You're saying that demand for electricity in hot states is perfectly inelastic in the summer, but you'll never find an economist who agrees with you. People will let the house heat up a degree or two, or close off unnecessary rooms, or stay downstairs where it's cooler, or turn off the A/C and visit a friend or go to the mall or movie theater, etc. Trust me, allowing prices to rise and fall in response to supply and demand does a much better job of encouraging the kind of behavior by producers and consumers that prevent shortages then price ceilings can achieve, if the fall of communism is any indication.
No, it's more like an auction where you can program your appliances to stop bidding on electricity when the price gets too high. Allowing the price to fluctuate in response to demand gives people a greater opportunity to economize than exists with flat rates. If the fall of communism is any indication, the "one price fits all" model just doesn't work very well in the real world.
Natural gas plants are a supply-side solution to the problem of variable power demand and supply. A demand-side solution is smart meters. Smart meters can be programmed so that when supply is reduced, it will turn off your water heater, or turn down the heat or A/C, or stop charging your electric car, or recommend that you dry your laundry on the line instead of using the dryer.
Adequate demand management such as this makes power plants that can start up quickly unnecessary.
I'm on T-Mobile's $30/month prepaid plan with 100 minutes and unlimited data (the first 5GB at HSPA+ speed, after that it's 3G speed). Skype lets me avoid using my minutes while giving me HD quality audio.
Technology hasn't yet stopped us from consuming natural resources faster than the Earth can replace them. Nor has it raised fuel efficiency in automobiles as quickly as the price of gasoline has been rising. So that "deus ex machina" that technology will solve all our problems doesn't seem to be working.
Because it is not a bad retirement plan. You sell your $1m condo in downtown whereever and buy a nice home in a country setting for less than half that and live off the rest.
This plan doesn't work so well in California where property taxes are very high on newly acquired property and very low on property you've hold on to for decades. The law is designed to keep you in your $1M condo until you die.
If the collision has been determined to be an accident, then by definition the driver isn't at fault. And if the driver isn't at fault, then what's the purpose of searching the driver's phone?
Just wait until you actually get sick. Then it will seem far less of a great deal.
That's true, but I plan to not get sick until I have a nice chunk of money in my HSA to tide me over until the next enrollment period when I will switch back to the HMO and start using my HSA to fund the copays and other charges. This gives me all the advantages of both plans.
In many urban areas, if you [leave a safe following distance] you will in fact get someone merging into that space about every 5 seconds.
Try it sometime. Maintain a 2-second following distance and see if someone merges into that space every 5 seconds. Maybe that happens in Miami or Boston, but not in San Diego.
If you don't brake, the person following you has plenty of time to notice your bumper getting closer. It's only when you brake that the brake lights are needed. That's why they don't light up when you're coasting.
"An Institute study conducted in Philadelphia evaluated effects on red light running of first lengthening yellow signal timing by about a second and then introducing red light cameras. While the longer yellow reduced red light violations by 36 percent, adding camera enforcement further cut red light running by another 96 percent."
Source: Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Farmer, C.M. 2008. Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40(1):327-33.
What's unsafe is drivers of fully-loaded semi-trailers who disobey the Basic Speed Law by driving the posted speed limit in inclement conditions.
Remember, the posted speed limit assumes ideal conditions, not the one you're describing. It's unsafe to drive the posted speed limit on ice or in heavy fog, and you can be cited for it.
Suppose they had used a Bayesian algorithm which determined on its own that tea party members were the most likely tax dodgers and therefore disproportionately picked tea party members for audits. Would that be against the law? If so, they would then have to remove the person's political party from the criteria the algorithm can use, just to stay within the law. The algorithm would no longer work so well, so it seems counterproductive to exclude certain criteria just because it involves a protected group of people.
The same set of inputs will generate the same set of outputs every time.
That isn't exactly true. Analog-to-digital converters, true random number generators, fluctuations in the power supply, RF fields, cosmic rays and so on mean that in real life, the same set of inputs won't always generate the same set of outputs, whether in androids or in their meaty analogs.
Solar and wind can be primary energy sources in that they can provide a majority of electrical generation. With a smart grid (which uses variable pricing to keep demand below the level of supply), you only need a small amount of emergency nighttime power to prevent brownouts/blackouts.
All of that planning, and they still need to build a $3B bridge to deal with the 5+ hours of traffic jam going over the Columbia River to Vancouver, WA.
If they think the only way to eliminate the shortage of road space for all the motorists who want to use it is to add capacity by building a new bridge, they don't understand the Hamburger Analogy.
If you don't build a freeway and people still need to get to that place, they will do it via surface arterials or neighborhood streets causing the neighborhoods to become much less safe due to through traffic that should be on a freeway.
Or they'll carpool or take mass transit and let someone else drive. Or they'll ride a bike and pass all that traffic. Or they'll move closer to where they need to be. Or they'll work a different shift when traffic is lower.
You bring up a good argument for eliminating minimum parking requirements that cities force upon developers and business owners. If there were less parking available at your destination, you might try to avoid the busier periods so you can find a parking space (if parking is unpriced) or cheaper parking, or you would find a different way to get there.
I don't know of any case where variable tolls set at market equilibrium have increased traffic congestion on surface streets.
A incorrect solution would be taxing this food beyond reason...
Instead of taxing food, allowing the market to determine the price would make bringing in food from outside more profitable, encouraging suppliers to do so, provided there isn't a monopoly/oligopoly on food.
If travel demand was a liquid as you thought that congestion would be a self fixing problem. You would pay this extra tax in time and frustration and before long demand for the road would go down to reasonable limits.
And that's exactly what's happening. The amount of traffic congestion may be more than what you consider to be reasonable, but obviously not more than what others tolerate or they wouldn't be sitting in traffic and contributing to it. For them, sitting in traffic is better than their feasible alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
You're saying that demand for electricity in hot states is perfectly inelastic in the summer, but you'll never find an economist who agrees with you. People will let the house heat up a degree or two, or close off unnecessary rooms, or stay downstairs where it's cooler, or turn off the A/C and visit a friend or go to the mall or movie theater, etc. Trust me, allowing prices to rise and fall in response to supply and demand does a much better job of encouraging the kind of behavior by producers and consumers that prevent shortages then price ceilings can achieve, if the fall of communism is any indication.
Why would seniors program their smart meters to turn their air conditioners down so far during a scorcher that it gives them heat stroke?
Since this will prevent blackouts and brownouts, it will prevent heat strokes, not cause them.
No, it's more like an auction where you can program your appliances to stop bidding on electricity when the price gets too high. Allowing the price to fluctuate in response to demand gives people a greater opportunity to economize than exists with flat rates. If the fall of communism is any indication, the "one price fits all" model just doesn't work very well in the real world.
Natural gas plants are a supply-side solution to the problem of variable power demand and supply. A demand-side solution is smart meters. Smart meters can be programmed so that when supply is reduced, it will turn off your water heater, or turn down the heat or A/C, or stop charging your electric car, or recommend that you dry your laundry on the line instead of using the dryer.
Adequate demand management such as this makes power plants that can start up quickly unnecessary.
I'm on T-Mobile's $30/month prepaid plan with 100 minutes and unlimited data (the first 5GB at HSPA+ speed, after that it's 3G speed). Skype lets me avoid using my minutes while giving me HD quality audio.
Technology hasn't yet stopped us from consuming natural resources faster than the Earth can replace them. Nor has it raised fuel efficiency in automobiles as quickly as the price of gasoline has been rising. So that "deus ex machina" that technology will solve all our problems doesn't seem to be working.
This plan doesn't work so well in California where property taxes are very high on newly acquired property and very low on property you've hold on to for decades. The law is designed to keep you in your $1M condo until you die.
By your definition of "accident," negligent homicides are accidents.
If the collision has been determined to be an accident, then by definition the driver isn't at fault. And if the driver isn't at fault, then what's the purpose of searching the driver's phone?
The odds are stacked greatly against my completely exhausting my HSA funds before the next enrollment period.
That's true, but I plan to not get sick until I have a nice chunk of money in my HSA to tide me over until the next enrollment period when I will switch back to the HMO and start using my HSA to fund the copays and other charges. This gives me all the advantages of both plans.
Try it sometime. Maintain a 2-second following distance and see if someone merges into that space every 5 seconds. Maybe that happens in Miami or Boston, but not in San Diego.
The parent is a jerk because he/she leaves a safe following distance as required by tailgating laws? Really?
If you don't brake, the person following you has plenty of time to notice your bumper getting closer. It's only when you brake that the brake lights are needed. That's why they don't light up when you're coasting.
"All speed limits are based on ideal driving conditions."
Please reread your driver's handbook before you get behind the wheel again.
Source: Retting, R.A.; Ferguson, S.A.; and Farmer, C.M. 2008. Reducing red light running through longer yellow signal timing and red light camera enforcement: results of a field investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40(1):327-33.
What's unsafe is drivers of fully-loaded semi-trailers who disobey the Basic Speed Law by driving the posted speed limit in inclement conditions.
Remember, the posted speed limit assumes ideal conditions, not the one you're describing. It's unsafe to drive the posted speed limit on ice or in heavy fog, and you can be cited for it.
Suppose they had used a Bayesian algorithm which determined on its own that tea party members were the most likely tax dodgers and therefore disproportionately picked tea party members for audits. Would that be against the law? If so, they would then have to remove the person's political party from the criteria the algorithm can use, just to stay within the law. The algorithm would no longer work so well, so it seems counterproductive to exclude certain criteria just because it involves a protected group of people.
By that measure, endorphins, epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, and so on are also inputs.
That isn't exactly true. Analog-to-digital converters, true random number generators, fluctuations in the power supply, RF fields, cosmic rays and so on mean that in real life, the same set of inputs won't always generate the same set of outputs, whether in androids or in their meaty analogs.
Do you realize that's the very definition of a Luddite?
Solar and wind can be primary energy sources in that they can provide a majority of electrical generation. With a smart grid (which uses variable pricing to keep demand below the level of supply), you only need a small amount of emergency nighttime power to prevent brownouts/blackouts.
That's not surprising. Increasing transportation capacity does not reduce traffic congestion in the long term.
If they think the only way to eliminate the shortage of road space for all the motorists who want to use it is to add capacity by building a new bridge, they don't understand the Hamburger Analogy.
Or they'll carpool or take mass transit and let someone else drive. Or they'll ride a bike and pass all that traffic. Or they'll move closer to where they need to be. Or they'll work a different shift when traffic is lower.
You bring up a good argument for eliminating minimum parking requirements that cities force upon developers and business owners. If there were less parking available at your destination, you might try to avoid the busier periods so you can find a parking space (if parking is unpriced) or cheaper parking, or you would find a different way to get there.
I don't know of any case where variable tolls set at market equilibrium have increased traffic congestion on surface streets.
Instead of taxing food, allowing the market to determine the price would make bringing in food from outside more profitable, encouraging suppliers to do so, provided there isn't a monopoly/oligopoly on food.
And that's exactly what's happening. The amount of traffic congestion may be more than what you consider to be reasonable, but obviously not more than what others tolerate or they wouldn't be sitting in traffic and contributing to it. For them, sitting in traffic is better than their feasible alternatives.