50% more electricity usage for double the life, and a little less light even. At 10 cents per kWh, over the course of it's (estimated) life, the rough service bulb will use an extra $4.60 in electricity. Which kind of makes the fact that the rough service bulb is, in this case, $0.22 cheaper rather moot.
Except for the fact that the rough service bulb will actually last in the stated use, of course. If you need a vibration rated bulb, you need a vibration rated bulb. Other acceptable answers is that it uses more than $5 worth of labor to replace the darn thing. Had a bulb like that in one of my parent's homes - located high up on the landing between the basement and ground floor, IE just as high as it would have been ON the ground floor. Took a ladder to replace. If they had been available that bulb would have gotten a CFL/LED put in there just for the longer replacement times.
You make it sound like the absurdly short life of incandescent light bulbs neatly correlates to its efficiency.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. It's a value that can be tweaked, it's not infinitely adjustable in range between a 100% efficient bulb that's a camera flash to a 0% efficient bulb(well, 0% would be doable).
And yes, I was kind of not properly rating the effect of the vacuum or noble fill of a bulb.
As for driving to a store to get replacements? Who, back in the day, didn't keep bulbs on hand and just pick up bulbs as part of a larger shopping trip? Heck, even with LEDs I only recently put my last LED in and need to restock. Worst case I grab a bulb from somewhere less used.
When its cold enough, the entropy from my desk lamp simply causes the electric heater to take a little longer before turning on.
Or, if you're in a cold enough climate to not have direct resistance heating, you're back to still wanting electric efficient bulbs because the heater, whether heat pump or fossil fuel, is a lot cheaper than electric heat.
If you want an incandescent that lasts really long, you need one sealed with a noble or inert gas (pure nitrogen might work on the cheap), some sort of dimmer or ballast to lessen the physical trauma from being switched on, and a filament thick enough to resist vaporization while in use. That won't solve the energy problem as it's still basically making light from a hot resister, but it should last a long while.
Except for the gas, isn't this about what I said? Keep the element thick and cool and it'll last. It'll just be a 'lousy' light bulb because as you make the filament bigger you waste more energy as heat and infrared than visible light.
It means that the company can count it as a straight expense. So it'd be put in the same pile as all the other things a company spends money on that isn't employment expenses - supplies, utilities, buildings, etc...
If it was an employment expense, but deductible, it'd be like healthcare, which has it's own line.
One problem with the AC is a misunderstanding on how tax deductions work. It's by actual expense - not per person.
IE I'm not claiming that I 'protected' 300M Americans. I'm claiming that I spent $3M on identity protection services for my clients and employees. Which would be rather expensive if I only have 3k of them, but rather cheap if I serve all 300M Americans.
I'm old enough to remember taking our burnt out bulbs down to the local Edison to exchange for free new ones.
Electric company, I take it? Consider what I said, the electric company could have been 'rent seeking' in a completely different way than Phillips. Sure, they're perfectly happy handing you 75W bulbs that last darn near forever, but produce the same amount of light as the Phillips 60W that doesn't last as long.
That extra 15W could garner them an extra $13/year if the light's on all the time. Not bad for a giveaway of an under 25 cent bulb, bought in bulk. Cost differences for varying light output and longevity amount to a rounding error given how small the tungsten element is and that 'power' depends on the shape. Thicker element = longer lasting higher power bulb. Shorter element = shorter lasting higher power bulb. Thinner/longer = lower power. Balance to fit.
The police can arrest you, take your cash and don't have to give it back.
Actually, they don't even have to do the first step. They just take the money, saying they have 'probable cause' to believe that it's involved in drug trafficking. Can't prove where the money came from? You just sold a bunch of drugs. Can prove where the money came from? You're looking to buy drugs. "What about my right to a trial?" - Oh, we know that would fail, so we're not charging you with anything, just your money, and because money isn't a person, it doesn't get rights! "What about MY rights to MY property?" - Oh, you're so silly!
When they conducted actual temperament testing, 'Pitbulls' tested in the top quartile for passing rate. That's not to say that it couldn't be improved, first by getting them out of the hands of 'bad' owners, followed up by a directed breeding program for good temperament.
And I don't think politics really matters. Your Democrats and Republicans at the state level are pretty much equally assholes. There are just differences in how many new programs they create which will later be defunded when the populace realizes that they can't pay for them and get mad at taxes.
At the low levels which party a bureaucrat belongs to doesn't matter much either. My problem with taxes is how, in any proposed tax cuts, the 'sacred cow' is offered up first.
Oh, no, we can't shut down or even offer to defund a state park that sees 20 visitors a year. We have to defund the schools. Specifically by firing teachers, not the 3rd vice principal. Who has 3 secretaries and earns as much money in his salary as 5 teachers.
Roughly speaking, he was to light bulbs what Henry Ford was to automobiles. After all, he developed the first light bulb to be economical for mass use.
Before that, they did have electric lights, but they were carbon arc lamps - too much light and horrible color rendering for routine use in a house.
In most areas, they aren't really all that banned. Because the standards(in most areas) were written to demand a certain efficiency, if you produce a more efficient bulb, it's automatically allowed.
Even without tricks like the German 'heating device with built in safety light'.;)
In every case I know, you can still get the incandescents - they just can't be 'general use' bulbs. 40W appliance bulbs are still available for environments like your oven. Short of halogen bulbs(which are actually a variation on incandescent), no other lighting technology can withstand the heat well enough.
Otherwise, you'd have to get fancy with a light pipe or something in order to keep the light generator cool enough, and even then you might have problems during things like self-clean cycles. In the end, it's just not worth it, the light isn't on that much, and most of the time you're heating the inside with electricity anyways, so it's not like bulb efficiency really matters.
Filament bulbs can last 5+ years, if you engineer them to, especially at the "warmer feeling" lower temperatures.
They can make them last centuries. The current longest lasting filament bulb is at 114 years and over 1M hours.
The 'trick' is that the heavier and cooler the filament it, the longer it lasts - but the less efficient it is at making light.
So a.25 cent bulb that is engineered to last about 3-6 months in normal usage is at a sweet spot - you could make it last longer, but it'd use more than.25 cents worth of extra electricity in that time. So it's cheaper to make it a bit more energy efficient at the cost of life span.
Of course, equations change as the price of electricity goes up.
Back in the day, the USA produced a speaker powered by a V-8 Hemi. It was intended to be mounted on a tall tower and blast out emergency sirens for dozens of miles.
The mythbusters hooked a speaker up to a 4 cylinder diesel to try to break the car windows, but that wasn't as loud.
Because Mormons tend not to have dirty minds? I'm a Mormon, BTW.
I don't have a problem with people who don't have dirty minds. I have a problem with people who do have dirty minds and are determined to not only not enjoy it, but to make sure others don't enjoy it either.
IE "penismightier" gets a giggle out of me and I proceed on with life. I don't embarrass my neighbors over it, though as mentioned, I might bring it up in a polite way to make sure they understand ALL the meanings.
In this case, at least you and your parents weren't calling, for example, for a law against 'profane' SSIDs, fines, and regular police patrols.
Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
Who's voting for low level bureaucrats? Seriously, when I was in this would have been a decision made by a SSgt, if that, backed up by a Lt and maybe a Capt.
The Base Commander wouldn't have a clue, and he's a lot lower than a Governor.
Cheap apartment, 224sqft for $224/month (remember my budget is $300). $85/sqft, $19,040. That right off is 7 years 1 month pay-off; but add in the kitchen and bathroom, $1,000, 7 years 5 months. Those appliances cost $11.18/month.
Ah, here's where I have a problem: I'm asking you: Is it still legitimate to use a best case/lowest cost range for building apartments that aren't really built today? Here's the deal: Real life isn't a game. Price per square foot is basically an estimating tool.
You're the one diving into the weeds about appliances, then trying to write cost increases off as 'trivial'. I was trying to point out that, for a smaller apartment, you have a number of static costs(I wasn't trying to list ALL of them) that don't scale down. Other ones besides appliances include the lights, a smaller apartment is, proportionally speaking, going to have more wall(proportionally expensive), requring more painting, etc...
I wasn't really trying to nail down the cost difference, merely telling you that I think you're under-estimating the cost of your 'cheap' apartments. You've since ignored my suggestion - sharing an apartment, as a means to reduce costs per person such that it would be affordable.
Consider what I did a sanity check. You keep going back to estimated prices per square foot and using the minimum estimated costs. You can't do that, especially when you're going below the range those estimates were determined from.
What did I do? I looked up the median rental cost area for the USA and looked up the cheapest available apartments. Given that these probably include older properties that are nearly ready for an extensive remodel, but not so cheap that they're just plain snapped up by the needy whenever they come up, it seems reasonable to me to consider them a baseline.
What changed?
Price per square foot is $1.03 in the first, $1.00 in the second.
To me, this is using one assumption to make another assumption. You're unilaterally decreasing the price over what's already a 'best case' scenario for the builder/owner of the apartment.
That $1,000 I computed should equate to about $5/month.
Not sure how you're figuring it, but most of my values have you neglecting cost of capital and insurance.
Clothes washers and dryers are usually in the building's laundry room, and are not static expenses per apartment;
You'll note that I didn't mention them, right? I was figuring they were going to a laundrymat. Otherwise, well, you do realize that if you're going to put them up in a apartment without laundry facilities you're going to have to add laundry costs to your estimates. Figure 3 loads@$3 each(lights, darks, bedding), that's $39/month. By the way, the site I linked shows that owning your own laundry machine is quickly cheaper.
boilers and heaters are part of controlled zone systems (not per-apartment; the zone control panel would cost like $300 per 6 units, the HVAC zone baffel would cost about $100 per unit, the control panel would meter usage time per apartment, and you'd install as much furnace capacity as per your heated space). A commercial TED on the building would cost $1,200 for a three-phase, 2,000 amp system; for 8 units, you'd need a $600 800 amp system with $150 8-breaker monitoring set.
Okay, now I'm sure you have no clue about modern costings. I have a boiler. I had to have the bloody thing replaced a while back. A zone control panel for $300, for 6 zones? Yeah right. Zone valves run $80 each, and that's without install and with my ass shopping around. That's $480 each, even if you assume that the thermostat and wiring are free (I'd estimate ~$150 for them). Multiply by about 2 for labor.
Sorry for the delay, but I didn't want to leave you hanging.
If criminals didn't frequently obtain their firearms by stealing them from legitimate users I might buy your argument a little more.
First, a bit of education. I don't know about your definition of 'frequent', but stolen guns are only about 10-15% of crime guns. Having their mother/wife/girlfriend straw purchase one is far more common, yet rarely prosecuted.
The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibiltiy at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner.
Seriously? This, to me, indicates that you don't know how the firearm industry works, the rules and regulations.
Absoutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get ahold of them.
And do you realize that the news reports stuff that's unusual because that's news, right? You don't often hear about children dying in car accidents, even though that's the #1 cause of death, because it's the #1 most common cause of death. It's not news. Meanwhile, you're likely to hear about EVERY accidental shooting by a toddler, nation wide.
As for the UZI - well, I remember that case, and it was one of it was stupid for the instructor to hand somebody that small an automatic weapon anyways. At least with more than 1 bullet in it.
We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen. We routinuely hear of spousal shootings. We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine. That we have all of these incidents among legal firearms owners is shameful, and that's before we even get to the issue of firearms used publicly for violence.
1. News because it's fairly unusual, actually. 2. Sad, but already illegal. Consider how much more we hear about it when a wife amputates her husband's penis. 3. Gun-cleaning accidents; I'm half convinced that they're mostly suicides in disguise. 4. You do realize that somewhere over half of those incidents are by police officers, right?
I'm not sure if you're speaking hypothetically but as mentioned in the summary Armatix has already made a smart gun. And yes, it was a.22 that costed over $1800. Nobody wanted it. I have seen the question raised on other forums about how it affects the NJ law but no real information.
A large problem of the New Jersey law doesn't make any requirements as to quality, usability, or cost. Is a smart gun being offered for sale? If yes, trigger requirement. There's no requirement that, say, it only be double the median cost of a new firearm. There's no reliability requirements, no 'ease of use'.
Now, they can't ban gun sales completely without triggering the Supreme court, so they can't trigger the law if the gun is not continuously offered for sale. But, theoretically speaking, I could do a run of 200 pistols, start up my own store and offer them up for $20k each. I would get LOTS of hate male from other gun proponents. But it would be quite the court battle.
Matter of fact, the NRA might actually WANT the law to go to the supreme court and be shot down - because if it's shot down by the supreme court, the idea is mostly dead in the country. If NJ just repeals it, then there's no legal test and they can pass it again later.
Dude, my point is that that those appliances are a static cost - shrinking the apartment doesn't reduce those expenses. Plus, you still have to hook utilities up to them. Running the power line to the stove, for example, costs darn near the value of the stove. You have to run water and drains to the bathrooms. You can mirror units to reduce the amount of pipe, but you're still looking at more pipe.
You're also looking at more walls for tiny apartments, I went to a site and punched in costs for a 1200 square foot house and a 600 square foot one - the 600 square foot was still 58% of the cost of the 1200.
Keep in mind that all I was arguing was taht a ~$500/month BIG isn't enough for single living in most areas. Get 4 people together and it's workable.
Oh yeah, NRA's official statement on it: "I think the technology can be problematic," he says of smart guns. "But we are not opposed to it, and it's not to say it is impossible. If the people want to buy it, they will be the best judge."
Sure she can, though in this case I used 'veto' as short for 'vote no'. Sorry for the confusion.
So the call from the NRA [usatoday.com] to the only dealer who was selling a smart gun is not opposition?
What call from the NRA? From the article: "People weren't reasonable, he says. But not one of his critics identified himself as being from the NRA."
The NRA didn't call him. You have to realize that the NRA is actually a pretty moderate gun organization, and gun owners are the biggest grass-roots organization out there. A spontaneous boycott back in the day nearly sunk S&W, causing it's sale to another party who refuted the deal the original owners made, in order regain sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, LEDs are pretty shock proof, I'd use one of them, preferably a light designed for them, over the traditional cage light today.
But yeah. Consider:
Rough Service: 75W, 680 lumens, 130V, 2k hours. $.78
Normal Service: 52W, 750 lumens, 120V, 1k hours, $1 each.
50% more electricity usage for double the life, and a little less light even. At 10 cents per kWh, over the course of it's (estimated) life, the rough service bulb will use an extra $4.60 in electricity. Which kind of makes the fact that the rough service bulb is, in this case, $0.22 cheaper rather moot.
Except for the fact that the rough service bulb will actually last in the stated use, of course. If you need a vibration rated bulb, you need a vibration rated bulb. Other acceptable answers is that it uses more than $5 worth of labor to replace the darn thing. Had a bulb like that in one of my parent's homes - located high up on the landing between the basement and ground floor, IE just as high as it would have been ON the ground floor. Took a ladder to replace. If they had been available that bulb would have gotten a CFL/LED put in there just for the longer replacement times.
You make it sound like the absurdly short life of incandescent light bulbs neatly correlates to its efficiency.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. It's a value that can be tweaked, it's not infinitely adjustable in range between a 100% efficient bulb that's a camera flash to a 0% efficient bulb(well, 0% would be doable).
And yes, I was kind of not properly rating the effect of the vacuum or noble fill of a bulb.
As for driving to a store to get replacements? Who, back in the day, didn't keep bulbs on hand and just pick up bulbs as part of a larger shopping trip? Heck, even with LEDs I only recently put my last LED in and need to restock. Worst case I grab a bulb from somewhere less used.
When its cold enough, the entropy from my desk lamp simply causes the electric heater to take a little longer before turning on.
Or, if you're in a cold enough climate to not have direct resistance heating, you're back to still wanting electric efficient bulbs because the heater, whether heat pump or fossil fuel, is a lot cheaper than electric heat.
If you want an incandescent that lasts really long, you need one sealed with a noble or inert gas (pure nitrogen might work on the cheap), some sort of dimmer or ballast to lessen the physical trauma from being switched on, and a filament thick enough to resist vaporization while in use. That won't solve the energy problem as it's still basically making light from a hot resister, but it should last a long while.
Except for the gas, isn't this about what I said? Keep the element thick and cool and it'll last. It'll just be a 'lousy' light bulb because as you make the filament bigger you waste more energy as heat and infrared than visible light.
Charities are all well and good but having my donation be some company's tax dodge really pisses me off...
It doesn't let them dodge any taxes though.
It means that the company can count it as a straight expense. So it'd be put in the same pile as all the other things a company spends money on that isn't employment expenses - supplies, utilities, buildings, etc...
If it was an employment expense, but deductible, it'd be like healthcare, which has it's own line.
One problem with the AC is a misunderstanding on how tax deductions work. It's by actual expense - not per person.
IE I'm not claiming that I 'protected' 300M Americans. I'm claiming that I spent $3M on identity protection services for my clients and employees. Which would be rather expensive if I only have 3k of them, but rather cheap if I serve all 300M Americans.
I'm old enough to remember taking our burnt out bulbs down to the local Edison to exchange for free new ones.
Electric company, I take it? Consider what I said, the electric company could have been 'rent seeking' in a completely different way than Phillips. Sure, they're perfectly happy handing you 75W bulbs that last darn near forever, but produce the same amount of light as the Phillips 60W that doesn't last as long.
That extra 15W could garner them an extra $13/year if the light's on all the time. Not bad for a giveaway of an under 25 cent bulb, bought in bulk. Cost differences for varying light output and longevity amount to a rounding error given how small the tungsten element is and that 'power' depends on the shape. Thicker element = longer lasting higher power bulb. Shorter element = shorter lasting higher power bulb. Thinner/longer = lower power. Balance to fit.
Maybe we could check ours (like getting our FICA score)?
You can't actually get your FICA score though, unless somebody wants to give it to you, or you're willing to pay.
What you can do is get access to the records behind the FICA score, and contest them if you think there's an error.
The number of mangled addresses in my profile is hilarious. Half of one address combined with half of another.
The police can arrest you, take your cash and don't have to give it back.
Actually, they don't even have to do the first step. They just take the money, saying they have 'probable cause' to believe that it's involved in drug trafficking.
Can't prove where the money came from? You just sold a bunch of drugs.
Can prove where the money came from? You're looking to buy drugs.
"What about my right to a trial?" - Oh, we know that would fail, so we're not charging you with anything, just your money, and because money isn't a person, it doesn't get rights!
"What about MY rights to MY property?" - Oh, you're so silly!
When they conducted actual temperament testing, 'Pitbulls' tested in the top quartile for passing rate. That's not to say that it couldn't be improved, first by getting them out of the hands of 'bad' owners, followed up by a directed breeding program for good temperament.
And I don't think politics really matters. Your Democrats and Republicans at the state level are pretty much equally assholes. There are just differences in how many new programs they create which will later be defunded when the populace realizes that they can't pay for them and get mad at taxes.
At the low levels which party a bureaucrat belongs to doesn't matter much either. My problem with taxes is how, in any proposed tax cuts, the 'sacred cow' is offered up first.
Oh, no, we can't shut down or even offer to defund a state park that sees 20 visitors a year. We have to defund the schools. Specifically by firing teachers, not the 3rd vice principal. Who has 3 secretaries and earns as much money in his salary as 5 teachers.
Roughly speaking, he was to light bulbs what Henry Ford was to automobiles. After all, he developed the first light bulb to be economical for mass use.
Before that, they did have electric lights, but they were carbon arc lamps - too much light and horrible color rendering for routine use in a house.
In most areas, they aren't really all that banned. Because the standards(in most areas) were written to demand a certain efficiency, if you produce a more efficient bulb, it's automatically allowed.
Even without tricks like the German 'heating device with built in safety light'. ;)
In every case I know, you can still get the incandescents - they just can't be 'general use' bulbs. 40W appliance bulbs are still available for environments like your oven. Short of halogen bulbs(which are actually a variation on incandescent), no other lighting technology can withstand the heat well enough.
Otherwise, you'd have to get fancy with a light pipe or something in order to keep the light generator cool enough, and even then you might have problems during things like self-clean cycles. In the end, it's just not worth it, the light isn't on that much, and most of the time you're heating the inside with electricity anyways, so it's not like bulb efficiency really matters.
Filament bulbs can last 5+ years, if you engineer them to, especially at the "warmer feeling" lower temperatures.
They can make them last centuries. The current longest lasting filament bulb is at 114 years and over 1M hours.
The 'trick' is that the heavier and cooler the filament it, the longer it lasts - but the less efficient it is at making light.
So a .25 cent bulb that is engineered to last about 3-6 months in normal usage is at a sweet spot - you could make it last longer, but it'd use more than .25 cents worth of extra electricity in that time. So it's cheaper to make it a bit more energy efficient at the cost of life span.
Of course, equations change as the price of electricity goes up.
Back in the day, the USA produced a speaker powered by a V-8 Hemi. It was intended to be mounted on a tall tower and blast out emergency sirens for dozens of miles.
The mythbusters hooked a speaker up to a 4 cylinder diesel to try to break the car windows, but that wasn't as loud.
Because Mormons tend not to have dirty minds? I'm a Mormon, BTW.
I don't have a problem with people who don't have dirty minds. I have a problem with people who do have dirty minds and are determined to not only not enjoy it, but to make sure others don't enjoy it either.
IE "penismightier" gets a giggle out of me and I proceed on with life. I don't embarrass my neighbors over it, though as mentioned, I might bring it up in a polite way to make sure they understand ALL the meanings.
In this case, at least you and your parents weren't calling, for example, for a law against 'profane' SSIDs, fines, and regular police patrols.
Yes, so people should be careful who they vote for.
Who's voting for low level bureaucrats? Seriously, when I was in this would have been a decision made by a SSgt, if that, backed up by a Lt and maybe a Capt.
The Base Commander wouldn't have a clue, and he's a lot lower than a Governor.
I was figuring that a multiple shot capacity was a requirement for police officers. ;)
(cutting out a bunch of pointless
Cheap apartment, 224sqft for $224/month (remember my budget is $300). $85/sqft, $19,040. That right off is 7 years 1 month pay-off; but add in the kitchen and bathroom, $1,000, 7 years 5 months. Those appliances cost $11.18/month.
Ah, here's where I have a problem: I'm asking you: Is it still legitimate to use a best case/lowest cost range for building apartments that aren't really built today? Here's the deal: Real life isn't a game. Price per square foot is basically an estimating tool.
You're the one diving into the weeds about appliances, then trying to write cost increases off as 'trivial'. I was trying to point out that, for a smaller apartment, you have a number of static costs(I wasn't trying to list ALL of them) that don't scale down. Other ones besides appliances include the lights, a smaller apartment is, proportionally speaking, going to have more wall(proportionally expensive), requring more painting, etc...
I wasn't really trying to nail down the cost difference, merely telling you that I think you're under-estimating the cost of your 'cheap' apartments. You've since ignored my suggestion - sharing an apartment, as a means to reduce costs per person such that it would be affordable.
Consider what I did a sanity check. You keep going back to estimated prices per square foot and using the minimum estimated costs. You can't do that, especially when you're going below the range those estimates were determined from.
What did I do? I looked up the median rental cost area for the USA and looked up the cheapest available apartments. Given that these probably include older properties that are nearly ready for an extensive remodel, but not so cheap that they're just plain snapped up by the needy whenever they come up, it seems reasonable to me to consider them a baseline.
What changed?
Price per square foot is $1.03 in the first, $1.00 in the second.
To me, this is using one assumption to make another assumption. You're unilaterally decreasing the price over what's already a 'best case' scenario for the builder/owner of the apartment.
That $1,000 I computed should equate to about $5/month.
Not sure how you're figuring it, but most of my values have you neglecting cost of capital and insurance.
Clothes washers and dryers are usually in the building's laundry room, and are not static expenses per apartment;
You'll note that I didn't mention them, right? I was figuring they were going to a laundrymat. Otherwise, well, you do realize that if you're going to put them up in a apartment without laundry facilities you're going to have to add laundry costs to your estimates. Figure 3 loads@$3 each(lights, darks, bedding), that's $39/month. By the way, the site I linked shows that owning your own laundry machine is quickly cheaper.
boilers and heaters are part of controlled zone systems (not per-apartment; the zone control panel would cost like $300 per 6 units, the HVAC zone baffel would cost about $100 per unit, the control panel would meter usage time per apartment, and you'd install as much furnace capacity as per your heated space). A commercial TED on the building would cost $1,200 for a three-phase, 2,000 amp system; for 8 units, you'd need a $600 800 amp system with $150 8-breaker monitoring set.
Okay, now I'm sure you have no clue about modern costings. I have a boiler. I had to have the bloody thing replaced a while back. A zone control panel for $300, for 6 zones? Yeah right. Zone valves run $80 each, and that's without install and with my ass shopping around. That's $480 each, even if you assume that the thermostat and wiring are free (I'd estimate ~$150 for them). Multiply by about 2 for labor.
As fo
Sorry for the delay, but I didn't want to leave you hanging.
If criminals didn't frequently obtain their firearms by stealing them from legitimate users I might buy your argument a little more.
First, a bit of education. I don't know about your definition of 'frequent', but stolen guns are only about 10-15% of crime guns. Having their mother/wife/girlfriend straw purchase one is far more common, yet rarely prosecuted.
The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibiltiy at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner.
Seriously? This, to me, indicates that you don't know how the firearm industry works, the rules and regulations.
Absoutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get ahold of them.
And do you realize that the news reports stuff that's unusual because that's news, right? You don't often hear about children dying in car accidents, even though that's the #1 cause of death, because it's the #1 most common cause of death. It's not news. Meanwhile, you're likely to hear about EVERY accidental shooting by a toddler, nation wide.
As for the UZI - well, I remember that case, and it was one of it was stupid for the instructor to hand somebody that small an automatic weapon anyways. At least with more than 1 bullet in it.
We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen. We routinuely hear of spousal shootings. We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine. That we have all of these incidents among legal firearms owners is shameful, and that's before we even get to the issue of firearms used publicly for violence.
1. News because it's fairly unusual, actually.
2. Sad, but already illegal. Consider how much more we hear about it when a wife amputates her husband's penis.
3. Gun-cleaning accidents; I'm half convinced that they're mostly suicides in disguise.
4. You do realize that somewhere over half of those incidents are by police officers, right?
I'm not sure if you're speaking hypothetically but as mentioned in the summary Armatix has already made a smart gun. And yes, it was a .22 that costed over $1800. Nobody wanted it. I have seen the question raised on other forums about how it affects the NJ law but no real information.
A large problem of the New Jersey law doesn't make any requirements as to quality, usability, or cost. Is a smart gun being offered for sale? If yes, trigger requirement. There's no requirement that, say, it only be double the median cost of a new firearm. There's no reliability requirements, no 'ease of use'.
Now, they can't ban gun sales completely without triggering the Supreme court, so they can't trigger the law if the gun is not continuously offered for sale. But, theoretically speaking, I could do a run of 200 pistols, start up my own store and offer them up for $20k each. I would get LOTS of hate male from other gun proponents. But it would be quite the court battle.
Matter of fact, the NRA might actually WANT the law to go to the supreme court and be shot down - because if it's shot down by the supreme court, the idea is mostly dead in the country. If NJ just repeals it, then there's no legal test and they can pass it again later.
Dude, my point is that that those appliances are a static cost - shrinking the apartment doesn't reduce those expenses. Plus, you still have to hook utilities up to them. Running the power line to the stove, for example, costs darn near the value of the stove. You have to run water and drains to the bathrooms. You can mirror units to reduce the amount of pipe, but you're still looking at more pipe.
You're also looking at more walls for tiny apartments, I went to a site and punched in costs for a 1200 square foot house and a 600 square foot one - the 600 square foot was still 58% of the cost of the 1200.
Keep in mind that all I was arguing was taht a ~$500/month BIG isn't enough for single living in most areas. Get 4 people together and it's workable.
Oh yeah, NRA's official statement on it: "I think the technology can be problematic," he says of smart guns. "But we are not opposed to it, and it's not to say it is impossible. If the people want to buy it, they will be the best judge."
Sure she can, though in this case I used 'veto' as short for 'vote no'. Sorry for the confusion.
So the call from the NRA [usatoday.com] to the only dealer who was selling a smart gun is not opposition?
What call from the NRA? From the article: "People weren't reasonable, he says. But not one of his critics identified himself as being from the NRA."
The NRA didn't call him. You have to realize that the NRA is actually a pretty moderate gun organization, and gun owners are the biggest grass-roots organization out there. A spontaneous boycott back in the day nearly sunk S&W, causing it's sale to another party who refuted the deal the original owners made, in order regain sales.