That's a reasonable assessment but the non-fuel maintenance costs of light duty trucks is trival and probably doesn't warrant a $1,500 price increase. A few fleets might experiment with the aluminum body truck but I would almost guarantee large scale adoption would wait until after data has been collected.
For the record, the 2013 average maintenance costs for Light Duty trucks on a per month cost for trucks under 24,000 miles. Fuel: $289.30 Oil: $7.80 Tires: $14.70 Maintenance/Repair: $28.86
Fuel is 75-85% of the fleet maintenance costs depending on how many miles have been put on it. A fraction of the $43.56 for tires and repair is going to be alleviated due to a less weight. The question is how much? If the full tire and repair cost could be removed the $1,500 savings would pay for itself after just shy of 3 years of operation for Home Depot. The truth is that you probably won't get more than $7.50 in savings from those two areas which would take over 16 years to pay off an extra $1,500 in cost. That's not entirely accurate as you have to really work from how long it takes to pay off the difference in Ford vs the lowest priced competitor. However, I would say 5 years is probably the cap for how long Home Depot is going to keep a truck around so for them to keep with Ford I would expect aluminum Ford's to be no more than $500 over the cheapest competitor.
The savings potential for aluminum is in fuel. That is the single largest ongoing cost for any vehicle. All other maintenance costs are trivial in comparison. If you don't have to worry about fuel then any savings you're likely to get from light material is going to be relatively negligible. So I can see fleets that pay for their fuel wanting the aluminum models if they can demonstrate significant savings however as I pointed out earlier, those fleets also tend to require post-production modification after the trucks leave the Ford plant. So the question becomes how well do these aluminum trucks play with that part of the cycle.
The trucks Home Depot rents out are Ford F-150s. The major advantage to the aluminum F-150 is going to be fuel savings which I believe Home Depot holds their renters liable for fuel costs. I'm predicting that Home Depot will not order the F-150 light duty truck for that model year and instead go with either GM or Chrysler because I'm quite certain that the $1,500 cost increase will make the other two brands more cost-effective.
The article has things blown way out of proportion. The major customers for F-150s are not individual consumers. The major customers of the F-150 are companies that have fleets of trucks. Think companies like Home Depot or U-Haul that rent out light duty pickup trucks or companies like Union Pacific or BNSF that mount railwheels on their trucks so that they have a way to get vehicles, people, and material out to remote areas.
The big advantage in aluminum is the reduced weight and consequent fuel savings. It's not going to make one lick of difference to Home Depot or U-Haul because their customers pay the fuel costs so they're go with whichever company is producing the cheapest trucks. Companies like UP or BNSF are going to care about the weight because they have a huge fleet and the fuel savings can be huge. However those companies also are far more reliant on after-production upfitting to make the trucks work for them so the question is how will the aluminum affect that after production work?
As an example of how cutthroat the fleet business can be.... GM already screwed up by releasing the 2014 (or is it 2015) model light duty trucks later than Ford or Chrysler. Most of those fleet companies have jumped to Ford or Chrysler which are delivering the newest models earlier.
So Ford is definitely taking a risk. The can easily tank the sales for the F150 model year they convert to aluminum if the fleets don't stick with Fords.
So I was watching an episode of Duck Dynasty on Christmas because my parents had it on. In one episode the Grandmother, Miss Kay(?), went bowling with her two oldest grandchildren (the kids of the CEO). I'm not sure if she was genuinely obtuse or if she knew what she was doing but she was certainly making her grandchildren feel embarassed in front of their friends by going into a pseudo sex talk.
Which means that if Amazon was promising it when their shipping providers weren't making that promise, Amazon should have been looking for alternative shipping methods that could meet the promise.
It is only fair to split up the debt though because the people across the state voted for the people and policies that brought on the debt. It's just that the Silicon Valley section will pay off their debt in a year or two, while in that same timeframe most of the other sections would probably declare bankruptcy.
It's only fair if you have no voting record history. If California's debt is itemized then it's a rather trivial matter to identify which of the resultant states is responsible for that debt. For example, if there's a 6,000,000 debt from regulations put in place regarding software development and had the Silicon Valley and Northern California states voted against it, then the 6,000,000 would be split between the other four states at a share of 1,500,000 million apiece rather than 1,000,000 for all six. That method is fair because it distributes debt based on who actually created it.
The purpose of the Senate, as it was originally constructed, was to provide a branch of government that not only allowed states equal representation in the Federal government but also, by virtue of having Senators elected by the states rather than the population, intentionally buffer Senators from the popular opinion of the people so as to avoid a situation where an overly charismatic leader fools the population into following him blindly. Looking at term lengths (2 for Representatives, 4 for President, and 6 for Senator) one of the charismatic individuals they were concerned with was undoubtedly a President.
Let me guess. You also believe that throwing live ammunition into a fire is extremely dangerous?
The chamber of the gun is extremely important to the firing of the bullet. While you will ignite the powder inside the casing by striking it correctly, the pressures from the explosion will take the easiest path to escape which just happens to be through the brass casings. There's a chance for minor injuries but what you usually end up with is a peeled back casing and the slug sitting where the bullet was left. The chamber and barrel are needed to contain the explosive power and force it forward to project the bullet.
So basically.... evidence supports the standard model and someone's pet theory that they are hoping will make them the next Einstein has evidence that is contrary to it?
Despite what the media and press may lead you to believe the TARP program was setup to have the US government purchase assets as well as issue loans. The government chose to use a majority of the funds for GM, under TARP, by purchasing assets rather than issuing a loan.
By holding stock, they (the US government) may only recover whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. If, and only if, GM offered to buy back the stock in question could the price ever be remotely guaranteed to be close to what it was purchased for. Instead the US government sought to dump that stock for politically expedient reasons which manifested itself as the "loss" to the taxpayers. Had the US government issued a loan to GM this would not be an issue. Had GM and the US government signed a contract that said GM would cover the difference if the US government sold the stock below the purchase price, this would not be an issue.
I believe jets do indeed land at 10,000+ feet. There are 13 commercial airports with an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher. That's not including any military airports.
Not to mention the numerous state constitutions at the time that were worded more bluntly regarding the individual right to bear arms.
This is the more significant part. If the 2nd amendment were not to protect the individual right, why would the states with the individual right ratify the amendment?
The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and not in any way shape or form connected to militia service. Barring any significant shift that would switch up the opinion, at this point it's a matter of to what extent guns may be limited.
An oft overlooked fact of the Columbine shootings is that the perpetrators had planted bombs in the cafeteria. Their original intent had been to set off the bombs (killing as many as possible) and then use the guns to shoot down people as they fled. Fortunately the bombs did not detonate.
Certain trends that I have noticed over the past 10-20 years.
#1 - Greater media glorification of such events. Whether it's agenda driven (towards anti-gun legislation) or not it certainly creates an environment in which the perpertrator gains significant fame (infamy). #2 - The Internet has given rise to a much large number of people becoming famous over very little effort. #3 - Increasingly, the collective we has been telling children that they are special snowflakes.
It's so much easier to obtain fame now than it used to be and an event like a shooting is guaranteed to be highly publicized. I feel that we are setting children up for this by setting their expectations too high and when they inevitably fall short of it there's going to be issues.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a reasonable assessment but the non-fuel maintenance costs of light duty trucks is trival and probably doesn't warrant a $1,500 price increase. A few fleets might experiment with the aluminum body truck but I would almost guarantee large scale adoption would wait until after data has been collected.
For the record, the 2013 average maintenance costs for Light Duty trucks on a per month cost for trucks under 24,000 miles.
Fuel: $289.30
Oil: $7.80
Tires: $14.70
Maintenance/Repair: $28.86
Fuel is 75-85% of the fleet maintenance costs depending on how many miles have been put on it. A fraction of the $43.56 for tires and repair is going to be alleviated due to a less weight. The question is how much? If the full tire and repair cost could be removed the $1,500 savings would pay for itself after just shy of 3 years of operation for Home Depot. The truth is that you probably won't get more than $7.50 in savings from those two areas which would take over 16 years to pay off an extra $1,500 in cost. That's not entirely accurate as you have to really work from how long it takes to pay off the difference in Ford vs the lowest priced competitor. However, I would say 5 years is probably the cap for how long Home Depot is going to keep a truck around so for them to keep with Ford I would expect aluminum Ford's to be no more than $500 over the cheapest competitor.
The savings potential for aluminum is in fuel. That is the single largest ongoing cost for any vehicle. All other maintenance costs are trivial in comparison. If you don't have to worry about fuel then any savings you're likely to get from light material is going to be relatively negligible. So I can see fleets that pay for their fuel wanting the aluminum models if they can demonstrate significant savings however as I pointed out earlier, those fleets also tend to require post-production modification after the trucks leave the Ford plant. So the question becomes how well do these aluminum trucks play with that part of the cycle.
The trucks Home Depot rents out are Ford F-150s. The major advantage to the aluminum F-150 is going to be fuel savings which I believe Home Depot holds their renters liable for fuel costs. I'm predicting that Home Depot will not order the F-150 light duty truck for that model year and instead go with either GM or Chrysler because I'm quite certain that the $1,500 cost increase will make the other two brands more cost-effective.
The article has things blown way out of proportion. The major customers for F-150s are not individual consumers. The major customers of the F-150 are companies that have fleets of trucks. Think companies like Home Depot or U-Haul that rent out light duty pickup trucks or companies like Union Pacific or BNSF that mount railwheels on their trucks so that they have a way to get vehicles, people, and material out to remote areas.
The big advantage in aluminum is the reduced weight and consequent fuel savings. It's not going to make one lick of difference to Home Depot or U-Haul because their customers pay the fuel costs so they're go with whichever company is producing the cheapest trucks. Companies like UP or BNSF are going to care about the weight because they have a huge fleet and the fuel savings can be huge. However those companies also are far more reliant on after-production upfitting to make the trucks work for them so the question is how will the aluminum affect that after production work?
As an example of how cutthroat the fleet business can be.... GM already screwed up by releasing the 2014 (or is it 2015) model light duty trucks later than Ford or Chrysler. Most of those fleet companies have jumped to Ford or Chrysler which are delivering the newest models earlier.
So Ford is definitely taking a risk. The can easily tank the sales for the F150 model year they convert to aluminum if the fleets don't stick with Fords.
Most people are. Some people aren't.
http://www.dreamindemon.com/community/threads/indiana-teen-kept-in-dog-kennel-and-threatened-with-weapons.51774/
So I was watching an episode of Duck Dynasty on Christmas because my parents had it on. In one episode the Grandmother, Miss Kay(?), went bowling with her two oldest grandchildren (the kids of the CEO). I'm not sure if she was genuinely obtuse or if she knew what she was doing but she was certainly making her grandchildren feel embarassed in front of their friends by going into a pseudo sex talk.
Which means that if Amazon was promising it when their shipping providers weren't making that promise, Amazon should have been looking for alternative shipping methods that could meet the promise.
It is only fair to split up the debt though because the people across the state voted for the people and policies that brought on the debt. It's just that the Silicon Valley section will pay off their debt in a year or two, while in that same timeframe most of the other sections would probably declare bankruptcy.
It's only fair if you have no voting record history. If California's debt is itemized then it's a rather trivial matter to identify which of the resultant states is responsible for that debt. For example, if there's a 6,000,000 debt from regulations put in place regarding software development and had the Silicon Valley and Northern California states voted against it, then the 6,000,000 would be split between the other four states at a share of 1,500,000 million apiece rather than 1,000,000 for all six. That method is fair because it distributes debt based on who actually created it.
The purpose of the Senate, as it was originally constructed, was to provide a branch of government that not only allowed states equal representation in the Federal government but also, by virtue of having Senators elected by the states rather than the population, intentionally buffer Senators from the popular opinion of the people so as to avoid a situation where an overly charismatic leader fools the population into following him blindly. Looking at term lengths (2 for Representatives, 4 for President, and 6 for Senator) one of the charismatic individuals they were concerned with was undoubtedly a President.
Subsurface tablets....
Let me guess. You also believe that throwing live ammunition into a fire is extremely dangerous?
The chamber of the gun is extremely important to the firing of the bullet. While you will ignite the powder inside the casing by striking it correctly, the pressures from the explosion will take the easiest path to escape which just happens to be through the brass casings. There's a chance for minor injuries but what you usually end up with is a peeled back casing and the slug sitting where the bullet was left. The chamber and barrel are needed to contain the explosive power and force it forward to project the bullet.
You can't leap into meap until you've super-sized that happy meal baby.
Fat universes need lovin' too.
So basically.... evidence supports the standard model and someone's pet theory that they are hoping will make them the next Einstein has evidence that is contrary to it?
Well.... we know the silk road guy was willing to do so.
On the other hand, demanding your coins back may in fact provide sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to search your home.
They are used to play poker.
Despite what the media and press may lead you to believe the TARP program was setup to have the US government purchase assets as well as issue loans. The government chose to use a majority of the funds for GM, under TARP, by purchasing assets rather than issuing a loan.
Does SS and medicare get funded by taking taxes out of my paycheck? Yes. Then there's no difference.
By holding stock, they (the US government) may only recover whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. If, and only if, GM offered to buy back the stock in question could the price ever be remotely guaranteed to be close to what it was purchased for. Instead the US government sought to dump that stock for politically expedient reasons which manifested itself as the "loss" to the taxpayers. Had the US government issued a loan to GM this would not be an issue. Had GM and the US government signed a contract that said GM would cover the difference if the US government sold the stock below the purchase price, this would not be an issue.
I believe jets do indeed land at 10,000+ feet. There are 13 commercial airports with an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher. That's not including any military airports.
Not to mention the numerous state constitutions at the time that were worded more bluntly regarding the individual right to bear arms.
This is the more significant part. If the 2nd amendment were not to protect the individual right, why would the states with the individual right ratify the amendment?
The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and not in any way shape or form connected to militia service. Barring any significant shift that would switch up the opinion, at this point it's a matter of to what extent guns may be limited.
Columbine's armed officers were in a remote parking lot taking their lunch when Columbine occurred.
An oft overlooked fact of the Columbine shootings is that the perpetrators had planted bombs in the cafeteria. Their original intent had been to set off the bombs (killing as many as possible) and then use the guns to shoot down people as they fled. Fortunately the bombs did not detonate.
Certain trends that I have noticed over the past 10-20 years.
#1 - Greater media glorification of such events. Whether it's agenda driven (towards anti-gun legislation) or not it certainly creates an environment in which the perpertrator gains significant fame (infamy).
#2 - The Internet has given rise to a much large number of people becoming famous over very little effort.
#3 - Increasingly, the collective we has been telling children that they are special snowflakes.
It's so much easier to obtain fame now than it used to be and an event like a shooting is guaranteed to be highly publicized. I feel that we are setting children up for this by setting their expectations too high and when they inevitably fall short of it there's going to be issues.