The most interesting part about Germany's Solar deployment is that they have almost no utility scale deployments. Almost every deployed panel is on the roof of a building of a privately owned residence or business.
Probably has to do with the form Germany's subsidies takes.
we'd have more power than we could ever use. Germany is proof of that.
Yeah, like we'd ever use more than 640k of memory... If the power is there we'll use it. To make aluminum, power our new EVs, etc...
Still, we have a pretty good example in Hawaii. Due to most of their electricity being oil generated and predominately sunny(but not too hot) weather relatively close to the equator they've actually managed to get to the point where they could have a day where they bust 100% at this point. It's reached the point that you need permission from the electricity company to get a hookup.
Still, let's do some figuring. Leaving Business and Industrial customers out of it for now. The average US household uses 10,837 kWh a year, or 903 kWh/month. A 300 watt solar panel takes up about 21 square feet and costs $263, though final install cost will be $1.50-$2/watt.
Each panel can be expected to produce about 789 kWh/year, ideally placed. Competing against 10 cent electricity, payoff would be about 8 years. Note: I'm using average cases here. I almost bought solar panels for my house, given that I have a nice south-facing roof. On the other hand, I live in Alaska. Even with our relatively expensive electricity I couldn't make it make sense due to substantially LOWER power production than I'm figuring and higher costs(even doing most of the work myself).
Anyways, getting back on topic, that means that each homeowner would need to install 14 panels, on average, to cover their energy needs, assuming they have a retired Model-S battery or something to provide stability.
Some interesting calculations I've made in the past:
A retired Tesla Model S battery with 70% capacity remaining repurposed as a giant UPS will provide the average household 2 days worth of electricity
The average household would use ~50% more electricity if they replaced their vehicles with EVs(note: 2 days of electricity in an outage from your old battery doesn't include charging your current EV)
Start busting 20% of your total energy(and Germany is only at 5%) from solar power and it makes more sense to charge EVs during the day
It would take approximately 200 1GW nuclear plants to make the USA carbon neutral for electricity. Again, lots of batteries would be handy...
Every dollar they earn is one less taxpayer dollar they receive.
Your ratio is poor. I prefer more like 4:1, even when I was mean I supported 2:1 - This results in a gradual weaning off of benefits, which actually encourages people to work.
If I get $10k in benefits a year, and get a part time job making $10k, reducing my benefits to $7500 means that the government is still $2.5k ahead, but I'm now $7.5k ahead, which makes it so I want to work as I see the benefits.
I get a 'decent' job making $40k* and the benefits finally go away, but at that point I'm not only above the poverty line I'm paying taxes. Whatever, somewhere between 4:1 and 2:1 should work well. You might need to make it progressive - IE the first $1000 is free, etc...
*Let's be nice and say that the $40k includes benefits so it's more like $30k/year, and the $10k included stuff like medical
Africa will probably be the next, last bastion for poor and oppressed labor.
I think India still has a few 'last gasps' for cheap labor, after that it's down to really small countries. But I agree, and consider this people: China: 1.35B people India: 1.24B Africa: 1.07B
The ENTIRE continent, short of a population boom that puts any previous baby booms to shame, isn't going to be able to take on the demand for 'cheap labor' when China and India start looking to outsource for cheaper labor like the rest of the world did. And that's without addressing the stability issues Africa has. China at least had predictability and businesses didn't have to worry about gunmen holding the factories/supplies/finished product hostage.
As such, I figure 'insourcing' is going to be the 'next big thing' for a while. Domestic appliance manufacturers are already discovering that by outsourcing production they also outsourced their production knowledge, and while they were fine for a generation, they lost the ability to design appliances that could be manufactured effectively. By bringing stuff back in house and really nailing the automation they're actually making higher quality appliances using less labor at lower cost.
Actually it leads to more efficient use of space through price rationing.
In other words, pay to play. It's still not more efficient.
They have no more right to enforce their will than any of the rest of us.
It's their land, their parking spots. They get to set the terms of usage for them. That they should really jack the rates up and introduce alternatives and policies to encourage effective alternatives* is only a related issue.
*I'm picturing things like elevated slideways between buildings, subways and such that increase the effective distance a walker can cover.
I think that it's the FAA sees a potential end-run around it's traditional domain- after all if you allow drones for disaster reconnaissance, how long before UPS and Fedex are campaigning for unmanned transport jets, followed by even traditional airliners wanting to get rid of their pilots? Without pilots, there go the air traffic controllers.
Meanwhile they lack the ability under the law to do much more than just push a blanket ban on drones, many of which don't even need traditional airports.
If efficiency is really the goal, then the city of SF should raise the fee for parking to a market rate. But I suspect that certain interest groups would oppose that...
Viewing the city of SF as a sort of non-profit business/charity, I actually agree with you. Utilize the income to provide some mix of additional parking and alternatives so people don't have to drive.
IE the rental fee for your parking spot includes a subsidy for the bus/subway/train/slideway that helps to ensure that there's actually a spot available for you to find. Oh, and generous reduced-rate garages on the outskirts of the city so people are encouraged to transfer OUT of their car before the city center.
I wonder what you think of occupy movement and all the other protests, which are especially common in San Francisco?
Complicated. Keep in mind that the situations varied by different locations. Still, on average I believe that they enjoy more protection simply by being explicitly political/non-monetary in nature. For that matter they probably had those locations more highly populated/used than normal.
Where I start drawing the line is where they start causing damage.
Since the buyer also has the app installed, he/she will have incentive to leave sooner, during prime time, to make the money back.
It also gives incentive to be a professional parking-keeper if the rates are high enough. Drive around looking for a spot. Take it, immediately list & sell. Move on and find another. Hell, it could probably be done on foot or scooter.
Otherwise you're looking at it way too narrowly - Is he in the US (because if he's in the US we can nab him with the FBI/federal marshal's service) or an allied state(that will pick him up for us) Would killing him threaten their own? I'd say the question was whether capturing him threaten their own. In this case YES. do I have an excuse? Bringing up spin-doctors is unfair in this case. The dude had a whole youtube library calling for death to the USA.
In this case all three branches essentially consented to the killing. Congress by passing the authorization of force without putting a 'unless they're a US Citizen' clause in it. The Executive branch because, yes, the president became involved, the DoD is part of it, etc... The Judicial branch, while it didn't try him, certainly had their hand in the analysis memo authorizing it.
Like I've said elsewhere, I'm actually happy that terrorists in foreign locations that happen to be US Citizens weren't held to be 'more valuable' than random non-US terrorists in foreign locations. We probably disagree where the bar should be, but I think the bar should be at the same height.
But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information.
It falls back to 'holding a public space hostage' the moment the seller stays in his spot any longer than he would have without the application in order to get said money/allow the buyer the spot. I believe that the application amounts to being worthless if the seller doesn't hold the space for the buyer, because in my experience somebody will pull into the spot less than a minute later without any intervention.
This leads to less efficient use of space due to lingering, which is what the city wants to avoid.
I happen to agree with you on the declaration of war. I think that Congress should actually have the balls to declare war if they're going to get the US Military involved into shooting operations. However I think you have a simplistic view of conventional war, much less asynchronous warfare. It's not even the first time we've 'declared' war against non-state actors, the Barbary wars soon after we became an independent state from Britain being examples there.
Second, just being a citizen of a country, or within the country, is NOT sufficient evidence for them to be a target under LOAC(Law of Armed Conflict). They have to be supporting the war effort in some material way, and generally not just by paying taxes.
By this logic could China use a drone to kill an Chinese citizen in the US if they believe he holds a high position in Falun Gong?
You've missed much of the context of my original post on this topic if you believe this to be valid. Though I'll admit that in reality the politics behind these sorts of operations becomes very complex, and there's still a huge amount of 'might makes right'. Like it or not, being an 800 pound gorilla means that you can push the 200 pound ones around, at least until you piss off enough of them that 5-10 of them are willing to make a coordinated effort. It becomes even more complicated when the 800# gorilla has friends between 500-700# who agree(at least behind closed doors) with their actions.
Getting back on point, your logic generally fails in that said member is unlikely to be an imminent threat while in the USA, capture IS feasible - if they can collect enough evidence the USA will hand him back. Anwar al-Awlaki had essentially a private military force on par with the state's military, so that wasn't an option there. Adherence to applicable war principles - we have an authorization for military action, we're not targeting random civilians, there's a military justification for targeting him, etc...
In addition you have politics. In general we try to have permission from whatever country we're bombing(but not at war with) to bomb the specific targets that we attack. However, the USA doesn't have militias and independent forces that are competitive with the US military running around and is unlikely(in the extreme) to grant any such permission. The alternative is to do without it, which risks the full range of state responses, from strongly worded letters to sanctions to outright declarations of war. Yes, if we bomb Country X in pursuit of killing/destroying Al Qaeda we have to worry about them declaring war on us if we don't have permission. Country X also has to weigh the consequences of declaring war on us in response to our violation of their sovereign territory. Other than that, UN Sanctions are also possible, but if a country is willing to keep going in the face of it(and ask North Korea, Cuba, and numerous other states how much they care about UN Sanctions...), it's still an option. Really, country-level politics is a lot more like primitive tribal law than modern law. Might makes right in way too many cases.
It seems to be a dangerous blurring of the line between law enforcement and war.
The terrorists did much of the blurring when they turned into instruments of war themselves by forming what amounts to irregular forces and taking over measurable amounts of territory. They might not be the formally recognized government in those regions, but they are effectively the local government there. We're talking about zones where if the state military tried to go in there there would be real battles with hundreds/thousands killed.
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
As such "but did his involvement rise to the level of a capital crime? Is there even a death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder?" are two irrelevant questions. As a member of the opposing military faction that the USA is at war with*, there needs be no crime for him to be targeted and killed. That he's in a leadership position simply raises him to a level where 'servicing' him specifically is a military priority with the intent of disrupting command & control**.
*I know that actual declarations of war have been rather sparse for the last 50 years or so, but the actual authorization of military force by congress is there. **Military speak for: Without orders the lower levels are unlikely to be able to perform coordinated actions which increase efficiency. Ergo, disrupting systems, from destroying communication abilities to the very ability to give orders(IE kill the leaders) is a method for furthering their objectives in the war.
No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights.
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
It's the same sort of thing where it's not actually an execution when a police officer shoots a suspect who's shooting at him. In this case you have an opposing military leader, who happens to also be a US Citizen, assisting in planning, fundraising, coordinating, and other leadership roles. It can pretty much be assumed that if he's at all effective in his role that plans that harm the USA(and innocent civilians) will be coming out of him on a routine basis. Thus, always an imminent threat.
No proof of any plans, just that they believed it was eminent
I think you mean imminent(IE 'Soon') and not 'eminent' IE readily perceived, which in this case would amount to 'obvious'. Then again, both work. 'they believed it to be eminent that plan execution was imminent.'
The proof would be in the redacted segments because they were obtained from classified sources. Even without those sources I believe there was enough public evidence to consider him a key leader of a hostile force that the DoD has been directed to take military action against* under the rules of war - which are quite different things than the rules of criminal law. Basically you only need sufficient evidence in order to consider them likely supporting the opposing war effort in order to target them. The amount of consideration also has to take time available to make the decision - a grunt on the ground isn't held to the same standard as a mission planner back on base. But at least he has first hand observations...
This is an interesting case. First: "Attorney General Eric Holder last year outlined a three-pronged justification for targeted killings of a U.S. citizen who is a leader of al Qaeda: The suspect must pose an imminent threat, capture must be infeasible, and the strike needs to adhere to applicable war principles."
Hmm... Imminent threat: IE People are going to be killed if we don't take him out. Same justification for killing a US Citizen(or anybody else) within the USA without trial. Capture Infeasible: See the first sentence. Adhere to applicable war principles: We would have already bombed his ass if he wasn't a US Citizen.
Now, avoiding the legality and ethics of drone strikes in the first place, I do not consider this to be an unreasonable standard. Delving INTO the ethics of drone strikes, I'd hope that all three criteria are applied to every considered strike, no matter what citizenship the potential targets(and collateral damage) hold. In addition, 'adhere to applicable war principles' probably leads to fewer bomb drops in my mind than what the administration might like.
Roughly speaking, it means that I don't consider 'US Citizen' some special category requiring extra-ordinary measures to NOT target for killing in war if said citizen is waging war against the USA. Instead I demand that such extra-ordinary measures be standard, no matter the nationality of the target. Of course, I recognize that politics will always be a concern. Hitting a British or German national in the Middle East for working with AQ will probably always involve at least a 'heads-up' call to the leaders of said nation.
In the USA the average TV is replaced at about six years old. It used to be longer.
I might consider my TV obsolete, but it's not so bad as to require replacement yet. Same with my computer. Going by family history what tends to happen is that the main TV in the living room gets replaced by a bigger/better one, then the old TV there moves downstairs to the family room, that one ends up in a bedroom, etc...
And once it stops being useful, then where does it go?
My environmental training goes basically 'reduce, reuse, recycle, only then discard.
As such, I think there's serious issues with this case. Even if they end up discarded rather than recycled, from what I've read recycling is often not all that 'environmental', due to the pollution and waste caused by the act of collection and recycling. Reuse avoids the expense of tear-down and rebuild, and is thus often cheaper*.
Worst case I think is that the stuff ends up stored in a dump until it becomes economical to extract again. There's plenty in things like computers that is rare enough that it's higher density in computers than in the original ore, so once you pile up enough of it to justify the expense of installing a processor in the area, it's easy. Making it easier yet would be that there are large deposits of rare elements in Africa that could be a stimulus.
I looked up the fuel consumption for 100% power. But you're right about the trailer, though I'd say that the extra wind resistance matters more than weight for highway travel.
Also, yes you're crazy if you're buying the generator yourself unless your usage pattern is really, really weird. Something along the lines of you're going to use it as a generator where you're going as well.
For an ICE car that gets 30mpg, it takes about a minute to fill it with enough energy to go 300 miles.
Takes closer to 5 actually. But if you take breaks like recommended by the experts to prevent the human side from becoming exhausted at superchargers and take sit-down meals you'll have more than enough charging time to make it.
Which is why, incidentally, outsourcing fails. The only question is by how much.
That depends on the scale of the outsourcing. Let's say a company owns or leases 3 cars. It doesn't make sense for them to do the maintenance themselves, so they outsource it to another company for less because THAT company enjoys economy of scale by maintaining hundreds of cars, from dozens of different companies and individuals.
Now expand the company and change it's field of business. Rather than 3 cars, it has over a hundred. Let's say a police department or taxi company of fair size. Now it makes sense to have it's own maintenance garage for at least the common stuff. Due to the miles these professionals put on a vehicle, each one is being pulled in for at least an oil change every couple weeks. When you're doing 10 oil changes a day, you're looking at a full time employee doing just that*. Time to look at hiring somebody.
*Now yes, a full time employee would be expected to do far more cars at a lube joint, but I'm picturing said employee doing everything - keeping track of miles and maintenance schedules, pulling the vehicle from the lot to the maintenance area, changing the oil, clean & wash it, then return.
between the two cities and the distance is too far for even the largest battery pack version of the Model S to cover.
Google maps says the distance between the two is 249 miles, which is less than the 265 miles of EPA range for the Model S 85 kWh vehicle.
Going to plug share, I'm seeing 7 public charging stations within a few blocks within Columbus. Assuming you stop for lunch to give yourself a 'top up', just park at 52 W Gay St, paying $.75/hour for parking and use the J1772 plug. You'll either get 7.7 kW or 19.2 kW. Even the 'low power' case works out to less than 10 cents/kWh and gives you another 27 miles of range. If it's a higher power outlet it would give you 68. It takes a 120kW+ supercharger to give you near-gasoline level 'fillups', all you need is a range boost.
Oh yeah, and if you get an efficient diesel generator you're looking at using 14 gallons for that 455 miles of range, giving you 32.5 mpg, which while it isn't great, isn't bad either. You're also 'getting' 51 mpg over the entire day, which is excellent, and you can reduce consumption further if you can do ANY electrical charging.
If you don't mind spending thousands of dollars on a generator that can keep up with the car's power drain
I did the figuring quite a while ago, but you only need about a 15 kW generator assuming you're going to plug in at night.
Target range: 720 miles (60 mph average speed over 12 hours) Model S range: 265 (85 kWh battery) Necessary extension: 455 Mileage: 38 kWh/100 mi Generation capability: 173 kwh/12 hours = 14.4 kwh, or a 15 kW generator. You can buy them for around$3k.
Add a couple thousand for putting it into a trailer form with extra storage, larger gas tank, and such and you're looking at around $5-6k for a generator trailer.
Not a fan of car dealers and their tactics, mind you, but they do serve a purpose.
I don't object to what you're saying, just that I object when the dealers get laws enshrining their business model. If Tesla doesn't want to play that game, they should be free to do so.
Tesla might eventually be forced to go to the independent dealer model, but I think we need to let them try their experiment. Hell, restaurant chains like McDonald's works with a mix of franchise and corporate owned stores, why not car dealerships?
Also, with places like Amazon I'm a lot less likely to be buying only 1 thing from 1 manufacturer while I'm there. A car purchase(other than accessories) is likely to be the only thing I do at the dealership. The scale is just so much larger there.
sending techs out to everyone's home is going to bankrupt you.
Can you explain how economy of scale allows for this to be profitable with 'a few thousand' vehicles, but not with a hundred times that? Assuming that Tesla remains a premium car brand, of course. The model E(or whatever it's name ends up being; I understand Ford forced them to change it's name) might not get quite as good service.
They have ONE model currently in production, the S. The X has been delayed while issues with the door are worked out, to my knowledge you can't find any on display in common areas. They probably have a few prototypes on display, but that's it. They also have the historical roadster, which isn't really compatible with their current technology.
Car dealers take up more property than, say, Tesla showrooms.
That's mainly because Tesla has all of ONE model of car with 3 trims and the ability to make you wait for your vehicle to come from the factory. Most of the major automakers have at least ten models with at least one line where you have more than three engine choices. Heck, I've seen vehicles where they offered more than six different trims(and a pain in the butt system for figuring out the differences).
On the other hand think about how wasteful the dealer model is with Dealers having to *guess* what kind of vehicle and options you want, then stocking that. Good luck in the USA if you like Manual transmission vehicles in anything but sports cars or econoboxes, and it's tough even there.
If car manufacturers were capable of being more agile, the two month wait for a new car that completely fits the customer's wants could be the norm, with used car lots and slightly longer term rentals satisfying those who find themselves in need of a different vehicle quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
The most interesting part about Germany's Solar deployment is that they have almost no utility scale deployments. Almost every deployed panel is on the roof of a building of a privately owned residence or business.
Probably has to do with the form Germany's subsidies takes.
we'd have more power than we could ever use. Germany is proof of that.
Yeah, like we'd ever use more than 640k of memory... If the power is there we'll use it. To make aluminum, power our new EVs, etc...
Still, we have a pretty good example in Hawaii. Due to most of their electricity being oil generated and predominately sunny(but not too hot) weather relatively close to the equator they've actually managed to get to the point where they could have a day where they bust 100% at this point. It's reached the point that you need permission from the electricity company to get a hookup.
Still, let's do some figuring. Leaving Business and Industrial customers out of it for now.
The average US household uses 10,837 kWh a year, or 903 kWh/month.
A 300 watt solar panel takes up about 21 square feet and costs $263, though final install cost will be $1.50-$2/watt.
Each panel can be expected to produce about 789 kWh/year, ideally placed. Competing against 10 cent electricity, payoff would be about 8 years. Note: I'm using average cases here. I almost bought solar panels for my house, given that I have a nice south-facing roof. On the other hand, I live in Alaska. Even with our relatively expensive electricity I couldn't make it make sense due to substantially LOWER power production than I'm figuring and higher costs(even doing most of the work myself).
Anyways, getting back on topic, that means that each homeowner would need to install 14 panels, on average, to cover their energy needs, assuming they have a retired Model-S battery or something to provide stability.
Some interesting calculations I've made in the past:
Every dollar they earn is one less taxpayer dollar they receive.
Your ratio is poor. I prefer more like 4:1, even when I was mean I supported 2:1 - This results in a gradual weaning off of benefits, which actually encourages people to work.
If I get $10k in benefits a year, and get a part time job making $10k, reducing my benefits to $7500 means that the government is still $2.5k ahead, but I'm now $7.5k ahead, which makes it so I want to work as I see the benefits.
I get a 'decent' job making $40k* and the benefits finally go away, but at that point I'm not only above the poverty line I'm paying taxes. Whatever, somewhere between 4:1 and 2:1 should work well. You might need to make it progressive - IE the first $1000 is free, etc...
*Let's be nice and say that the $40k includes benefits so it's more like $30k/year, and the $10k included stuff like medical
Africa will probably be the next, last bastion for poor and oppressed labor.
I think India still has a few 'last gasps' for cheap labor, after that it's down to really small countries. But I agree, and consider this people:
China: 1.35B people
India: 1.24B
Africa: 1.07B
The ENTIRE continent, short of a population boom that puts any previous baby booms to shame, isn't going to be able to take on the demand for 'cheap labor' when China and India start looking to outsource for cheaper labor like the rest of the world did. And that's without addressing the stability issues Africa has. China at least had predictability and businesses didn't have to worry about gunmen holding the factories/supplies/finished product hostage.
As such, I figure 'insourcing' is going to be the 'next big thing' for a while. Domestic appliance manufacturers are already discovering that by outsourcing production they also outsourced their production knowledge, and while they were fine for a generation, they lost the ability to design appliances that could be manufactured effectively. By bringing stuff back in house and really nailing the automation they're actually making higher quality appliances using less labor at lower cost.
Actually it leads to more efficient use of space through price rationing.
In other words, pay to play. It's still not more efficient.
They have no more right to enforce their will than any of the rest of us.
It's their land, their parking spots. They get to set the terms of usage for them. That they should really jack the rates up and introduce alternatives and policies to encourage effective alternatives* is only a related issue.
*I'm picturing things like elevated slideways between buildings, subways and such that increase the effective distance a walker can cover.
I think that it's the FAA sees a potential end-run around it's traditional domain- after all if you allow drones for disaster reconnaissance, how long before UPS and Fedex are campaigning for unmanned transport jets, followed by even traditional airliners wanting to get rid of their pilots? Without pilots, there go the air traffic controllers.
Meanwhile they lack the ability under the law to do much more than just push a blanket ban on drones, many of which don't even need traditional airports.
If efficiency is really the goal, then the city of SF should raise the fee for parking to a market rate. But I suspect that certain interest groups would oppose that...
Viewing the city of SF as a sort of non-profit business/charity, I actually agree with you. Utilize the income to provide some mix of additional parking and alternatives so people don't have to drive.
IE the rental fee for your parking spot includes a subsidy for the bus/subway/train/slideway that helps to ensure that there's actually a spot available for you to find. Oh, and generous reduced-rate garages on the outskirts of the city so people are encouraged to transfer OUT of their car before the city center.
I wonder what you think of occupy movement and all the other protests, which are especially common in San Francisco?
Complicated. Keep in mind that the situations varied by different locations. Still, on average I believe that they enjoy more protection simply by being explicitly political/non-monetary in nature. For that matter they probably had those locations more highly populated/used than normal.
Where I start drawing the line is where they start causing damage.
Since the buyer also has the app installed, he/she will have incentive to leave sooner, during prime time, to make the money back.
It also gives incentive to be a professional parking-keeper if the rates are high enough. Drive around looking for a spot. Take it, immediately list & sell. Move on and find another. Hell, it could probably be done on foot or scooter.
Do you honestly think congress actually cared?
Members therein, certainly. All of them? Nope.
Otherwise you're looking at it way too narrowly -
Is he in the US (because if he's in the US we can nab him with the FBI/federal marshal's service) or an allied state(that will pick him up for us)
Would killing him threaten their own? I'd say the question was whether capturing him threaten their own. In this case YES.
do I have an excuse? Bringing up spin-doctors is unfair in this case. The dude had a whole youtube library calling for death to the USA.
In this case all three branches essentially consented to the killing. Congress by passing the authorization of force without putting a 'unless they're a US Citizen' clause in it. The Executive branch because, yes, the president became involved, the DoD is part of it, etc... The Judicial branch, while it didn't try him, certainly had their hand in the analysis memo authorizing it.
Like I've said elsewhere, I'm actually happy that terrorists in foreign locations that happen to be US Citizens weren't held to be 'more valuable' than random non-US terrorists in foreign locations. We probably disagree where the bar should be, but I think the bar should be at the same height.
But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information.
It falls back to 'holding a public space hostage' the moment the seller stays in his spot any longer than he would have without the application in order to get said money/allow the buyer the spot. I believe that the application amounts to being worthless if the seller doesn't hold the space for the buyer, because in my experience somebody will pull into the spot less than a minute later without any intervention.
This leads to less efficient use of space due to lingering, which is what the city wants to avoid.
I happen to agree with you on the declaration of war. I think that Congress should actually have the balls to declare war if they're going to get the US Military involved into shooting operations. However I think you have a simplistic view of conventional war, much less asynchronous warfare. It's not even the first time we've 'declared' war against non-state actors, the Barbary wars soon after we became an independent state from Britain being examples there.
Second, just being a citizen of a country, or within the country, is NOT sufficient evidence for them to be a target under LOAC(Law of Armed Conflict). They have to be supporting the war effort in some material way, and generally not just by paying taxes.
By this logic could China use a drone to kill an Chinese citizen in the US if they believe he holds a high position in Falun Gong?
You've missed much of the context of my original post on this topic if you believe this to be valid. Though I'll admit that in reality the politics behind these sorts of operations becomes very complex, and there's still a huge amount of 'might makes right'. Like it or not, being an 800 pound gorilla means that you can push the 200 pound ones around, at least until you piss off enough of them that 5-10 of them are willing to make a coordinated effort. It becomes even more complicated when the 800# gorilla has friends between 500-700# who agree(at least behind closed doors) with their actions.
Getting back on point, your logic generally fails in that said member is unlikely to be an imminent threat while in the USA, capture IS feasible - if they can collect enough evidence the USA will hand him back. Anwar al-Awlaki had essentially a private military force on par with the state's military, so that wasn't an option there. Adherence to applicable war principles - we have an authorization for military action, we're not targeting random civilians, there's a military justification for targeting him, etc...
In addition you have politics. In general we try to have permission from whatever country we're bombing(but not at war with) to bomb the specific targets that we attack. However, the USA doesn't have militias and independent forces that are competitive with the US military running around and is unlikely(in the extreme) to grant any such permission. The alternative is to do without it, which risks the full range of state responses, from strongly worded letters to sanctions to outright declarations of war. Yes, if we bomb Country X in pursuit of killing/destroying Al Qaeda we have to worry about them declaring war on us if we don't have permission. Country X also has to weigh the consequences of declaring war on us in response to our violation of their sovereign territory. Other than that, UN Sanctions are also possible, but if a country is willing to keep going in the face of it(and ask North Korea, Cuba, and numerous other states how much they care about UN Sanctions...), it's still an option. Really, country-level politics is a lot more like primitive tribal law than modern law. Might makes right in way too many cases.
It seems to be a dangerous blurring of the line between law enforcement and war.
The terrorists did much of the blurring when they turned into instruments of war themselves by forming what amounts to irregular forces and taking over measurable amounts of territory. They might not be the formally recognized government in those regions, but they are effectively the local government there. We're talking about zones where if the state military tried to go in there there would be real battles with hundreds/thousands killed.
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
As such "but did his involvement rise to the level of a capital crime? Is there even a death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder?" are two irrelevant questions. As a member of the opposing military faction that the USA is at war with*, there needs be no crime for him to be targeted and killed. That he's in a leadership position simply raises him to a level where 'servicing' him specifically is a military priority with the intent of disrupting command & control**.
*I know that actual declarations of war have been rather sparse for the last 50 years or so, but the actual authorization of military force by congress is there.
**Military speak for: Without orders the lower levels are unlikely to be able to perform coordinated actions which increase efficiency. Ergo, disrupting systems, from destroying communication abilities to the very ability to give orders(IE kill the leaders) is a method for furthering their objectives in the war.
No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial, read your Bill of Rights.
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
It's the same sort of thing where it's not actually an execution when a police officer shoots a suspect who's shooting at him. In this case you have an opposing military leader, who happens to also be a US Citizen, assisting in planning, fundraising, coordinating, and other leadership roles. It can pretty much be assumed that if he's at all effective in his role that plans that harm the USA(and innocent civilians) will be coming out of him on a routine basis. Thus, always an imminent threat.
No proof of any plans, just that they believed it was eminent
I think you mean imminent(IE 'Soon') and not 'eminent' IE readily perceived, which in this case would amount to 'obvious'. Then again, both work. 'they believed it to be eminent that plan execution was imminent.'
The proof would be in the redacted segments because they were obtained from classified sources. Even without those sources I believe there was enough public evidence to consider him a key leader of a hostile force that the DoD has been directed to take military action against* under the rules of war - which are quite different things than the rules of criminal law. Basically you only need sufficient evidence in order to consider them likely supporting the opposing war effort in order to target them. The amount of consideration also has to take time available to make the decision - a grunt on the ground isn't held to the same standard as a mission planner back on base. But at least he has first hand observations...
*Can't we just declare war on them?
This is an interesting case.
First: "Attorney General Eric Holder last year outlined a three-pronged justification for targeted killings of a U.S. citizen who is a leader of al Qaeda: The suspect must pose an imminent threat, capture must be infeasible, and the strike needs to adhere to applicable war principles."
Hmm...
Imminent threat: IE People are going to be killed if we don't take him out. Same justification for killing a US Citizen(or anybody else) within the USA without trial.
Capture Infeasible: See the first sentence.
Adhere to applicable war principles: We would have already bombed his ass if he wasn't a US Citizen.
Now, avoiding the legality and ethics of drone strikes in the first place, I do not consider this to be an unreasonable standard. Delving INTO the ethics of drone strikes, I'd hope that all three criteria are applied to every considered strike, no matter what citizenship the potential targets(and collateral damage) hold. In addition, 'adhere to applicable war principles' probably leads to fewer bomb drops in my mind than what the administration might like.
Roughly speaking, it means that I don't consider 'US Citizen' some special category requiring extra-ordinary measures to NOT target for killing in war if said citizen is waging war against the USA. Instead I demand that such extra-ordinary measures be standard, no matter the nationality of the target. Of course, I recognize that politics will always be a concern. Hitting a British or German national in the Middle East for working with AQ will probably always involve at least a 'heads-up' call to the leaders of said nation.
You're both correct and both incorrect.
In the USA the average TV is replaced at about
six years old. It used to be longer.
I might consider my TV obsolete, but it's not so bad as to require replacement yet. Same with my computer. Going by family history what tends to happen is that the main TV in the living room gets replaced by a bigger/better one, then the old TV there moves downstairs to the family room, that one ends up in a bedroom, etc...
And once it stops being useful, then where does it go?
My environmental training goes basically 'reduce, reuse, recycle, only then discard.
As such, I think there's serious issues with this case. Even if they end up discarded rather than recycled, from what I've read recycling is often not all that 'environmental', due to the pollution and waste caused by the act of collection and recycling. Reuse avoids the expense of tear-down and rebuild, and is thus often cheaper*.
Worst case I think is that the stuff ends up stored in a dump until it becomes economical to extract again. There's plenty in things like computers that is rare enough that it's higher density in computers than in the original ore, so once you pile up enough of it to justify the expense of installing a processor in the area, it's easy. Making it easier yet would be that there are large deposits of rare elements in Africa that could be a stimulus.
*Plastic vs glass bottles is one counter-example.
I looked up the fuel consumption for 100% power. But you're right about the trailer, though I'd say that the extra wind resistance matters more than weight for highway travel.
Also, yes you're crazy if you're buying the generator yourself unless your usage pattern is really, really weird. Something along the lines of you're going to use it as a generator where you're going as well.
For an ICE car that gets 30mpg, it takes about a minute to fill it with enough energy to go 300 miles.
Takes closer to 5 actually. But if you take breaks like recommended by the experts to prevent the human side from becoming exhausted at superchargers and take sit-down meals you'll have more than enough charging time to make it.
Which is why, incidentally, outsourcing fails. The only question is by how much.
That depends on the scale of the outsourcing. Let's say a company owns or leases 3 cars. It doesn't make sense for them to do the maintenance themselves, so they outsource it to another company for less because THAT company enjoys economy of scale by maintaining hundreds of cars, from dozens of different companies and individuals.
Now expand the company and change it's field of business. Rather than 3 cars, it has over a hundred. Let's say a police department or taxi company of fair size. Now it makes sense to have it's own maintenance garage for at least the common stuff. Due to the miles these professionals put on a vehicle, each one is being pulled in for at least an oil change every couple weeks. When you're doing 10 oil changes a day, you're looking at a full time employee doing just that*. Time to look at hiring somebody.
*Now yes, a full time employee would be expected to do far more cars at a lube joint, but I'm picturing said employee doing everything - keeping track of miles and maintenance schedules, pulling the vehicle from the lot to the maintenance area, changing the oil, clean & wash it, then return.
between the two cities and the distance is too far for even the largest battery pack version of the Model S to cover.
Google maps says the distance between the two is 249 miles, which is less than the 265 miles of EPA range for the Model S 85 kWh vehicle.
Going to plug share, I'm seeing 7 public charging stations within a few blocks within Columbus. Assuming you stop for lunch to give yourself a 'top up', just park at 52 W Gay St, paying $.75/hour for parking and use the J1772 plug. You'll either get 7.7 kW or 19.2 kW. Even the 'low power' case works out to less than 10 cents/kWh and gives you another 27 miles of range. If it's a higher power outlet it would give you 68. It takes a 120kW+ supercharger to give you near-gasoline level 'fillups', all you need is a range boost.
Oh yeah, and if you get an efficient diesel generator you're looking at using 14 gallons for that 455 miles of range, giving you 32.5 mpg, which while it isn't great, isn't bad either. You're also 'getting' 51 mpg over the entire day, which is excellent, and you can reduce consumption further if you can do ANY electrical charging.
If you don't mind spending thousands of dollars on a generator that can keep up with the car's power drain
I did the figuring quite a while ago, but you only need about a 15 kW generator assuming you're going to plug in at night.
Target range: 720 miles (60 mph average speed over 12 hours)
Model S range: 265 (85 kWh battery)
Necessary extension: 455
Mileage: 38 kWh/100 mi
Generation capability: 173 kwh/12 hours = 14.4 kwh, or a 15 kW generator. You can buy them for around $3k.
Add a couple thousand for putting it into a trailer form with extra storage, larger gas tank, and such and you're looking at around $5-6k for a generator trailer.
Not a fan of car dealers and their tactics, mind you, but they do serve a purpose.
I don't object to what you're saying, just that I object when the dealers get laws enshrining their business model. If Tesla doesn't want to play that game, they should be free to do so.
Tesla might eventually be forced to go to the independent dealer model, but I think we need to let them try their experiment. Hell, restaurant chains like McDonald's works with a mix of franchise and corporate owned stores, why not car dealerships?
Also, with places like Amazon I'm a lot less likely to be buying only 1 thing from 1 manufacturer while I'm there. A car purchase(other than accessories) is likely to be the only thing I do at the dealership. The scale is just so much larger there.
One big difference is that with Tesla you typically do not buy a car on the lot.
Like I said "make you wait for your vehicle to come from the factory"
With emphasis on 'YOUR' vehicle with the options you want.
sending techs out to everyone's home is going to bankrupt you.
Can you explain how economy of scale allows for this to be profitable with 'a few thousand' vehicles, but not with a hundred times that? Assuming that Tesla remains a premium car brand, of course. The model E(or whatever it's name ends up being; I understand Ford forced them to change it's name) might not get quite as good service.
They have ONE model currently in production, the S. The X has been delayed while issues with the door are worked out, to my knowledge you can't find any on display in common areas. They probably have a few prototypes on display, but that's it. They also have the historical roadster, which isn't really compatible with their current technology.
Car dealers take up more property than, say, Tesla showrooms.
That's mainly because Tesla has all of ONE model of car with 3 trims and the ability to make you wait for your vehicle to come from the factory. Most of the major automakers have at least ten models with at least one line where you have more than three engine choices. Heck, I've seen vehicles where they offered more than six different trims(and a pain in the butt system for figuring out the differences).
On the other hand think about how wasteful the dealer model is with Dealers having to *guess* what kind of vehicle and options you want, then stocking that. Good luck in the USA if you like Manual transmission vehicles in anything but sports cars or econoboxes, and it's tough even there.
If car manufacturers were capable of being more agile, the two month wait for a new car that completely fits the customer's wants could be the norm, with used car lots and slightly longer term rentals satisfying those who find themselves in need of a different vehicle quickly.