Comment Re:20 megawatts (Score 1) 195
And even if the electricity is produced by renewable means, it is consuming up that renewable source of electricity and forcing other users to get power from coal sources.
And even if the electricity is produced by renewable means, it is consuming up that renewable source of electricity and forcing other users to get power from coal sources.
I shouldn't be, but I'm always surprised how religious people get when their favorite electronics company is shown to be extremely misleading. I know a guy that I'd known for years who threatened to "unfriend" simply because I refuted his claim that the iPhone was the #1 phone.
So this iPad/Chromebook issue is just another chapter of misleading sales tactics. But if you look at what Apple actually says officially, they're very specific in the literature. Unfortunately, people will be blind to anything that might change their worldview... and any company would be nuts not to take advantage of that.
It's strange. It like tribalism in a globally connected world. Product brands and companies are one of the few things that touch most places on Earth so they have been able to build this strange support from people. If people got so passionate about things that really mattered, instead of consumer electronics, just imagine what they could do.
The last quarter was the second quarter. This doesn't show any sort of change in sales. It shows that out of 1.8 million units sold in the 2nd quarter, 1 million, or well over half of them, were to schools.
This is a scenario that rivals the old cold war for scary.
Except the cold war had a real possibility of MAD. Some sort of zombie rage Ebola strain is a figment of your imagination.
A lack of education about health care and a lack of access to healthcare for poor people is not a bad habit. Evolution will do nothing to fix that issue. About the most you'll get is a population that might eventually have a higher resistance to Ebola.
What exactly do you think still needs to be investigated? If you think the crash site needs to looked at, that's of little evidence now as the seperatists have been all over that site and control it. Any evidence against them could have been removed by now. In addition any evidence there that implicates the Ukrainian Authorities could have been fabricated.
That's a piss poor excuse. They're going to not sanction Russia because they might cut off the gas? What if they just cut off the gas anyway? You make it sound like Europe is already living under Russia's boot.
Natural gas is not the only way to stay warm in the winter. Infrastructure doesn't change overnight, but I've been led to believe that many parts of Europe are on the leading edge of switching to renewable energies.
Considering that all of this is at the door of Europe, it would be nice if they responded with us, but they've been a bit reluctant to be very forceful in any sanctions.
Nope. The current version is that "airspace over our territory is closed by Ukrainian civil aviation authority, so no civilian flights are possible. This is likely either a flight control error or intentional provocation. Eyewitnesses observed Ukrainian assault aircraft attacking the airliner, which broke in two and crashed. Attaker aircraft was subsequently shot down, and we are searching for its debris".
Plot thickens. Closure of airspace is indeed logical - this is a region in civil war with two known cases of aircraft shot down in recent days. No sane traffic control would put a civilian flight through. But Ukrainian aircraft actually attacking it makes little sense, unless this is an excellent false flag operation. I don't think Ukraine in its current state is capable of executing something this complex through.
Most likely some guy sitting behind BUK's controls in rebel territory saw a dot on his radar, figured it was another AN-26 full of enemy soldiers and pressed the button.
I don't see how you can believe that Ukranian, or really any, attack aircraft could have shot this plane down. Any jet dispatched to intercept this 777 would make visual contact and see that it is clearly a large passenger aircraft. At that point, I find it highly unlikely that they would just shoot it out of the sky. If anything they would escort it out of the area. And why would a Ukranian jet be flying around here if the rebels have BUKs and have shot down 2 planes already?
A missile launched from the ground is not going to stop if you determine you made a mistake after launching it. Much more likely explanation. Unless you want to go deep into conspiracy theories and think that one side intentionally did this to provoke a desired outcome.
I think it more likely has to do with the difficulty of creating a female hero that people actually care about. Since they can't seem to do that, they will just convert an already popular hero, giving them an instant audience.
I question how long that instant audience will hold up if the comments on this story are any indication of the current audience.
So Marvel risks alienating a large amount of the existing readers in an attempt to bring on new ones. Whereas if they came up with something new, the existing Thor readers would continue on as normal and they might grow an audience for a new title. If a new title fails, it's no big deal in the long run. If they screw up an existing title there are bigger repercussions. I suppose they don't care now that they have Disney backing their failures (and successes)
Was Beta Ray Bill actually referred to as Thor when he had Mjolnir? I do not recall if he was or not.
I'm still waiting for the female Hulk.
You've been unnecessarily waiting. She's been around for the last 34 years. She-Hulk
As far as I know Thor is a particular person. It sounds like for what ever reason, Thor has lost the use of his hammer to this new woman. If anything that would make her the new God of Thunder, but not Thor.
I blame this on the chosen release of this comic book news being on the View and them having no idea what they are talking about. Thanks for that crap Disney.
I might have been too easy on nedlohs. It's easy for everyone to be biased to their personal point of view and he was a bit flippant about how he spoke.
I personally am more than willing to watch sporting events, but it was by no means needed as I dropped my cable several years back. For the most part, any sporting events of real substance (championships, playoffs,etc.) are generally available on network broadcasts anyway.
I think many people have a hard time realizing that these are wants and not true needs. They have fear about what they're going to do without all those cable channels, but if they take the plunge they find they get by just fine. Of course, I don't need to tell you that. Always good to hear about someone else with good experience 'cutting the cord'.
Sure, many people can live without ESPN. That doesn't change the fact that it is one of the few channels that actually slows the loss of subscribers.
This is going off track. Some AC posted that sports are a waste of human and financial resources. Not just watching sports, but sports in total. Nedlohs retorted that the AC is not speaking for all people. Are you agreeing with the AC? Are you trying to say that sports is a complete waste of human resources? If you want to discuss ditching cable and satellite you need to pick better sub threads to respond to.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
