Actually, the correct phrase would be: the only [i]first world[/i] nation that has positive population growth.
There are various areas around the world that are going through their equivalent of the baby boom. Even so, I believe that there are other 'first world' countries that still have positive growth discounting immigration, but there aren't many.
Ok HD-DVD has had the "shit cracked out of it". Sounds like a ripper's dream except I don't think you are going to get much content since all the movie companies will drop the HD-DVD format as their preferred distribution media since like it or not they want DRM. Basically this would be to Blu-ray's advantage.
Then spend your time convincing your friends and relatives to purchase HDDVD titles. Only. Use your geek-cred to convince them that blue-ray is messed up, to wait on it.
If blueray devices and movies sit on store shelves while cracked to heck HDDVD titles and equipment move, they'll notice and eventually give up and release stuff on HDDVD. Kinda like how music sales still continue on CD, and movie sales still continue on DVD. It's too much money otherwise.
Actually, the experience in the USA is more along the lines that with sufficient police forces, you can catch many of the criminals. With sufficient court systems and prison systems, you can keep them off the streets enough to make a very noticeable drop in crime rates.
Yes, it's expensive; but you have to ask yourself, is letting a lout like this one stay on the street saving you any money?
Then again, all the usual arguements about properly funding schools to prevent kids from being a criminal in the first place apply - but then again, Washington, DC has some of the most expensive public schools in the country in terms of money spent per pupil, yet consistantly has one of the worst crime rates in the developed world. You also have the problem that leaving the current criminals on the street can cost far more than locking them up.
I'll note that I'm a proponenet of punishment/correction reform. I'd love to see a way to get people to obey the law without long prison sentences that put them around other criminals(so they get more criminal skills), costs a lot of money and prevents them from being a productive member of society during that time(for the most part). Still, the whole cruel&unusual clause has been interprited to stop most alternative forms of punishment.
I also do not like the warehousing of addicts in prison - there's far better places to put them to dry out. In my mind the only criminals that need to be in prison are the ones that are physically dangerous to the rest of society or are otherwise determined to be detrimental. The murderers, rapists, batterers, and such. Combined with multiple offenders for the non-violent stuff.
That said, there is a precedent from which we can (at least partially) check to see if it is actually effective at its stated goals... does anyone know of (non-propagandized to either pro/con) stats to see how effective these critters are at reducing crime in London?
From everything I've read; crime is still an increasing problem in London; rates are increasing. While you're still more likely to be murdered in NYC, the odds of you being a victim in London of other crimes are far higher.
Everything I've read suggests a lack of manpower and resources to actually fight crime; sure, they may have video of an assault, but they lack the manpower to figure out which lout did it, find and arrest him. Even if they did find and convict him; the available space in prisons is insufficient to keep him.
Cameras can be a useful tool, but are worthless without the proper resources to make use of them.
Cops on the street are more effective than a guy monitoring some cameras. A camera isn't useful for much other than convicting the somebody AFTER they've committed their crime.
Heh, one thing I kept wondering: Is this delivered cost, to the station in orbit? That'd account for a lot of the cost.
As for cost, look at it like a 'keep the russian space industry employed, so they don't go selling stuff to the middle-east/china'. And I'm not just talking about crapper technology.
Regarding number one - you've obviously never seen the toilets in a mens public bathroom.
And you've obviously never been in a female public bathroom. In my career I've had to clean the public restrooms in a couple restraunts and stores. Both sides.
The female side was almost always dirtier than the mens room. Except for the occasional degenerate occasion, which the manager had to clean up one time because I refused. No, I didn't get fired. I was considered a 'great worker', mostly because I'd show up on time and would even work extra hours about half the time(when somebody else didn't show).
As for the rest of it, it sounds like you visit many more dives than I do. It's rare for me to encounter those conditions.
Still, much peeing upright is much faster and nicer as far as I'm concerned. Especially when I'm carrying a sidearm. That's a heavy weight on my belt, and I have to keep control of it while dropping my pants and sitting. Hooking the holser back up when I'm done takes time as well.
Nope, fifty-fifty as far as I could tell. Before I transfered into the honors program, the 'normal' math class had mostly men.
I was bored out of my mind. I'm a bit out of practice, but back then I could solve quadratic formulas in my head. Of course, there's not much call for it outside of school...
Knowing person X emailed person Y can also contain just about anything. As for the webpage - that can be very dynamic. For example, you won't know what accounts I have at my bank simply because I log in there. That'd take more research.
I'm kinda conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, this is an invasion of privacy, just like recording who I send mail to, even if they don't read the contents. On the other hand, I can understand how this would be a valuable tool in law enforcement for things like drug trafficking and terrorism.
I oppose the war on drugs, but I like seeing terrorists caught. If they confined the analysises to intelligence operations in the military sense, treating the 'war on terror' as a war, not a criminal matter, I'd be more ok with it.
Off-topic, but try buying a used car with a stick (in the USA) sometime, it ain't easy, even on trucks or sports cars.
As a dedicated stick buyer, I've been irked by this myself. I remember a conversation with one guy 'Oh yeah, everybody wants automatics'. Latter followed by 'Whenever we get a manual in it's gone the same day'.
I'm like - duh, there's obviously a pattern here - you guys are underestimating the demand for manuals. You could double the number of manuals sold real easy.
I mean, I have a cow-orker who drives a super duty f350 to work every morning, but considering he's a fucking software engineer, I don't think he's saving a lot on gas, diesel or no diesel.
My supervisor does that. She drives a huge diesel. Of course, she also hauls a trailor around pretty much every weekend(and not a small one, she has the mount in the bed). Me, I'm more in the market for a small diesel - either hatchback or light truck.
As for the diesel golf, that'd be 800 pounds, or ~1.6k in USD. Or around 35k miles given earlier figures. That'd be a two year payback on the engine using average milage, easily viable. It'd be even quicker for me, I'm on the highway all the time.
Something that people miss is that even if the copyright expires, that doesn't mean you still can't make money from it. You can still sell it even if it's in the public domain, some people are still willing to buy it anyway for whatever reasons and there is nothing wrong with that.
Just look at all the companies that publish bibles... The gutenberg press, Dover books.
Think of them as the media equivalent to the generic drug companies.
I can get Charles Dicken's books in either a $3 mass market type paperback or a leather bound edition.
The alternatives that I was considering were all more expensive. So it's nothing but a win for me.
I believe that you would have been able to find a non-diesel car cheaper than what you paid for the diesel golf. My further research suggests that the cost for a diesel engine in that range is ~$1000. Even cheaper than what I was considering. So you definitly win, having made the correct choice, assuming you drive enough to make it pay off(not hard). This also benefits you in that diesel vehicles keep more of their value over time.
By the way, the diesel VW golf has an unbelievable amount of carrying space. More than a Chevy Blazer and enough for two people to go scuba diving with 4 tanks and all their gear. Or camping for a weekend with room to spare.
I've never been impressed with the chevy blazer, but I'm also not content with my car's storage. Still, I just about own the thing outright, and it's going to be a year before they start selling small diesels again. In my case I'm shopping for an older diesel truck, with the intent of when I need the storage, I'll take that.
Note to self: try to remember to check spelling... I was working under a time limit, and my spelling has never been perfect.
And note the words "legitimate and substantial" -- without them, I could see the rights being maintained by simply making a plain DVD transfer (no special features, no tweaking of the video quality, just stick it on a disc) and send, say, a dozen copies to one store in Dubuque and then say "see, we're making an attempt to sell it, so don't take our rights away!"
Good point - and one I hadn't really thought about. I was thinking mail order, which would actually be cheaper and more likely to profit for the company, larger potential market, lower costs.
As for the plain DVD transfer - I was actually thinking they'd do something like one-off transfers to VHS. That'd be even easier for all the older analoge stuff. It's pretty easy to make a DVD, but still more effort than the VHS. If they wanted to, I'm sure they could be annoying and use Betamax.
So requiring it to be in a 'the original, or a widespread standard consumer format' would be a good idea. VHS would still count as widespread.
I made a third mistake - copyright law in the USA is currently life+70, not life+50.
Do you have a refrence about Tolkien's works being considered non-copyrighted in the USA for a while, as opposed to a liberal licensing agreement policy by him/his heirs with sloppy quality control?
I used Tolkien as an example of a popular, but slow writing auther. He took many years to produce his books*.
And where do you get the idea that I was on an anti-copyright rant?
Now, for the most part I'm not for limiting copyright to patent lengths, but this whole life+50 is way too much. The average residual value left on a publication after 50 years is tiny for the most part, and the ones that aren't could be considered valuable enough to need to be public domain. Think of the works of Charles Dickenson, for example.
IE Tolkien would enjoy the proceeds of his book until he died. If the work was less than 50 years old, his heirs would enjoy the fruits of his labor. Only after that would it go public domain.
I have nothing against the idea of copyright, just on how it's implimented under the mickey mouse act.
From reading Baen's letters, written before he died, it's indeed quite possible for even middling authers to keep selling books for in fairly significant quantities for fourteen years. By 'significant' I mean royalty payments larger than a $1000/year.
Trick is, they generally have to be interesting writers, and write books such as series that make people want more of his or her books.
Consider the Harry Potter series - Every time a new book comes out demand increases for the earlier books. There are book series out there that literally span 20 books, written over the same number of years. The first books in the series have been reprinted four to five times.
Think of an auther who isn't a rowling, but manages a living off of his writings. He's not a Tolkien, but produces a book, on average, once a year. He writes for 40 years, producing 40 books, maintaining a modest to good quality of life. He can now retire, as his backlist still produces ~$40k/year for him. Then again - he might still want to produce a new book every so often, just to increase interest in his earlier works again.
Now, for the most part I'm not for limiting copyright to patent lengths, but this whole life+50 is way too much. The average residual value left on a publication after 50 years is tiny for the most part, and the ones that aren't could be considered valuable enough to need to be public domain. Think of the works of Charles Dickenson, for example.
I'd be much happier with a flat life/flat 50(Whichever's longer). Or heck, have an 'availability clause'. If it's not available from the auther for a market standard price(within a standard deviation of newer publications?), the auther stands to loose his copyright*.
*If he's sold all rights to a publishing house, then it's the publishing house's loss.
I had a thought, there's a very good chance that he wasn't trading to a 'NEW' vehicle, especially given that there are very few new diesel cars being sold. It's very likely he bought a used one, in which case he might have made money trading in his newer used vehicle for it.
Also, diesel costs more than regular unleaded (as it should, since it has more potential energy per gallon).
Are you sure about that? It also requires less refining and processing than gasoline, after all. While you can mess around with the refining somewhat, it's not efficient to try to turn diesel into gasoline, so you're going to get a certain proportion of diesel anyways.
It's been cheaper here for at least a year now, though I don't regularly check the prices as I don't own a diesel.
It really depends, low optioned pickups can certainly sell for 15k less than a top of the line 'super-duty' pickup.
I know that, but it's the easiest way to be able to compare the price difference between a gasoline and diesel engine, at least for MSRP. It doesn't help that the 'super duty' pickups are the only ones where diesel is a standard option, at least here in the USA(*grumble*).
I find it unlikely that the car cost either $15k or $15k more than an equivalent gasoline car.
Assuming that the GP was in the market for a new vehicle anyways, the price difference for going to a diesel engine in a brand new super-heavy duty pickup instead of a gasoline one is $5-6k.
Going by the 5k difference, ~38k miles for payoff. I think that a diesel car's engine is closer to $3k, new, so that'd be a mere 22.6k miles.
Of course, if he traded in a 30mpg gasoline car for his 46mpg car, the figures change. It's fairly unlikely that he was driving a SUV before, especially if his wife has one. Then we're up to 71-118 thousand miles before he breaks even, assuming 3-5k price difference.
Still, annual driving averages are around 12k miles a year. So for the 3k figure, that'd be around 6 years for payoff. Still, he might substantially beat the average, in which case it'd make more sense.
I'd tend to say that that's because a plane can carry it's weight or more in fuel, depending upon design. A plane can only be so heavy and still take off, so specifying fuel by weight, along with the plane and cargo makes sense. So yes, it makes more sense to do it by weight, because then you're dealing with one figure, not having to worry about converting it.
Most of your other concerns would do just fine by volume measurements. SFC could be in gallons, it's just better to keep the measurements the same
It doesn't mean that when they sell you the gas that they're weighing it, it's probably still a flow sensor, with a display that assumes a certain volume weighs so much. Though it might have the sensor to make that adjustment.
Just an example using my car: 1 Mile@30mpg today, $3/gal*, ~$.10 10 Gallons fuel, save.30 cents, on a tank with the 'need gas' warning light on.
Personally, I'm a bit sceptical about the whole scheme - which is better, continue to pay the same price per gallon, or have the gas stations spend tens of thousands of dollars to 'fix' all their pumps, and jack up the price of gasoline per temperature-adjusted gallon to compensate? It sounds less like consumers are complaining than lawyers see a potential for money.
I'll stay away from any stations with above-ground tanks in the desert.
So you provide enough storage to perform the jump start, continually topped off by the generator.
I fail to see how it's a catch-22 any worse than the battery in a car: It provides the power to start the engine, yet has it's energy provided by the engine itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the correct phrase would be: the only [i]first world[/i] nation that has positive population growth.
There are various areas around the world that are going through their equivalent of the baby boom. Even so, I believe that there are other 'first world' countries that still have positive growth discounting immigration, but there aren't many.
On the vague hope that it will someday be profitable again for them, like when they release an oldies collection or whatever.
I'd make the fee double each renewal. The steamboat recording of mickymouse would be getting awfully expensive by now...
Ok HD-DVD has had the "shit cracked out of it". Sounds like a ripper's dream except I don't think you are going to get much content since all the movie companies will drop the HD-DVD format as their preferred distribution media since like it or not they want DRM. Basically this would be to Blu-ray's advantage.
Then spend your time convincing your friends and relatives to purchase HDDVD titles. Only. Use your geek-cred to convince them that blue-ray is messed up, to wait on it.
If blueray devices and movies sit on store shelves while cracked to heck HDDVD titles and equipment move, they'll notice and eventually give up and release stuff on HDDVD. Kinda like how music sales still continue on CD, and movie sales still continue on DVD. It's too much money otherwise.
Actually, the experience in the USA is more along the lines that with sufficient police forces, you can catch many of the criminals. With sufficient court systems and prison systems, you can keep them off the streets enough to make a very noticeable drop in crime rates.
Yes, it's expensive; but you have to ask yourself, is letting a lout like this one stay on the street saving you any money?
Then again, all the usual arguements about properly funding schools to prevent kids from being a criminal in the first place apply - but then again, Washington, DC has some of the most expensive public schools in the country in terms of money spent per pupil, yet consistantly has one of the worst crime rates in the developed world. You also have the problem that leaving the current criminals on the street can cost far more than locking them up.
I'll note that I'm a proponenet of punishment/correction reform. I'd love to see a way to get people to obey the law without long prison sentences that put them around other criminals(so they get more criminal skills), costs a lot of money and prevents them from being a productive member of society during that time(for the most part). Still, the whole cruel&unusual clause has been interprited to stop most alternative forms of punishment.
I also do not like the warehousing of addicts in prison - there's far better places to put them to dry out. In my mind the only criminals that need to be in prison are the ones that are physically dangerous to the rest of society or are otherwise determined to be detrimental. The murderers, rapists, batterers, and such. Combined with multiple offenders for the non-violent stuff.
This lag time can be hours
Pick the right vehicle and the delay could be days...
For example, taking plates from a airport long term parking lot.
That said, there is a precedent from which we can (at least partially) check to see if it is actually effective at its stated goals... does anyone know of (non-propagandized to either pro/con) stats to see how effective these critters are at reducing crime in London?
From everything I've read; crime is still an increasing problem in London; rates are increasing. While you're still more likely to be murdered in NYC, the odds of you being a victim in London of other crimes are far higher.
Everything I've read suggests a lack of manpower and resources to actually fight crime; sure, they may have video of an assault, but they lack the manpower to figure out which lout did it, find and arrest him. Even if they did find and convict him; the available space in prisons is insufficient to keep him.
Cameras can be a useful tool, but are worthless without the proper resources to make use of them.
Cops on the street are more effective than a guy monitoring some cameras. A camera isn't useful for much other than convicting the somebody AFTER they've committed their crime.
Heh, one thing I kept wondering: Is this delivered cost, to the station in orbit? That'd account for a lot of the cost.
As for cost, look at it like a 'keep the russian space industry employed, so they don't go selling stuff to the middle-east/china'. And I'm not just talking about crapper technology.
Regarding number one - you've obviously never seen the toilets in a mens public bathroom.
And you've obviously never been in a female public bathroom. In my career I've had to clean the public restrooms in a couple restraunts and stores. Both sides.
The female side was almost always dirtier than the mens room. Except for the occasional degenerate occasion, which the manager had to clean up one time because I refused. No, I didn't get fired. I was considered a 'great worker', mostly because I'd show up on time and would even work extra hours about half the time(when somebody else didn't show).
As for the rest of it, it sounds like you visit many more dives than I do. It's rare for me to encounter those conditions.
Still, much peeing upright is much faster and nicer as far as I'm concerned. Especially when I'm carrying a sidearm. That's a heavy weight on my belt, and I have to keep control of it while dropping my pants and sitting. Hooking the holser back up when I'm done takes time as well.
Nope, fifty-fifty as far as I could tell. Before I transfered into the honors program, the 'normal' math class had mostly men.
I was bored out of my mind. I'm a bit out of practice, but back then I could solve quadratic formulas in my head. Of course, there's not much call for it outside of school...
Uhhh... Duhhh?
An unused computer, even one without standby options set is likely to use less than 200 watts. 200*16=3200 or 3.2kWh. I rounded to the nearest kWh.
One with proper options set will use substantially less, maybe even less than 1 kWh over the course of a night.
People would save more money shutting off the incandescent table lamp than a computer with properly set power saving features.
Studies have shown it to be generally less than the 'lost productivity' from starting it up again in the morning.
2 minutes @$30/hour = $1, 3kw/h@$.10= 30 cents. 3kw/h is fairly high for a unused computer with proper power-management over the course of 16 hours.
Don't forget that it's also a convienent time for updates to be pushed so it doesn't interupt users.
Knowing person X emailed person Y can also contain just about anything. As for the webpage - that can be very dynamic. For example, you won't know what accounts I have at my bank simply because I log in there. That'd take more research.
I'm kinda conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, this is an invasion of privacy, just like recording who I send mail to, even if they don't read the contents. On the other hand, I can understand how this would be a valuable tool in law enforcement for things like drug trafficking and terrorism.
I oppose the war on drugs, but I like seeing terrorists caught. If they confined the analysises to intelligence operations in the military sense, treating the 'war on terror' as a war, not a criminal matter, I'd be more ok with it.
From my experience, it might mean less girls.
My last honors math class had 3 boys in it, out of twenty.
Off-topic, but try buying a used car with a stick (in the USA) sometime, it ain't easy, even on trucks or sports cars.
As a dedicated stick buyer, I've been irked by this myself. I remember a conversation with one guy 'Oh yeah, everybody wants automatics'. Latter followed by 'Whenever we get a manual in it's gone the same day'.
I'm like - duh, there's obviously a pattern here - you guys are underestimating the demand for manuals. You could double the number of manuals sold real easy.
I mean, I have a cow-orker who drives a super duty f350 to work every morning, but considering he's a fucking software engineer, I don't think he's saving a lot on gas, diesel or no diesel.
My supervisor does that. She drives a huge diesel. Of course, she also hauls a trailor around pretty much every weekend(and not a small one, she has the mount in the bed). Me, I'm more in the market for a small diesel - either hatchback or light truck.
As for the diesel golf, that'd be 800 pounds, or ~1.6k in USD. Or around 35k miles given earlier figures. That'd be a two year payback on the engine using average milage, easily viable. It'd be even quicker for me, I'm on the highway all the time.
Something that people miss is that even if the copyright expires, that doesn't mean you still can't make money from it. You can still sell it even if it's in the public domain, some people are still willing to buy it anyway for whatever reasons and there is nothing wrong with that.
Just look at all the companies that publish bibles... The gutenberg press, Dover books.
Think of them as the media equivalent to the generic drug companies.
I can get Charles Dicken's books in either a $3 mass market type paperback or a leather bound edition.
Except I was in the market for a new car.
Didn't I suggest just that?
The alternatives that I was considering were all more expensive. So it's nothing but a win for me.
I believe that you would have been able to find a non-diesel car cheaper than what you paid for the diesel golf. My further research suggests that the cost for a diesel engine in that range is ~$1000. Even cheaper than what I was considering. So you definitly win, having made the correct choice, assuming you drive enough to make it pay off(not hard). This also benefits you in that diesel vehicles keep more of their value over time.
By the way, the diesel VW golf has an unbelievable amount of carrying space. More than a Chevy Blazer and enough for two people to go scuba diving with 4 tanks and all their gear. Or camping for a weekend with room to spare.
I've never been impressed with the chevy blazer, but I'm also not content with my car's storage. Still, I just about own the thing outright, and it's going to be a year before they start selling small diesels again. In my case I'm shopping for an older diesel truck, with the intent of when I need the storage, I'll take that.
Note to self: try to remember to check spelling... I was working under a time limit, and my spelling has never been perfect.
And note the words "legitimate and substantial" -- without them, I could see the rights being maintained by simply making a plain DVD transfer (no special features, no tweaking of the video quality, just stick it on a disc) and send, say, a dozen copies to one store in Dubuque and then say "see, we're making an attempt to sell it, so don't take our rights away!"
Good point - and one I hadn't really thought about. I was thinking mail order, which would actually be cheaper and more likely to profit for the company, larger potential market, lower costs.
As for the plain DVD transfer - I was actually thinking they'd do something like one-off transfers to VHS. That'd be even easier for all the older analoge stuff. It's pretty easy to make a DVD, but still more effort than the VHS. If they wanted to, I'm sure they could be annoying and use Betamax.
So requiring it to be in a 'the original, or a widespread standard consumer format' would be a good idea. VHS would still count as widespread.
I made a third mistake - copyright law in the USA is currently life+70, not life+50.
Do you have a refrence about Tolkien's works being considered non-copyrighted in the USA for a while, as opposed to a liberal licensing agreement policy by him/his heirs with sloppy quality control?
I used Tolkien as an example of a popular, but slow writing auther. He took many years to produce his books*.
And where do you get the idea that I was on an anti-copyright rant?
Now, for the most part I'm not for limiting copyright to patent lengths, but this whole life+50 is way too much. The average residual value left on a publication after 50 years is tiny for the most part, and the ones that aren't could be considered valuable enough to need to be public domain. Think of the works of Charles Dickenson, for example.
IE Tolkien would enjoy the proceeds of his book until he died. If the work was less than 50 years old, his heirs would enjoy the fruits of his labor. Only after that would it go public domain.
I have nothing against the idea of copyright, just on how it's implimented under the mickey mouse act.
*I'm working from memory here
From reading Baen's letters, written before he died, it's indeed quite possible for even middling authers to keep selling books for in fairly significant quantities for fourteen years. By 'significant' I mean royalty payments larger than a $1000/year.
Trick is, they generally have to be interesting writers, and write books such as series that make people want more of his or her books.
Consider the Harry Potter series - Every time a new book comes out demand increases for the earlier books. There are book series out there that literally span 20 books, written over the same number of years. The first books in the series have been reprinted four to five times.
Think of an auther who isn't a rowling, but manages a living off of his writings. He's not a Tolkien, but produces a book, on average, once a year. He writes for 40 years, producing 40 books, maintaining a modest to good quality of life. He can now retire, as his backlist still produces ~$40k/year for him. Then again - he might still want to produce a new book every so often, just to increase interest in his earlier works again.
Now, for the most part I'm not for limiting copyright to patent lengths, but this whole life+50 is way too much. The average residual value left on a publication after 50 years is tiny for the most part, and the ones that aren't could be considered valuable enough to need to be public domain. Think of the works of Charles Dickenson, for example.
I'd be much happier with a flat life/flat 50(Whichever's longer). Or heck, have an 'availability clause'. If it's not available from the auther for a market standard price(within a standard deviation of newer publications?), the auther stands to loose his copyright*.
*If he's sold all rights to a publishing house, then it's the publishing house's loss.
I had a thought, there's a very good chance that he wasn't trading to a 'NEW' vehicle, especially given that there are very few new diesel cars being sold. It's very likely he bought a used one, in which case he might have made money trading in his newer used vehicle for it.
If he managed a private sale, even better.
Also, diesel costs more than regular unleaded (as it should, since it has more potential energy per gallon).
Are you sure about that? It also requires less refining and processing than gasoline, after all. While you can mess around with the refining somewhat, it's not efficient to try to turn diesel into gasoline, so you're going to get a certain proportion of diesel anyways.
It's been cheaper here for at least a year now, though I don't regularly check the prices as I don't own a diesel.
It really depends, low optioned pickups can certainly sell for 15k less than a top of the line 'super-duty' pickup.
I know that, but it's the easiest way to be able to compare the price difference between a gasoline and diesel engine, at least for MSRP. It doesn't help that the 'super duty' pickups are the only ones where diesel is a standard option, at least here in the USA(*grumble*).
I find it unlikely that the car cost either $15k or $15k more than an equivalent gasoline car.
Assuming that the GP was in the market for a new vehicle anyways, the price difference for going to a diesel engine in a brand new super-heavy duty pickup instead of a gasoline one is $5-6k.
Going by the 5k difference, ~38k miles for payoff.
I think that a diesel car's engine is closer to $3k, new, so that'd be a mere 22.6k miles.
Of course, if he traded in a 30mpg gasoline car for his 46mpg car, the figures change. It's fairly unlikely that he was driving a SUV before, especially if his wife has one. Then we're up to 71-118 thousand miles before he breaks even, assuming 3-5k price difference.
Still, annual driving averages are around 12k miles a year. So for the 3k figure, that'd be around 6 years for payoff. Still, he might substantially beat the average, in which case it'd make more sense.
I'd tend to say that that's because a plane can carry it's weight or more in fuel, depending upon design. A plane can only be so heavy and still take off, so specifying fuel by weight, along with the plane and cargo makes sense. So yes, it makes more sense to do it by weight, because then you're dealing with one figure, not having to worry about converting it.
Most of your other concerns would do just fine by volume measurements. SFC could be in gallons, it's just better to keep the measurements the same
It doesn't mean that when they sell you the gas that they're weighing it, it's probably still a flow sensor, with a display that assumes a certain volume weighs so much. Though it might have the sensor to make that adjustment.
How far do you go to get there?
.30 cents, on a tank with the 'need gas' warning light on.
Just an example using my car:
1 Mile@30mpg today, $3/gal*, ~$.10
10 Gallons fuel, save
Personally, I'm a bit sceptical about the whole scheme - which is better, continue to pay the same price per gallon, or have the gas stations spend tens of thousands of dollars to 'fix' all their pumps, and jack up the price of gasoline per temperature-adjusted gallon to compensate? It sounds less like consumers are complaining than lawyers see a potential for money.
I'll stay away from any stations with above-ground tanks in the desert.
*Current price I'm paying
So you provide enough storage to perform the jump start, continually topped off by the generator.
I fail to see how it's a catch-22 any worse than the battery in a car: It provides the power to start the engine, yet has it's energy provided by the engine itself.