With all the above said, there is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral and unethical to have the black boxes used to automatically ticket bad drivers.
"The black box says you crossed the solid yellow line in a residential area. $150 fine" "But I was avoiding a little kid chasing a ball!" "Too bad. Prove it."
In the city I live in, they are getting ready to put in a bunch of red light and speeding cameras. You know what the most reported effect of this will be? "The city will get approx. $X.X million per year in revenue." Not the safety aspect, not reducing speeding. Money. Now...this is partially the fault of the news reporting agencies, but I have heard little else besides the money aspect.
Yes it is. But it is also misleading to mention only the reduced gas consumption, and leave out the fact that you have to plug it in, getting energy from elsewhere.
No. They are energy companies, not just oil companies. For instance, Shell and BP have pretty large solar divisions. They'd like to profit from hybrid cars or solar houses as anything else.
The energy to charge these batteries has to come from somewhere. The only part they can't profit from is the regenerative braking portion.
No, not because the bible tells you not to. Because a) it does create children, and b) today it carries a significant risk (in some areas) of serious/fatal disease. 2 very, very serious consequences. Are you willing to take those risks and live with (or die with) the results for an afternoon of fun?
2 yuppies, cruising around in a motor home with no fixed address is fine, if a bit expensive (gas prices in UK?).
I don't see this as a real money saver. Yes, 1/4 million pounds is less than many (by far not all) homes in SE england. But depreciation and operating expenses will eat up any potential savings, and when they decide to give up this hobby, they'll be behind the real estate/money curve.
But, if money isn't a consideration (and it appears not to be in this case), why not do it for a couple of years? I'd get tired of it pretty quick, but he might not.
Ahhh...so it's the Pope's fault that people can't keep it in their pants. This, on a continent where Christianity is a minority (although increasing).
Naaa...couldn't be the fault of the individual. Let's blame it on the big guy. After all...they followed his instructions to the letter. No condoms, and go screw your brains out with anyone and everyone.
Personally, I think of a rebate as free money (well, minus the cost of a stamp), so it's nothing to me. In your example, I'm not loaning anyone $30... I'm paying for a $50 retail product and _getting_ a $50 retail product. If the manufacturer or whoever offers to give me $30 back, I'm certainly not going to object.
Well, I guess we differ. They can certainly afford to sell it for the after rebate price (since that is what they get after sending me the rebate back). So why not just sell it at that price up front, and avoid all this hassle? (Because they make a little money around the edges of the deal. Good for them, bad for us.)
Manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer.....Not my problem. If, at the end of things, the item costs me $50, why am I expected to loan a multimillion dollar company $30, and only 'probably' get it back? Just give it to me for the $50 up front.
Which is better? $50, or $80 and $30 back after a couple of months?
Why not simply sell it for the after rebate price?
Because a) quite a few people don't send them in, b) some percentage of rebates never get sent to the customer, and c) they get use of that money for a month or two.
It's NEVER a good deal for us. I've bought stuff with rebates, but only if it is an exceptional deal. And I always send it in. But why not just sell it to me for the after-rebate $50, instead of $80 and me letting them hold $30 of mine for a month or so?
Please, let us know the date and place of your entombment. A group of us will show up the following day, dig up your stainless steel time capsule, cast your precious 'stuff' to the 4 winds and various charities (of our choosing), all the while merrily chanting "You thought you could take it with you! HA HA. April Fool!"
I'm not sure how much longer my turntable will hold out.
I'm doing the same thing, but I had to get a new turntable to start with. My Technics from the 70's would not hold a constant speed. The cheapo $100 Sony from BestBuy is doing a credible job.
Seriously though how is it any different from Radio Play which also doesn't pay the Record companies but the original composers of the songs not the recording artists.
They prohibit another cable company from laying cable. So no one can compete, even if they wanted to lay their own cable.
Part of me says that is a GoodThing, but not for the same reasons as the cable company. I do not want Company B, C, D, & Z coming through once a year and digging up my yard to lay their own totally redundant wire.
Of course competition is better, but there are limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Totally.
With all the above said, there is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral and unethical to have the black boxes used to automatically ticket bad drivers.
"The black box says you crossed the solid yellow line in a residential area. $150 fine"
"But I was avoiding a little kid chasing a ball!"
"Too bad. Prove it."
In the city I live in, they are getting ready to put in a bunch of red light and speeding cameras. You know what the most reported effect of this will be? "The city will get approx. $X.X million per year in revenue." Not the safety aspect, not reducing speeding. Money. Now...this is partially the fault of the news reporting agencies, but I have heard little else besides the money aspect.
In a true hybrid, a lot of the battery recharge comes from regenerative braking. So that is truly 'free'.
Ahhh...so you'll be asking your boss to provide power for your car. Wish we could all get that good a deal.
Everything is 'free' if someone else is picking up the bill.
Yes it is. But it is also misleading to mention only the reduced gas consumption, and leave out the fact that you have to plug it in, getting energy from elsewhere.
And your grid electricity consumption goes way, way up.
Tradeoffs.
And then the energy comes from somewhere else.
How many pounds of coal are used for him to plug it in overnight?
The energy to charge these batteries has to come from somewhere. The only part they can't profit from is the regenerative braking portion.
No, not because the bible tells you not to. Because a) it does create children, and b) today it carries a significant risk (in some areas) of serious/fatal disease.
2 very, very serious consequences. Are you willing to take those risks and live with (or die with) the results for an afternoon of fun?
2 yuppies, cruising around in a motor home with no fixed address is fine, if a bit expensive (gas prices in UK?).
I don't see this as a real money saver. Yes, 1/4 million pounds is less than many (by far not all) homes in SE england. But depreciation and operating expenses will eat up any potential savings, and when they decide to give up this hobby, they'll be behind the real estate/money curve.
But, if money isn't a consideration (and it appears not to be in this case), why not do it for a couple of years? I'd get tired of it pretty quick, but he might not.
Naaa...couldn't be the fault of the individual. Let's blame it on the big guy. After all...they followed his instructions to the letter. No condoms, and go screw your brains out with anyone and everyone.
Yes...it's all the Pope's fault.
Well, I guess we differ. They can certainly afford to sell it for the after rebate price (since that is what they get after sending me the rebate back). So why not just sell it at that price up front, and avoid all this hassle?
(Because they make a little money around the edges of the deal. Good for them, bad for us.)
Which is better?
$50, or $80 and $30 back after a couple of months?
Because a) quite a few people don't send them in, b) some percentage of rebates never get sent to the customer, and c) they get use of that money for a month or two.
It's NEVER a good deal for us. I've bought stuff with rebates, but only if it is an exceptional deal. And I always send it in. But why not just sell it to me for the after-rebate $50, instead of $80 and me letting them hold $30 of mine for a month or so?
Customers dislike rebates. Really, really, REALLY dislike rebates. Why continue a practice that is a major complaint of your customers?
Please, let us know the date and place of your entombment. A group of us will show up the following day, dig up your stainless steel time capsule, cast your precious 'stuff' to the 4 winds and various charities (of our choosing), all the while merrily chanting "You thought you could take it with you! HA HA. April Fool!"
Take that BushHating hat off. 3 yrs from now, he won't be having a field day about anything.
I'm doing the same thing, but I had to get a new turntable to start with. My Technics from the 70's would not hold a constant speed. The cheapo $100 Sony from BestBuy is doing a credible job.
Individual users downloading via P2P pays no one.
That wasn't from lack of daylight. It was from excess of beer.
As this is internal company code, have you seen it and done some of the groundwork before you go?
Jumping all the way to Japan, blind, is not the way to do it.
Part of me says that is a GoodThing, but not for the same reasons as the cable company. I do not want Company B, C, D, & Z coming through once a year and digging up my yard to lay their own totally redundant wire.
Of course competition is better, but there are limits.
The clue by four is gonna get a workout tomorrow.
I have to say that pretty much anything, including opinions, that comes out of RadioShack sucks.
It's been at least a month for my neighbor (that I know about) and still counting. The default settings for his USR8054 are still on display.
Not bluetooth, but there's no reason the Gyration couldn't be.