So it is the oil companies fault that people have built their lives around gasoline and refuse to change?
What? Who said anything of the sort?
I said a straight tax on oil won't push people to alternatives, because there really aren't any right now.
The alternatives I am talking about? Smaller cars and shorter commutes.
Those aren't alternatives in ANY sense of the word, that is straight conservation.
That's good, of course, but higher taxes on oil are just as big of a disincentive to the person driving a 40MPG car, as it is for those driving a 2MPG car.
Yes, but it consumes it in its creation. So it's a net zero.
I said exactly that in the sentence after the one you quoted.
The problem is, your tax doesn't provide any way to account for that, unless you are ALSO crediting those who grow it, which would be more complex than just giving them a credit to begin with, and forgetting the tax.
Consider, for example, that a landfill full of paper is a carbon sink.
Yes, but only in the short-term. In the long-term, it decomposes.
That hasn't stopped people from working on electric cars, E85 vehicles, etc.
The electric grid has just as much inertia behind it as oil distribution. E85 cars (and Biodiesel) are around only because the conversion process is trivial.
My point wasn't the vehicles themselves, but getting the fuels to the public. You can have all the E85 cars you want, but good luck finding an E85 station.
For another, no matter how easy it is to scroll, your eyes have a hard time following the continuous motion of the text.
Because that's what people who haven't used ebooks much think that they want!
I've used numerous PDAs, and the screens certainly are too small to read ANYTHING on, without putting your face right up against them. Something on the order of 2-3x the size of your Palm is necessary.
A half-height version of this Sony device (and MUCH cheaper) would be about ideal, IMO.
Backlight: Sure, it shortens the battery life, but being able to read in bed without the light on is great.
Backlit and reflective are mutually exclusive. And relective is infinitely easier on the eyes (Screen vs. Paper). How easy is your backlit Palm to read in direct sunlight?
In other words, just buy a booklight. You'll be much better off.
Availability: my PDA is a general-purpose device and I use it as an alarm clock, an organiser, an MP3 player, a movie viewer, a calculator, a map (with BT GPSr), a note-taker, etc., etc.
Multipurpose devices are overrated. Jack of all trades, master of none. Still... movie viewer is the only application this device inherently can't do.
when technology improves, people want to spend the same, but get a better computer, and manufacturers cater to this.
You must be VERY young. Computers didn't cost $200 a decade ago. Computers will get more complex as price drops, but the price will continue to drop FASTER than the added complexity can counter it.
The other thing you should consider is changing habits of computer users. If it was cheap enough, then maybe you'll just keep a (MMC/SD) card with ALL your data on it, and just walk into a store when you want a computer to access it, with about as much expense and fanfare as when you (currently) purchase batteries for your CD player.
Kids want to listen to some music? Pull the iPod out of their Happy Meal, and plug-in all your songs.
"Tax" all CO2 producing fuel based on its carbon content. Let the tax be passed on to the consumers.
Biodiesel and Ethanol has plenty of CO2 in it... It's just that it's the same CO2 that the plants removed from the atmosphere when they were grown. So your metric is completely wrong.
If anything, you'd want to give a tax-*credit* to anyone that grows anything, for their sequestering of atmospheric CO2.
The incentive to produce alternative energy will come from its lower cost, the disincentive to produce more greenhouse gas will be represented in higher costs.
The problem with that is the huge inertia oil has behind it...
It costs far more than the difference between gasoline and ethanol, to get a gas station in every city to install an extra pump for the ethanol. It costs much more to truck ethanol where it's needed than oil. It's an economy of scale, so the tax would have to be HUGE.
Why do people pay 5 cents more a gallon for gas when they could go across the street and get it for less??
Well, in my case:
"Across the street" is 2 miles, each way. You have to wait in line (remember the 70s?) at the cheaper station for several minutes before you can get to the pump. The cheaper station is filthy, doesn't have conveniences like squeeges, paper towels, free compressor, et al., available.
I didn't hear anyone offering to give them money several years ago when their profits were in the crapper.
It's called the federal government. They give oil companies so many subsudies and bailouts it's disgusting.
Therefore, oil companies with multi-state operations -- which is to say all of the big ones -- will reduce their business in California and increase it in other states.
TFA already covered all your bullshit claims quite nicely...
Other states ALREADY TAX OIL EXTRACTION, just like this bill will do.
This bill is limited to 10 years, which is far too short of a time for such a significant change to take place.
So you're just utterly wrong. Of course that nice big check from the oil companies will make you feel better, I'm sure.
First, it does not allow the tax to be transferred to consumers. Second, it does not levy a tax against gasoline consumers. The cost of gas must increase if you expect to see an impact in fuel consumption.
You can raise the price on bottles of oxygen all you want, but if there's no alternative at any price, I'm just going to be screwed by the high price, and HAVE TO pay it.
When Ethanol, Biodiesel, etc., are available in volume, THEN you can raise prices, and see some change. Right now, people will just have to pay it.
If you think everyone will just take public transportation instead, you're so wrong it's not funny...
Announcement: The Laws of Economics have been suspended in California. Yes, Viriginia, there is such a thing as a Free Lunch!
The tax is not the sale of gasoline, but on the extraction of oil, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE ALREADY DOES.
The few cents they are taxed will NOT notably affect the worldwide market price of oil, so there's no higher price to be passed-on.
The restriction is there to make sure the oil companies don't decide to vastly raise the price of gasoline in CA as retribution.
It's sad what a bunch of baseless, uninformed, reactionary bullshit is getting modded-up here on/. where we're supposed to be well-above average IQ. Reading the SUMMARY of Prop 87 would have been enough to disprove 99% of this crap.
Looking at ADA4400DAA6CD (page 91), HLT at Pmin ought to use nearly 50W less than HLT at P0 (12W versus 60W, going by P=IE), but I'm not even seeing a 10W difference.
Yes, I understand, but I really don't have any explanation for you. I initally though you had CnQ disabled (somewhat common), which would explain the high power figures, but that apparently isn't the case.
My searches haven't turned-up any similar reports, so I'm not even sure where to start... Try any settings in the BIOS you can, and perhaps try newer Linux kernels that might have better support for power management on X2 CPUs. Contacting your motherboard manufacturer (or even AMD) also can't hurt.
See the table starting at page 30, where the Halt/Stop Grant power usage is less than 10% of TDP even at Pmin.
I assume you're comparing TDP with "I/O power", which is not a sane comparison. I can't say I blame you, as the document isn't laid out (or explained) very well.
You need to compare:
"Max P-State" "IDD Max" to: "Halt/Stop Grant" "IDDC1 Max @ Max P-State"...and you'll see that HLT gives less than a 50% power reduction, at best.
You'll also see that:
"800MHz" "Min P-State"...(which is the state CnQ uses when idle) on it's own, gives lower power than HLT. The two working together, of course, produce the best results ("IDDC1 Max @ Min P-State").
which seems pretty clear to me that it's not just "idling for a cycle"--it's stopped completely.
I really don't know how you're reading that, out of what you quoted.
"Stopped completely" is noted as the "S3" (standby) state in that manual.
What worries me is that, at some point, the Russian government wasn't able to pay all it's employees' wages. What does that say about a rich and determined party being able to acquire some of the stored weapons?
Not much. If you have enough money for Russia to care about you, you have the resources to build your own nukes.
* The USSR, when it existed, several times suggested getting rid of all nuclear weapons. The US rejected their proposals.
The USSR lied... A LOT.
Remember the treaty between the US and USSR not to develop biological or chemical weapons? Funny thing. The US honored the deal, but the USSR went ahead anyway...
Considering the US has the most nuclear weapons, engages in the most wars, threatens non-nuclear countries with nuclear weapons, other countries have an incentive to develop nukes.
The US engages in the most wars because it has become the police-force of the world... The UN doesn't do *anything* unless the US pushes for it, and offers to supply the vast majority of the combat force (and money).
What non-nuclear country has the US ever threatend to nuke?
The incentives to develop atomic weapons won't disappear if the US gets rid of their own nuclear capabilites.
But eliminating nukes does not fit into the US Pentagon's publicly stated goal of complete, worldwide military superiority.
Detractors quietly ignore the fact that, under the last 50 years of US' stewardship, the number of wars in the world has decreased, aggressors have been contained, borders have stopped being redrawn by wars, and the whole world has been in a better situation than ever in the history of the world.
There's only a fixed amount of spectrum out there, and the licensing allows it to be allocated in a fairly efficient manner.
I'm in the Southern California desert, blocked from Los Angeles area broadcasts thanks to several mountains... I just turned on the radio, and there are exactly 12 stations one the dial close or powerful enough to pick-up without some serious outdoor antennas.
Now that we've established the FM band is ridiculously vacant here...
Explain to me why the FCC is fining a small, low-power radio station running out of some guy's house in the area...
TFA stated that FCC is complaint-driven, i.e. licensed stations are being pushed off the airwaves.
That was the implication, but it could just as well mean that companies like Clear Channel are going out of their way to find such stations, and complain about them over entirely trivial/baseless/invented issues.
The pirates should fight for a "pirate" range in the FM spectrum where unlicensed transmitters van freely broadcast.
Yes, that would be a good solution, but in busy markets, who is going to willingly give-up their current spectrum to make room for unlicensed?
Go to some place like Chicago, and the FM dial is filled, end-to-end, with stations, many overlapping and interfering with each other already. Good luck making room.
A park is a physical place, and its primary purpose is not for listening to music
It's primary purpose is whatever the public feel like using it for. If people want music all the time, then that's it's primary purpose.
Besides, I could say the public airwaves' primary purpose is not for broadcasting nudity, profanity, etc.
If you don't like the cussing then oh well, tune to something else.
If you don't like seeing the naked guy running around the park, then look in another direction...
If you don't like seeing the commercial of a man being graphically disemboweled randomly poping up, then you shouldn't be watching TV...
TV is FULL of (what I consider to be) hate speech--they call it "religious progamming"
You're giving "hate speech" a bad name. There's a world of difference between religous programming saying "God is the savior" and hate speech like "All fags should be shot". Guess which one you'll hear on TV, and which one you wont...
I guess the libertarian line on broadcast is that everyone should be psychic, and know what's going to be on every TV channel, and radio station before they turn it on.
My own tastes
There's a huge difference between "taste" and obsenity. The FCC isn't taking shows off the air because they don't find them funny enough, so such arguments are just red herrings.
When TV and radio stations are not FORCED to self-censor, they almost never self-censor (at best they self-censor only a portion of their channels, e.g. "family" channels),
What the? Have you NEVER had cable TV? There are no standards, and yet all basic cable channels strictly self-censor, at least until very, very late at night.
it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the public desires access to mature, uncensored programming.
Your whole argument is that more than 50% of Americans subscribe to premium cable channels and satellite radio, which is obviously untrue.
So swearing is the only thing that should be regulated, hmm?
He never said any such thing. Just because he didn't specifically include it.
misinformation and logical fallacies and outright lies are ok,
You certainly seem to think so, since you're such a pervasive utilizer of them...
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously don't intend for it to; but it certainly does, in the (only) way you've described it.
No, not into pure CO2... into much more toxic gases.
This this is just an aside anyhow, I never suggested giving tax breaks to landfills, just those who originally extract the CO2 from the atmosphere.
That's a huge "IF".
What? Who said anything of the sort?
I said a straight tax on oil won't push people to alternatives, because there really aren't any right now.
Those aren't alternatives in ANY sense of the word, that is straight conservation.
That's good, of course, but higher taxes on oil are just as big of a disincentive to the person driving a 40MPG car, as it is for those driving a 2MPG car.
Go rant somewhere else...
I said exactly that in the sentence after the one you quoted.
The problem is, your tax doesn't provide any way to account for that, unless you are ALSO crediting those who grow it, which would be more complex than just giving them a credit to begin with, and forgetting the tax.
Yes, but only in the short-term. In the long-term, it decomposes.
The electric grid has just as much inertia behind it as oil distribution. E85 cars (and Biodiesel) are around only because the conversion process is trivial.
My point wasn't the vehicles themselves, but getting the fuels to the public. You can have all the E85 cars you want, but good luck finding an E85 station.
For one, PDFs.
For another, no matter how easy it is to scroll, your eyes have a hard time following the continuous motion of the text.
I've used numerous PDAs, and the screens certainly are too small to read ANYTHING on, without putting your face right up against them. Something on the order of 2-3x the size of your Palm is necessary.
A half-height version of this Sony device (and MUCH cheaper) would be about ideal, IMO.
Backlit and reflective are mutually exclusive. And relective is infinitely easier on the eyes (Screen vs. Paper). How easy is your backlit Palm to read in direct sunlight?
In other words, just buy a booklight. You'll be much better off.
Multipurpose devices are overrated. Jack of all trades, master of none. Still... movie viewer is the only application this device inherently can't do.
Antigravity sounds great, it just seems far-fetched. A 0.1% gravity reduction test. Only 99.9% more to go.
You must be VERY young. Computers didn't cost $200 a decade ago. Computers will get more complex as price drops, but the price will continue to drop FASTER than the added complexity can counter it.
The other thing you should consider is changing habits of computer users. If it was cheap enough, then maybe you'll just keep a (MMC/SD) card with ALL your data on it, and just walk into a store when you want a computer to access it, with about as much expense and fanfare as when you (currently) purchase batteries for your CD player.
Kids want to listen to some music? Pull the iPod out of their Happy Meal, and plug-in all your songs.
Perhaps you just aren't paying attention...
It's possible that The Sun will spontaneously collapse into an ultra-massive black hole tomorrow...
The chances of either happening are ridiculously remote.
The state of CA can't retract federal subsudies.
Biodiesel and Ethanol has plenty of CO2 in it... It's just that it's the same CO2 that the plants removed from the atmosphere when they were grown. So your metric is completely wrong.
If anything, you'd want to give a tax-*credit* to anyone that grows anything, for their sequestering of atmospheric CO2.
The problem with that is the huge inertia oil has behind it...
It costs far more than the difference between gasoline and ethanol, to get a gas station in every city to install an extra pump for the ethanol. It costs much more to truck ethanol where it's needed than oil. It's an economy of scale, so the tax would have to be HUGE.
Well, in my case:
"Across the street" is 2 miles, each way.
You have to wait in line (remember the 70s?) at the cheaper station for several minutes before you can get to the pump.
The cheaper station is filthy, doesn't have conveniences like squeeges, paper towels, free compressor, et al., available.
It's called the federal government. They give oil companies so many subsudies and bailouts it's disgusting.
TFA already covered all your bullshit claims quite nicely...
Other states ALREADY TAX OIL EXTRACTION, just like this bill will do.
This bill is limited to 10 years, which is far too short of a time for such a significant change to take place.
So you're just utterly wrong. Of course that nice big check from the oil companies will make you feel better, I'm sure.
You can raise the price on bottles of oxygen all you want, but if there's no alternative at any price, I'm just going to be screwed by the high price, and HAVE TO pay it.
When Ethanol, Biodiesel, etc., are available in volume, THEN you can raise prices, and see some change. Right now, people will just have to pay it.
If you think everyone will just take public transportation instead, you're so wrong it's not funny...
The tax is not the sale of gasoline, but on the extraction of oil, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE ALREADY DOES.
The few cents they are taxed will NOT notably affect the worldwide market price of oil, so there's no higher price to be passed-on.
The restriction is there to make sure the oil companies don't decide to vastly raise the price of gasoline in CA as retribution.
It's sad what a bunch of baseless, uninformed, reactionary bullshit is getting modded-up here on
Yes, I understand, but I really don't have any explanation for you. I initally though you had CnQ disabled (somewhat common), which would explain the high power figures, but that apparently isn't the case.
My searches haven't turned-up any similar reports, so I'm not even sure where to start... Try any settings in the BIOS you can, and perhaps try newer Linux kernels that might have better support for power management on X2 CPUs. Contacting your motherboard manufacturer (or even AMD) also can't hurt.
I assume you're comparing TDP with "I/O power", which is not a sane comparison. I can't say I blame you, as the document isn't laid out (or explained) very well.
You need to compare:
"Max P-State" "IDD Max"
to:
"Halt/Stop Grant" "IDDC1 Max @ Max P-State"
You'll also see that:
"800MHz" "Min P-State"
I really don't know how you're reading that, out of what you quoted.
"Stopped completely" is noted as the "S3" (standby) state in that manual.
You'd better tell that to the Japanese citizens who are still around from WWII. They seem to think that is actually what happened.
They knew they were losing for over a year before the end of the war... That didn't get them to surrender, or stop fighting.
Which is why the USSR nuked... umm... Remind me again, who did they nuke to establish their dominance?
Better yet, google:
Sasquatch
Alien Abductions
911 truth
Crop Circles
JFK truth
etc.
Not much. If you have enough money for Russia to care about you, you have the resources to build your own nukes.
I'm looking at you, Bill.
No, it's much more like seeing someone else pointing a gun at you... and deciding NOT to tell anyone else about it.
The USSR lied... A LOT.
Remember the treaty between the US and USSR not to develop biological or chemical weapons? Funny thing. The US honored the deal, but the USSR went ahead anyway...
The US engages in the most wars because it has become the police-force of the world... The UN doesn't do *anything* unless the US pushes for it, and offers to supply the vast majority of the combat force (and money).
What non-nuclear country has the US ever threatend to nuke?
The incentives to develop atomic weapons won't disappear if the US gets rid of their own nuclear capabilites.
Detractors quietly ignore the fact that, under the last 50 years of US' stewardship, the number of wars in the world has decreased, aggressors have been contained, borders have stopped being redrawn by wars, and the whole world has been in a better situation than ever in the history of the world.
That's perhaps the most irrational, nonsensical reply I've read...
I'm in the Southern California desert, blocked from Los Angeles area broadcasts thanks to several mountains... I just turned on the radio, and there are exactly 12 stations one the dial close or powerful enough to pick-up without some serious outdoor antennas.
Now that we've established the FM band is ridiculously vacant here...
Explain to me why the FCC is fining a small, low-power radio station running out of some guy's house in the area...
The FCC existed LONG before the Emergency Broadcast System. So you're just simply wrong.
That was the implication, but it could just as well mean that companies like Clear Channel are going out of their way to find such stations, and complain about them over entirely trivial/baseless/invented issues.
Yes, that would be a good solution, but in busy markets, who is going to willingly give-up their current spectrum to make room for unlicensed?
Go to some place like Chicago, and the FM dial is filled, end-to-end, with stations, many overlapping and interfering with each other already. Good luck making room.
It's primary purpose is whatever the public feel like using it for. If people want music all the time, then that's it's primary purpose.
Besides, I could say the public airwaves' primary purpose is not for broadcasting nudity, profanity, etc.
If you don't like seeing the naked guy running around the park, then look in another direction...
If you don't like seeing the commercial of a man being graphically disemboweled randomly poping up, then you shouldn't be watching TV...
You're giving "hate speech" a bad name. There's a world of difference between religous programming saying "God is the savior" and hate speech like "All fags should be shot". Guess which one you'll hear on TV, and which one you wont...
I guess the libertarian line on broadcast is that everyone should be psychic, and know what's going to be on every TV channel, and radio station before they turn it on.
There's a huge difference between "taste" and obsenity. The FCC isn't taking shows off the air because they don't find them funny enough, so such arguments are just red herrings.
What the? Have you NEVER had cable TV? There are no standards, and yet all basic cable channels strictly self-censor, at least until very, very late at night.
Your whole argument is that more than 50% of Americans subscribe to premium cable channels and satellite radio, which is obviously untrue.
He never said any such thing. Just because he didn't specifically include it.
You certainly seem to think so, since you're such a pervasive utilizer of them...