Cool - so the Paris Accord required countries to which we give the money to invest it into infrastructure? It's an entirely voluntary agreement to begin with, and missing the goals has no penalties... So we just give at least (it's a floor, not a ceiling) $100 billion a year and hope for the best?
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy? How about investing in something else that actually does more than a one-time bump of revenue, like infrastructure? Or better yet - return $100 billion in taxes to the corporations in the first place for their own use on R&D?
So - your argument isn't that it transfers $100 billion to foreign Governments, but rather transfers $100 billion to large corporations who then donate $100 billion worth of goods and services to foreign Governments?
What was the Federal deficit in 2008? What was it in 2017? Oh, it more than doubled? Over half the Federal debt was racked up under The Obama Administration? Oops!
PS: the last time we had an actual surplus was during the Eisenhower Administration in 1957
Three out of four dollars spent by the Federal Government are for entitlements and welfare. Cut all other spending - and we still run a deficit. Eliminate justice, defense, education, EPA, treasury, etc - and we still run a deficit. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and Federal welfare consume just over 100% of all revenues to the Federal Government.
Yep, even a "bad deal" is better than no deal. Could have put a few dollars in the employee's pockets but in an attempt to hold out for a better deal, they lost it all. Bird in the hand...
We could have had Bluetooth audio back in late 2014/early 2015 - I argued vociferously for it with my cofounders. But they insisted that the first Here was "AR only", it should not stream audio or take calls. They didn't want to be lumped as an "earbud/headset" company. No matter the consumers AND press did such anyway. I left soon thereafter. Then when earbuds started getting hot and Apple launched theirs - they were caught half-way through a design cycle and couldn't catch up. Old news by that time. Not to mention the RT translation I had working (that was NOT tethered to your phone or Internet, meaning it could work anywhere, anytime). Hubris of youth and money over a few decades of experience...
WTF? Amazon has had 10 quarters and counting of net profit. AC is an idiot. Tesla will never make a profit, probably will close in 3 years as capital dries up...
As someone who was there from the beginning. Cut profitable product lines, chased tangents instead of core focus products, forced schedules and features by people who had never done hardware before, dismantled a functioning engineering team from an affordable SoCal location to some place 10X the cost in SF, and tried to work with CMs sized for 10 times the actual needs. Easy to burn through $60MM doing that...
Hey, if you can grow corn in Fairbanks (Latitude 64), you can grow corn a little further North in Canada. Lots of corn and wheat grows in cental Canada, as far up as 54-55N.
Huh? I think you need to study your maps again. NYC is at 40 deg N, Rome is at 41 deg N. Most of the lower 48 of the US is below 45 deg N. Move the growing region 10 degrees North (from about 25N to 50N up to 35N to 60N) and you dramatically increase the land mass that can be farmed. Rather than having the Canadian farming belt end around Saskatoon (52N) we can push well past Rainbow Lake(58N). Russia would about double its arable land to farm.
And I guess you think you can't grow corn or other foodstuffs at high latitudes? You can grow corn in Fairbanks, Alaska and that's at 64N. Warm it up 20 days more and your growing season gets quite nice, actually... I think your theory is quite false, given you don't even know where the cities are that you reference. Who's the padawan now?
Actually, heating the world will INCREASE arable lands. There is more land mass above 45 deg Latitude than from the equator to to 45 deg Latitude. Moving the "growing range" North a few degrees greatly increases the arable land mass as it brings into play a massive swath of Canada and Russia (the second and first largest countries).
When was the last Presidential election in Georgia that the Democrats won? Trump's margin in Georgia was about the same as the last 6 presidential elections, so why would we expect a big change (which it would be, if it switched parties)?
On another post here, Android has this incredible feature of actually calculating 6 when you type 1+2+3! iOS doesn't have that feature yet, apparently...
And, so? If the OS and apps work for you - so what? Do we shun those who run older versions of OSX or Linux or Windows as "unworthy of consideration" because of an older OS? Lots of people want to keep iOS at the older version, but with Apple's constant insistence to "UPGRADE NOW!" via nagware, and in some cases update without permission, well - that's not quite equivalent, is it?
51% to 46% - I think that's pretty decisive... Of course, with it coming out that the Democrats and the Clinton campaign bankrolled the fake "Russian dossier", they have to start tossing about for something else to blame her loss on - other than her ineptitude and failure as a candidate people wanted.
Huh, the numbers are in the actual article and its link. The "error" in production was a factor of 4, not bad given the efforts and money spent on solar over the last decade. Yet the error in capacity is what is hyped, because it's a factor of 46! In fact, looking at that, we increased capacity at nearly 12 TIMES the rate of actual generation, which leads one to think that perhaps actual SOLAR generation is about 1/12th as effective as often claimed.
And about the naval vessels claim? Oh, I love trolls! The Navy confirms my statement: 275 ships in 2016, 774 in 1918. Poor AC, staying hidden because he's embarrassed to be proven so wrong!
The QZ article linked in TFA states 4600% error in capacity, but only 383% error in production estimate. I wonder why the former number was in TFA rather than the latter; perhaps because solar freaks love to tout capacity, but in reality - the EIA was somewhat accurate in actual production estimates, and the truth is that solar has yet to even break 1% of US electricity generation?
Slashdot Mirror
Huh, 99 * 1 + 100 = 199. 199 / 100 = 1.99. Yes ,some people do need to learn math!
Cool - so the Paris Accord required countries to which we give the money to invest it into infrastructure? It's an entirely voluntary agreement to begin with, and missing the goals has no penalties... So we just give at least (it's a floor, not a ceiling) $100 billion a year and hope for the best?
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy? How about investing in something else that actually does more than a one-time bump of revenue, like infrastructure? Or better yet - return $100 billion in taxes to the corporations in the first place for their own use on R&D?
Source?
So - your argument isn't that it transfers $100 billion to foreign Governments, but rather transfers $100 billion to large corporations who then donate $100 billion worth of goods and services to foreign Governments?
Should be: "Samsung's display that Apple buys for the iPhone X is the most innovative and highest performance display ever tested"
What was the Federal deficit in 2008? What was it in 2017? Oh, it more than doubled? Over half the Federal debt was racked up under The Obama Administration? Oops!
PS: the last time we had an actual surplus was during the Eisenhower Administration in 1957
Three out of four dollars spent by the Federal Government are for entitlements and welfare. Cut all other spending - and we still run a deficit. Eliminate justice, defense, education, EPA, treasury, etc - and we still run a deficit. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and Federal welfare consume just over 100% of all revenues to the Federal Government.
Yep, even a "bad deal" is better than no deal. Could have put a few dollars in the employee's pockets but in an attempt to hold out for a better deal, they lost it all. Bird in the hand...
We could have had Bluetooth audio back in late 2014/early 2015 - I argued vociferously for it with my cofounders. But they insisted that the first Here was "AR only", it should not stream audio or take calls. They didn't want to be lumped as an "earbud/headset" company. No matter the consumers AND press did such anyway. I left soon thereafter. Then when earbuds started getting hot and Apple launched theirs - they were caught half-way through a design cycle and couldn't catch up. Old news by that time. Not to mention the RT translation I had working (that was NOT tethered to your phone or Internet, meaning it could work anywhere, anytime). Hubris of youth and money over a few decades of experience...
WTF? Amazon has had 10 quarters and counting of net profit. AC is an idiot. Tesla will never make a profit, probably will close in 3 years as capital dries up...
As someone who was there from the beginning. Cut profitable product lines, chased tangents instead of core focus products, forced schedules and features by people who had never done hardware before, dismantled a functioning engineering team from an affordable SoCal location to some place 10X the cost in SF, and tried to work with CMs sized for 10 times the actual needs. Easy to burn through $60MM doing that...
Hey, if you can grow corn in Fairbanks (Latitude 64), you can grow corn a little further North in Canada. Lots of corn and wheat grows in cental Canada, as far up as 54-55N.
Huh? I think you need to study your maps again. NYC is at 40 deg N, Rome is at 41 deg N. Most of the lower 48 of the US is below 45 deg N. Move the growing region 10 degrees North (from about 25N to 50N up to 35N to 60N) and you dramatically increase the land mass that can be farmed. Rather than having the Canadian farming belt end around Saskatoon (52N) we can push well past Rainbow Lake(58N). Russia would about double its arable land to farm.
And I guess you think you can't grow corn or other foodstuffs at high latitudes? You can grow corn in Fairbanks, Alaska and that's at 64N. Warm it up 20 days more and your growing season gets quite nice, actually... I think your theory is quite false, given you don't even know where the cities are that you reference. Who's the padawan now?
Actually, heating the world will INCREASE arable lands. There is more land mass above 45 deg Latitude than from the equator to to 45 deg Latitude. Moving the "growing range" North a few degrees greatly increases the arable land mass as it brings into play a massive swath of Canada and Russia (the second and first largest countries).
Anywhere from 0.6 deg C to 1.2 deg C cooler. So about what's been claimed over the last 150 years...
When was the last Presidential election in Georgia that the Democrats won? Trump's margin in Georgia was about the same as the last 6 presidential elections, so why would we expect a big change (which it would be, if it switched parties)?
I am sure you stated the same after the decisive 52% that President Obama won in 2008?
On another post here, Android has this incredible feature of actually calculating 6 when you type 1+2+3! iOS doesn't have that feature yet, apparently...
And, so? If the OS and apps work for you - so what? Do we shun those who run older versions of OSX or Linux or Windows as "unworthy of consideration" because of an older OS? Lots of people want to keep iOS at the older version, but with Apple's constant insistence to "UPGRADE NOW!" via nagware, and in some cases update without permission, well - that's not quite equivalent, is it?
51% to 46% - I think that's pretty decisive... Of course, with it coming out that the Democrats and the Clinton campaign bankrolled the fake "Russian dossier", they have to start tossing about for something else to blame her loss on - other than her ineptitude and failure as a candidate people wanted.
Except that it's a pretty basic program. Apple uses Altium, Mentor Graphics, Creo, and NX internally. And they run on Windows.
Name a professional schematic capture/PCB layout package, or a 3D parametric CAD package that runs on OSX. Altium and Creo don't run on OSX.
Huh, the numbers are in the actual article and its link. The "error" in production was a factor of 4, not bad given the efforts and money spent on solar over the last decade. Yet the error in capacity is what is hyped, because it's a factor of 46! In fact, looking at that, we increased capacity at nearly 12 TIMES the rate of actual generation, which leads one to think that perhaps actual SOLAR generation is about 1/12th as effective as often claimed.
And about the naval vessels claim? Oh, I love trolls! The Navy confirms my statement: 275 ships in 2016, 774 in 1918. Poor AC, staying hidden because he's embarrassed to be proven so wrong!
The QZ article linked in TFA states 4600% error in capacity, but only 383% error in production estimate. I wonder why the former number was in TFA rather than the latter; perhaps because solar freaks love to tout capacity, but in reality - the EIA was somewhat accurate in actual production estimates, and the truth is that solar has yet to even break 1% of US electricity generation?