Other transportation modalities, like your personal automobile, are not required to operate at a profit.
Shouldn't they be? If the users are unable or unwilling to completely cover the costs without external help, isn't that a sign that maybe it wasn't a wise use of money in the first place?
I believe that the only profitable HSR line in the world is Paris-Lyon.
There are two HSR lines that have paid off all their construction costs, Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.
Taiwan's is the only HSR line in the world right now that is falling behind on the loan payment, but it still covers all of its operating costs through fares. Every other HSR line in the world is making positive progress toward paying off the construction costs.
So what this all boils down to is, what is your definition of "profitable"? I've given three possible definitions from which you may choose.
Our current grid is effectively "dumping massive amounts of power into a hole."
My understanding is that power companies add and remove power sources throughout the day as demand changes. Only a small amount of "waste" exists as a buffer against spikes in electrical demand.
So which is better, a rear-end collision outside the intersection, or a broadside collision inside the intersection?
The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
Assume you train your Bayesian filter to ignore these, you have the risk that it will start to ignore emails from your bank as Junk too as those will most likely be similar in content and scope.
Except the bank name will be different, and the Bayesian filter will cue on that, at least after you've trained it with e-mails from your bank.
When the global Bayesian filter keeps dropping that one bank's e-mails, maybe the bank will wake up and fix their opt-in procedure.
I'd suggest that if you get such a misdirected message, you add a custom filter directly to trash (not Junk, that may screw the Bayesian filter).
But it is junk. Quite literally, because it is unsolicited e-mail. If a bank can't be bothered to properly implement opt-in, then they get what they deserve.
Why should goods purchased over the Internet be exempt from taxes when goods purchased in a brick and mortar shop is not?
Why should online retailers pay the state they're shipping to for government-provided services, when they have no way of taking advantage of those services? Isn't that like taxation without representation?
To develop a web site "against" or "for" browsers is having lost the battle before you've even started it.
One way to avoid this is not to write content in HTML directly. Write in LaTeX or DocBook or a similar language that separates content from presentation, in order to insulate your content from changing HTML standards. Then have your script publish to the latest HTML standard. When the HTML standard changes, simply update the conversion tool.
The water problem is easy to fix. All it needs is to be priced right. Remember Economics 101? A shortage is "when the price of an item is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand."
And the occupants. Otherwise, they will wind up as a big unrecognizable pile of meat in the forward section of the cabin. Remember the Mythbusters episode about the body of the diver getting compressed into his own helmet?
It is now too late to build - it would take five years for a coal plant to come online and more like ten years for a nuclear plant and we simply do not have that much time left.
Wouldn't pricing electricity at the market clearing rate buy us enough time to put another power plant on line?
Welcome to the exponential part of the population growth curve, where it doesn't matter what you do, there are no longer enough resources to go around.
When there's a shortage, it means the price is too low. So when "there are no longer enough resources to go around", the solution should be obvious.
During a drought they should just increase the price of water, until usage goes down as much as they need.
Leaving ordinary people unable to afford to flush their toilets, and rich people with lush, green lawns.
If ordinary people can't afford to flush their toilets for every number one, they'll be a little more selective when they flush, or they'll buy water-conserving toilets, or they'll save their bath and laundry water to fill the toilet, or they'll move to a place where water is more abundant. All of these are good things for sustainable living.
You don't have to do laundry or run the dishwasher during the peak period, and you can probably find more ways to cut your electrical usage during the peak period. When the electric company is able to charge by the time of day according to what it costs them to provide the electricity, it gives you an opportunity to economize that wouldn't otherwise exist.
What incentive do they have to build more power stations to support peak demands, if they can just charge more and know that there's no real competition?
Residential solar panels, which conveniently reach peak output around the same time of day that conventional electricity becomes the most expensive to produce, is competition.
This is what I hear: "We are going to install new meters that allow us to charge you more for electricity when you use it when you most need it."
It costs them more to generate electricity during peak periods (because they save the most expensive power generation for when they really need it), so why shouldn't they charge more when it costs them more?
Also, when it costs them less, they charge less than they do with flat-rate billing. This gives people an ability to economize that doesn't exist with flat-rate billing.
With modern technologies like fiber optics, there's no reason why every home cannot be wired with 50 incoming optical lines (1 cm thick bundle), each one carrying a TV lineup. Then the consumer could choose if they want Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Verizon and so on.
Or, instead of wiring 50 lines to each home, terminate those 50 lines at a common switch box in the neighborhood. Then each home will need only one line. The coax which they already have will suffice, so you won't need to dig up everyone's lawns.
Similar strategies could also be used for telephone and electricity service.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't they be? If the users are unable or unwilling to completely cover the costs without external help, isn't that a sign that maybe it wasn't a wise use of money in the first place?
There are two HSR lines that have paid off all their construction costs, Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.
Taiwan's is the only HSR line in the world right now that is falling behind on the loan payment, but it still covers all of its operating costs through fares. Every other HSR line in the world is making positive progress toward paying off the construction costs.
So what this all boils down to is, what is your definition of "profitable"? I've given three possible definitions from which you may choose.
My understanding is that power companies add and remove power sources throughout the day as demand changes. Only a small amount of "waste" exists as a buffer against spikes in electrical demand.
The Federal Highway Administration found that red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions but reduce more severe right-angle collisions, saving $50,000 in collisions per intersection per year in medical and repair costs.
How can you say that when there are nearly 7 billion people on a planet that can't even support 5.5 billion sustainably?
Are you saying that, because we haven't yet run out of anything, nature must still be producing each resource faster than we can use it up?
Except the bank name will be different, and the Bayesian filter will cue on that, at least after you've trained it with e-mails from your bank.
When the global Bayesian filter keeps dropping that one bank's e-mails, maybe the bank will wake up and fix their opt-in procedure.
But it is junk. Quite literally, because it is unsolicited e-mail. If a bank can't be bothered to properly implement opt-in, then they get what they deserve.
Whether it's the retailer or the customer who pays, depends on your point of view.
On roads built with fuel taxes paid by shipping companies paid by the online retailer (or the customer, depending on your point of view).
Why should online retailers pay the state they're shipping to for government-provided services, when they have no way of taking advantage of those services? Isn't that like taxation without representation?
If only Montana could do that without relying on handouts from other states such as California.
Even dynamic web sites still use static HTML. I know this because I occasionally see HTML tags mistakenly displayed as text in articles on news sites.
One way to avoid this is not to write content in HTML directly. Write in LaTeX or DocBook or a similar language that separates content from presentation, in order to insulate your content from changing HTML standards. Then have your script publish to the latest HTML standard. When the HTML standard changes, simply update the conversion tool.
And if people stop streaming, bandwidth caps will become a passing fad. So I think we'll find an equilibrium somewhere.
The water problem is easy to fix. All it needs is to be priced right. Remember Economics 101? A shortage is "when the price of an item is set below the going rate determined by supply and demand."
And the occupants. Otherwise, they will wind up as a big unrecognizable pile of meat in the forward section of the cabin. Remember the Mythbusters episode about the body of the diver getting compressed into his own helmet?
Wouldn't pricing electricity at the market clearing rate buy us enough time to put another power plant on line?
If there's a good reason to stop at 50 MHz, then it might be better to innovate than to outlaw stopping at 50 MHz.
Similarly, if there's a good reason for bandwidth caps, then it might be better to innovate than to outlaw the caps.
Actually, it will encourage the development of bandwidth-conserving technologies.
When there's a shortage, it means the price is too low. So when "there are no longer enough resources to go around", the solution should be obvious.
If ordinary people can't afford to flush their toilets for every number one, they'll be a little more selective when they flush, or they'll buy water-conserving toilets, or they'll save their bath and laundry water to fill the toilet, or they'll move to a place where water is more abundant. All of these are good things for sustainable living.
You don't have to do laundry or run the dishwasher during the peak period, and you can probably find more ways to cut your electrical usage during the peak period. When the electric company is able to charge by the time of day according to what it costs them to provide the electricity, it gives you an opportunity to economize that wouldn't otherwise exist.
Residential solar panels, which conveniently reach peak output around the same time of day that conventional electricity becomes the most expensive to produce, is competition.
It costs them more to generate electricity during peak periods (because they save the most expensive power generation for when they really need it), so why shouldn't they charge more when it costs them more?
Also, when it costs them less, they charge less than they do with flat-rate billing. This gives people an ability to economize that doesn't exist with flat-rate billing.
Or, instead of wiring 50 lines to each home, terminate those 50 lines at a common switch box in the neighborhood. Then each home will need only one line. The coax which they already have will suffice, so you won't need to dig up everyone's lawns.
Similar strategies could also be used for telephone and electricity service.