Because fuel cells are expensive to build and maintain. It wouldn't scale to the size of power plant
I was not suggesting, we use the fuel cells on the power stations. I asked, why can't we use the same technology, that Honda developed to (re-)charge the fuel cells, to generate general-purpose electricity.
You only get to use about 25% of what the power stations generate. The rest goes to heating up power lines, transformers and whatnot.
25%? Is it really so bad? Is natural gas delivery less lossy? Should we start thinking about running natural gas-powered generators at home?
Many homes are already heated by natural gas, why can't they also be powered by it?
If there is significant "excess heat", then the power companies aren't efficient, are they? Does this mean, we should be running our own generators -- powered by the (efficiently delivered) natural gas?
Aren't the power stations supposed to be much cleaner and more efficient at producing electricity? If Honda has some new uber-efficient method for turning natural gas into current, why not use it at the power stations?
In the government anyway. There is still National Peanut Board, for example. Ever since there was actually hunger in America and peanuts were considered an important staple.
Likewise, there is still rent-control in New York City -- introduced as a temporary measure during World War II (to protect the families of the soldiers from "greedy landlords", you see).
Only for some of the drivers, which nobody got around to modifying yet. Most of the things are outside the "Giant" already. 6.0-release is imminent. Try it...
you can't reason with someone who thinks that cryptic billing (fooling the consumer intentionally) is ok.
A strawman. I don't think, "cryptic billing" it is Ok, but I don't think, there should be a law against it either. And "fooling the customer intentionally" is, of course, not the same as "cryptic billing". Far from it. False advertising, for example, should be illegal.
the consumer should know what he is buying and for what price - that is the basis for healthy competition to exist.
That's correct. And the free market provides all incentives to make the bills as easy to read as possible. Just to save on the phone-support calls, if nothing else.
Anyway, the government's way of making documents "easy to understand" is the "Paperwork Reduction Act". Are your tax-forms easy to understand and fill out -- assuming, you file anything other than the 1040-EZ? Khmm?.. I'd prefer "decyphering" a phone bill to reading a tax form any day...
Well, by this theory the people can -- Democratically -- vote to execute someone on the spot and without trial. Athens -- the history's first Democracy -- used to do such things.
[...] I would guess the representitives could, thought it would be a PITA and need a constitutional amendment.
And I really don't see much wrong with this idea [...]
Now, I guess you meant to say, that people voting for a certain way a private company must do business is different from people voting to execute someone.
It is different alright, but it simply takes to the extreme your suggestion, that "the people" (the majority) can do whatever they vote for.
My point is, the companies exist not to provide goods or services to "the people" (which would've made them subject to people's regulation), but simply and utterly because individuals are free to pursue happiness in any way they please (subject to boundaries imposed by other individuals' pursuits, of course). Corporations exist not because that is the most efficient form of running an economy, but because their owners rights to create and run them are as inalienable as those explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights.
Wireless companies' entire business is predicated on their access to a public asset, spectrum, which is finite and is licensed (in the US) by the federal government.
Theoretically, the spectrum is even less limited than air. If some wiz comes up with an idea of Federal Government licensing air consumption -- to everyone, of course, but under certain obligations you see, we will all owe something... In fact, the "brilliant" idea, that driving is a privilege and not a right is just an example.
Practically, if it is the Feds doing the licensing, what the heck is Massachusetts doing harassing the licensees?
Well, in this case (theoretically) the people went to their own damn government to have it represent them.
Well, by this theory the people can -- Democratically -- vote to execute someone on the spot and without trial. Athens -- the history's first Democracy -- used to do such things.
They can't now, of course. Individual's freedoms trump those of "the people".
Cell-phone companies are also privately owned and anything they do (or don't do) is between them and their subscribers.
Yes, I do derive corporations' rights from those of their owners (stockholders).
But arguing about dead zones and refusing to offer bills consumers can understand? What could the possible justification there be?
That's a wrong question. They should not be forced to justify anything. If you don't like them, you can live without a cell phone.
There is no physiological addiction to the phones, nor are these companies government entities. They don't owe you anything.
If they don't care to fix "dead zones" and want to send out "cryptic" billing statements (I never had a problem with mine, though), then so be it. The competition is healthy -- either the consumers will switch in droves, or these are not really problems.
Now, the requirement to allow the phone-number transfer was a good thing, because there was no incentive for a single one company to offer that, if all competitors did not. Better coverage and easier to read statements are quite different.
people who may be threatened or pressured if they exposed who they are to state their opinion.
The threats and the pressure would be unconstitutional, would not it?
True freedom, baby.
What about that famous example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That speach is not protected and some pressure on the perpetrator and the threats to prevent it are welcome, aren't they?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it guarantee anonymity?
I don't even disagree with the court's decision here, but their reasoning -- appealing to the 1st Ammendment -- seems wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If there is significant "excess heat", then the power companies aren't efficient, are they? Does this mean, we should be running our own generators -- powered by the (efficiently delivered) natural gas?
Aren't the power stations supposed to be much cleaner and more efficient at producing electricity? If Honda has some new uber-efficient method for turning natural gas into current, why not use it at the power stations?
Likewise, there is still rent-control in New York City -- introduced as a temporary measure during World War II (to protect the families of the soldiers from "greedy landlords", you see).
The Spanish War took place more than a century ago, but we are still paying the tax introduced to finance it.
Relevant my behind... FCC will stay with us for the forever, especially with its newfound purpose of censoring profanity et al.
Opening all windows and doors during winter to freeze cockroaches to death was a common way to rid the whole house of these pests...
...underestimating the taste of the British public?
Only for some of the drivers, which nobody got around to modifying yet. Most of the things are outside the "Giant" already. 6.0-release is imminent. Try it...
may bounce
The Scientists are mostly long gone. Time for the Engineers to move on too. Biotech? Nanotechnology?
Until you reach Middle Earth!
Ran out of cheese again... They'll be back and restore everything.
Going to Autralia, New Zealand, and East Asia (from US) may finally become acceptably comfortable.
Anyway, the government's way of making documents "easy to understand" is the "Paperwork Reduction Act". Are your tax-forms easy to understand and fill out -- assuming, you file anything other than the 1040-EZ? Khmm?.. I'd prefer "decyphering" a phone bill to reading a tax form any day...
Now, I guess you meant to say, that people voting for a certain way a private company must do business is different from people voting to execute someone.
It is different alright, but it simply takes to the extreme your suggestion, that "the people" (the majority) can do whatever they vote for.
My point is, the companies exist not to provide goods or services to "the people" (which would've made them subject to people's regulation), but simply and utterly because individuals are free to pursue happiness in any way they please (subject to boundaries imposed by other individuals' pursuits, of course). Corporations exist not because that is the most efficient form of running an economy, but because their owners rights to create and run them are as inalienable as those explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights.
Is this too Libertarian?
Nice... Ancient Athens -- at the time of Socrates' death -- would be a perfect home for you...
Practically, if it is the Feds doing the licensing, what the heck is Massachusetts doing harassing the licensees?
They can't now, of course. Individual's freedoms trump those of "the people".
Cell-phone companies are also privately owned and anything they do (or don't do) is between them and their subscribers.
Yes, I do derive corporations' rights from those of their owners (stockholders).
Must all web-sites support Lynx, for example? It'd be great if there did, but legally (i.e. at gun-point) forcing them too? I don't think so...
There is no physiological addiction to the phones, nor are these companies government entities. They don't owe you anything.
If they don't care to fix "dead zones" and want to send out "cryptic" billing statements (I never had a problem with mine, though), then so be it. The competition is healthy -- either the consumers will switch in droves, or these are not really problems.
Now, the requirement to allow the phone-number transfer was a good thing, because there was no incentive for a single one company to offer that, if all competitors did not. Better coverage and easier to read statements are quite different.
And I've never seen malloc/calloc/free anywhere among the top time-consuming functions...
Maybe, Java's allocation/deallocation is even faster, of course.
What about that famous example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That speach is not protected and some pressure on the perpetrator and the threats to prevent it are welcome, aren't they?
I don't even disagree with the court's decision here, but their reasoning -- appealing to the 1st Ammendment -- seems wrong.