Comment Re: What are schools for? (Score 1) 250
I would not recommend you gouge out your eyes and begin identifying as a blind man either.
So you're gonna offer to buy this book for every underprivileged LGBTQ+ adolescent who might want to read it? Didn't think so.
Of course not. If handing out those books is your objective, why wouldn't you fork out the money? Why should this be my (or my community's) financial burden?
It's a similar issue with statewide abortion bans. Yes, you can travel to another state if your finances allow. Perhaps we should be questioning why people with less money have to live under a different set of rules?
Nice deflection. You conflate using public money to provide books to children that the stewards of that money deem inappropriate with the actual restriction of abortion by law. We have already established anyone can buy and distribute whichever books they want. Nobody is stopping you from playing Santa on the public square. Except maybe for the parents of some of the kids you target.
Be forewarned though. I believe there is a term these days which describes someone who appears a little too eager to promote inappropriate sexual materials to minors. Roomer? Bloomer? Something like that.
Children do not need a book to educate them on how to give blow jobs; their local Religious leader or Republican uncle can teach them much faster.
Or their middle school teachers. Hardly a week goes by without one being arrested for diddling kids. Statistically speaking, not very many of them vote Republican.
Yes. Thank you. So stealing a car is always "Grand" as there are no cars that are in the price range of what you would probably shoplift.
When I was last on the grand jury 15 years ago, the dollar amount for grand theft was $100. Shoplifters were definitely in that category at the time. We saw some.
While I'm clarifying, "the only constraint is the battery cost" referred to EVs getting cheaper, specifically. And for many people the recharge time concern is entirely moot, because their EV is always fully charged in their garage and ready to go each morning, thus saving them the weekly gas station visit, which I put to you, is in fact better. For them. All clear now?
And lack of a garage is a major drawback for the current crop of EVs. Until their advantages are sufficiently greater than their drawbacks *AND* those of ICE, there will be no grassroots demand such that "EVs are going to displace ICE vehicles just like cars replaced horses and diesel replaced steam." Unless we are forced by government... a la Norway.
And just to be clear, I have no problem with you or anyone else buying or driving an EV. Just don't ask *ME* to buy one to make *YOU* happy.
There are a lot of good points of film which DSLRs don't have, such as film having a far greater "pixel depth", but for all intents and purposes, Film also is harder to fake and hack (although it can be done).
Very true. Film does not cover everybody's use cases. For me, it was more than worth it. Back in 2003, a 35mm roll with 36 exposures would cost $20 - $25 between cost of film, processing and prints. Maybe 3 might be good and another 15 or 20 mediocre. Once I went digital, I could shoot 100+ digital photos without a care and print the best 36 for $10 and all of them will be good. That's a game changer.
Cars are crazily expensive. Be it due to all the safety regulations, or just price hikes. This is why I am very conservative with buying a vehicle, and when I do, it is something that suits my needs...
Exactly. Unfortunately, too many people here are angry that you or I have the gall to make a choice that they might not like.
They won't cover 100% of everyone's use cases, any more than digital cameras or streaming music did.
Digital cameras *DID* cover 100% of my use cases. I already wrote that I never again bought film after 2003. Besides, a $350 digital camera can coexist with a film camera with very little financial hardship.
... the only constraint is the battery cost, which is a long way from hitting any sort of inherent floor.
That is very much wrong. The battery problem is threefold. Expense, energy density and recharge time. Even if cost is reduced, energy density needs to be improved and "refueling" times brought in line with ICE. I can get 450 miles on a tank of gas. You called it an advantage for EVs not needing "to stop at a gas station every week or so" for a 10 minute refuel. Is a 30 minutes or more stop every 250 miles somehow better? EV evangelists here have been trying to make that case for a while. Trying to explain how a clear disadvantage might be really good for you does not make a good argument for switching.
There is no reasoning with somebody who lives by the motto: "I ain't getting no newfangled iPod, I'm sticking with my walkman."
I have never owned an Walkman. I did buy a Sandisk player back in the early days. Eventually, I bought an iPod touch later on. You see, they were a worthy improvement over Walkman or Discman. Quantifiable. Much better than what came before. Evs? Not so much. At least yet.
I live in San Jose. We banned plastic bags in 2012. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the ban. I was already using a canvas bag and still do so today. Yet, when I check out, I notice about a third of the people are buying bags with five times as much plastic as the old flimsy bags. So, net plastic waste has gone up. That makes no sense.
A third of the people have more than enough disposable income that they refuse to be bothered to drag around old used plastic bag(s) or a cloth bag(s). It costs an extra dollar in bags on a $200 grocery trip. Those people value their time and effort more than $1 per trip.
The people asking others to change their habits are only going find their best success in goading the families who are counting every penny and those who worship at the Church of Greenpeace.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
