Reminds me of that old (possibly apocryphal) Twain quote: Don't try to teach a pig to sing - it'll waste your time and annoy the pig.
Ham has his view, and no amount of actual data will change that. Heck, even the old Earth creationists think the guy's fundamentally dishonest.
The USPS _can't_ send a letter from Florida to Alaska for 46 cents (49 cents as of 1/24/13). It is able to because it CAN send a letter from Midtown Manhattan to Lower Manhattan for a lot LESS than 46 cents. It's a cross-subsidy, made possible because the USPS has a monopoly on First Class mail. I think that it's a GOOD cross-subsidy (from a public policy perspective), but let's not pretend that it's a comment on USPS's efficiency or lack thereof.
And the payments would be progressive (more paid by the rich, less or nothing paid by the poor).
Well, thats all well and good, however, in the US the rich don't pay taxes. So more paid by whats left of the middle class, the poor go to prison.
That's just not true. You can argue that the rich don't pay _enough_ in taxes, but they certainly pay taxes, and the bulk of taxes.
"The progressivity of the federal tax system means that high-income taxpayers bear a high share of taxes. In 2012, the top quintile of the income distribution received 52.5 percent of income and paid 68.3 percent of federal taxes."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/currentdistribution.cfm
"All of the hospitals in town realistically have to deal with the insurer and accept their conditions (we're not going to discuss the implications of that right now - it is a very common situation in the US)."
Actually, it's typically the other way around - most markets are dominated by one or two hospital groups, and the insurers have no choice but to deal with them. Try, for example, getting anyone in Boston to buy an insurance plan that doesn't have Partners (Mass Gen and Brigham and Women's, along with a bunch of others) in-network.
We'd be much better off if insurers DID have more market power (as the largest insurer, Medicare, does).
As I noted above, even if 100% of them went into the trash, and 100% of the mercury from those in the trash leaked out, then amount released into the environment would still be less than the amount released from using incandescents.
The fact that both of these companies have CEOs that would like to keep their jobs would suffice. Any CEO that would try to exit a country of size and importance of Brazil in the name of "not following local laws" where local laws are about protecting locals from spying will be gone next day.
That goes even for Google. This isn't "we're protecting users (actually protecting our source code from being stolen)".
1. Brazil's around 3% of global GDP. Important, yes. Absolutely vital, no.
2. Gone the next day? That's funny. Have you looked at Google's ownership structure lately? Brin and Page control a majority of the vote by themselves. Keep them happy, and it doesn't matter what any other shareholder thinks.
Never seen those, I was talking about the crosswalk ones. They're certainly large enough to be read well before you get to the intersection. Remember, speed limit in NYC is 30mph except on the highways, so you shouldn't need to be that far away.
It's entirely possible for RLC's to be set up to improve safety - unfortunately, they often aren't. The goal should be to set up the lights in such a way to maximize safety (i.e. longer yellow, 1-2 second lag between red on one side and green on the other), and have the cameras there to deter people from acting unsafely (i.e. running red lights).
I hear you! It's no surprise that the people really moving to LED rapidly are commercial users. Their lights are on a lot longer per day, they have to pay actual $ to get people to change incandescents when the burn out, and they're motivated (and equipped) to do the detailed math.
It amazes me that people who would never fall for the "really cheap" printer with really expensive ink will, at the same time, fall for the "really cheap" incandescent bulbs with the really expensive power.
Payback period on LEDs is a bit over 2 years (if used 3 hours/day), even assuming that the incandescent bulbs are free. The Cree LEDs have 10 year warranties.
You're seriously basing your claim that LED costs more based on an article which uses a $119.99 price for an LED bulb??? That article is more than four years old at this point. You can get a 60W equivalent at any Home Depot for $13 or less. Plug that number in, and you're looking at $37.50 for LED vs $188 for incandescent, or about 1/5 the cost.
The mercury "issue" is a complete red herring. Using incandescents requires more power. A large chunk of that power comes from coal. Burning coal releases mercury - a lot MORE mercury than would be released if EVERY burned out CFL were just tossed into a landfill.
How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL?
About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).
Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864
They make economic sense today. What other investment can you make which will pay you your entire investment back in a bit over two years, generating pure profit for at least the next 7-8 years?
The math is pretty straightforward. A Cree 60W equivalent bulb costs $13, and uses 9.5 watts. With an average electric price of $0.10/kWh in the US at the moment, the breakeven point is about 2600 hours of usage, or about 2.4 years, used three hours a day, EVEN IF THE INCANDESCENT BULBS ARE FREE. This doesn't even take into account that you'll need to replace that incandescent 2-3x over that time period. The Cree bulbs have a 10 year warranty, although they should last more like 20. Even if it's only 10, you'll be looking at a total cost (bulb and power) of about $23 over 10 years with the LED ($13 for the bulb, $10 for power), vs. about $66 for the incandescent, even if the incandescents are free.
People are really terrible about assessing TCO. Look at cellphones, people obsess over getting an iPhone 5S or 5C (I could save $100!), when the upfront phone price is ~5% of the total cost of a two-year contract.
Same with lightbulbs - the return on the higher incremental investment is huge, but people don't look at it that way.
The math is pretty straightforward. A Cree 60W equivalent bulb costs $13, and uses 9.5 watts. With an average electric price of $0.10/kWh in the US at the moment, the breakeven point is about 2600 hours of usage, or about 2.4 years, used three hours a day, EVEN IF THE INCANDESCENT BULBS ARE FREE. This doesn't even take into account that you'll need to replace that incandescent 2-3x over that time period. The Cree bulbs have a 10 year warranty, although they should last more like 20. Even if it's only 10, you'll be looking at a total cost (bulb and power) of about $23 over 10 years with the LED ($13 for the bulb, $10 for power), vs. about $66 for the incandescent, even if the incandescents are free.
If they are, can't they use the poles under FCC reg? If not, why are they not considered a cable company or telco? Is it because they don't want to follow some regulation that would be required if they have that status?
Pretty much, yes. Good description in the link below. Essentially, Google is an information service provider, regulated under Title 1 of the Telecom Act of 1996. If it were willing to be regulated under Title 2, as a telecom service provider, then it would qualify for pole attachment access guarantees. I fully agree that the language in the 1996 Telecom Act regarding pole access should be broadened to cover Google, but it seems that AT&T has a pretty decent case that it doesn't cover Google, as written.
http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-for-ftth-providers
Subscription TV is delivered by satellite in virtually all areas of Australia, save for small sections of urban Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Far more cost effective for such a big and sparsely settled continent. So the cable footprint would be lucky to cover 5 or 10% of the population.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of that old (possibly apocryphal) Twain quote: Don't try to teach a pig to sing - it'll waste your time and annoy the pig. Ham has his view, and no amount of actual data will change that. Heck, even the old Earth creationists think the guy's fundamentally dishonest.
That Japanese phone you mentioned at 150Mbps symmetrical - what carrier is that? Docomo, which is 82% privately-held? Softbank, 100% private?
The USPS _can't_ send a letter from Florida to Alaska for 46 cents (49 cents as of 1/24/13). It is able to because it CAN send a letter from Midtown Manhattan to Lower Manhattan for a lot LESS than 46 cents. It's a cross-subsidy, made possible because the USPS has a monopoly on First Class mail. I think that it's a GOOD cross-subsidy (from a public policy perspective), but let's not pretend that it's a comment on USPS's efficiency or lack thereof.
And the payments would be progressive (more paid by the rich, less or nothing paid by the poor).
Well, thats all well and good, however, in the US the rich don't pay taxes. So more paid by whats left of the middle class, the poor go to prison.
That's just not true. You can argue that the rich don't pay _enough_ in taxes, but they certainly pay taxes, and the bulk of taxes. "The progressivity of the federal tax system means that high-income taxpayers bear a high share of taxes. In 2012, the top quintile of the income distribution received 52.5 percent of income and paid 68.3 percent of federal taxes." http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/currentdistribution.cfm
"All of the hospitals in town realistically have to deal with the insurer and accept their conditions (we're not going to discuss the implications of that right now - it is a very common situation in the US)." Actually, it's typically the other way around - most markets are dominated by one or two hospital groups, and the insurers have no choice but to deal with them. Try, for example, getting anyone in Boston to buy an insurance plan that doesn't have Partners (Mass Gen and Brigham and Women's, along with a bunch of others) in-network. We'd be much better off if insurers DID have more market power (as the largest insurer, Medicare, does).
As I noted above, even if 100% of them went into the trash, and 100% of the mercury from those in the trash leaked out, then amount released into the environment would still be less than the amount released from using incandescents.
The fact that both of these companies have CEOs that would like to keep their jobs would suffice. Any CEO that would try to exit a country of size and importance of Brazil in the name of "not following local laws" where local laws are about protecting locals from spying will be gone next day.
That goes even for Google. This isn't "we're protecting users (actually protecting our source code from being stolen)".
1. Brazil's around 3% of global GDP. Important, yes. Absolutely vital, no.
2. Gone the next day? That's funny. Have you looked at Google's ownership structure lately? Brin and Page control a majority of the vote by themselves. Keep them happy, and it doesn't matter what any other shareholder thinks.
Never seen those, I was talking about the crosswalk ones. They're certainly large enough to be read well before you get to the intersection. Remember, speed limit in NYC is 30mph except on the highways, so you shouldn't need to be that far away.
The countdown timers are pretty widespread by now in NYC, at least in Manhattan, and they're great, for both drivers and pedestrians.
It's entirely possible for RLC's to be set up to improve safety - unfortunately, they often aren't. The goal should be to set up the lights in such a way to maximize safety (i.e. longer yellow, 1-2 second lag between red on one side and green on the other), and have the cameras there to deter people from acting unsafely (i.e. running red lights).
I hear you! It's no surprise that the people really moving to LED rapidly are commercial users. Their lights are on a lot longer per day, they have to pay actual $ to get people to change incandescents when the burn out, and they're motivated (and equipped) to do the detailed math.
It amazes me that people who would never fall for the "really cheap" printer with really expensive ink will, at the same time, fall for the "really cheap" incandescent bulbs with the really expensive power.
Payback period on LEDs is a bit over 2 years (if used 3 hours/day), even assuming that the incandescent bulbs are free. The Cree LEDs have 10 year warranties.
You're seriously basing your claim that LED costs more based on an article which uses a $119.99 price for an LED bulb??? That article is more than four years old at this point. You can get a 60W equivalent at any Home Depot for $13 or less. Plug that number in, and you're looking at $37.50 for LED vs $188 for incandescent, or about 1/5 the cost.
The mercury "issue" is a complete red herring. Using incandescents requires more power. A large chunk of that power comes from coal. Burning coal releases mercury - a lot MORE mercury than would be released if EVERY burned out CFL were just tossed into a landfill. How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL? About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled). Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime. http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864
The Cree bulbs have a 10 year warranty. There goes your concern about mortality.
They make economic sense today. What other investment can you make which will pay you your entire investment back in a bit over two years, generating pure profit for at least the next 7-8 years? The math is pretty straightforward. A Cree 60W equivalent bulb costs $13, and uses 9.5 watts. With an average electric price of $0.10/kWh in the US at the moment, the breakeven point is about 2600 hours of usage, or about 2.4 years, used three hours a day, EVEN IF THE INCANDESCENT BULBS ARE FREE. This doesn't even take into account that you'll need to replace that incandescent 2-3x over that time period. The Cree bulbs have a 10 year warranty, although they should last more like 20. Even if it's only 10, you'll be looking at a total cost (bulb and power) of about $23 over 10 years with the LED ($13 for the bulb, $10 for power), vs. about $66 for the incandescent, even if the incandescents are free.
People are really terrible about assessing TCO. Look at cellphones, people obsess over getting an iPhone 5S or 5C (I could save $100!), when the upfront phone price is ~5% of the total cost of a two-year contract. Same with lightbulbs - the return on the higher incremental investment is huge, but people don't look at it that way.
The math is pretty straightforward. A Cree 60W equivalent bulb costs $13, and uses 9.5 watts. With an average electric price of $0.10/kWh in the US at the moment, the breakeven point is about 2600 hours of usage, or about 2.4 years, used three hours a day, EVEN IF THE INCANDESCENT BULBS ARE FREE. This doesn't even take into account that you'll need to replace that incandescent 2-3x over that time period. The Cree bulbs have a 10 year warranty, although they should last more like 20. Even if it's only 10, you'll be looking at a total cost (bulb and power) of about $23 over 10 years with the LED ($13 for the bulb, $10 for power), vs. about $66 for the incandescent, even if the incandescents are free.
Agreed. It really works very well, and it has minimal performance impact (certainly compared to AVG, and definitely vs dogs like Norton or McAfee).
That would be "Her Majesty's Pound Me in the Arse Prison."
Substantially more expensive = Roughly 10x.
If they are, can't they use the poles under FCC reg? If not, why are they not considered a cable company or telco? Is it because they don't want to follow some regulation that would be required if they have that status?
Pretty much, yes. Good description in the link below. Essentially, Google is an information service provider, regulated under Title 1 of the Telecom Act of 1996. If it were willing to be regulated under Title 2, as a telecom service provider, then it would qualify for pole attachment access guarantees. I fully agree that the language in the 1996 Telecom Act regarding pole access should be broadened to cover Google, but it seems that AT&T has a pretty decent case that it doesn't cover Google, as written. http://www.kandutsch.com/articles/access-to-utility-poles-for-ftth-providers
1. Interesting point. Makes sense to me. 2. Should HAVE! Should HAVE! Should HAVE!
Subscription TV is delivered by satellite in virtually all areas of Australia, save for small sections of urban Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Far more cost effective for such a big and sparsely settled continent. So the cable footprint would be lucky to cover 5 or 10% of the population.
It's actually about 28% of the population. http://delimiter.com.au/2013/02/15/turnbull-confirms-hfc-areas-last-to-get-fttn-if-at-all/