unless you have other estimates, it seems there are about 1700 Model 3s built per week. So they are finally getting close (other than a "push week" for show) to the goal promised for last October...
According to this, you cannot buy a sub-$50K Tesla that has 320 miles of range. They start at just above $50K, and that model has closer to 200 miles of range.
A fast tunnel bore is about 60 feet per day. He's claiming 13 MILES in 1 year; that would be about 200+ feet per day. I guess Musk is - once again - over-promising, and under-delivering. But that makes sense - an issue with Tesla came up, so time to pop out comments about another adventure to distract the masses!
Does that work for non-binary star systems, though?
Thank you for the shining example of the peace, love, and tolerance as preached by the Left!
"We have seen in the cities, and we have seen in many states, a very strong commitment to the Paris agreement, to the extent that some indicators are moving even better than in the recent past," Guterres told reporters at UN headquarters in New York. "There are expectations that, independently of the position of the administration, the U.S. might be able to meet the commitments made in Paris as a country."
So we pulled out, and are still on target to reach the original goals. Pretty much everyone else - save economic powerhouse Morocco, is failing.
Why do you think you cannot invest AND clean up the planet? The reality is that the better your economy, the LESS polluted you are. Pulling people out of poverty - growing the GDP of nations, and hence the world, helps immensely in cleaning up the planet. So why your false choice? Why have Government make the choice for you?
Which countries have met the PCA guidelines, or are on track to do so? HINT: it's a short list, limited to the ONE country that has pulled out. All others, who stayed in the PCA, are on-track to exceed their commitments.
Precisely. NOAA is handling it, and their funding was 100% maintained. NASA is refocusing on space and exploration. Additionally, people here don't understand that funding comes from Congress - not the President. If a program's funding was cut, it was cut by Congress.
Because you can only count to 17 by using your fingers and toes. So when you have to add your nose to get to 21, you have too many planets.
A mortgage tool would work; not sure why you need to inflate your payments? Just take $10K, 4% rate, and 30 years - that's $48 per month to cover the cost. So unless you get an average of $48 per month in electric savings and maintenance costs are zero - the solar system costs you more than if you never got it. And that's assuming a $10K cost; a lot of the numbers I've seen tossed around are $20-$25K, which would put that break-even dollar value to $119 per month.
No, that is exactly how it works. I invest $10K into a stock fund, and I get $800-$1000 per year in actual money back. Not in potential savings (provided the system doesn't break), but in actual cash. The ROI is nice and good and well-defined.
This solar requirement assumes you'll save $50 per month in electricity costs, thus breaking even in about 27-28 years, meaning the last few years of your mortgage will be "cash ahead". But the return is about the same as you'd get from investing - meaning it's a net zero, other than a forcing of cash-up-front, and potential maintenance issues in the future. In other words - no gains in income, but a potential liability.
Yeah, I don't have AC (I live about 3 blocks from the ocean, we get maybe4 days a year where the inside of the house breaks 80 deg), and we use the furnace about 40-50 times a year, for 30-50 minutes to take the chill out. A cold night here is 50, a hot day is 85. Nice and mild. But hey, new houses will now have to have a big solar system that won't pay for itself, and will add to monthly mortgages and maintenance/cleaning chores because environment!