If you can harvest enough energy from radio waves to operate a radio receiver, why couldn't you add in enough capacitors to drive an intermittent Bluetooth beacon?
What if he put in a signal amplifier like you might put on your own antenna. It modifies the signal and makes it go farther, so does this qualify as retransmitting?
it delays the person's departure thereby reducing effective parking availability.
Yes, but it also eliminates the parking shortage for as long as that parking space is on the market. Remember, a shortage is when you can't buy something at any price, so when you put a price on a parking space when all other spaces are filled, you've temporarily eliminated the shortage of parking spaces.
[Using] phones while driving which in San Francisco is a crime...
Instead of adding a new law to the books, wouldn't it be better to eliminate the parking shortage, and therefore any ability for third parties to make a profit, by raising the price of parking during peak times and using that revenue to build more parking or lower everyone's taxes?
And eliminating the parking shortage by making a spot available to the highest bidder is somehow worse than hoarding a parking space all day (because you can park there all day for free if you get there before it fills up) instead of taking the bus or BART to work?
My only problem with this app is that the money doesn't go back to the city to help lower everyone's taxes. But this isn't the fault of the app developers, it's the fault of the city for creating the shortage by setting the price below market equilibrium.
If the residents don't want taxpayers parking on streets owned by those same taxpayers, then why can't the residents buy those streets from the taxpayers?
As a taxpayer, I don't think it's fair that my property is used for personal vehicle storage by someone else simply because it sits in front of their house. I want a parking meter there to give me a return on my investment. Or buy my land back from me. Choose one, but don't complain when I park there.
Better yet, eliminate taxes wherever feasible. For example, replace gas taxes with congestion tolls (and stop widening freeways until they start paying for themselves 100%, up from 65%, out of said tolls and other user fees), reduce the social security tax by replacing social security retirement benefits for everyone with a safety net only for those who need it, and make fire departments bill the property's insurance company for fire response.
It's hard to find something smaller than a studio apartment...
That's because of zoning laws that set minimum apartment sizes. Again, that isn't Google's fault.
Good luck with that if your boss assigns you hours on Saturday evening or Sunday, when mass transit has the day off to be with their own families. Then you still have to buy, park, maintain, and insure a car.
Again it's back to the boss needing to pay the employees more or do without them.
There comes a point after which the cost of collecting tolls exceeds the marginal revenue from tolls over tax.
What about the savings when the tolls make the freeway more efficient in cars per day than taxes?
And it would drive away out-of-town customers who would have to buy a transponder and buy mileage on the transponder just to come into town.
Or they could rent the transponder, or rent a car that already has the transponder. In any case, it would be good to make the same transponder work on all interstates.
Longer hours would require staff for both the current hours and the extended hours, which is more of a cost.
Again, what about the tax savings when the tolls make the freeway more efficient in cars per day than taxes?
So how should people who can't afford to live near work make ends meet?
Get roommates, or move into a smaller place, or find a job close to where they can afford to live, or carpool, or take mass transit.
Choosing (1) would run up labor costs, which could make the business unprofitable...
I think you're forgetting that the taxes that currently pay for the freeways have the same effect. In fact it's even worse because taxes cannot make the freeway more efficient as tolls can.
I don't see how to accomplish (2) in, say, a retail environment that has defined opening and closing times.
It will if it causes the transit authority to cut back on service.
Who in their right mind would cut back on a service as demand for it is increasing?
How would such a toll be collected without slowing traffic or angering privacy advocates?
With electronic tolling using transponders prepaid (and reloaded) with cash and not registered to any vehicle.
Raising the cost of commuting, as the Wired article recommends, would drive up land values near places of work, causing tenants to get evicted as competition for scarce housing drives up rent toward unaffordability. See for example what happened in San Francisco when Google added shuttle buses.
That's a good argument against rent control, because in that case the renters were evicted because their rents were already priced below the market and the landlords weren't allowed to raise them.
Besides, "extra incentive to avoid the most congested hours", as the Wired article put it doesn't help if businesses are open only during "the most congested hours".
The only way those businesses will survive is if they (1) pay the employees more so they are willing to commute during the most congested hours, or (2) offer more flexible working hours.
No, it's more like I'm paying you the same amount (in nominal monetary units) that I paid you 20 years ago but now because of inflation you're only mowing 60% of the lawn for that price.
Why should we give welfare to everybody when only a few people need it?
Anyway, if you're living below the poverty line, you probably bike or take mass transit, so the gas tax won't affect you directly. Yes, it will raise store prices slightly, but it will also reduce the need to make up the shortfall with transportation sales taxes such as Measure R in Los Angeles. For the poor, higher store prices in exchange for lower sales taxes is not such a bad tradeoff.
A person truly concerned for the welfare of the poor opposes minimum parking requirements, which raise housing prices, raise prices at the store, raise tax rates, and places a traffic burden on the nearby streets and freeways; and supports demand-responsive tolling which is less regressive than fuel taxes and makes the roads more efficient and therefore reduces or eliminates the need to widen them at taxpayer expense.
Where do you live that your neighborhood gets mail delivered every day of the year?
I think Xicor's suggestion was just to increase the number of days where rural areas wouldn't get mail delivered, that's all. Another way to equalize the cost of mail delivery across all addresses is to reserve door to door mail for urban areas. Why should poor inner city residents subsidize mail delivery for middle class suburbanites? Shouldn't welfare flow in the opposite direction?
There's also that whole 'gotta replace that uber-expensive-battery-pack-in-7-to-10-years-or-so' bit...
You don't have to replace the whole pack all at once:
The reality is that there are 28 separate cells in the hybrid battery pack. When the unit starts to fail, only a handful of the individual cells are bad. What Prius Battery Repair of Houston does, and Toyota could do if it wanted to, is replace the bad hybrid battery pack with a reconditioned one to get the customer back on the road. Then, determine which cells are bad, and simply replace the bad battery cells, recondition the battery, and sell it to the next customer.
The individual cells are only about $25 each on the street.
Taking this a step further, Netflix should allow you to schedule the download(s) to happen overnight, and ISPs should exclude the overnight bits from their bandwidth caps as a form of bandwidth management similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans.
I worked for a Water Bureau. The number clearly show that taxing people instead of having a water bill would be substantially cheaper for everyone.
I mean 20% cheaper, if not more.
That's what wealthy people often claim when they advocate for regressive taxes. Anyway, would I be correct in guessing that water was not very scarce in that area?
With taxes, you no longer need a billing system.
If you are correct that taxes collect themselves, then why couldn't billing use the same technology?
The government should provide the pipes (fibre or copper or whatever) to the houses that it covers. Paid for by taxes.
Why taxes? My water bill pays for the pipes, my phone bill pays for the phone line, my electric bill pays for the electric wires, and my cable ISP pays for the coax. Should someone who doesn't use the service be forced to help pay for it through their taxes?
No, just require that anyone who provides the pipes has to allow third party ISPs to provide service over them and charge them a fair price. Better yet, prohibit the company that owns the wires from being the ISP.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can harvest enough energy from radio waves to operate a radio receiver, why couldn't you add in enough capacitors to drive an intermittent Bluetooth beacon?
Your software disagrees with reality.
Replace traffic lights with roundabouts a.k.a. traffic circles. As a bonus, it also saves electricity and reduces light pollution.
What if he put in a signal amplifier like you might put on your own antenna. It modifies the signal and makes it go farther, so does this qualify as retransmitting?
That makes it like prostitution: you can't sell it but you can give it away for free.
Yes, but it also eliminates the parking shortage for as long as that parking space is on the market. Remember, a shortage is when you can't buy something at any price, so when you put a price on a parking space when all other spaces are filled, you've temporarily eliminated the shortage of parking spaces.
No it isn't.
Instead of adding a new law to the books, wouldn't it be better to eliminate the parking shortage, and therefore any ability for third parties to make a profit, by raising the price of parking during peak times and using that revenue to build more parking or lower everyone's taxes?
And eliminating the parking shortage by making a spot available to the highest bidder is somehow worse than hoarding a parking space all day (because you can park there all day for free if you get there before it fills up) instead of taking the bus or BART to work?
My only problem with this app is that the money doesn't go back to the city to help lower everyone's taxes. But this isn't the fault of the app developers, it's the fault of the city for creating the shortage by setting the price below market equilibrium.
If the residents don't want taxpayers parking on streets owned by those same taxpayers, then why can't the residents buy those streets from the taxpayers?
As a taxpayer, I don't think it's fair that my property is used for personal vehicle storage by someone else simply because it sits in front of their house. I want a parking meter there to give me a return on my investment. Or buy my land back from me. Choose one, but don't complain when I park there.
When you flagrantly cherry pick your data, you can make it prove almost anything you want it to.
The cost of air pollution is up to $1,600 per person annually according to Cal State Fullerton.
That's the same thing monopolies claim when they are broken up.
If you ignore external costs, yes.
If electricity will be priced below market equilibrium, yes.
Better yet, eliminate taxes wherever feasible. For example, replace gas taxes with congestion tolls (and stop widening freeways until they start paying for themselves 100%, up from 65%, out of said tolls and other user fees), reduce the social security tax by replacing social security retirement benefits for everyone with a safety net only for those who need it, and make fire departments bill the property's insurance company for fire response.
That's because of zoning laws that set minimum apartment sizes. Again, that isn't Google's fault.
Again it's back to the boss needing to pay the employees more or do without them.
What about the savings when the tolls make the freeway more efficient in cars per day than taxes?
Or they could rent the transponder, or rent a car that already has the transponder. In any case, it would be good to make the same transponder work on all interstates.
Again, what about the tax savings when the tolls make the freeway more efficient in cars per day than taxes?
Get roommates, or move into a smaller place, or find a job close to where they can afford to live, or carpool, or take mass transit.
I think you're forgetting that the taxes that currently pay for the freeways have the same effect. In fact it's even worse because taxes cannot make the freeway more efficient as tolls can.
Why can't the business owner change the hours?
Who in their right mind would cut back on a service as demand for it is increasing?
With electronic tolling using transponders prepaid (and reloaded) with cash and not registered to any vehicle.
That's a good argument against rent control, because in that case the renters were evicted because their rents were already priced below the market and the landlords weren't allowed to raise them.
The only way those businesses will survive is if they (1) pay the employees more so they are willing to commute during the most congested hours, or (2) offer more flexible working hours.
No, it's more like I'm paying you the same amount (in nominal monetary units) that I paid you 20 years ago but now because of inflation you're only mowing 60% of the lawn for that price.
Maybe I should pay you in Big Macs instead.
Why should we give welfare to everybody when only a few people need it?
Anyway, if you're living below the poverty line, you probably bike or take mass transit, so the gas tax won't affect you directly. Yes, it will raise store prices slightly, but it will also reduce the need to make up the shortfall with transportation sales taxes such as Measure R in Los Angeles. For the poor, higher store prices in exchange for lower sales taxes is not such a bad tradeoff.
A person truly concerned for the welfare of the poor opposes minimum parking requirements, which raise housing prices, raise prices at the store, raise tax rates, and places a traffic burden on the nearby streets and freeways; and supports demand-responsive tolling which is less regressive than fuel taxes and makes the roads more efficient and therefore reduces or eliminates the need to widen them at taxpayer expense.
Where do you live that your neighborhood gets mail delivered every day of the year?
I think Xicor's suggestion was just to increase the number of days where rural areas wouldn't get mail delivered, that's all. Another way to equalize the cost of mail delivery across all addresses is to reserve door to door mail for urban areas. Why should poor inner city residents subsidize mail delivery for middle class suburbanites? Shouldn't welfare flow in the opposite direction?
You don't have to replace the whole pack all at once:
I believe it. A family with two cars would likely have one fuel-efficient car, like a hybrid, and one family car, like a minivan or an SUV.
The poll should have asked what people buy when they sell their hybrid.
Taking this a step further, Netflix should allow you to schedule the download(s) to happen overnight, and ISPs should exclude the overnight bits from their bandwidth caps as a form of bandwidth management similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans.
That's what wealthy people often claim when they advocate for regressive taxes. Anyway, would I be correct in guessing that water was not very scarce in that area?
If you are correct that taxes collect themselves, then why couldn't billing use the same technology?
Why taxes? My water bill pays for the pipes, my phone bill pays for the phone line, my electric bill pays for the electric wires, and my cable ISP pays for the coax. Should someone who doesn't use the service be forced to help pay for it through their taxes?
No, just require that anyone who provides the pipes has to allow third party ISPs to provide service over them and charge them a fair price. Better yet, prohibit the company that owns the wires from being the ISP.
So you think the sign should say "stop when children are present" instead of "speed limit 25 when children are present"?