I would love to see the demographics of folks who still go to drive-in theaters.
And if the demographic is baby-boomers or older, then drive-ins are doomed because those folks are going to just die.
Hipsters? When the fad of retro-whatever-they-do wears off, that market will dry up.
It probably depends on the area. I usually take my daughter and her friends to 2 or 3 drive in movies per season. Where I'm at it's a pretty good mix. Mostly families, but also some groups of teenagers too. The one thing I've noticed is that everyone I've spoken to at the drive-in tends to be very happy and friendly. I think it's more about being there than anything. The sound from a car stereo and/or a window speaker is not that great, and neither is the picture. But it seems to be fun for everyone.
"starting to think that" -> what's happened recently to finally make you start considering this idea?
OK, I was being a little poetic. It's been a while since I've believed anything they say. I was just trying to not sound so cynical. I'm getting old too. I still remember a time when our government lied to us and we were happy to believe it. Simpler times I suppose.;-)
You seem to have left out the two gulf wars as well as Afganistan, all of which were stared under republican presidents.
I stated some of the biggest wars. Total American deaths during the 1990 gulf war- 294, Afghanistan- 2229 and Iraq- 4488. That's a total of 7011.
WWI troops deaths were 116,516, WWII was 405,399, Korea:36,516, and Vietnam-58,209. See the difference?
Vietnam actually started MUCH earlier (in the 1950s) than you claim and both republican and democrat presidents share the burden of our involvement there.
Very true, but it was Kennedy and Johnson who escalated the hell out of it. Previously there had only been 900 US advisers there. Not combat troops.
The term family values is a cynical political marketing term used to mask fear of families that aren't white, conservative and christian. It's a way of pandering to the religious right.
I'll agree with the pandering part. But if you truly believe the rest of that statement, then I have to believe one of us is delusional. If it's me, then it's too late and we've already lost our country.
Conveniently your characterization of the Democrats ignores the changes that happened after 1964. Those same democrats who were against civil rights (virtually all of them southerners) switched to the republican party and have stayed there ever since. 93% of Southern Democrats and 100% of Southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But don't let actual facts get in your way of pretending that the current democrats are the same people.
Bullshit. They either left politics or conveniently switched their public view. But since we're talking facts, let's look at the actual numbers instead of the percentages as that's a little more revealing.
100% of all of the Republican senators did vote against it. Which was a grand total of ONE, yes 1 person. Funny thing, one southern democratic senator voted for while the other 20 of his colleges voted against. In the house all 10 southern republicans voted against while 87 of the democrats did and only 7 opposed. A grand total of 11 southern republicans and 107 southern democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.
We can trade facts and figures all day long if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that BOTH parties have plenty of "blood on their hands" and they both tell us what they think we want to hear come election time. Whether that is about what they are going to do for us in the future, or what they did in the past.
What party were those presidents from? Oh yeah, the peace loving party. What party was the only president to ever detonate nuclear bombs against another country from?
Republicans are hawks, Democrats enter us in some of the biggest wars.
Republicans are supposed to be for family values, but how many get caught in extramarital affairs?
Democrats want to help the minorities. But almost the entire party fought the civil rights movement.
Don't listen to what any politician says. I'm starting to think that more often than not they will do(or have done) the exact opposite of what they tell you.
Now please start working on a replacement for my liver.
Seriously though, I wonder how long it will be before brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, Pick's disease and the like are considered the most catastrophic things that can happen to you as other body parts become easier to grow and replace.
The liver is pretty easy. I was in Hannover Germany a few years ago and they had flushed the cells off of a pig liver and grown cells from a human liver onto it to make a functioning liver. I don't know how far that has come since then. The heart is a bit more difficult with the moving and all.
i've been worried that we might run out of mice, but with this new technology, we can now save those mice who need heart transplants. We won't have to wait for a donar mouse to be killed in an accident any more! It's also hard to convince them to sign a donor cars, as very few of them know how to write.
I realize you are joking. But Hurricane Sandy hit the labs at NYU last year and killed all of the mice and rats that had been bred for 80 different traits for neurological studies. They lost about 20 years worth of work. The last I heard, they've been able to recover only 35% of what was lost due to other labs either donating or sending back lines that came from there.
many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to
And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.
Unless you want to collect on your unpaid benefit time. Some contracts will "require" two weeks notice, and will pay out any unpaid vacation (and maybe sick as well) if you provide said two weeks notice. They don't phrase it as a tit-for-tat, but that's really what it is in most states (at-will employment, where they can legally fire you without cause at any moment, and you can walk out without notice at any moment).
It depends on the state. I'm in a state that is "At-Will" and "Right to work" Still, it is illegal to not pay earned vacation time when you leave. Be it terminated, or quite with notice or otherwise. State law trumps employment contracts on this. At least where I'm at. Earned sick time doesn't need to be paid here, but I've lived in states that have required that in the past too.
As an employer, we don't give references for people who don't give two weeks' notice. It's just common courtesy.
I gave 8 weeks notice to my last company after telling them a year prior that I would be leaving. The moment I gave them my written notice they told me I was terminated and screwed me out of a bunch of money. I'll never give more than two weeks notice again, if I even bother. I tried to be nice and help them to transition, but they were too fucking stupid. That was three years ago. I still have their customers looking me up trying to get help.
Neither of which will be in an ELECTRIC car.
My point is LOTS of the parts of ICE cars simply don't exist in electric cars. Thus reducing the maintenance. Amenities simply aren't relevant because they are extras that are nice to have..
Yes, but there a are more sealed bearings to go bad. There are also more electronic components, which are in one of the worst environments for them. There's no water pump, so now you have to add some type of electronic heater to the car. There's no alternator, but you need one hell of a AC/DC converter/rectifier that is going to jostled around. There are lots of parts on an electric car that are also not on an ICE equipped one. Don't get me wrong, EV is pretty damn cool, but it's not all rainbows and ponies either.
Batteries are currently expensive. Care to answer the question of why replacement engines/trans don't come with multi-year warranties?
Many crate engines come with 3 year/ 36K mile warranties. Some more, so less. A lot of transmissions do too. I guess it's where you get them from.
15 years on rubber engine mounts is well past useful life weather you realize it or not. Yes, your engine mounts are rubber, and no matter what you do to them being next to a 212f/100c degree engine for 15 years is pretty much a good way to ensure they will be bad, as well as most other rubber under the hood.
Bullshit. If the engine isn't transferring vibrations to the car and not rocking around under heavy acceleration or suddenly letting off of the gas, then the mounts are fine and doing their job. It's physical stresses the engine puts on the mounts that wears them out more than anything. Some cars were designed very well and the mounts may never need changed. I had a Cadillac with 360K on the original engine and the mounts were fine. I've also had to replace them on high performance cars so often that I went to neoprene and finally aluminum. Some cars (Fieros come to mind) needed them replaced on a regular basis.
So you have absolutely no idea what a car is supposed to sound/feel/handle like and you're telling us that your old car is as good as new because you took care of it... except you didn't own it for the first 8 years or more...
So what. I've bought used cars in the past and completely replaced the entire suspension (and stripped some down to the frame and rebuilt from the ground up). I can guarantee you after oversizing sway bars and using new neoprene bushings and even modified transverse leafs they handled a hell of a lot better than new. I've had new cars and used cars that I've done little more than routine maintenance to. It's pretty damn obvious when they are working as they should. Most decent cars these days aren't much different at 100K miles compared to when they are at 2K. If you know who you are purchasing it from you know how it was treated. You can also tell by whether or not they kept maintenance records too.
You're talking a lot of bullshit that simply doesn't add up. Some of those older cars you speak of most certainly had rebuilt engines in them. You're a liar if you're trying to tell me you have a 25 year old bronco with 250k miles and the original engine with no overhaul. Its not the miles, its the years.
You know that for a fact do you? Who's taking shit now? I know a few people who have collectable cars that are twice that age with way fewer miles that still have the original tires. Years don't mean a damn thing.
The point is the really expensive parts of an ICE are the ones that usually need replacement. Engines, transmissions, etc. The moving parts that wear. Full electrics don't have those parts in the first place. The battery will need replacement, but it's a non-mechanical part that literally can be replaced with no issues; plug and play if you will.
First the "E" in ICE is engine. So the engine does not fail on an engine. Second, the main failure on a ICE equipped car is not the engine and/or transmission. It's more often electronic components or accessories. Such as alternators, water pumps, and control modules. Power windows A/C and other amenities are more likely to fail. Pistons, cams and transmission gears, etc rarely break or wear in a well maintained vehicle that has not been abused. Even so, wheel bearings, shocks, and brake pads/rotors and tires are probably the most common items needing replacement
Electric vehicles still have wheel bearings and shocks, etc.. Granted, regenerative brakes do not have pads and rotors to wear our, but I have no idea how much longer they last, and would bet they cost quite a bit more to replace. The electric motors still have bearings and other moving parts that can break too. All of the amenities like power windows and A/C are also on an EV and are just as prone to failure.
I don't know how much new batteries cost. Someone stated $2500. You can by a new engine for many cars for that price. Considering the size of the batteries, I don't think I'd consider them to be much more plug and play than a new engine.
So let me get this straight. These people are commuting out of the city they live in to go to work on company supplied buses and this is causing the city to loose money? It would be no different if they drove themselves to work. These people may be even less likely to live in the city if they had to drive themselves everyday. In which case the city would get nothing from them.
These part time residents compete with full time residents for housing. Rents go up and sales go down because people who would live and work in the City and spend more money there are forced out. Maybe they don't even work in SF, collectively nudging jobs and business elsewhere because working in San Francisco isn't nearly as desirable if you can't live there.
It's convenient how you don't bother to quote the rest of my paragraph:
As it is, the city is collecting property and local taxes from these people. They probably also do most of their shopping in the city, so the local businesses are making money and the city is getting sales taxes. It''s my understanding that most of these tech places also have their own food services and such, so I fail to see how the city is losing much from the lunch crowd either.
The city is making money off of them. These are not "part-time" residents, they are commuters (if anything). Their primary home is in the city. They pay taxes there. Their families are there and they shop there. They are residents, period. Back years ago when I was in NYC they had true "part-time residents" These people would work in the city all week and stay in a one room apartment then go home to the family and house in Connecticut on the weekends and holidays. I don't think that's as common these days.
If people who want to live and work there cannot afford to do so, then the city may well be getting a better percentage of their income, but they obviously are not getting more total money. Otherwise they could afford to live there. Additionally, people who rent contribute much less in taxes to the city.
I was in San Francisco twice earlier this year. It was the first time I'd been there in a few years. I was surprised at how many homeless people there are there now and how aggressive they've become. Something is going wrong, but I don't think it's people working outside the city and bringing money in.
I think the problem is that it's turning SF into a "bedroom community" for employers far to the south rather than having the workers live *and* work in the city (thus they are spending less time and money in the city. When I worked in SF during the first dot-com boom, my coworkers and I all went out to lunch at local restaurants and met after work at local bars. The worker that leaves the city at 7am on a bus, and them comes home at 7pm to be dropped off in his neighborhood is probably not spending as much time going out and supporting local businesses. Further, the added influx of SF residents are driving up rents, so even those that *do* work in SF find it difficult and expensive to find a place to live. Oh, and the city receives no payroll tax for those employees, so not only does the city earn less tax revenue due to reduced spending by these workers, but they receive no payroll tax either.
Rather than subsidizing bus travel to make it more attractive to live in SF and work 40 miles south, it would be nice to see the Peninsula cities and tech companies work on making it more attractive for their employees to live closer to work. It's no fun to live next to an office park that becomes a big unwalkable, bike unfriendly concrete wasteland after working hours.
So let me get this straight. These people are commuting out of the city they live in to go to work on company supplied buses and this is causing the city to loose money? It would be no different if they drove themselves to work. These people may be even less likely to live in the city if they had to drive themselves everyday. In which case the city would get nothing from them. As it is, the city is collecting property and local taxes from these people. They probably also do most of their shopping in the city, so the local businesses are making money and the city is getting sales taxes. It''s my understanding that most of these tech places also have their own food services and such, so I fail to see how the city is losing much from the lunch crowd either.
Now if you want to see the reverse of this, come to D.C. Damn near everyone who works in the city lives along the beltway in Virginia or Maryland. So the city gets all of the lunch crowd people. Then they go home and spend their money where they live and pay their taxes there too. Those areas are very well off for the most part. DC itself is broke. If it wasn't for the federal government propping it up it would be an even bigger hell hole than is already is. The 2010 violent crime rate> was 207% higher than the national average. Sanfrancisco was 73% higher. So no, Getting people to move away is not going to do anything for the city. Just look at Detroit.
Your remark about driving the property values up I agree with, but that seems to be happening most places.
to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.
You mean like the 15 Jupiter missiles that went active in November 1961 in Turkey? Perhaps if he had made a real effort to take over Cuba during the Bay of Pigs fiasco (in April 1961) instead of a half-assed attempt; or didn't invade at all it wouldn't have happened. Or not tried to kill Castro. Yeah, I'd say he deserves plenty of blame.
This is a great fucking idea. So instead of teaching kids to read and comprehend they can use their phone to translate text into a picture book. Why not just translate it to SMS:
Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times
He was also the only president to be elected 4 times. He died early in his fourth term as president. He also imprisoned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans by executive order. Showed a complete disregard for the Constitution with his handling of the supreme court when it struck down several New Deal programs.
Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)
Don't forget the Korean War.
Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.
Agreed. My only issue with Ike was his handling of Iran. Putting the Shah back in power over the democratically elected government was the only issue I have with his presidency.
Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.
I find that trivial compared to almost starting a nuclear war.
Nixon um watergate anyone
Would he even have been in any real trouble today over that? Hell, we probably would have had universal healthcare if Watergate hadn't happened. He was still a batshit crazy person though.
Ford was a fill in
Sort of. I've always admired him for basically throwing away his political career for the good of the country. We were so bogged down with Watergate that the country was practically paralyzed. by pardoning Nixon we were able to move on with life. But it flushed his chance to be elected.
FDR was probably the biggest single power grab in recent history until Bush Jr. But there were others before that too. It's just that in the past there have been presidents that at least tried to set things right. That doesn't seem to be happening right now though.
Keep trying: if I'm sticking this through a roof in Minnesota, it had better withstand -60F. Anti-freeze is good down to -35 - -40F.
I've driven rental cars in Minnesota in the winter and there are plenty on the road. What do you think is put in a cars cooling system? Here's a hint; Antifreeze. The freezing point of Propylene glycol mixed 60/40 with water is -60C (-76F). And it's relatively cheap.
Isopropyl alcohol freezes at -89C (-128F) And is even cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to see the demographics of folks who still go to drive-in theaters.
And if the demographic is baby-boomers or older, then drive-ins are doomed because those folks are going to just die.
Hipsters? When the fad of retro-whatever-they-do wears off, that market will dry up.
It probably depends on the area. I usually take my daughter and her friends to 2 or 3 drive in movies per season. Where I'm at it's a pretty good mix. Mostly families, but also some groups of teenagers too. The one thing I've noticed is that everyone I've spoken to at the drive-in tends to be very happy and friendly. I think it's more about being there than anything. The sound from a car stereo and/or a window speaker is not that great, and neither is the picture. But it seems to be fun for everyone.
a new type of fuel cell that is 90% less costly than current cells at one tenth the size (making it the size of a dishwasher)
Nice try SkyNet. At least it's still not small enough to fit two of them in Arnold's chest.
"starting to think that" -> what's happened recently to finally make you start considering this idea?
OK, I was being a little poetic. It's been a while since I've believed anything they say. I was just trying to not sound so cynical. I'm getting old too. I still remember a time when our government lied to us and we were happy to believe it. Simpler times I suppose. ;-)
You seem to have left out the two gulf wars as well as Afganistan, all of which were stared under republican presidents.
I stated some of the biggest wars. Total American deaths during the 1990 gulf war- 294, Afghanistan- 2229 and Iraq- 4488. That's a total of 7011.
WWI troops deaths were 116,516, WWII was 405,399, Korea:36,516, and Vietnam-58,209. See the difference?
Vietnam actually started MUCH earlier (in the 1950s) than you claim and both republican and democrat presidents share the burden of our involvement there.
Very true, but it was Kennedy and Johnson who escalated the hell out of it. Previously there had only been 900 US advisers there. Not combat troops.
The term family values is a cynical political marketing term used to mask fear of families that aren't white, conservative and christian. It's a way of pandering to the religious right.
I'll agree with the pandering part. But if you truly believe the rest of that statement, then I have to believe one of us is delusional. If it's me, then it's too late and we've already lost our country.
Conveniently your characterization of the Democrats ignores the changes that happened after 1964. Those same democrats who were against civil rights (virtually all of them southerners) switched to the republican party and have stayed there ever since. 93% of Southern Democrats and 100% of Southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But don't let actual facts get in your way of pretending that the current democrats are the same people.
Bullshit. They either left politics or conveniently switched their public view. But since we're talking facts, let's look at the actual numbers instead of the percentages as that's a little more revealing.
100% of all of the Republican senators did vote against it. Which was a grand total of ONE, yes 1 person. Funny thing, one southern democratic senator voted for while the other 20 of his colleges voted against. In the house all 10 southern republicans voted against while 87 of the democrats did and only 7 opposed. A grand total of 11 southern republicans and 107 southern democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.
We can trade facts and figures all day long if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that BOTH parties have plenty of "blood on their hands" and they both tell us what they think we want to hear come election time. Whether that is about what they are going to do for us in the future, or what they did in the past.
But the IRS rate for total vehicle costs is 54 cents per mile,
It was 55.5 cents from 2011 until 2012. For 2013 it's 56.5 cents per mile.
1916 US troops occupy the Dominican Republic
1917 US enters WW1
1941 The US enters WW2
1950 The US Invades Korea
1961 US invades the Bay of Pigs
1965 US combat troops enter Vietnam
What party were those presidents from? Oh yeah, the peace loving party. What party was the only president to ever detonate nuclear bombs against another country from?
Republicans are hawks, Democrats enter us in some of the biggest wars.
Republicans are supposed to be for family values, but how many get caught in extramarital affairs?
Democrats want to help the minorities. But almost the entire party fought the civil rights movement.
Don't listen to what any politician says. I'm starting to think that more often than not they will do(or have done) the exact opposite of what they tell you.
Those went to Wright Patterson.
Now please start working on a replacement for my liver.
Seriously though, I wonder how long it will be before brain diseases such as Alzheimer's, Pick's disease and the like are considered the most catastrophic things that can happen to you as other body parts become easier to grow and replace.
The liver is pretty easy. I was in Hannover Germany a few years ago and they had flushed the cells off of a pig liver and grown cells from a human liver onto it to make a functioning liver. I don't know how far that has come since then. The heart is a bit more difficult with the moving and all.
i've been worried that we might run out of mice, but with this new technology, we can now save those mice who need heart transplants. We won't have to wait for a donar mouse to be killed in an accident any more! It's also hard to convince them to sign a donor cars, as very few of them know how to write.
I realize you are joking. But Hurricane Sandy hit the labs at NYU last year and killed all of the mice and rats that had been bred for 80 different traits for neurological studies. They lost about 20 years worth of work. The last I heard, they've been able to recover only 35% of what was lost due to other labs either donating or sending back lines that came from there.
many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to
And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.
Unless you want to collect on your unpaid benefit time. Some contracts will "require" two weeks notice, and will pay out any unpaid vacation (and maybe sick as well) if you provide said two weeks notice. They don't phrase it as a tit-for-tat, but that's really what it is in most states (at-will employment, where they can legally fire you without cause at any moment, and you can walk out without notice at any moment).
It depends on the state. I'm in a state that is "At-Will" and "Right to work" Still, it is illegal to not pay earned vacation time when you leave. Be it terminated, or quite with notice or otherwise. State law trumps employment contracts on this. At least where I'm at. Earned sick time doesn't need to be paid here, but I've lived in states that have required that in the past too.
As an employer, we don't give references for people who don't give two weeks' notice. It's just common courtesy.
I gave 8 weeks notice to my last company after telling them a year prior that I would be leaving. The moment I gave them my written notice they told me I was terminated and screwed me out of a bunch of money. I'll never give more than two weeks notice again, if I even bother. I tried to be nice and help them to transition, but they were too fucking stupid. That was three years ago. I still have their customers looking me up trying to get help.
many employment contracts likely require minimum notice of termination as a condition which you must agree to
And wiping your ass with those contracts is probably the most useful they will be.
Such as alternators, water pumps
Neither of which will be in an ELECTRIC car. My point is LOTS of the parts of ICE cars simply don't exist in electric cars. Thus reducing the maintenance. Amenities simply aren't relevant because they are extras that are nice to have. .
Yes, but there a are more sealed bearings to go bad. There are also more electronic components, which are in one of the worst environments for them. There's no water pump, so now you have to add some type of electronic heater to the car. There's no alternator, but you need one hell of a AC/DC converter/rectifier that is going to jostled around. There are lots of parts on an electric car that are also not on an ICE equipped one. Don't get me wrong, EV is pretty damn cool, but it's not all rainbows and ponies either.
Batteries are currently expensive. Care to answer the question of why replacement engines/trans don't come with multi-year warranties?
Many crate engines come with 3 year/ 36K mile warranties. Some more, so less. A lot of transmissions do too. I guess it's where you get them from.
15 years on rubber engine mounts is well past useful life weather you realize it or not. Yes, your engine mounts are rubber, and no matter what you do to them being next to a 212f/100c degree engine for 15 years is pretty much a good way to ensure they will be bad, as well as most other rubber under the hood.
Bullshit. If the engine isn't transferring vibrations to the car and not rocking around under heavy acceleration or suddenly letting off of the gas, then the mounts are fine and doing their job. It's physical stresses the engine puts on the mounts that wears them out more than anything. Some cars were designed very well and the mounts may never need changed. I had a Cadillac with 360K on the original engine and the mounts were fine. I've also had to replace them on high performance cars so often that I went to neoprene and finally aluminum. Some cars (Fieros come to mind) needed them replaced on a regular basis.
So you have absolutely no idea what a car is supposed to sound/feel/handle like and you're telling us that your old car is as good as new because you took care of it ... except you didn't own it for the first 8 years or more ...
So what. I've bought used cars in the past and completely replaced the entire suspension (and stripped some down to the frame and rebuilt from the ground up). I can guarantee you after oversizing sway bars and using new neoprene bushings and even modified transverse leafs they handled a hell of a lot better than new. I've had new cars and used cars that I've done little more than routine maintenance to. It's pretty damn obvious when they are working as they should. Most decent cars these days aren't much different at 100K miles compared to when they are at 2K. If you know who you are purchasing it from you know how it was treated. You can also tell by whether or not they kept maintenance records too.
You're talking a lot of bullshit that simply doesn't add up. Some of those older cars you speak of most certainly had rebuilt engines in them. You're a liar if you're trying to tell me you have a 25 year old bronco with 250k miles and the original engine with no overhaul. Its not the miles, its the years.
You know that for a fact do you? Who's taking shit now? I know a few people who have collectable cars that are twice that age with way fewer miles that still have the original tires. Years don't mean a damn thing.
The point is the really expensive parts of an ICE are the ones that usually need replacement. Engines, transmissions, etc. The moving parts that wear. Full electrics don't have those parts in the first place. The battery will need replacement, but it's a non-mechanical part that literally can be replaced with no issues; plug and play if you will.
First the "E" in ICE is engine. So the engine does not fail on an engine. Second, the main failure on a ICE equipped car is not the engine and/or transmission. It's more often electronic components or accessories. Such as alternators, water pumps, and control modules. Power windows A/C and other amenities are more likely to fail. Pistons, cams and transmission gears, etc rarely break or wear in a well maintained vehicle that has not been abused. Even so, wheel bearings, shocks, and brake pads/rotors and tires are probably the most common items needing replacement
Electric vehicles still have wheel bearings and shocks, etc.. Granted, regenerative brakes do not have pads and rotors to wear our, but I have no idea how much longer they last, and would bet they cost quite a bit more to replace. The electric motors still have bearings and other moving parts that can break too. All of the amenities like power windows and A/C are also on an EV and are just as prone to failure.
I don't know how much new batteries cost. Someone stated $2500. You can by a new engine for many cars for that price. Considering the size of the batteries, I don't think I'd consider them to be much more plug and play than a new engine.
I always found this video to be impressive. It's a little scary in a terminator sort of way too.
So now I can tell my wife that I'm trying to save the world with the "hot coffee mod"
So let me get this straight. These people are commuting out of the city they live in to go to work on company supplied buses and this is causing the city to loose money? It would be no different if they drove themselves to work. These people may be even less likely to live in the city if they had to drive themselves everyday. In which case the city would get nothing from them.
These part time residents compete with full time residents for housing. Rents go up and sales go down because people who would live and work in the City and spend more money there are forced out. Maybe they don't even work in SF, collectively nudging jobs and business elsewhere because working in San Francisco isn't nearly as desirable if you can't live there.
It's convenient how you don't bother to quote the rest of my paragraph:
As it is, the city is collecting property and local taxes from these people. They probably also do most of their shopping in the city, so the local businesses are making money and the city is getting sales taxes. It''s my understanding that most of these tech places also have their own food services and such, so I fail to see how the city is losing much from the lunch crowd either.
The city is making money off of them. These are not "part-time" residents, they are commuters (if anything). Their primary home is in the city. They pay taxes there. Their families are there and they shop there. They are residents, period. Back years ago when I was in NYC they had true "part-time residents" These people would work in the city all week and stay in a one room apartment then go home to the family and house in Connecticut on the weekends and holidays. I don't think that's as common these days.
If people who want to live and work there cannot afford to do so, then the city may well be getting a better percentage of their income, but they obviously are not getting more total money. Otherwise they could afford to live there. Additionally, people who rent contribute much less in taxes to the city.
I was in San Francisco twice earlier this year. It was the first time I'd been there in a few years. I was surprised at how many homeless people there are there now and how aggressive they've become. Something is going wrong, but I don't think it's people working outside the city and bringing money in.
I think the problem is that it's turning SF into a "bedroom community" for employers far to the south rather than having the workers live *and* work in the city (thus they are spending less time and money in the city. When I worked in SF during the first dot-com boom, my coworkers and I all went out to lunch at local restaurants and met after work at local bars. The worker that leaves the city at 7am on a bus, and them comes home at 7pm to be dropped off in his neighborhood is probably not spending as much time going out and supporting local businesses. Further, the added influx of SF residents are driving up rents, so even those that *do* work in SF find it difficult and expensive to find a place to live. Oh, and the city receives no payroll tax for those employees, so not only does the city earn less tax revenue due to reduced spending by these workers, but they receive no payroll tax either.
Rather than subsidizing bus travel to make it more attractive to live in SF and work 40 miles south, it would be nice to see the Peninsula cities and tech companies work on making it more attractive for their employees to live closer to work. It's no fun to live next to an office park that becomes a big unwalkable, bike unfriendly concrete wasteland after working hours.
So let me get this straight. These people are commuting out of the city they live in to go to work on company supplied buses and this is causing the city to loose money? It would be no different if they drove themselves to work. These people may be even less likely to live in the city if they had to drive themselves everyday. In which case the city would get nothing from them. As it is, the city is collecting property and local taxes from these people. They probably also do most of their shopping in the city, so the local businesses are making money and the city is getting sales taxes. It''s my understanding that most of these tech places also have their own food services and such, so I fail to see how the city is losing much from the lunch crowd either.
Now if you want to see the reverse of this, come to D.C. Damn near everyone who works in the city lives along the beltway in Virginia or Maryland. So the city gets all of the lunch crowd people. Then they go home and spend their money where they live and pay their taxes there too. Those areas are very well off for the most part. DC itself is broke. If it wasn't for the federal government propping it up it would be an even bigger hell hole than is already is. The 2010 violent crime rate> was 207% higher than the national average. Sanfrancisco was 73% higher. So no, Getting people to move away is not going to do anything for the city. Just look at Detroit.
Your remark about driving the property values up I agree with, but that seems to be happening most places.
to be fair jfk didnt almost start a nuclear war, even though that could have resulted fromt eh confrontation. if it had started, the blame would lie with the cubans and soviets. sending a bunch of missiles to cuba and pointing them at the US kinda puts the blame for any conflict on them. when a guy is on your doorstep threatening you, you dont generally get hte blame for the ensuing fight when you tell him to backoff.
You mean like the 15 Jupiter missiles that went active in November 1961 in Turkey? Perhaps if he had made a real effort to take over Cuba during the Bay of Pigs fiasco (in April 1961) instead of a half-assed attempt; or didn't invade at all it wouldn't have happened. Or not tried to kill Castro. Yeah, I'd say he deserves plenty of blame.
This is a great fucking idea. So instead of teaching kids to read and comprehend they can use their phone to translate text into a picture book. Why not just translate it to SMS:
2 be, o not 2 be: dat iz d ?:
wethR 'tis nobler n d mind 2 suffer
d slings & arrows of mad GL,
o 2 tAk arms agAnst a C of SOS,
& by opposing nd dem? 2 die: 2 slp;
n mo; & by a slp 2 sA we nd
d hart-ache & d thou natRL shocks
dat flesh iz heir to, 'tis a nd goal
In what sense do you have a democracy?
You should get out of the basement and talk to real people. Most of them are pretty happy with Obama.
Most people I speak to that are outside the US see to agree with you. However I've found very few in the US who are happy with him these days.
Roosevelt? he was the first and only president to be elected 3 times
He was also the only president to be elected 4 times. He died early in his fourth term as president. He also imprisoned more than 100,000 Japanese Americans by executive order. Showed a complete disregard for the Constitution with his handling of the supreme court when it struck down several New Deal programs.
Truman? he nuked a country twice.(for a good reason Japan would not have go down easily)
Don't forget the Korean War.
Eisnhowser? probably the last decent president we had. it is too bad no bothered listening to his warnings on military industrial complex taking over.
Agreed. My only issue with Ike was his handling of Iran. Putting the Shah back in power over the democratically elected government was the only issue I have with his presidency.
Kennedy? well he slept with more women(and better looking ones) than clinton did.
I find that trivial compared to almost starting a nuclear war.
Nixon um watergate anyone
Would he even have been in any real trouble today over that? Hell, we probably would have had universal healthcare if Watergate hadn't happened. He was still a batshit crazy person though.
Ford was a fill in
Sort of. I've always admired him for basically throwing away his political career for the good of the country. We were so bogged down with Watergate that the country was practically paralyzed. by pardoning Nixon we were able to move on with life. But it flushed his chance to be elected.
FDR was probably the biggest single power grab in recent history until Bush Jr. But there were others before that too. It's just that in the past there have been presidents that at least tried to set things right. That doesn't seem to be happening right now though.
Keep trying: if I'm sticking this through a roof in Minnesota, it had better withstand -60F. Anti-freeze is good down to -35 - -40F.
I've driven rental cars in Minnesota in the winter and there are plenty on the road. What do you think is put in a cars cooling system? Here's a hint; Antifreeze. The freezing point of Propylene glycol mixed 60/40 with water is -60C (-76F). And it's relatively cheap.
Isopropyl alcohol freezes at -89C (-128F) And is even cheaper.
Facebook was started in 2004, brah. You didn't know anything about it in the 90s unless you have a working time machine.
My crystal ball says otherwise. ;-)