This is similar to studies I've read abotu money buying happiness. Money does most certainly buy happiness. Well, up to about $88k/yr it does. After that, it does not buy a significant amount of additional happiness. I'm sure the number varies a bit depending on cost of living in your area, but I live ina very expensive part of the country to live, and government takes well over half my pay in taxes. As I get closer to $88k a year I find myself less disgruntled at work and generally happier aboth at work and in life.
At $88k I could afford to have nice things and enjoy a few hobbies. Where I'm at now, I'm getting close to being able to afford nice things, like keeping the heat above 50* in winter, eating meat more than once a week, maybe painting my car so it looks nice and isn't rusty, have a few hobbies, own a TV, maybe even a cable TV package, etc. At $88k those problems disappear and life gets a lot more comfortable. Sure I'd still want things, but I'd actually be able to prioritize my wants and save for the ones I want the most, and maybe even get some of those wants some day.
So for me, money is a huge motivator and it lasts a long time. So long as the company is treating me well and giving decent raises where I can see myself soon at a level of not having to worry about money for necessities and maybe a few "nice things" I will remember that every time I get irritated or my motivation falls. It has been maybe 6 months since last raise season and another 6 months to go but my last raise and the prospect of another good raise is still a very big motivator for me. I'm a principled person, so cannot do wrong to a company that is doing right by me.
Your calculations don't factor inflation, either proclaimed by the cronies at 3% or real inflation at over double that rate. Better spend your money now while it's can buy more. Just a point to consider, I didn't run the numbers.
I fail to see the point or value in home automation. Why do I need to turn lights on when I'm not home? Why do I need to adjust the furnace when I'm not home? The fridge? The oven? etc... I turn things off when I leave, and turn on waht I need as I need it. On the rare occasion I've done something stupid like leave some lights on, or a window open, I notice when I return and am angry enough at myself for wasting money on light/heat or leaving an easy path of entry for thieves that it generally doesn't happen again.
I view it kind of like those annoying buzzers in cars when you leave your keys in the ignition switch, or your headlights on. There's an entire generation of kids who will grow up without responsibility and common sense because they are weak from not being exposed harshly to their own stupidity. The first and last time I left my headlights on was during a blizzard. It only took one time with a dead battery after clearing two feet of snow off my car with nobody around to learn to never make that mistake again. Same for locking my keys in the car and taking two hours to find a suitable implement to use as a slim jim to pop the lock. You learn to be responsible and not forgetful by making mistakes that are inconvenient. A generic memory of pain or inconvenience at your own hands reminds you to be more thoughtful or less forgetful in the future.
Anyhow, home automation sounds like an electricity hog to me, having all those things running at all times. Not to mention the high upfront cost and complexity. I work in IT, I don't want to configure my lights so I can see when I get home or plan out an implementation for my oven so I can cook dinner. No thanks.
In all honesty most of my vehicles do have electronic ignition, but that's as modern as I get so far as vehicles. I believe simplicity is reliability and won't touch fuel injection for anything I depend on to get to work. Everything I've converted to electronic ignition I have the original points ignition for, along with a fresh set of points and condenser. Doesn't take long to change and I can be mobile while other people are walking or riding pedal-cycles. My bike is a kick start too, a CB750. I still run dual points in that though and it always fires up first kick.
The IRS is unnecessary, there is no reaosn for government to be that big. The IRS only enables government to grow uncontrollably.
Ron Paul does not plan to, and would not have the power to eliminate public schools. He would eliminate the Department of Education, a bloated federal department which hinders education. We did just fine without the DoE prior to 1977.
I don't understand why any hybrid buyers would be getting a replacement car so soon, even if you bought a first generation. Cars last 30-50+ years. If these are only alsting a decade or less, there's your problem. That and they won't ever pay for the additional cost. Just as you come close to breaking even or actually break even, it's time to drop $5k-$10k on batteries.
(1) Piss off other drivers (2) Line government coffers at gunpoint
Personally I stick to the speed limit, and usually have a line of angry drivers behind me. Not my problem, get mad at your government, not at me. Increase speed limits to the 85th percentile on all non-residential roads.
While I dislike Fox News, I dislike them less than the other major news networks. When I do watch TV news it's usually Fox, since they at least have some libertarian commentary and generally don't advocate stealing people's money at gunpoint. Though there are exceptions, such as typical neocon arguments and drivel. Regardless, I get msot of my news online from better sources.
This type of volume control is popular on boats. Most systems are RPM based. Of course on a boat your ambient noise is fairly consistent at a given RPM/MPH and most noise comes from the engine, with the wind a close second. Not as easy to do in a car where noise varies so much based on road type, traffic, window opening, gear, etc.
If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.
If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.
Sounds exactly like waht the Federal Reserve does. They print a whole lot of money, which is based on and backed by nothing, then distribute that to a whole lot of banks and well connected people adn businesses. Then all the money the rest of us hold is worth less. The buying power of what we have decreases as that new unbacked money enters the money supply. Those who get it first, the rich and well connected, get to spend that money before it's introduction reduces the value of currently held money.
The Federal Reserve is a private central bank (an important concept in the Communist Manifesto), not a government organization or department. You don't legitimately own the money supply, neither do I, or anyone else here. It's privately owned. If you have a beef here, it should be with the Federal Reserve and the government for enabling the Federal Reserve to have a monopoly on an unbacked currency which they devalue (through inflation) every single day, making you poorer every single day.
Punishment breeds anarchists. I prefer a less revenue centric approach which ofcuses on protecting the rest of us from those who have demonstrated they will commit actual crime with actual victims. In a free society, the State should never be able to file charges against anyone, for anything. For there to be a crime there must be a victim.
It was established before my time with the company. While fairly good I would like something better. Some of the guys at other sites have been doing variations of this or different conventions for some systems without discussing with anyone else, which results in some minor confusion when supporting their undocumented network.
No, I am referring to fascism. Socailism is a completely radical idea that has failed every time throughout history and will continue to do so. Fascism falls somewhere between socialism and capitalism, and has some free market ideals on the surface. The real threat isn't socialism, but rather fascism. The US government has made a very lcear shift towards fascism which will likely continue.
Personally I like rail travel and have used it often in the past... Several times a week for a couple years. Sure they're older trains but I like old things in general and dislike new stuff so it doen't bother me. The goal is to get from A to B as cheaply and conveniently as possible, not live on the train. The problem is for longer trips, if you can get there by train, the cost is comparable or higher than driving. At which point I'll just drive so I have my preferred vehicle and don't have to spend money and aggravation renting one.
The biggest reason to use rail travel over air travel, for me, is the TSA. I won't fly anymore because I will not willingly sacrifice my rights for a little convenience. I'll take rail, or drive. As the TSA has stated though, it won't be long before the TSA is violating the rights of rail travelers too, at which point driving will be my only option. It's unfortunate, but just the way the current regime is doing things.
It's not an open or free market when they are so heavily regulated that companies cannot drill new wells offshore, or cannot build a pipeline to transport crude. The US is not a free market capitalist country anymore, it has been making a significant and clear shift towards fascism.
To add to this... I have no problem backing up or seeing all around my truck. I have small convex mirrors on the side mirrors so blind spots are eliminated too. I also have no problem backing up precisely using only my mirrors and not turning around, since I have to do this up to several times a week all summer long... Into tight spaces and even around blind corners to get my boat in the driveway around some shrubberies or into tight spots at the ramp. If people are intelligent and learn their vehicles and how to drive them, there is no problem. Same goes for pedestrians, be aware of your surroundings and no problem.
I do need my big block powered Supercab long bed pickup to tow my boat though. Insurance costs make it more expensive to own two vehicles than the gas savings for my fairly short drive to work. Why should insuring two vehicles for liability only cost me any more than one? Why should insuring a dozen for liability only cost me any more than one? I can only drive one at a time so the risk is the same. If you ask me, for liability, the driver should be insured, not the vehicle. Then I'd get a little econobox to drive every day and the truck would only be used on summer weekends or when it snows.
Keep in mind to get good efficiency out of natural gas you need to significantly up the compression, similar to E85. Leaving the engine bone stock low compression to run modern piss gas (87 octane) that most vehicles run, or even 93 octane, would leave a lot of power and MPG on the table.
It absolutely should be ended entirely. Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else.
Look at how things were done in regards to emergency care for the poor prior to this mandated emergency care... Doctors took care of people regardless. If you had no money and showed at bleeding out, they would sew you up and work out a bill you could afford. Would you get the fastest, best, or most extensive service? Probably not, but you wouldn't die and nobody else would be forced at gunpoint to pay a doctor for services they didn't receive.
The solution si to end taxpayer funded emergency care, not mandate seatbelts. I'd imagine most people wear seatbelts, and would continue to do so even if it were not law. For the most part legal or illegal does not affect the decisions people make.
For the longest time I just had a simple 19" tube TV, it did fine from across the room. 19" used to be pretty standard. I now don't even have a TV (after my 36" tube died) and I just watch content available on the internet, for free, on my 23" desktop screen. I feel no need to spend a fortune on a large TV and HTPC. To each his own, but a 23" 1080 screen is fine for what I use mine for and I have no problem with it from across the room.
I would assume one would no longer be able to effectively use narcotin painkillers, the first that comes to mind is morphine. I've been in a couple bleeding out and praying for death so the pain would stop situations where morphine sure was nice to have. Also oxycodone is very useful to manage pain while recovering.
The flip side I suppose is if you have an addiction you can't drop on your own and it consumjes your life, you're probably already in a world of hurt and not worried about pain management during future mishaps.
Slashdot Mirror
This is similar to studies I've read abotu money buying happiness. Money does most certainly buy happiness. Well, up to about $88k/yr it does. After that, it does not buy a significant amount of additional happiness. I'm sure the number varies a bit depending on cost of living in your area, but I live ina very expensive part of the country to live, and government takes well over half my pay in taxes. As I get closer to $88k a year I find myself less disgruntled at work and generally happier aboth at work and in life.
At $88k I could afford to have nice things and enjoy a few hobbies. Where I'm at now, I'm getting close to being able to afford nice things, like keeping the heat above 50* in winter, eating meat more than once a week, maybe painting my car so it looks nice and isn't rusty, have a few hobbies, own a TV, maybe even a cable TV package, etc. At $88k those problems disappear and life gets a lot more comfortable. Sure I'd still want things, but I'd actually be able to prioritize my wants and save for the ones I want the most, and maybe even get some of those wants some day.
So for me, money is a huge motivator and it lasts a long time. So long as the company is treating me well and giving decent raises where I can see myself soon at a level of not having to worry about money for necessities and maybe a few "nice things" I will remember that every time I get irritated or my motivation falls. It has been maybe 6 months since last raise season and another 6 months to go but my last raise and the prospect of another good raise is still a very big motivator for me. I'm a principled person, so cannot do wrong to a company that is doing right by me.
Your calculations don't factor inflation, either proclaimed by the cronies at 3% or real inflation at over double that rate. Better spend your money now while it's can buy more. Just a point to consider, I didn't run the numbers.
... unless being in jail is preferable to whatever your situation is right now.
I fail to see the point or value in home automation. Why do I need to turn lights on when I'm not home? Why do I need to adjust the furnace when I'm not home? The fridge? The oven? etc... I turn things off when I leave, and turn on waht I need as I need it. On the rare occasion I've done something stupid like leave some lights on, or a window open, I notice when I return and am angry enough at myself for wasting money on light/heat or leaving an easy path of entry for thieves that it generally doesn't happen again.
I view it kind of like those annoying buzzers in cars when you leave your keys in the ignition switch, or your headlights on. There's an entire generation of kids who will grow up without responsibility and common sense because they are weak from not being exposed harshly to their own stupidity. The first and last time I left my headlights on was during a blizzard. It only took one time with a dead battery after clearing two feet of snow off my car with nobody around to learn to never make that mistake again. Same for locking my keys in the car and taking two hours to find a suitable implement to use as a slim jim to pop the lock. You learn to be responsible and not forgetful by making mistakes that are inconvenient. A generic memory of pain or inconvenience at your own hands reminds you to be more thoughtful or less forgetful in the future.
Anyhow, home automation sounds like an electricity hog to me, having all those things running at all times. Not to mention the high upfront cost and complexity. I work in IT, I don't want to configure my lights so I can see when I get home or plan out an implementation for my oven so I can cook dinner. No thanks.
If we aren't supposed to eat animals then why are they made out of food?
In all honesty most of my vehicles do have electronic ignition, but that's as modern as I get so far as vehicles. I believe simplicity is reliability and won't touch fuel injection for anything I depend on to get to work. Everything I've converted to electronic ignition I have the original points ignition for, along with a fresh set of points and condenser. Doesn't take long to change and I can be mobile while other people are walking or riding pedal-cycles. My bike is a kick start too, a CB750. I still run dual points in that though and it always fires up first kick.
Points, condenser, coil. That's it. Also my radio is a tube radio so likely somewhat resistant to EMP. I only drive vehicles '60s or older.
The IRS is unnecessary, there is no reaosn for government to be that big. The IRS only enables government to grow uncontrollably.
Ron Paul does not plan to, and would not have the power to eliminate public schools. He would eliminate the Department of Education, a bloated federal department which hinders education. We did just fine without the DoE prior to 1977.
I don't understand why any hybrid buyers would be getting a replacement car so soon, even if you bought a first generation. Cars last 30-50+ years. If these are only alsting a decade or less, there's your problem. That and they won't ever pay for the additional cost. Just as you come close to breaking even or actually break even, it's time to drop $5k-$10k on batteries.
More accurately:
(1) Piss off other drivers
(2) Line government coffers at gunpoint
Personally I stick to the speed limit, and usually have a line of angry drivers behind me. Not my problem, get mad at your government, not at me. Increase speed limits to the 85th percentile on all non-residential roads.
While I dislike Fox News, I dislike them less than the other major news networks. When I do watch TV news it's usually Fox, since they at least have some libertarian commentary and generally don't advocate stealing people's money at gunpoint. Though there are exceptions, such as typical neocon arguments and drivel. Regardless, I get msot of my news online from better sources.
This type of volume control is popular on boats. Most systems are RPM based. Of course on a boat your ambient noise is fairly consistent at a given RPM/MPH and most noise comes from the engine, with the wind a close second. Not as easy to do in a car where noise varies so much based on road type, traffic, window opening, gear, etc.
If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.
If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.
Sounds exactly like waht the Federal Reserve does. They print a whole lot of money, which is based on and backed by nothing, then distribute that to a whole lot of banks and well connected people adn businesses. Then all the money the rest of us hold is worth less. The buying power of what we have decreases as that new unbacked money enters the money supply. Those who get it first, the rich and well connected, get to spend that money before it's introduction reduces the value of currently held money.
The Federal Reserve is a private central bank (an important concept in the Communist Manifesto), not a government organization or department. You don't legitimately own the money supply, neither do I, or anyone else here. It's privately owned. If you have a beef here, it should be with the Federal Reserve and the government for enabling the Federal Reserve to have a monopoly on an unbacked currency which they devalue (through inflation) every single day, making you poorer every single day.
Punishment breeds anarchists. I prefer a less revenue centric approach which ofcuses on protecting the rest of us from those who have demonstrated they will commit actual crime with actual victims. In a free society, the State should never be able to file charges against anyone, for anything. For there to be a crime there must be a victim.
obfuscated location_function_asset number
It was established before my time with the company. While fairly good I would like something better. Some of the guys at other sites have been doing variations of this or different conventions for some systems without discussing with anyone else, which results in some minor confusion when supporting their undocumented network.
No, I am referring to fascism. Socailism is a completely radical idea that has failed every time throughout history and will continue to do so. Fascism falls somewhere between socialism and capitalism, and has some free market ideals on the surface. The real threat isn't socialism, but rather fascism. The US government has made a very lcear shift towards fascism which will likely continue.
Personally I like rail travel and have used it often in the past... Several times a week for a couple years. Sure they're older trains but I like old things in general and dislike new stuff so it doen't bother me. The goal is to get from A to B as cheaply and conveniently as possible, not live on the train. The problem is for longer trips, if you can get there by train, the cost is comparable or higher than driving. At which point I'll just drive so I have my preferred vehicle and don't have to spend money and aggravation renting one.
The biggest reason to use rail travel over air travel, for me, is the TSA. I won't fly anymore because I will not willingly sacrifice my rights for a little convenience. I'll take rail, or drive. As the TSA has stated though, it won't be long before the TSA is violating the rights of rail travelers too, at which point driving will be my only option. It's unfortunate, but just the way the current regime is doing things.
It's not an open or free market when they are so heavily regulated that companies cannot drill new wells offshore, or cannot build a pipeline to transport crude. The US is not a free market capitalist country anymore, it has been making a significant and clear shift towards fascism.
To add to this... I have no problem backing up or seeing all around my truck. I have small convex mirrors on the side mirrors so blind spots are eliminated too. I also have no problem backing up precisely using only my mirrors and not turning around, since I have to do this up to several times a week all summer long... Into tight spaces and even around blind corners to get my boat in the driveway around some shrubberies or into tight spots at the ramp. If people are intelligent and learn their vehicles and how to drive them, there is no problem. Same goes for pedestrians, be aware of your surroundings and no problem.
I do need my big block powered Supercab long bed pickup to tow my boat though. Insurance costs make it more expensive to own two vehicles than the gas savings for my fairly short drive to work. Why should insuring two vehicles for liability only cost me any more than one? Why should insuring a dozen for liability only cost me any more than one? I can only drive one at a time so the risk is the same. If you ask me, for liability, the driver should be insured, not the vehicle. Then I'd get a little econobox to drive every day and the truck would only be used on summer weekends or when it snows.
Keep in mind to get good efficiency out of natural gas you need to significantly up the compression, similar to E85. Leaving the engine bone stock low compression to run modern piss gas (87 octane) that most vehicles run, or even 93 octane, would leave a lot of power and MPG on the table.
It absolutely should be ended entirely. Nobody should be forced to pay for someone else.
Look at how things were done in regards to emergency care for the poor prior to this mandated emergency care... Doctors took care of people regardless. If you had no money and showed at bleeding out, they would sew you up and work out a bill you could afford. Would you get the fastest, best, or most extensive service? Probably not, but you wouldn't die and nobody else would be forced at gunpoint to pay a doctor for services they didn't receive.
The solution si to end taxpayer funded emergency care, not mandate seatbelts. I'd imagine most people wear seatbelts, and would continue to do so even if it were not law. For the most part legal or illegal does not affect the decisions people make.
For the longest time I just had a simple 19" tube TV, it did fine from across the room. 19" used to be pretty standard. I now don't even have a TV (after my 36" tube died) and I just watch content available on the internet, for free, on my 23" desktop screen. I feel no need to spend a fortune on a large TV and HTPC. To each his own, but a 23" 1080 screen is fine for what I use mine for and I have no problem with it from across the room.
I would assume one would no longer be able to effectively use narcotin painkillers, the first that comes to mind is morphine. I've been in a couple bleeding out and praying for death so the pain would stop situations where morphine sure was nice to have. Also oxycodone is very useful to manage pain while recovering.
The flip side I suppose is if you have an addiction you can't drop on your own and it consumjes your life, you're probably already in a world of hurt and not worried about pain management during future mishaps.