The problem is, what stops you, as a scalper, from buying out every ticket you possibly can through whatever means necessary, and then jack the prices up?
I'll tell you what. It's called The Market.
If you buy too many tickets, you won't be able to sell them. You might not make money, and you might even lose money. If you you want to accept this transfer of risk, go ahead.
3) make up a miracle new technology. Good luck on that one.
Your miracle new technology is ready. (You're welcome, and thanks for the luck.)
It's called the AC induction motor, and it uses no permanent magnets--only copper and/or iron and/or aluminum. A fine example was in GM's EV-1 in the 1990s, and its descendants live on at AC Propulsion, and, consequently, Tesla Motors. Permanent magnet motors are likely to retain slightly higher efficiency, but the difference in cost of the construction materials will allow the market to take care of the rare earth "problem".
Add some code to phone company messaging servers that disables sending and receiving of text messages while the mobile phone is in motion.
Earth to the American guy, Earth to the American guy: Here in the rest of the world we sometimes carry passengers in our automobiles, and sometimes we even send text messages while riding on public transit.
Sense vehicular motion (including vibration) and shut down the texting function while in motion.
Ah, thanks for representing the typical American perspective.:) The rest of us might actually have passengers in our vehicles, or be using public transportation.
The fine should be $1,500 - no exceptions - and 150 hours of community service.
Agree completely, especially about the community service.
Fines work better in a homogeneous society, but here in the states fines punish people differently depending on their economic status. $1500 could be several months' pay for someone working part time at minimum wage, but if you're David Letterman $1500 wouldn't even cover your cigar habit for six hours.
No it wouldn't. A 9% tax on ~$1.1 million would break even in one year. I have a sneaking suspicion those guys make more than $1.1 million in a year, and they will probably do so for more than one year.
All I want is a camera on the front of the plane, pointing straight forward, with the view on my screen. Add a few more cameras so I can pan around, look straight down, etc., and I'm way more than happy.
Transparent planes? You've got to be kidding me. It's like they got the engineers together to design the most outrageously complicated solution without thinking to hard about the problem in the first place. They could get 95% of the results for much less cost using technology available today.
Since you asked for that exclusion, I'd say "backyard" is any land with a dwelling that has space devoted to non-farm and non-ranch purposes that (1) can see the plant or (2) can be directly affected by malfunction, misoperation, or malicious activity at the plant in such a manner as health or wealth (e.g. property value) could be negatively impacted for a significant period of time due to such an event.
You're (purposefully?) defining the equation without evaluating relative risk -- above, you define any risk whatsoever as a disqualifier. It's not helpful to treat these subjects with a binary black/white filter, but whether that's your criteria or not, coal-fired generation fails rational analysis. (See below.)
I can't figure out where you're coming from, since you're the guy who claimed you live near a giant paper plant and a coal-fired generation plant, and that it didn't bother you.
I would say that (2) would include being above an aquifer that the plant is also above, being within the exposure area of a theoretical nuclear accident, any increase in background radiation, etc.
Any increase? I think you're confusing the parent's nuclear plants with coal plants, the latter of which emit radioactive material and heavy metals every hour of every day of every year, with 100% certainty.
Besides interstates are ALL designed for 120 mph travel per Congressional law, other than a few close=in spurs (like I-495).
I'm going to need a citation on that. There may be parts of the system that would be safe at that speed, but those would be exceptional.
It is illogical to badge a high-speed road at only half its designed speed.
So why don't you petition to get that changed, instead of breaking the law and then whining when you get caught? It sounds like most of society actually likes having speed limits.
Speed limits on US interstates should be the same as they are on Germany's autobahn, which is what Eisenhower was copying when he brought the idea back home.
You cannot possibly have driven on the modern autobahn if you are seriously making that claim. The US interstate highways are lame by comparison, in terms of road surface quality, lane marking, signaling, etc., and despite this only a minority of the autobahn network would permit speeds of 120 MPH.
Eisenhower was trying to clone the autobahn, but it was primarily to enable military mobilization, not to facilite 200 km/h personal transportation, and it is a shame he didn't notice Germany's excellent rail network, which was much more effective at moving war goods than the autobahn was.
The point of "speed traps" is that you can be going the speed limit one moment, and they set up a situation where you can't POSSIBLY - at least not without risking a serious wreck - slow down to the new limit in time, or else you're on a road switch and the new limit is posted "down the road."
I ran out of mod points before I could mod this funny. So that's "the point of speed traps", huh?
I've measured yellow times as short as 1.75 seconds in my area on a 40mph road.
So why didn't you report them? Yellow light timing is a complicated subject, but there is generally no excuse for durations under 3.0 seconds.
You still aren't answering the question. Are you willing to locate a solar plant in your own back yard?
Yes, a thousand times yes. In fact, I *do* have on site solar production that provides nearly all of the energy we use for cooking, heating, cooling, domestic water heating, and transportation. Electric vehicle ownership is strongly correlated with photovoltaic installations, and the utility of photovoltaics isn't somehow negated simply because people choose not to live in industrial areas.
If you stopped production of any modern vehicle at a few thousand units, you'd end up with similar costs.
That explains the fully-amortized cost (and I agree with your conclusion) but doesn't evade the fact that even the variable cost on the EV1 was not within a factor of 3 of what the market would bear.
I work for the guy who designed the EV1's power electronics, so please believe me when I say I'm very pro-EV. I just want to make sure we support our case with unassailable logic, because the evidence really does support electrics.
We expect the government to incentivize the production of more efficient forms of transportation that are sustainable. This is no different than suggesting that the government invest in roads and railways. Transportation infrastructure is one the pillars of industrialized society.
I agree 100%. The first steps should be to remove some of the staggering incentives already in place that favor oil. Tax deductions for SUVs of 6000 pounds for "business purposes" is an obvious easy example.
Government isn't directly in the vehicle business, and I believe the best incentives would be for efficiency, rather than for specific technologies. The status quo provides significant tax incentives for fuel cells and other technologies that will never be affordable, practical, or necessary.
There is nothing more desirable for me than to one day own a home or apartment that gathers all the energy I need -- even for transportation -- from the sunlight that falls on it.
I'm doing it today, so I'm sure your day will come, too. It's worth it.
So you are saying electric cars don't foul up the air or ecosystem?
No, I'm saying they foul the air less than gasoline cars, a fact which is supported by mountains of evidence. Are you claiming that electrics are as bad or worse? (If so, the evidence is not on your side.)
Just where do you think electricity comes from?
No need to speculate--mine comes almost entirely from solar power, and I know exactly what the energy mix is in my state. While I don't know yours, I can tell you that even the *average* mix in the US is about half as dirty as gasoline (when used as a transportation fuel), even before you account for indirect effects like wars to subsidize the latter. At night, when most of the EV charging occurs, the energy mix is even cleaner, thanks to nuclear base load generation.
Oh wait... it won't foul up *your* air or *your* ecosystem, just the guy who has to live next to one of the power plants that generates the electricity to run your car....
I can't tell if you're trolling or if you actually believe that, but we all share the same air, which should have been the first clue that you misunderstood what I wrote. Power plants don't have to pollute, but even the worst (coal) are (marginally) cleaner than using gasoline for transportation. Nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal are orders of magnitude cleaner.
The red herring offered consistently is, why wouldn't GM want to lead the way in electric car development?
Agreed with most of your points. The other elephant in the room that the pro-EV movement never owns up to is that the EV1 had a variable cost of over $100,000, and a fully-amortized cost of nearly $1 million per car.
Was it a stupid PR move for GM to take the cars back and crush them? Absolutely, but I can completely sympathize with GM for not wanting to build cars that cost roughly 3x what the market was willing to pay.
Electrics (and to a lesser extent, hybrids) do cost more, and when talking to an EV advocate, it's never really clear if they expect the car companies to lose money on the sales, or if they expect government subsidies to make up for the difference.
The extra cost comes with great value, though, because gasoline cars have enormous externalized (i.e. invisible) costs, since they foul the air, the ecosystem, and the political climate.
If an individual wants to buy a cheaper, lighter car without air bags and side-impact beams, they ought to be able to.
Not in any nation with universal health care.
I get the logic, but how do you explain the most obvious, almost hit-you-over-the-head counter-example: The US spec Lotus Elise is heavier and has more safety features, but the US has no universal health care and among the highest health care costs.
We could build more nuclear or solar plants until demand is met, or we could have the government stick its nose where it doesn't belong.
Expect to see all three, since there won't be any 100% solutions in electric infrastructure. Making more efficient use of the infrastructure we already have is by far the most cost effective, so expect to see a lot of your latter "solution". This actually the market at work, but sometimes libertarians have trouble recognizing the will of the market when it goes against their wishes.
As it is, by the time companies get a software patent, there's little value to them because, after six years, the industry has already moved on.
Yeah, there's some wishful Slashdot nerd thinking if I ever saw it. Look, I despise software patents with the best of them, but the above claim is pretty much refuted by the existence of the backlog, with plenty of "little value" software patents in the mix.
While lighter fluid is not a ban on BBQs...just wait.
Okay, I'm waiting. Your reference is nearly 20 years old. How much longer to I have to wait?
So anyway, that's the best you've got? A 20-year-old ban on lighter fluid in one local area (AQMD)? If we're going to cherry pick extreme examples to make points, I could find almost ANYONE driving a Hummer, and they're still doing it today.
Lighter fluid is idiotic and unnecessary anyway, so I'm happy to have fewer hydrocarbons (combusted or otherwise) polluting my air.
Really, no one needs examples how the enviro-whackos want to control our lives...want to have a BBQ in CA?
Okay, I'm in CA (assuming that means California) and I have no idea what you're talking about. We have barbecues all the time. So what ARE you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, what stops you, as a scalper, from buying out every ticket you possibly can through whatever means necessary, and then jack the prices up?
I'll tell you what. It's called The Market.
If you buy too many tickets, you won't be able to sell them. You might not make money, and you might even lose money. If you you want to accept this transfer of risk, go ahead.
Where does one pick up a surplus 747 for $50,000? I have some shopping to do.
With the advent of modern switching electronics, there is absolutely no reason to use brushed motors for traction applications.
3) make up a miracle new technology. Good luck on that one.
Your miracle new technology is ready. (You're welcome, and thanks for the luck.)
It's called the AC induction motor, and it uses no permanent magnets--only copper and/or iron and/or aluminum. A fine example was in GM's EV-1 in the 1990s, and its descendants live on at AC Propulsion, and, consequently, Tesla Motors. Permanent magnet motors are likely to retain slightly higher efficiency, but the difference in cost of the construction materials will allow the market to take care of the rare earth "problem".
we are losing more and more vertical space
Pixel resolution keeps increasing, as does physical display size, so it's more correct to say you're gaining horizontal space.
Add some code to phone company messaging servers that disables sending and receiving of text messages while the mobile phone is in motion.
Earth to the American guy, Earth to the American guy: Here in the rest of the world we sometimes carry passengers in our automobiles, and sometimes we even send text messages while riding on public transit.
Sense vehicular motion (including vibration) and shut down the texting function while in motion.
Ah, thanks for representing the typical American perspective. :) The rest of us might actually have passengers in our vehicles, or be using public transportation.
The fine should be $1,500 - no exceptions - and 150 hours of community service.
Agree completely, especially about the community service.
Fines work better in a homogeneous society, but here in the states fines punish people differently depending on their economic status. $1500 could be several months' pay for someone working part time at minimum wage, but if you're David Letterman $1500 wouldn't even cover your cigar habit for six hours.
Are seriously suggesting that Jeff Bezos hasn't evaluated the risk/reward proposition correctly?
It would be cheaper for them to just pay the tax.
No it wouldn't. A 9% tax on ~$1.1 million would break even in one year. I have a sneaking suspicion those guys make more than $1.1 million in a year, and they will probably do so for more than one year.
use your lawyers.
All I want is a camera on the front of the plane, pointing straight forward, with the view on my screen. Add a few more cameras so I can pan around, look straight down, etc., and I'm way more than happy.
Transparent planes? You've got to be kidding me. It's like they got the engineers together to design the most outrageously complicated solution without thinking to hard about the problem in the first place. They could get 95% of the results for much less cost using technology available today.
Since you asked for that exclusion, I'd say "backyard" is any land with a dwelling that has space devoted to non-farm and non-ranch purposes that (1) can see the plant or (2) can be directly affected by malfunction, misoperation, or malicious activity at the plant in such a manner as health or wealth (e.g. property value) could be negatively impacted for a significant period of time due to such an event.
You're (purposefully?) defining the equation without evaluating relative risk -- above, you define any risk whatsoever as a disqualifier. It's not helpful to treat these subjects with a binary black/white filter, but whether that's your criteria or not, coal-fired generation fails rational analysis. (See below.)
I can't figure out where you're coming from, since you're the guy who claimed you live near a giant paper plant and a coal-fired generation plant, and that it didn't bother you.
I would say that (2) would include being above an aquifer that the plant is also above, being within the exposure area of a theoretical nuclear accident, any increase in background radiation, etc.
Any increase? I think you're confusing the parent's nuclear plants with coal plants, the latter of which emit radioactive material and heavy metals every hour of every day of every year, with 100% certainty.
Besides interstates are ALL designed for 120 mph travel per Congressional law, other than a few close=in spurs (like I-495).
I'm going to need a citation on that. There may be parts of the system that would be safe at that speed, but those would be exceptional.
It is illogical to badge a high-speed road at only half its designed speed.
So why don't you petition to get that changed, instead of breaking the law and then whining when you get caught? It sounds like most of society actually likes having speed limits.
Speed limits on US interstates should be the same as they are on Germany's autobahn, which is what Eisenhower was copying when he brought the idea back home.
You cannot possibly have driven on the modern autobahn if you are seriously making that claim. The US interstate highways are lame by comparison, in terms of road surface quality, lane marking, signaling, etc., and despite this only a minority of the autobahn network would permit speeds of 120 MPH.
Eisenhower was trying to clone the autobahn, but it was primarily to enable military mobilization, not to facilite 200 km/h personal transportation, and it is a shame he didn't notice Germany's excellent rail network, which was much more effective at moving war goods than the autobahn was.
The point of "speed traps" is that you can be going the speed limit one moment, and they set up a situation where you can't POSSIBLY - at least not without risking a serious wreck - slow down to the new limit in time, or else you're on a road switch and the new limit is posted "down the road."
I ran out of mod points before I could mod this funny. So that's "the point of speed traps", huh?
I've measured yellow times as short as 1.75 seconds in my area on a 40mph road.
So why didn't you report them? Yellow light timing is a complicated subject, but there is generally no excuse for durations under 3.0 seconds.
...they've improved it, because I wouldn't want to fall like Asimo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASoCJTYgYB0
You still aren't answering the question. Are you willing to locate a solar plant in your own back yard?
Yes, a thousand times yes. In fact, I *do* have on site solar production that provides nearly all of the energy we use for cooking, heating, cooling, domestic water heating, and transportation. Electric vehicle ownership is strongly correlated with photovoltaic installations, and the utility of photovoltaics isn't somehow negated simply because people choose not to live in industrial areas.
If you stopped production of any modern vehicle at a few thousand units, you'd end up with similar costs.
That explains the fully-amortized cost (and I agree with your conclusion) but doesn't evade the fact that even the variable cost on the EV1 was not within a factor of 3 of what the market would bear.
I work for the guy who designed the EV1's power electronics, so please believe me when I say I'm very pro-EV. I just want to make sure we support our case with unassailable logic, because the evidence really does support electrics.
We expect the government to incentivize the production of more efficient forms of transportation that are sustainable. This is no different than suggesting that the government invest in roads and railways. Transportation infrastructure is one the pillars of industrialized society.
I agree 100%. The first steps should be to remove some of the staggering incentives already in place that favor oil. Tax deductions for SUVs of 6000 pounds for "business purposes" is an obvious easy example.
Government isn't directly in the vehicle business, and I believe the best incentives would be for efficiency, rather than for specific technologies. The status quo provides significant tax incentives for fuel cells and other technologies that will never be affordable, practical, or necessary.
There is nothing more desirable for me than to one day own a home or apartment that gathers all the energy I need -- even for transportation -- from the sunlight that falls on it.
I'm doing it today, so I'm sure your day will come, too. It's worth it.
So you are saying electric cars don't foul up the air or ecosystem?
No, I'm saying they foul the air less than gasoline cars, a fact which is supported by mountains of evidence. Are you claiming that electrics are as bad or worse? (If so, the evidence is not on your side.)
Just where do you think electricity comes from?
No need to speculate--mine comes almost entirely from solar power, and I know exactly what the energy mix is in my state. While I don't know yours, I can tell you that even the *average* mix in the US is about half as dirty as gasoline (when used as a transportation fuel), even before you account for indirect effects like wars to subsidize the latter. At night, when most of the EV charging occurs, the energy mix is even cleaner, thanks to nuclear base load generation.
Oh wait... it won't foul up *your* air or *your* ecosystem, just the guy who has to live next to one of the power plants that generates the electricity to run your car....
I can't tell if you're trolling or if you actually believe that, but we all share the same air, which should have been the first clue that you misunderstood what I wrote. Power plants don't have to pollute, but even the worst (coal) are (marginally) cleaner than using gasoline for transportation. Nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal are orders of magnitude cleaner.
The red herring offered consistently is, why wouldn't GM want to lead the way in electric car development?
Agreed with most of your points. The other elephant in the room that the pro-EV movement never owns up to is that the EV1 had a variable cost of over $100,000, and a fully-amortized cost of nearly $1 million per car.
Was it a stupid PR move for GM to take the cars back and crush them? Absolutely, but I can completely sympathize with GM for not wanting to build cars that cost roughly 3x what the market was willing to pay.
Electrics (and to a lesser extent, hybrids) do cost more, and when talking to an EV advocate, it's never really clear if they expect the car companies to lose money on the sales, or if they expect government subsidies to make up for the difference.
The extra cost comes with great value, though, because gasoline cars have enormous externalized (i.e. invisible) costs, since they foul the air, the ecosystem, and the political climate.
If an individual wants to buy a cheaper, lighter car without air bags and side-impact beams, they ought to be able to.
Not in any nation with universal health care.
I get the logic, but how do you explain the most obvious, almost hit-you-over-the-head counter-example: The US spec Lotus Elise is heavier and has more safety features, but the US has no universal health care and among the highest health care costs.
We could build more nuclear or solar plants until demand is met, or we could have the government stick its nose where it doesn't belong.
Expect to see all three, since there won't be any 100% solutions in electric infrastructure. Making more efficient use of the infrastructure we already have is by far the most cost effective, so expect to see a lot of your latter "solution". This actually the market at work, but sometimes libertarians have trouble recognizing the will of the market when it goes against their wishes.
As it is, by the time companies get a software patent, there's little value to them because, after six years, the industry has already moved on.
Yeah, there's some wishful Slashdot nerd thinking if I ever saw it. Look, I despise software patents with the best of them, but the above claim is pretty much refuted by the existence of the backlog, with plenty of "little value" software patents in the mix.
While lighter fluid is not a ban on BBQs...just wait.
Okay, I'm waiting. Your reference is nearly 20 years old. How much longer to I have to wait?
So anyway, that's the best you've got? A 20-year-old ban on lighter fluid in one local area (AQMD)? If we're going to cherry pick extreme examples to make points, I could find almost ANYONE driving a Hummer, and they're still doing it today.
Lighter fluid is idiotic and unnecessary anyway, so I'm happy to have fewer hydrocarbons (combusted or otherwise) polluting my air.
Really, no one needs examples how the enviro-whackos want to control our lives...want to have a BBQ in CA?
Okay, I'm in CA (assuming that means California) and I have no idea what you're talking about. We have barbecues all the time. So what ARE you talking about?