Doesn't help that there really is no such thing as "compact pickup" anymore. I spose the Ford Ranger is still small enough to be considered, but the Dakota, Frontier, and Tacoma have definitely gotten bloated in the last decade.
The truck frame comments may have been true a two decades ago, but the majority of modern small to midsize "SUVs" these days are unibody frames. Typically, only the big guys (Tahoes, Excursions) and off-road oriented (4runner, xterra) are still body-on-frame like a truck would be. In those cases, the body on frame design is for very good reasons.
Of course, I can't argue that there is any need for somebody to drive a super-large vehicle around town. In most cases their isn't. However, not everything in life is solely about needs.
I seem to recall 6,000 lbs, but your point is accurate - most cars and light duty pickups and all but the biggest SUVs will fall into that range. Basically puts a line where trucks like the F150 will count, but the heavy "work trucks" (F250/350) are exempt. I'm thinking we should have used a different definition of work truck when drawing the line in the sand on what gets exempted...
I'm not saying gold doesn't have uses, just that it doesn't have very many compared to any number of other (far cheaper) metals and minerals. Proportional to its scarcity - if it wasn't valued for its shininess, it would be relatively worthless.
You are going to pay for broken bones. Bad things happen some times. This is why a lot of people keep a stockpile of emergency cash - just for these problems. This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us in the litigious shape we're in. You didn't sue, and I certainly applaud you for that - but you're still trying to find a place to put the blame - and asking who is going to pay for *your* expenses.
That said, surgery and $15k seems like an awful lot of work for a broken arm. It's definitely toward the pointy end of the bell curve as far as medical costs go.
You touched on something that I think needs a lot more attention: Gold is a mineral which is only valuable because people *perceive* it as valuable. It has very limited uses besides sitting around being shiny. Everybody I see argue for the gold standard attacks the seemingly arbitrary nature of fiat currencies when that same fiat currency is backed by the productive output of the nation that mints it. What backs gold? What are you going to turn that gold into? How much will that ounce of gold buy you when there is no industry in place to build the things you want to buy?
You get all the interesting cars the Big Three won't sell in the states, and complain that a car as exciting as a VW is expensive? Damn, Australia really is a weird place;)
That's a subsidized price... My power company subsidizes CFLs here in Nevada, but my brother in Illinois spends about three times as much.
Honestly I think the damn things get a disproportionately high level of attention. After all, how many slashdot geeks does it really take to screw in a light bulb?
Except that SS is not and never was considered an "investment." It is not a savings account. It is a direct redistribution. Money leaves your pocket and goes directly into the retirees pocket. In terms of actual inflation adjusted dollars, the average person should get back exactly what they put into it (of course accounting for economic growth or shrinkage). The sooner we can accept the fact that the money we've been pouring into social security is spent/gone/nevercomingback, the sooner we can get rid of the whole damn system and be in charge of our own retirements.
You can gain efficiency by building your power supply around a particular amperage. Additionally, there are significant size and weight savings to be had for driving a 20W netbook off of a 20W power supply vs a 95W power supply for a 19" gaming laptop.
Of course, the IEEE wouldn't be so shortsighted to pick a spec where all laptops use the exact same supply. I'd expect a range of power supplies: ie up to 20W, up to 50W, up to 100W, etc.
Well no... that's kind of missing the point as well. The GPL places absolutely no restrictions on somebody charging for a product that includes GPL code. Just because you don't want to get paid doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use your GPL code in something I build and get paid for. What the GPL does do is require me to release the code that I modified. In essence this would prevent me from making a business selling GPL'd software on its own (since it's freely available anyhow), but it *should* encourage me to use your GPL'd code as a component of something else that I'm selling. On top of that, if I need to adapt your code to work in my project, any of those changes will be available back to the community. Most successful GPL projects have money involved one way or another - whether through support or sales of a larger package (hardware, software, whatever).
It seems like a win-win because you (like me) are most likely just another employee. Look at it from the other side of that equation... If any time you hire an employee you are automatically stuck with paying their wages for one to two years, you are going to be thinking long and hard before hiring anybody. How much easier is it to increase the workload on your existing employees vs take the risk of adding another? If I'm an employee of yours and I'm guaranteed a year or two of pay, where is my motivation to do quality work? We already have enough social safety nets available to people out of work (unemployment, etc).
If you do shit work or if I simply can't afford you, I need to be able to let you go, otherwise you're simply a leech that will continue to drain the business until it can't afford *anybody*. If you're a great employee, then any manager or business owner worth their salt will jump through hoops to keep you around. These are the managers and business owners that can see past the end of the quarter.
Slashdot Mirror
And every single republican making less then 50.000 was in favor through their vote for the republican party.
I agree with most of what you say, except for this line. The guy I vote for doesn't have to agree with everything I want, just most of it.
Damn, I wouldn't have even thought about buying a home for more than 200k...
GLISTENS! GLISTENS!!!! Gah, you guys wouldn't know majesty if it hit you in the face.
...building codes go so far beyond that it stops being amusing.
Prove that they'll be missed!!
Doesn't help that there really is no such thing as "compact pickup" anymore. I spose the Ford Ranger is still small enough to be considered, but the Dakota, Frontier, and Tacoma have definitely gotten bloated in the last decade.
The truck frame comments may have been true a two decades ago, but the majority of modern small to midsize "SUVs" these days are unibody frames. Typically, only the big guys (Tahoes, Excursions) and off-road oriented (4runner, xterra) are still body-on-frame like a truck would be. In those cases, the body on frame design is for very good reasons.
Of course, I can't argue that there is any need for somebody to drive a super-large vehicle around town. In most cases their isn't. However, not everything in life is solely about needs.
I seem to recall 6,000 lbs, but your point is accurate - most cars and light duty pickups and all but the biggest SUVs will fall into that range. Basically puts a line where trucks like the F150 will count, but the heavy "work trucks" (F250/350) are exempt. I'm thinking we should have used a different definition of work truck when drawing the line in the sand on what gets exempted...
I'm not saying gold doesn't have uses, just that it doesn't have very many compared to any number of other (far cheaper) metals and minerals. Proportional to its scarcity - if it wasn't valued for its shininess, it would be relatively worthless.
You are going to pay for broken bones. Bad things happen some times. This is why a lot of people keep a stockpile of emergency cash - just for these problems. This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us in the litigious shape we're in. You didn't sue, and I certainly applaud you for that - but you're still trying to find a place to put the blame - and asking who is going to pay for *your* expenses.
That said, surgery and $15k seems like an awful lot of work for a broken arm. It's definitely toward the pointy end of the bell curve as far as medical costs go.
Not quite sure how accurately the above statement reflects reality...
Until presented with evidence otherwise... yes. Elitist egotists notwithstanding, of course!
Whatever, shut up, BUY GOLD!!!
/sarcasm
If I had a bunch of gold to sell, I'd be telling people to buy it too!!
You touched on something that I think needs a lot more attention: Gold is a mineral which is only valuable because people *perceive* it as valuable. It has very limited uses besides sitting around being shiny. Everybody I see argue for the gold standard attacks the seemingly arbitrary nature of fiat currencies when that same fiat currency is backed by the productive output of the nation that mints it. What backs gold? What are you going to turn that gold into? How much will that ounce of gold buy you when there is no industry in place to build the things you want to buy?
Oh come on now, don't pretend you wouldn't if you could. Only difference is I'd throw down the extra cost to add "wuz here"
Military aircraft are outside FAA requirements.
That said they still have pretty damn stringent testing and reliability requirements.
Well they should have thought of that before they became unemployed!
You get all the interesting cars the Big Three won't sell in the states, and complain that a car as exciting as a VW is expensive? Damn, Australia really is a weird place ;)
That's a subsidized price... My power company subsidizes CFLs here in Nevada, but my brother in Illinois spends about three times as much.
Honestly I think the damn things get a disproportionately high level of attention. After all, how many slashdot geeks does it really take to screw in a light bulb?
Except that SS is not and never was considered an "investment." It is not a savings account. It is a direct redistribution. Money leaves your pocket and goes directly into the retirees pocket. In terms of actual inflation adjusted dollars, the average person should get back exactly what they put into it (of course accounting for economic growth or shrinkage). The sooner we can accept the fact that the money we've been pouring into social security is spent/gone/nevercomingback, the sooner we can get rid of the whole damn system and be in charge of our own retirements.
You can gain efficiency by building your power supply around a particular amperage. Additionally, there are significant size and weight savings to be had for driving a 20W netbook off of a 20W power supply vs a 95W power supply for a 19" gaming laptop.
Of course, the IEEE wouldn't be so shortsighted to pick a spec where all laptops use the exact same supply. I'd expect a range of power supplies: ie up to 20W, up to 50W, up to 100W, etc.
But we could make it into spheres... and then power our spaceships with them!!!
Well no... that's kind of missing the point as well. The GPL places absolutely no restrictions on somebody charging for a product that includes GPL code. Just because you don't want to get paid doesn't mean I'm not allowed to use your GPL code in something I build and get paid for. What the GPL does do is require me to release the code that I modified. In essence this would prevent me from making a business selling GPL'd software on its own (since it's freely available anyhow), but it *should* encourage me to use your GPL'd code as a component of something else that I'm selling. On top of that, if I need to adapt your code to work in my project, any of those changes will be available back to the community. Most successful GPL projects have money involved one way or another - whether through support or sales of a larger package (hardware, software, whatever).
It seems like a win-win because you (like me) are most likely just another employee. Look at it from the other side of that equation... If any time you hire an employee you are automatically stuck with paying their wages for one to two years, you are going to be thinking long and hard before hiring anybody. How much easier is it to increase the workload on your existing employees vs take the risk of adding another? If I'm an employee of yours and I'm guaranteed a year or two of pay, where is my motivation to do quality work? We already have enough social safety nets available to people out of work (unemployment, etc).
If you do shit work or if I simply can't afford you, I need to be able to let you go, otherwise you're simply a leech that will continue to drain the business until it can't afford *anybody*. If you're a great employee, then any manager or business owner worth their salt will jump through hoops to keep you around. These are the managers and business owners that can see past the end of the quarter.