You might mean non MOTOR fuel isn't taxed... non-motor fuel (like home heating oil) is either not taxed or taxed differently, depending on where you live. If you buy motor fuel retail you're getting taxed on it regardless of how you use it.
License plates might cost more for trucks but the difference does not cover the additional wear-and-tear they cause the roadways. =Smidge=
Doesn't easily extend to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. And as vehicle efficiency increases and alternative vehicles become more popular, your tax revenue drops while your costs to maintain the roads remains the same. Gasoline and diesel are also used in non-vehicle engines (generators, farm and construction equipment, small engine tools, etc) which would be paying this tax while not contributing to road maintenance expenses.
Taxing actual road use makes the most sense. You can scale it by vehicle weight and class (since fuel use is not linearly proportional to vehicle weight, while road damage is), create residential, commercial and industrial tiers if you want since a heavy truck that gets 12MPG does more damage than a large car that gets the same. It takes the state of maintenance of the vehicle out of the equation (poor fuel economy due to poor maintenance).
If the goal is to reduce fuel use (and I agree with that goal), we should STILL tax nonrenewable carbon fuels. =Smidge=
You can buy gasoline across state lines, too, so that is no way to guarantee the money goes to your state. Further, what if your vehicle doesn't use gasoline or diesel? You get to use the roads without helping to pay for them, which is a large part of the problem.
Many states already require odometer reporting and it's a federal crime to tamper with them. Many states also have compulsory liability insurance for car owners. Solution: Have the insurance companies require odometer reporting and include state taxes in their costs. The reason this is better than an annual check (at inspection time) followed by a bill is the tax may add up to a hundred dollars depending on how much you drive (gasoline tax equivalent for California would be about 2 cents/mile). Car insurance usually has a monthly payment system to spread out the financial burden.
Sure it's not perfect but it's better than a simple fuel tax and the invasive GPS solution. =Smidge=
First of all, killed more people then terrorism? Are you from the US government because I'm pretty certain terrorism is a pretty low bar for deaths
And yet look how much time, money and effort we spend trying (ineptly) to protect ourselves from terrorism while practically nobody seems to give two shits about traffic safety.
In 2001 alone, traffic related fatalities outnumbered terrorism related fatalities by about 14 to 1. If we include all the years since it's over 130 to 1. =Smidge=
If they really do manage a robotic driver to deal with that mess it will be a miracle of modern engineering to rival anything in the history of mankind. =Smidge=
"If anything, the list raises serious doubts that the PROTECT IP Act will even put a dent on copyright infringement online"
Let's be honest here... I doubt even the asshats who wrote the legislation thought it would do that. At best its real purpose is to create a mechanism the government can use to shut down websites. =Smidge=
Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.
Well the security goons already have the gloves - Just give 'em a box of scalpels and a bottle of iodine and let 'em do their inspections! Make sure you allow a few extra hours in your travel plans and don't eat or drink anything for at least twelve hours before arriving at the airport.
How far are you gonna move the checkpoints? No matter where you put the checkpoint, there will still be an un-screened crowd of people waiting to get through them.
unless you look at the statistics. In nearly 10 years, there have been 2 fatalities due to hijacking in the entire world, as compared to any other period of time, this is significantly better.
Wish I had a better link to statistics, but it is the most readable i could find quickly.
1) What do world-wide statistics have to do with the efficacy of the TSA?
2) How can you demonstrate that the TSA has been involved with this reduction? To my knowledge the TSA has never successfully thwarted any plot (and I'm sure they'd make a big deal about it if they did).
We do, however, have two very high-profile cases where the TSA failed to thwart an attack, which are the reasons why travelers walk around the airport barefoot, little children are groped by strangers and old ladies in wheelchairs are asked to remove their diapers. There is also a mountain of official and anecdotal reports of the TSA consistently failing to catch fake bombs contraband items intentionally smuggled onto the plane or unintentionally carried by a passenger. Meanwhile you're not allowed a bottle of milk in your carry-on. =Smidge=
The TSA has done no better and no worse than pre-9/11 airport security in terms of hijacking/terrorist attempts.
But it has had a noticeable, negative impact on traveler experience, dignity and basic rights both legal and social. I'm hardly anything approaching a"free-market" advocate but what we have now does nothing but cost taxpayers money. I have no problem paying taxes in general but I'd at least like to see some tangible benefit from it, y'know? We can go back to "normal" airport security and put that money towards investigative efforts where it will actually do some good.
Let's be honest, if a terrorist plot gets to the point where the airport security catches him, we have already failed. Next step is to just blow themselves up while waiting in line to be groped... all the airport security goons in the world couldn't stop that. We don't need the TSA. =Smidge=
Don't think power, because Watts are really not the unit to be using. You should compare energy; Watt-Hours.
Let's say you have a typical refrigerator that uses ~150 watts average for 5 minutes total operation every hour. That's 150 * 5/60 = 12.5 watt-hours of energy. Your STB uses 25W on standby, which is constant. So that's 25 * 60/60 = 25 watt-hours of energy. Fully twice as much as your refrigerator.
YMMV of course but it's quite plausible a seemingly minor appliance uses more electricity over the course of a day than a major appliance. Those "Vampire Loads" can be a real killer! =Smidge=
The range as stated by Tesla is about 55 miles at its governed top speed of 125 MPH. That's a pretty short distance, and given what this car is, I'd say 125 isn't an abnormal speed for someone to be driving this car. Even if you're staying below the speed limit to maximize range, you're only going to be getting under 300 miles.
The Ferrari F40 gets approximately 1 mile per gallon when driven flat out, for an effective range of about 30 miles. You'll never see the Top Gear people pushing one off the track, though. And to the best of my knowledge the current Tesla range record is a hair over 347 miles, so there's that I guess.
Driving the ~2,800 miles from NY to LA in 2 days, assuming you actually stop to sleep and eat, requires an average speed of over 70 miles per hour. That's kind of a stretch to be realistic, yeah? And the required driving for 20 hours straight per day (assuming 8 hours total rest overnight) with less than an hour total rest to break it up is very ill-advised. I think you're being way too optimistic. Even in you're i a hurry it'll take at least three days, four or five if you're sane.
Recently a couple of guys in Great Britain drive their Tesla Roadster from John o' Groats to Land's End - a famous route of 875 miles - in two days. Now sure that is technically not as fast as a gasoline powered vehicle could do it, but again the limiting factors of max average speed and driver fatigue start to come into play at that point. Overall this argument just isn't as strong as you might think. =Smidge=
If they can find a way to save money by using something more efficient, don't you think they would go that route?
I'm sure you'd like to think so, but if you rely on the general public to be well informed, rational agents then whatever you are planning will fail spectacularly. Sometimes people do things a certain way because it's the only way they've ever known, and will actually respond with hostility is anyone even suggests there's a better way. These people need to be tricked or coerced into doing things that are objectively for their best interest. =Smidge=
But its those "wasteful" things like banks, cash etc. that make money useful and valuable. Liquidity - the ease which currency can be exchanged - is a major factor in usefulness. While fully digital transfer might seem easier from the end user's perspective, it requires a MASSIVE infrastructure underpinning from point of sale devices that initiate them to the central servers that verify and process the transfers. Physical currency does not require any of that.
So if you equate printing the money to building and maintaining just the physical infrastructure, printed money probably wins out. Now add in management and it's a no brainer: Physical currency takes far less resources, is only slightly less convenient and is probably slightly more secure. =Smidge=
You're correct - money exchanging hands does not create value - it transfers it. However, the REASON you transfer value in the form of money is because value has been created. If a person does something of value to you, you transfer stored value - in the form of currency - to them. One way to think about it is a dollar bill is a receipt for having done someone a favor, which is redeemable to any other person who does you a favor.
So while digging holes to fill them in again might not create any obvious value for the person paying for it - or any objective value as a whole - if someone is willing to part with their money to have it done then so be it.
Of course, it's much more preferable to have something of objective value when all is said and done... =Smidge=
If society breaks down, then presumably the agency that is guaranteeing the value of paper currency (eg the government) will no longer be around. So in that case, sure... but bitcoins would be worth even less than paper bills at that point - at lest you can burn paper bills for warmth.
The issuing government will ALWAYS accept the currency it issues as payment because it is obligated to. That's a guarantee of value. There is nobody obligated to accept bitcoins and therefore no guarantee of value. =Smidge=
That point only applies to printed money. Which is another thing: Physical currency permits exchanges without reliance on the internet, or any significant technological infrastructure at all. That's a significant advantage. Even if that wasn't enough, money is already handled electronically which would make the USD exactly equivalent to the Bitcoin in terms of that argument.
What gives the USD value is the fact that people work for it, and people trust the issuing authority to honor its face value when presented. Even with gold - the libertarian's wet dream currency - someone has to physically collect it. There is essentially no work required to get a bitcoin - only a computer, the software, and patience. The value of a bitcoin is 100% subjective and there is no guarantee at all that anyone, anywhere, at any time, will accept it at its presumed value.
So what's more of a waste now? The effort and resources needed to print money which has at least SOME guaranteed value, or the effort and resources needed to create a bitcoin which could be worthless tomorrow? =Smidge=
Our world's current infrastructure depends on paying employees, building large buildings, paying for heat, electricity, transportation, lawyers, courts, judges, policemen, government bureaucracies, armies and much more. Doesn't it seem wasteful to rely on tedious and sometimes ambiguous real world laws with a lot of overhead instead of mathematical laws?
So let me get this straight - to pay people for doing productive things, like the physical labor to build and maintain the infrastructure bitcoins implicitly rely on - electrical power being among the most trivial when you think about it - is wasteful?
News flash dickhead - unless you've growing your own food with handmade tools and living in a hut you build yourself from materials you gathered yourself, you are sitting near the top of a MASSIVE pyramid of laborers, designers, artisans and technicians. All your "success" comes at a price of tens of thousands of other individuals doing their job. You just called all that wasteful.
Hell, the computer he's using probably has a hundred thousand sets of fingerprints on it - from the guy who dug the earth for the raw materials to the guy who dropped the box on his doorstep (because fuck knows he probably never leaves the house, which itself took a small army to make possible). =Smidge=
We already have cookie-making robots. They're owned by companies like Nabisco, Entenmann's, and Pepperidge Farm. They automatically mix ingredients, dole out precise portions, bake, cool and package cookies by the millions.
I suppose there are lessons to be learned by re-inventing the wheel, but let's be realistic here... =Smidge=
I don't recall any puzzle in the original game that required reflexes better than basic flinging to solve. You could almost beat the game with one hand literally tied behind your back. In fact with a little practice and planning I'm sure you could beat it with only one hand (either aiming or walking, never both).
Sure there was celebration. But you know what? As far as I know, Osama wasn't burned in effigy anywhere. Osama's corpse wasn't foisted into the air and displayed as a trophy. Instead his body was quickly disposed of, supposedly in accordance with Islamic burial rights.
American citizens killed at the hands of Muslim extremists have, in the past, not been afforded that dignity.
So as it stands, even though there were celebrations in the streets, we have yet to reach the level of insensitivity shown by others. Releasing the photos will only bring us down to their level. =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
You might mean non MOTOR fuel isn't taxed... non-motor fuel (like home heating oil) is either not taxed or taxed differently, depending on where you live. If you buy motor fuel retail you're getting taxed on it regardless of how you use it.
License plates might cost more for trucks but the difference does not cover the additional wear-and-tear they cause the roadways.
=Smidge=
Doesn't easily extend to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. And as vehicle efficiency increases and alternative vehicles become more popular, your tax revenue drops while your costs to maintain the roads remains the same. Gasoline and diesel are also used in non-vehicle engines (generators, farm and construction equipment, small engine tools, etc) which would be paying this tax while not contributing to road maintenance expenses.
Taxing actual road use makes the most sense. You can scale it by vehicle weight and class (since fuel use is not linearly proportional to vehicle weight, while road damage is), create residential, commercial and industrial tiers if you want since a heavy truck that gets 12MPG does more damage than a large car that gets the same. It takes the state of maintenance of the vehicle out of the equation (poor fuel economy due to poor maintenance).
If the goal is to reduce fuel use (and I agree with that goal), we should STILL tax nonrenewable carbon fuels.
=Smidge=
You can buy gasoline across state lines, too, so that is no way to guarantee the money goes to your state. Further, what if your vehicle doesn't use gasoline or diesel? You get to use the roads without helping to pay for them, which is a large part of the problem.
Many states already require odometer reporting and it's a federal crime to tamper with them. Many states also have compulsory liability insurance for car owners. Solution: Have the insurance companies require odometer reporting and include state taxes in their costs. The reason this is better than an annual check (at inspection time) followed by a bill is the tax may add up to a hundred dollars depending on how much you drive (gasoline tax equivalent for California would be about 2 cents/mile). Car insurance usually has a monthly payment system to spread out the financial burden.
Sure it's not perfect but it's better than a simple fuel tax and the invasive GPS solution.
=Smidge=
And yet look how much time, money and effort we spend trying (ineptly) to protect ourselves from terrorism while practically nobody seems to give two shits about traffic safety.
In 2001 alone, traffic related fatalities outnumbered terrorism related fatalities by about 14 to 1. If we include all the years since it's over 130 to 1.
=Smidge=
Relevant reference videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPxinqO3f8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D36eisnZ3A4
If they really do manage a robotic driver to deal with that mess it will be a miracle of modern engineering to rival anything in the history of mankind.
=Smidge=
"If anything, the list raises serious doubts that the PROTECT IP Act will even put a dent on copyright infringement online"
Let's be honest here... I doubt even the asshats who wrote the legislation thought it would do that. At best its real purpose is to create a mechanism the government can use to shut down websites.
=Smidge=
Doesn't really explain the effect some people get with still images though, does it?
=Smidge=
Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
=Smidge=
Well the security goons already have the gloves - Just give 'em a box of scalpels and a bottle of iodine and let 'em do their inspections! Make sure you allow a few extra hours in your travel plans and don't eat or drink anything for at least twelve hours before arriving at the airport.
=Smidge=
How far are you gonna move the checkpoints? No matter where you put the checkpoint, there will still be an un-screened crowd of people waiting to get through them.
=Smidge=
unless you look at the statistics. In nearly 10 years, there have been 2 fatalities due to hijacking in the entire world, as compared to any other period of time, this is significantly better.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=SEH&lang=&page=10
Wish I had a better link to statistics, but it is the most readable i could find quickly.
1) What do world-wide statistics have to do with the efficacy of the TSA?
2) How can you demonstrate that the TSA has been involved with this reduction? To my knowledge the TSA has never successfully thwarted any plot (and I'm sure they'd make a big deal about it if they did).
We do, however, have two very high-profile cases where the TSA failed to thwart an attack, which are the reasons why travelers walk around the airport barefoot, little children are groped by strangers and old ladies in wheelchairs are asked to remove their diapers. There is also a mountain of official and anecdotal reports of the TSA consistently failing to catch fake bombs contraband items intentionally smuggled onto the plane or unintentionally carried by a passenger. Meanwhile you're not allowed a bottle of milk in your carry-on.
=Smidge=
The TSA has done no better and no worse than pre-9/11 airport security in terms of hijacking/terrorist attempts.
But it has had a noticeable, negative impact on traveler experience, dignity and basic rights both legal and social. I'm hardly anything approaching a"free-market" advocate but what we have now does nothing but cost taxpayers money. I have no problem paying taxes in general but I'd at least like to see some tangible benefit from it, y'know? We can go back to "normal" airport security and put that money towards investigative efforts where it will actually do some good.
Let's be honest, if a terrorist plot gets to the point where the airport security catches him, we have already failed. Next step is to just blow themselves up while waiting in line to be groped... all the airport security goons in the world couldn't stop that. We don't need the TSA.
=Smidge=
Because a watt-second is so small a unit it's practically useless outside academia.
Now get outta here before I start converting everything to BTUs!
=Smidge=
Don't think power, because Watts are really not the unit to be using. You should compare energy; Watt-Hours.
Let's say you have a typical refrigerator that uses ~150 watts average for 5 minutes total operation every hour. That's 150 * 5/60 = 12.5 watt-hours of energy. Your STB uses 25W on standby, which is constant. So that's 25 * 60/60 = 25 watt-hours of energy. Fully twice as much as your refrigerator.
YMMV of course but it's quite plausible a seemingly minor appliance uses more electricity over the course of a day than a major appliance. Those "Vampire Loads" can be a real killer!
=Smidge=
The range as stated by Tesla is about 55 miles at its governed top speed of 125 MPH. That's a pretty short distance, and given what this car is, I'd say 125 isn't an abnormal speed for someone to be driving this car. Even if you're staying below the speed limit to maximize range, you're only going to be getting under 300 miles.
The Ferrari F40 gets approximately 1 mile per gallon when driven flat out, for an effective range of about 30 miles. You'll never see the Top Gear people pushing one off the track, though. And to the best of my knowledge the current Tesla range record is a hair over 347 miles, so there's that I guess.
Driving the ~2,800 miles from NY to LA in 2 days, assuming you actually stop to sleep and eat, requires an average speed of over 70 miles per hour. That's kind of a stretch to be realistic, yeah? And the required driving for 20 hours straight per day (assuming 8 hours total rest overnight) with less than an hour total rest to break it up is very ill-advised. I think you're being way too optimistic. Even in you're i a hurry it'll take at least three days, four or five if you're sane.
Recently a couple of guys in Great Britain drive their Tesla Roadster from John o' Groats to Land's End - a famous route of 875 miles - in two days. Now sure that is technically not as fast as a gasoline powered vehicle could do it, but again the limiting factors of max average speed and driver fatigue start to come into play at that point. Overall this argument just isn't as strong as you might think.
=Smidge=
If they can find a way to save money by using something more efficient, don't you think they would go that route?
I'm sure you'd like to think so, but if you rely on the general public to be well informed, rational agents then whatever you are planning will fail spectacularly. Sometimes people do things a certain way because it's the only way they've ever known, and will actually respond with hostility is anyone even suggests there's a better way. These people need to be tricked or coerced into doing things that are objectively for their best interest.
=Smidge=
But its those "wasteful" things like banks, cash etc. that make money useful and valuable. Liquidity - the ease which currency can be exchanged - is a major factor in usefulness. While fully digital transfer might seem easier from the end user's perspective, it requires a MASSIVE infrastructure underpinning from point of sale devices that initiate them to the central servers that verify and process the transfers. Physical currency does not require any of that.
So if you equate printing the money to building and maintaining just the physical infrastructure, printed money probably wins out. Now add in management and it's a no brainer: Physical currency takes far less resources, is only slightly less convenient and is probably slightly more secure.
=Smidge=
You're correct - money exchanging hands does not create value - it transfers it. However, the REASON you transfer value in the form of money is because value has been created. If a person does something of value to you, you transfer stored value - in the form of currency - to them. One way to think about it is a dollar bill is a receipt for having done someone a favor, which is redeemable to any other person who does you a favor.
So while digging holes to fill them in again might not create any obvious value for the person paying for it - or any objective value as a whole - if someone is willing to part with their money to have it done then so be it.
Of course, it's much more preferable to have something of objective value when all is said and done...
=Smidge=
If society breaks down, then presumably the agency that is guaranteeing the value of paper currency (eg the government) will no longer be around. So in that case, sure... but bitcoins would be worth even less than paper bills at that point - at lest you can burn paper bills for warmth.
The issuing government will ALWAYS accept the currency it issues as payment because it is obligated to. That's a guarantee of value. There is nobody obligated to accept bitcoins and therefore no guarantee of value.
=Smidge=
That point only applies to printed money. Which is another thing: Physical currency permits exchanges without reliance on the internet, or any significant technological infrastructure at all. That's a significant advantage. Even if that wasn't enough, money is already handled electronically which would make the USD exactly equivalent to the Bitcoin in terms of that argument.
What gives the USD value is the fact that people work for it, and people trust the issuing authority to honor its face value when presented. Even with gold - the libertarian's wet dream currency - someone has to physically collect it. There is essentially no work required to get a bitcoin - only a computer, the software, and patience. The value of a bitcoin is 100% subjective and there is no guarantee at all that anyone, anywhere, at any time, will accept it at its presumed value.
So what's more of a waste now? The effort and resources needed to print money which has at least SOME guaranteed value, or the effort and resources needed to create a bitcoin which could be worthless tomorrow?
=Smidge=
So let me get this straight - to pay people for doing productive things, like the physical labor to build and maintain the infrastructure bitcoins implicitly rely on - electrical power being among the most trivial when you think about it - is wasteful?
News flash dickhead - unless you've growing your own food with handmade tools and living in a hut you build yourself from materials you gathered yourself, you are sitting near the top of a MASSIVE pyramid of laborers, designers, artisans and technicians. All your "success" comes at a price of tens of thousands of other individuals doing their job. You just called all that wasteful.
Hell, the computer he's using probably has a hundred thousand sets of fingerprints on it - from the guy who dug the earth for the raw materials to the guy who dropped the box on his doorstep (because fuck knows he probably never leaves the house, which itself took a small army to make possible).
=Smidge=
I love how it just dumps the bowls on the floor.
We already have cookie-making robots. They're owned by companies like Nabisco, Entenmann's, and Pepperidge Farm. They automatically mix ingredients, dole out precise portions, bake, cool and package cookies by the millions.
I suppose there are lessons to be learned by re-inventing the wheel, but let's be realistic here...
=Smidge=
If you want extra lines for text editing/coding, try portrait mode. Most screens/cards support it.
=Smidge=
I don't recall any puzzle in the original game that required reflexes better than basic flinging to solve. You could almost beat the game with one hand literally tied behind your back. In fact with a little practice and planning I'm sure you could beat it with only one hand (either aiming or walking, never both).
=Smidge=
I'll argue that the photos can make things worse.
Sure there was celebration. But you know what? As far as I know, Osama wasn't burned in effigy anywhere. Osama's corpse wasn't foisted into the air and displayed as a trophy. Instead his body was quickly disposed of, supposedly in accordance with Islamic burial rights.
American citizens killed at the hands of Muslim extremists have, in the past, not been afforded that dignity.
So as it stands, even though there were celebrations in the streets, we have yet to reach the level of insensitivity shown by others. Releasing the photos will only bring us down to their level.
=Smidge=