You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this?
No, they will lower prices for "lower-risk infrequent drivers", according to the synopsis. The average Joe would see no change, until he realizes that it's in his best interest to drive less.
Since public transit costs more than gas on most trips, you will be losing money and at the same time inconveniencing yourself.
Gas is only a small part of the cost of driving. There's also depreciation, interest on the loan, insurance, maintenance, registration, parking, and so on.
First off, many people only drive what the have to.
As a bicyclist, I know this to be false. Most people drive more than they have to. They just choose to drive because it takes less effort than the alternatives.
Second, 'average' doesn't mean half.
Which average, the arithmetic mean or the median?
Third, poor often have to drive more becasue they can't afford to live where they work.
See my first point above. Also, many people, even the poor, can afford to live closer to where they work, they just choose not to in order to be able to afford a larger living space.
All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi drive due to the distance they must commute. Meaning more uninsured motorists.
No, only those families who continue to drive more than the average will have higher insurance premiums than they do today. Those who drive less than the average will automatically have lower premiums, and those who drive the average will modify their behavior to take advantage of this new incentive by driving less.
In the end, most people will pay less for insurance under the new plan.
The solution is for the Federal Government to start fresh with a new numbering system and then post, online, each number along with the name of its owner, in order to preclude any chance of using them for authentication.
I would also add in check digits and a version number.
There is no way in hell that the government will remove any gas taxes, they will just add the per mile tax.
And that's exactly how it should be. Some externalities are proportional to miles driven (road wear, traffic congestion) and others are proportional to the amount of fuel used (air pollution, energy dependence). Not taxing both creates an exploitable loophole.
...not everybody in the country needs a car - but the overwhelming majority certainly do.
No, just people who choose to live far from work and public transportation. People who don't realize that by giving up a car, a person can save several thousand dollars a year in loan servicing, depreciation, maintenance, gas, insurance, registration, and so on.
Cars are cheap because nearly everybody in this country needs a car. You need a car to get to work, you need it to get to school and you need it for recreation. Sure, if you happen to live in a major city there is also mass transit, but for a large percentage of the population a car is a necessary reality.
False dichotomy. I don't need a car to get to work, and the mass transit here sucks. I take the most efficient form of transportation available, which also happens to be one of the cheapest: a bicycle. My hilly 10-mile commute takes 40-45 minutes each way.
For groceries and other cargo (such as children), there's the bakfiets (and clones), xtracycle and bike trailers. People even bike in the rain and snow.
The auto manufacturers have done an impressive job making us believe that "everybody in this country needs a car".
...whenever it benefits us. For example, we're perfectly willing to distort the market for transportation by paying for freeways with regressive sales taxes. We also like to force property owners to provide off-street parking spaces in the name of "free" parking.
And you think you can get people to support a measure that would raise gas to $10/gallon? Not gonna happen.
...unless you promise to refund that money equally to everyone. Call it a carbon tax shift, or a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Imagine a $7 per gallon tax. If the average person uses 500 gallons of gas per year, then the government would mail everyone an $875 check every 3 months. That's how you get people to accept it. Meanwhile, everyone will be scrambling to cut their gasoline usage.
Instead of renting out the dirt, have municipalities own the actual wires (by imminent domain, if necessary), and allow each resident to decide who gets to push bits down it.
You make a good case for making the gas tax revenue-neutral. If the average person uses 400 gallons of gas per year and the tax is $1.00 per gallon, then with a revenue-neutral gas tax, the government would mail everyone a $100 check every 3 months. If you're poor, that $100 could go a long way paying for groceries.
While it's unfortunate this occurred on
store property, the ATM machine is owned and maintained by an
independent bank vendor. We [REI] did not call the police and did not detain
the individual.
But they banned him for a year, if the author is to be believed.
Are we going to punish a teacher because most of their students failed a standardized English test?
If the average class score on the test is at the 40th percentile at the beginning of the term and then the 45th percentile at the end, the class had a good teacher, even though most of the students still scored low on the test. But if that same class scores at the 35th percentile at the end, the class had an underperforming teacher.
Likewise, a class that scored at the 85th percentile at the beginning of the term and then at the 80th percentile at the end had an underperforming teacher, even though the class scored well.
They wanted that 95% of customers' costs to stay the same, and have 5% of high-usage customers to pay more. Under that scenario, TWC would make TONS MORE MONEY.
San Francisco: 6688 people per square km
New York: 10482 people per square km
Chicago: 4816 people per square km
For comparison, Tokyo has a population density of 5847 people per square km.
Um, Tokyo isn't a city. So you're comparing apples with oranges.
To compare apples with apples:
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA: (population density not listed in Wikipedia)
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania MSA: 1,077 people per square km
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet-Gary, IL-IN-WI MSA: 1,318 people per square km
Tokyo: 5,847 people per square km
So Tokyo has a much higher population density than metropolises in the USA.
How is it that it's prohibitively expensive for the average Joe to get decent connectivity, yet I can maintain a colocated server in a very nice data center...with a terabyte of data transfer each month...for $100/month?
At a data center, bandwidth is cheap but living space is very very expensive: $100 per month for 1U dimensions (1.75x17x26 inches) comes to $223 per cubic foot.
You can have cheap bandwidth or cheap living space.
Slashdot Mirror
As a bicycle commuter, I know for a fact that most people drive more than they need to. Including me.
No, they will lower prices for "lower-risk infrequent drivers", according to the synopsis. The average Joe would see no change, until he realizes that it's in his best interest to drive less.
The answer is a shopping cart. There's also carsharing.
Gas is only a small part of the cost of driving. There's also depreciation, interest on the loan, insurance, maintenance, registration, parking, and so on.
As a bicyclist, I know this to be false. Most people drive more than they have to. They just choose to drive because it takes less effort than the alternatives.
Which average, the arithmetic mean or the median?
See my first point above. Also, many people, even the poor, can afford to live closer to where they work, they just choose not to in order to be able to afford a larger living space.
No, only those families who continue to drive more than the average will have higher insurance premiums than they do today. Those who drive less than the average will automatically have lower premiums, and those who drive the average will modify their behavior to take advantage of this new incentive by driving less.
In the end, most people will pay less for insurance under the new plan.
The solution is for the Federal Government to start fresh with a new numbering system and then post, online, each number along with the name of its owner, in order to preclude any chance of using them for authentication.
I would also add in check digits and a version number.
And that's exactly how it should be. Some externalities are proportional to miles driven (road wear, traffic congestion) and others are proportional to the amount of fuel used (air pollution, energy dependence). Not taxing both creates an exploitable loophole.
No, just people who choose to live far from work and public transportation. People who don't realize that by giving up a car, a person can save several thousand dollars a year in loan servicing, depreciation, maintenance, gas, insurance, registration, and so on.
False dichotomy. I don't need a car to get to work, and the mass transit here sucks. I take the most efficient form of transportation available, which also happens to be one of the cheapest: a bicycle. My hilly 10-mile commute takes 40-45 minutes each way.
For groceries and other cargo (such as children), there's the bakfiets (and clones), xtracycle and bike trailers. People even bike in the rain and snow.
The auto manufacturers have done an impressive job making us believe that "everybody in this country needs a car".
...whenever it benefits us. For example, we're perfectly willing to distort the market for transportation by paying for freeways with regressive sales taxes. We also like to force property owners to provide off-street parking spaces in the name of "free" parking.
In fact, it's exactly 70.00%. That's a suspiciously nice, round number. Has someone been cooking the data?
...unless you promise to refund that money equally to everyone. Call it a carbon tax shift, or a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
Imagine a $7 per gallon tax. If the average person uses 500 gallons of gas per year, then the government would mail everyone an $875 check every 3 months. That's how you get people to accept it. Meanwhile, everyone will be scrambling to cut their gasoline usage.
In legislative circles, do they ever run simulations? Test new laws by deploying them in MMOs first?
Instead of renting out the dirt, have municipalities own the actual wires (by imminent domain, if necessary), and allow each resident to decide who gets to push bits down it.
You make a good case for making the gas tax revenue-neutral. If the average person uses 400 gallons of gas per year and the tax is $1.00 per gallon, then with a revenue-neutral gas tax, the government would mail everyone a $100 check every 3 months. If you're poor, that $100 could go a long way paying for groceries.
Phoenix population: 1,552,259
San Francisco population: 808,976
Caltrain runs down only one side of the bay, so we can ignore the entire east bay for population comparison.
But they banned him for a year, if the author is to be believed.
I haven't heard of a basketball in space since Hardware Wars!
If the average class score on the test is at the 40th percentile at the beginning of the term and then the 45th percentile at the end, the class had a good teacher, even though most of the students still scored low on the test. But if that same class scores at the 35th percentile at the end, the class had an underperforming teacher.
Likewise, a class that scored at the 85th percentile at the beginning of the term and then at the 80th percentile at the end had an underperforming teacher, even though the class scored well.
But not as useful as more efficient, native pollinators, which in North America honeybees displace.
If you're living in a cold climate, the exhaust from the dryer ought to go to a heat exchanger to help heat up your house.
If you're living in a hot climate, it's a waste of energy to use anything other than clotheslines and drying racks.
I wouldn't. Would you?
And if you would, then you must be rich, and I just can't seem to drum up much compassion for the rich being gouged.
From only 5% of their users? How does that work?
Um, Tokyo isn't a city. So you're comparing apples with oranges.
To compare apples with apples:
So Tokyo has a much higher population density than metropolises in the USA.
At a data center, bandwidth is cheap but living space is very very expensive: $100 per month for 1U dimensions (1.75x17x26 inches) comes to $223 per cubic foot.
You can have cheap bandwidth or cheap living space.