Tolls paid in cash create less information about a person's travel patterns than fuel receipts paid with a credit card, unless you travel miles out of your way at odd times to get fuel.
Speaking of Economics 101, a far better way to pay for the roads than a gas tax is express tolls (variable congestion tolls), because they permanently eliminate traffic congestion, and without traffic congestion, you no longer need to widen any freeway just to prevent traffic congestion (which doesn't really work well anyway), so it saves taxpayers a LOT of money.
Also, because the toll is low or free during off hours, it gives you a way to avoid paying for the roads that doesn't exist today with the gas tax. This is especially good for poor people who work service jobs and retired people who do their shopping in the middle of the day.
Li-Ion batteries last longest when they are actively used. Keeping a Li-Ion battery fully charged all the time is bad for its longevity...
This is why laptops need a switch for "half" versus "full" charge. If you generally use the laptop docked, you would keep the switch on the "half" setting,, but when you need to use it away from an outlet, you would switch it to the "full" setting and wait for it to charge up before undocking.
That means three months where there may not be enough electricity produced.
Not as much as in summer, but there's no reason why an equilibrium between supply and demand cannot be reached such that everybody is able to consume as much electricity as they can afford. To illustrate, imagine that electricity were sold on eBay by the kilowatt-hour in one giant daily auction. Poor people might buy only a few kilowatt-hours every day for their cooking, cleaning, short showers, and minimal heating, while wealthy people would splurge a little more. Nobody would be overcharged because every auction winner pays the market price and no unit of energy goes unsold.
I left some of the items on my ballot blank. I thought it was better to let people who care about those candidates and issues decide, instead of voting along party lines. Is this bad?
Working longer hours is one solution to expensive gas. Another is to move closer to work, or find a job closer to home, or telecommute, or buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, or carpool, or take mass transit, or bike.
If gas were more expensive and people chose some of these alternatives, it would reduce the need to expand our roads and freeways and this would save us even more money.
So as you can see, making those who cause damage pay for it has a lot of benefits for society.
Would it be fair to say that you don't believe that air pollution harms the economy on your coast (in other words, that the cost of air pollution is exactly $0.00) because you don't like one of the solutions?
Air pollution costs our economy up to $1,600 per person per year in medical expenses, lost work, and so on. Shouldn't those who cause the damage pay for it? It would stimulate the economy by increasing demand for alternatives and at the same time it would pay the medical bills of those who are injured by air pollution. That's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
How would a good person inform the owner that their door is unlocked if the only way is contact them is to walk inside? Or is the correct response to just walk away?
If they want to tax me for a house worth more than what I can get for it on the open market, then I should have the right to sell it to them at that price.
Better yet, make property taxes reflect the property's burden on the government. What we have now is an unscrupulous diner's dilemma situation where people who maximize their street frontage in order to give themselves more places to park pay only a tiny fraction of the incremental cost (land, maintenance, lighting, emergency response, etc.), and everyone else does the same in return, driving up all our taxes. It's madness.
So now I need to test my app with all combinations of requested permissions disabled. That would, even for my simple app requiring only 5 permissions, result in a 32x increase in testing effort.
You may be relying too much on testing to find bugs. "Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs." --Edsger W. Dijkstra
Slashdot Mirror
Tolls paid in cash create less information about a person's travel patterns than fuel receipts paid with a credit card, unless you travel miles out of your way at odd times to get fuel.
Speaking of Economics 101, a far better way to pay for the roads than a gas tax is express tolls (variable congestion tolls), because they permanently eliminate traffic congestion, and without traffic congestion, you no longer need to widen any freeway just to prevent traffic congestion (which doesn't really work well anyway), so it saves taxpayers a LOT of money.
Also, because the toll is low or free during off hours, it gives you a way to avoid paying for the roads that doesn't exist today with the gas tax. This is especially good for poor people who work service jobs and retired people who do their shopping in the middle of the day.
This is why laptops need a switch for "half" versus "full" charge. If you generally use the laptop docked, you would keep the switch on the "half" setting,, but when you need to use it away from an outlet, you would switch it to the "full" setting and wait for it to charge up before undocking.
Why don't we try making children resistant to radicalization by teaching them what to look out for, the same way we teach them not to talk to strangers or what to do in case of a nuclear explosion?
I think giving the poor a way to save money is a great solution.
Get roommates to help share the cost and warm the room.
...between online and brick & mortar stores, all a state has to do is abolish its own sales tax. Regressive taxes ought to be illegal, anyway.
Not as much as in summer, but there's no reason why an equilibrium between supply and demand cannot be reached such that everybody is able to consume as much electricity as they can afford. To illustrate, imagine that electricity were sold on eBay by the kilowatt-hour in one giant daily auction. Poor people might buy only a few kilowatt-hours every day for their cooking, cleaning, short showers, and minimal heating, while wealthy people would splurge a little more. Nobody would be overcharged because every auction winner pays the market price and no unit of energy goes unsold.
A good middle ground for 45 Euros (about USD$56) is the OLinuXino LIME2:
I left some of the items on my ballot blank. I thought it was better to let people who care about those candidates and issues decide, instead of voting along party lines. Is this bad?
If you don't agree that the cost of air pollution is nonzero, then logically you must think that the cost of air pollution is exactly zero.
Just so we agree, you concede that the damage to the economy of air pollution is nonzero across the country, correct?
That's not for climate scientists to decide.
What would such a study prove? That the cost of air pollution is nonzero outside of Southern California? Isn't that already obvious?
Working longer hours is one solution to expensive gas. Another is to move closer to work, or find a job closer to home, or telecommute, or buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, or carpool, or take mass transit, or bike.
If gas were more expensive and people chose some of these alternatives, it would reduce the need to expand our roads and freeways and this would save us even more money.
So as you can see, making those who cause damage pay for it has a lot of benefits for society.
Would it be fair to say that you don't believe that air pollution harms the economy on your coast (in other words, that the cost of air pollution is exactly $0.00) because you don't like one of the solutions?
Air pollution costs our economy up to $1,600 per person per year in medical expenses, lost work, and so on. Shouldn't those who cause the damage pay for it? It would stimulate the economy by increasing demand for alternatives and at the same time it would pay the medical bills of those who are injured by air pollution. That's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
How would a good person inform the owner that their door is unlocked if the only way is contact them is to walk inside? Or is the correct response to just walk away?
Better yet, make property taxes reflect the property's burden on the government. What we have now is an unscrupulous diner's dilemma situation where people who maximize their street frontage in order to give themselves more places to park pay only a tiny fraction of the incremental cost (land, maintenance, lighting, emergency response, etc.), and everyone else does the same in return, driving up all our taxes. It's madness.
You may be relying too much on testing to find bugs. "Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs." --Edsger W. Dijkstra
...and unlocked for this to work?
Don't worry, a train can take the load of 280 trucks off the road.
When the warehouse has its own rail siding, all you need is a forklift. There's no reason why big-box stores can't be built near rail lines.
The trucking industry is heavily subsidized.
And then be pulled over for obstructing traffic or otherwise being a traffic hazard.