Allow me to take a leaf from your book and say: Citation needed...
This entire forum, for one...
The endless posts from people who claim that anyone who drives anything other than a SmartCar or a Prius is an evil person who is destroying the world...
Are you seriously saying that you have heard nothing about replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs? Seriously?
Quote me the last Slashdot article that was focused on LED bulbs. Ok, you might find one.
I'll quote you a hundred more since then about electric cars and solar panels.
And why should economic sense be of highest importance?
Because without a good economy, many more people are hurt and killed due to a lack of basic life needs. Every dollar you spend on something that costs more than it needs to is a dollar that isn't going somewhere else.
Raising the price of fuel via a carbon tax may indeed have long term benefits to the environment, but it sure will hurt a lot of people in the short term. The well off can pay it, but the working poor will really feel it.
Slavery makes economic sense, and yet we pay more for our goods so that the people who make them get paid because it is the right thing to do. Why can't we do the same thing so that we don't stuff up the environment?
It took a VERY long time to change the view in that dept, in the order of THOUSANDS of years...
SJW are now trying to change people's views on economics and the environment within one lifetime.
Good luck with that... It takes multiple generations to make such changes happen, look at the almost 100 years between the civil war in the US vs. when the civil rights act was passed...
Even today it is still an issue and it won't be really cleaned up within our lifetimes, it will likely take another 100-200 years to remove race as a serious issue...
So the idea that we're going to toss money out the window when it comes to the environment? What color is the sky in that world?
The only thing worse than the climate change deniers are the people like you who are absolutely convinced that the doomsday is coming. At least the deniers are skeptical.
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
^ This, all this...
I wouldn't mind a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic, but instead you've got "the world is ending we must DO SOMETHING" screamers...
Well screw it, if the world is ending, we might as well enjoy ourselves... If it ISN'T ending, then perhaps we shouldn't derail our economy in the process of trying to improve the environment...
---
I'm all for making reasonable, steady progress towards solutions that actually will make a difference. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs seems to be a very cost effective way to reduce our power consumption.
Yet all we hear about are electric cars and solar power, neither of which make any economic sense.
Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?
So do landlords have the right to fit cameras in their rental properties, specifically in the bedroom and toilets, so they can sell the video obtained for profit. Their properties, their laws or is that a false premise.
No, completely different law and rules.
"Your rights as a tenant include the right to "quiet enjoyment," as it is called in the law. This means the landlord cannot evict you without cause or otherwise disturb your right to live in peace and quiet."
Putting cameras in the rental unit would violate the "quiet enjoyment" rules by a mile and a half. The landlord actually may well end up in jail over that, it breaks so many laws it isn't funny.
Excuse me, but if you aren't travelling alone it is worth the cost. It is far more enjoying riding a train than have three idle humans in a small room. No need for toilet breaks, no annoying questions (Are we there yet), etc.. Take your wife to the restaurant car or bar and allow the kids access the onboard wlan and your sanity is saved.
^ That is a personal viewpoint and opinion. You may not be wrong for you, but that doesn't make you right for everyone else.
We have internet access in the truck, thanks to personal hotspots. We can leave when we want, stop when we want, take what we want, etc. The truck is a sunk cost, it already exists and the marginal cost of driving it isn't worth doing the math on.
So then we have the cost of gas. Meh, it is there, but compared to buying tickets, it rather washes out, or comes out in favor of the personal vehicle. Then I might want a vehicle when we arrive.
Don't get me wrong, the train has a place and that's fine. I'm not against the train, but don't mistake your personal opinion and taste for objective facts and information.
Let's face it, the majority of people aren't on a family trip, and the train will be cheaper and nicer for many of them.
"Cheaper" is debatable, it depends on the specific person's car, their needs when they arrive, etc. Saying the train is simply cheaper is no more accurate than saying the car is cheaper. Sometimes it works one way, sometimes the other.
"nicer" is subjective, some people find the train nice, some do not...
Your post shows your bias, which is fine, but don't pretend that you're providing objective information when it is all just a personal viewpoint.
I have no gripe, I have nothing against the train, I'm simply pointing out that for many people, a car makes more sense for various reasons, cost being just one possible reason.
I disagree... You've got it backwards... age is what kills cars, not miles... not anymore...
My Mother recently replaced her 2006 Lexus RX with a new 2015 model. Her car (which she owned since new) was starting to have some issues, everything from brake problems to paint problems to electrical issues.
Lots of little stuff was creeping up...
It had about 65,000 miles on it total...
Miles were never going to kill that car, sitting around is what does it in...
---
That being said, yes, you can kill a car with miles too, drive it 50k a year like a taxi or police car and yea, it won't last long. But that isn't what is being discussed here.
---
Put another way, short of driving it every week and putting crazy miles on a car, the vehicle will depreciate more or less due to age within a reasonable range of miles.
A 5 year old car simply can only be worth so much, regardless of how few miles are on it.
50,000 or 60,000, it isn't worth that much more or less either way. Put 60k miles on it over 5 years, then don't drive it at all for another 5 years, it will be worth very little, regardless of miles at that point.
To use your example of the $20K Honda, if you drive it 10k miles a year for 10 years, it isn't going to be worth a whole lot. How much LESS is it worth at 10 years old and 120k miles vs. 10 years old and 100k miles? Answer? Not a heck of a lot difference. Your example of $40 "cost" misses the mark because of that.
The reality is most people measure by the cost of gas per mile and ignore everything else.
I already own the car, I already pay for the insurance, those costs are more or less fixed...
Yes, the mileage does affect the value to some extent, do it too much and it adds up, but a few trips a year won't make a difference...
Where the numbers go really south for the train is if 3 or 4 people ride in the car. The cost to drive the car doesn't change much with multiple people (yea, the weight makes it slightly more, but really that is a minor number).
So what is the cost of 4 tickets on the train vs. the cost of 1 car?
I track spending closely, from one year to the next, I cut meat/booze, and switched from car to bike. The savings was significant. 3k on groceries, 1k on restaurants, and 1k on gasoline. And I get to expense out a health club membership.
So you saved $5K a year... If that is "significant", then you've found your problem...
Recently started switching the most used lights in the house for LED's - have seen an immediate drop in the electric bill - also eliminated CFL's that were more hazardous and put off more heat / risk of fire. As more people figure this stuff out we'll do better.
Actually, LEDs have just now come down in price enough to make sense, so I'm on board with that. I recently spend $400 to replace every incandescent and CFL in my home with LEDs and it is a nicer light, instant on, and no flicker.
I haven't had them long enough to see a power difference, but I'm sure I will. The fact that you can touch them an hour after they have been on is clear evidence that they are not wasting power like the older bulbs did.
Deniers will apparently just claim that "95%" of science is bogus if it disagrees with their pre-determined world view, causing cognitive dissonance.
Yes, because there is no chance that any "denier" could possibly believe that the science is not settled and is politically charged, regardless of any pre-determined world view?
BTW, when you use terms like "denier", you're slanting the conversation already, in favor of your pre-determined world view. Try using "skeptic" instead, it'll make you sound less biased.
How much you want to bet this lunatic is also a rabid fundamentalist following some ancient texts?
You might be shocked, but not all of us who are skeptics believe in ancient texts...
I've seen several pieces about Microsoft having a subscription model for Windows 10 alongside the regular model.
You've seen a lot of rumor and speculation... MS itself probably doesn't know what it will end up being...
They essentially are offering Win 10 for free, but only for the first year, then you pay a subscription fee.
That is a common misconception... MS has been rather clear on the fact that the upgrade to Windows 10 is free during the first year of release for all Win 7/8 devices. If you do upgrade during the first year, then that device will be supported for free for the life of the device, no sub required...
While it is possible they'll go to a sub model, I suspect it is more likely they'll figure out that just causes a fracturing of users. iOS upgrades are free for the life of the device, OS X upgrades are now free for the life of the device.
MS will keep collecting money from hardware companies, but supplement that with income from their app store and services.
Commit to a major release for 3 years, then 2 years sunset support. After that its fully functional but doesn't get MS support. 1 service pack every year, bundles all the updates together + some trinkets.
Or... Windows gets supported for the life of the device it is installed on, with a limited number of hardware changes...
Yes, I see the issues, some people actually do change their hardware often... edge cases are a pain to plan for, but something could be done...
Get a new device, the hardware company pays MS, all is well...
Considering some stuff in use where I work which will not even run in Win8 yet I suppose it's a matter of only patching up to two or three years behind the current date. Yes that is stupid but that's the speed (or lack thereof) of development with some software.
Unless, of course, the future plan is to make Windows always up to date with the ability to launch virtual machines with whatever "version" of Windows an old program might require.
If it runs on the "new" Windows, wonderful. If you need XP, fine, if you need 7, fine... that can be provided in a sandbox for each program.
Slashdot Mirror
Allow me to take a leaf from your book and say: Citation needed...
This entire forum, for one...
The endless posts from people who claim that anyone who drives anything other than a SmartCar or a Prius is an evil person who is destroying the world...
Are you seriously saying that you have heard nothing about replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs? Seriously?
Quote me the last Slashdot article that was focused on LED bulbs. Ok, you might find one.
I'll quote you a hundred more since then about electric cars and solar panels.
And why should economic sense be of highest importance?
Because without a good economy, many more people are hurt and killed due to a lack of basic life needs. Every dollar you spend on something that costs more than it needs to is a dollar that isn't going somewhere else.
Raising the price of fuel via a carbon tax may indeed have long term benefits to the environment, but it sure will hurt a lot of people in the short term. The well off can pay it, but the working poor will really feel it.
Slavery makes economic sense, and yet we pay more for our goods so that the people who make them get paid because it is the right thing to do. Why can't we do the same thing so that we don't stuff up the environment?
It took a VERY long time to change the view in that dept, in the order of THOUSANDS of years...
SJW are now trying to change people's views on economics and the environment within one lifetime.
Good luck with that... It takes multiple generations to make such changes happen, look at the almost 100 years between the civil war in the US vs. when the civil rights act was passed...
Even today it is still an issue and it won't be really cleaned up within our lifetimes, it will likely take another 100-200 years to remove race as a serious issue...
So the idea that we're going to toss money out the window when it comes to the environment? What color is the sky in that world?
That isn't a citation...
Rather, it is an opinion...
The only thing worse than the climate change deniers are the people like you who are absolutely convinced that the doomsday is coming. At least the deniers are skeptical.
Personally though, I hate both your attitudes because your emotions and politics get in the way of rational, logical evolution of the science behind the issue.
^ This, all this...
I wouldn't mind a rational, reasonable conversation on the topic, but instead you've got "the world is ending we must DO SOMETHING" screamers...
Well screw it, if the world is ending, we might as well enjoy ourselves... If it ISN'T ending, then perhaps we shouldn't derail our economy in the process of trying to improve the environment...
---
I'm all for making reasonable, steady progress towards solutions that actually will make a difference. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs seems to be a very cost effective way to reduce our power consumption.
Yet all we hear about are electric cars and solar power, neither of which make any economic sense.
Why spend money on something that has a payback period of more than 5 years when we have easier solutions right in front of us that have a payback period of as little as 1 year?
Very few deniers are honestly skeptical.
Citation needed...
Woosh, it is about the abuse of the word 'right' not laws. What 'rights' do employers have over workers, FUCKING NONE.
You might be shocked to discover that while you're welcome to that opinion, you'll find it is not accurate.
So do landlords have the right to fit cameras in their rental properties, specifically in the bedroom and toilets, so they can sell the video obtained for profit. Their properties, their laws or is that a false premise.
No, completely different law and rules.
"Your rights as a tenant include the right to "quiet enjoyment," as it is called in the law. This means the landlord cannot evict you without cause or otherwise disturb your right to live in peace and quiet."
Putting cameras in the rental unit would violate the "quiet enjoyment" rules by a mile and a half. The landlord actually may well end up in jail over that, it breaks so many laws it isn't funny.
Excuse me, but if you aren't travelling alone it is worth the cost. It is far more enjoying riding a train than have three idle humans in a small room. No need for toilet breaks, no annoying questions (Are we there yet), etc.. Take your wife to the restaurant car or bar and allow the kids access the onboard wlan and your sanity is saved.
^ That is a personal viewpoint and opinion. You may not be wrong for you, but that doesn't make you right for everyone else.
We have internet access in the truck, thanks to personal hotspots. We can leave when we want, stop when we want, take what we want, etc. The truck is a sunk cost, it already exists and the marginal cost of driving it isn't worth doing the math on.
So then we have the cost of gas. Meh, it is there, but compared to buying tickets, it rather washes out, or comes out in favor of the personal vehicle. Then I might want a vehicle when we arrive.
Don't get me wrong, the train has a place and that's fine. I'm not against the train, but don't mistake your personal opinion and taste for objective facts and information.
Let's face it, the majority of people aren't on a family trip, and the train will be cheaper and nicer for many of them.
"Cheaper" is debatable, it depends on the specific person's car, their needs when they arrive, etc. Saying the train is simply cheaper is no more accurate than saying the car is cheaper. Sometimes it works one way, sometimes the other.
"nicer" is subjective, some people find the train nice, some do not...
Your post shows your bias, which is fine, but don't pretend that you're providing objective information when it is all just a personal viewpoint.
I have no gripe, I have nothing against the train, I'm simply pointing out that for many people, a car makes more sense for various reasons, cost being just one possible reason.
That said, 80% of the cars on the road on my way to work have one occupant.
I would agree with that...
It's a shame, because if they all had four occupants, then 75% of the cars on the road wouldn't be there.
That is technically correct, but it doesn't matter since people are going where they want, when they want, and it just doesn't work out logistically.
I disagree... You've got it backwards... age is what kills cars, not miles... not anymore...
My Mother recently replaced her 2006 Lexus RX with a new 2015 model. Her car (which she owned since new) was starting to have some issues, everything from brake problems to paint problems to electrical issues.
Lots of little stuff was creeping up...
It had about 65,000 miles on it total...
Miles were never going to kill that car, sitting around is what does it in...
---
That being said, yes, you can kill a car with miles too, drive it 50k a year like a taxi or police car and yea, it won't last long. But that isn't what is being discussed here.
---
Put another way, short of driving it every week and putting crazy miles on a car, the vehicle will depreciate more or less due to age within a reasonable range of miles.
A 5 year old car simply can only be worth so much, regardless of how few miles are on it.
50,000 or 60,000, it isn't worth that much more or less either way. Put 60k miles on it over 5 years, then don't drive it at all for another 5 years, it will be worth very little, regardless of miles at that point.
To use your example of the $20K Honda, if you drive it 10k miles a year for 10 years, it isn't going to be worth a whole lot. How much LESS is it worth at 10 years old and 120k miles vs. 10 years old and 100k miles? Answer? Not a heck of a lot difference. Your example of $40 "cost" misses the mark because of that.
You must have different insurance laws in CA. That is the only thing I can guess...
I don't pay for insurance by the mile, I pay by the year. Drive 8,000 miles or 18,000 miles, the price is the same...
The reality is most people measure by the cost of gas per mile and ignore everything else.
I already own the car, I already pay for the insurance, those costs are more or less fixed...
Yes, the mileage does affect the value to some extent, do it too much and it adds up, but a few trips a year won't make a difference...
Where the numbers go really south for the train is if 3 or 4 people ride in the car. The cost to drive the car doesn't change much with multiple people (yea, the weight makes it slightly more, but really that is a minor number).
So what is the cost of 4 tickets on the train vs. the cost of 1 car?
It gets worse... those numbers only make sense if you're driving alone...
Imagine driving with a family of 4... then the train makes even LESS sense...
I track spending closely, from one year to the next, I cut meat/booze, and switched from car to bike. The savings was significant. 3k on groceries, 1k on restaurants, and 1k on gasoline. And I get to expense out a health club membership.
So you saved $5K a year... If that is "significant", then you've found your problem...
Recently started switching the most used lights in the house for LED's - have seen an immediate drop in the electric bill - also eliminated CFL's that were more hazardous and put off more heat / risk of fire. As more people figure this stuff out we'll do better.
Actually, LEDs have just now come down in price enough to make sense, so I'm on board with that. I recently spend $400 to replace every incandescent and CFL in my home with LEDs and it is a nicer light, instant on, and no flicker.
I haven't had them long enough to see a power difference, but I'm sure I will. The fact that you can touch them an hour after they have been on is clear evidence that they are not wasting power like the older bulbs did.
Deniers will apparently just claim that "95%" of science is bogus if it disagrees with their pre-determined world view, causing cognitive dissonance.
Yes, because there is no chance that any "denier" could possibly believe that the science is not settled and is politically charged, regardless of any pre-determined world view?
BTW, when you use terms like "denier", you're slanting the conversation already, in favor of your pre-determined world view. Try using "skeptic" instead, it'll make you sound less biased.
How much you want to bet this lunatic is also a rabid fundamentalist following some ancient texts?
You might be shocked, but not all of us who are skeptics believe in ancient texts...
You are implying that those were the only two choices...
They were not...
These three story townhomes are being built right next to single family homes, they are blocking out the sun.
This is why New York City back in the 30's passed a law about how tall buildings could be near the property line....
And people complain about zoning laws and HOAs and the like...
This would not be possible where I live, between the city, laws for zoning, and our HOA, you just couldn't do this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
That picture shows exactly why you have laws against "letting people do whatever they want without regard to other people".
If MS is smart they'll come up with a pricing structure that appeals to companies that make more than $5 apps.
When Quickbooks and Adobe Acrobat can be purchased from the Windows App store, you'll know they've got it figured out.
That being said, the fact that MS Office isn't in the app store says a lot about how they still haven't figured out what to do with that.
Start making products people want, and they'll be happy to be locked-in with you.
And this exactly explains why so many iPhones and iPads keep getting sold...
Android is a confusing mess to the average consumer, Apple is not...
Even myself, a technical person, has gone to the iPhone due to the whole "it just works" aspect.
Multiple generations of Android phones, from the Moto Droid, to the Droid 3, to the Galaxy S3, S4, etc...
All of them had issues, had to be restarted, etc.
The iPhone? It works 100% of the time, all the time, without a hitch.
It is slower, more expensive, and less capable than the Galaxy S6. And I don't care... and clearly neither do a whole lot of other people...
I've seen several pieces about Microsoft having a subscription model for Windows 10 alongside the regular model.
You've seen a lot of rumor and speculation... MS itself probably doesn't know what it will end up being...
They essentially are offering Win 10 for free, but only for the first year, then you pay a subscription fee.
That is a common misconception... MS has been rather clear on the fact that the upgrade to Windows 10 is free during the first year of release for all Win 7/8 devices. If you do upgrade during the first year, then that device will be supported for free for the life of the device, no sub required...
While it is possible they'll go to a sub model, I suspect it is more likely they'll figure out that just causes a fracturing of users. iOS upgrades are free for the life of the device, OS X upgrades are now free for the life of the device.
MS will keep collecting money from hardware companies, but supplement that with income from their app store and services.
Considering the state of "XP mode" now I can't see any MS support of such an idea as being any better than the kludge of using Virtualbox today.
You might be right... however...
XP Mode was developed 7+ years ago under Balmer... MS today is clearly a different company...
Time will tell...
That doesn't say what you think it says...
MS has figured out that selling the OS to consumers isn't where the money is...
The app store is where they see the money...
Commit to a major release for 3 years, then 2 years sunset support. After that its fully functional but doesn't get MS support.
1 service pack every year, bundles all the updates together + some trinkets.
Or... Windows gets supported for the life of the device it is installed on, with a limited number of hardware changes...
Yes, I see the issues, some people actually do change their hardware often... edge cases are a pain to plan for, but something could be done...
Get a new device, the hardware company pays MS, all is well...
Remember microsoft said it wanted to move people to a subscription model for windows.
No, I don't... citation?
Considering some stuff in use where I work which will not even run in Win8 yet I suppose it's a matter of only patching up to two or three years behind the current date. Yes that is stupid but that's the speed (or lack thereof) of development with some software.
Unless, of course, the future plan is to make Windows always up to date with the ability to launch virtual machines with whatever "version" of Windows an old program might require.
If it runs on the "new" Windows, wonderful. If you need XP, fine, if you need 7, fine... that can be provided in a sandbox for each program.