The difference is in one case you are giving someone money and in the other you are not taking their money. Yes, the math works out the same, but the method is important. I suspect people use the word to make it seem like the government is actively propping-up the entity, like welfare.
So if you don't want to loose this race to Europe or even more the Chinese, then the government has to invest more than just $20 billion dollars.
I'm not 100% sold that we need to win this race. If China wants to subsidize solar panels for US citizens, what's the harm? Yes, they will distort the market and the US will lose some solar panel manufacturing jobs, but in return they get pieces of paper... IOUs. So we get real stuff that pumps out electricity and they get paper producing less than 1% interest. And then, at some point, they will probably want to cash in that paper (at inflation reduced value). What will they buy with it? American goods and services! So here come the jobs back...
The whole strategy of subsidizing industries is short-sighted and ultimately a loss. The only way it can work is if you completely monopolize production and then make a ton of money by gouging until alternative supply can ramp up.
He figured out that, for better or for worse, in America you don't "compromise". Instead, you dart from crisis to crisis to demonstrate how awesome you are to your base... never mind that in the end, you actually raised taxes on the rich a little less than you intended, but also had to cut spending more than you wanted.
That's the amazing thing, how no one is talking about how Obama managed to get his higher taxes on the rich and how the Republicans managed to get their budget cuts.
Don't internalize it - make "carbon" a tradable commodity and try to constrain it at zero or some other satisfactory number. If someone wants to release it, they first have to buy the rights to do so from someone who is sequestering it.
Personally, I think it's a waste of time since you'll never get China and other developing countries to sign on, but the solution to the problem is pretty straightforward - if maybe a bit bureaucratic and cumbersome. Better to start funding mitigation efforts:)
I actually agree with you. "Seeding" companies and subsidizing loans seems to be something that the government is bad at. I don't, however, mind that we use the government to support fundamental research. I think the track record is much better here, and fundamental research - provided it is done openly - has a long-term public benefit. I'm not sure that using gas taxes is the way to go, but that is more of a political argument.
The point is, private industry is not going to account for the fact that fossil fuels will run out. There is simply no mechanism in place to account for that kind of long-term problem. Futures contracts - which would normally handle this sort of thing - don't really handle dates 30 or 50 years out in the future. As such, I think it is responsible for us as a society to come up with the technology we will need to replace fossil fuels in the future. That does NOT mean funding electric car companies or windmill manufacturers.
many of the countries under that umbrella enjoy a better average standard of living and healthier economy than the US, too.
Sure, pick on the US when it's down. It wasn't so long ago that the US enjoyed a sub-6% unemployment rate while Europe looked on in envy with 25% of their youth out of work. And for every Germany or Norway in Europe you have an Italy or Spain (Greece is too easy). For every Brazil in South America, you have a Venezuela. Socialism can quickly send your country over a cliff when the voters run up the debt and the financiers decide to make borrowing more expensive. Even the US has gone down this road - can you imagine the carnage if our Treasury yield suddenly were in the 7% range? We'd be in a austerity spiral like half of Europe.
They will last longer than 5800 hours so you eventually come out ahead.
Probably, if I get that life. The bulb is probably never going to burn out - but the converter could quit before 50,000 hours... In any event, these $15 bulbs will probably be a dollar by then - which is part of the reason I feel financially stupid buying them now. As I redo rooms in this 60s house, I'm stringing low-voltage wiring to the same locations as AC so that I can use a single high-quality DC power supply. I'm pretty sure whatever lighting tech rules the next 30 years will be DC, and the DC wire is cheap. Already they sell under-cabinet and recessed DC lighting. My house even has halogen under-cabinet lights that run on DC.
I have 4 outdoor lights that previously ran a combined 240 watts and now they run 60 watts, so that's fine with me. They run all night, let's say an average of 12 hours. Payback is probably about half a year.
I use them where I don't need light soon, or much light, or for very long
I actually use this to my advantage in bathrooms. I have a line of small globe lamps on the top of the vanity. 5 of them are cold-cathode CFL lamps, which are VERY slow to warm up. 1 of them is a regular incandescent. When you flick on the lights in the middle of the night, you are not greeted with blinding light - the lights take about a minute to come up to full brightness. I normally hate the way my face looks in the mirror with CFL bulbs, but the single incandescent brings the quality of light way up.
If instant light is what you desire, GE makes a "hybrid" bulb that has a halogen inside the CFL coil. The bulb runs the halogen for a few minutes until the fluorescent part is up to full brightness. Note that the quality varies quite a bit within the brand. I find the ones rated for indoor/outdoor hold up far better than the indoor only. Problem is, GE does not mark the packaging - only the bulb itself! I see the indoor/outdoor variety at Walgreens for $10 and the indoor only in 2-packs at Target for $14.
Of course, a $10 bulb is going to screw up the payback time, so...:) I mostly use them because my house has so many lights that changing lightbulbs was a daily chore. Gotta love the 70s and the popularity of can-lights!
How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT.
I've been buying the Phillips candelabra 3.5 watt LEDs at Home Depot as my kitchen lights burn out. They go for around $15 each, and they aren't bad. I go from 200 watts to 28 watts. I tried various CFL candelabra bulbs... not THOSE are "all shit".:)
Now, payback period is another matter... it'll take 5800 hours of run time just to break even (on electricity.... yes, I'm neglecting the non-zero cost of replacement incandescents) at $0.12/kw-h. That's 5 years at 3 hours per day! So my investment strategy is not great, but honestly I'm just tired of replacing bulbs:)
I don't have time to do a big search, but the Honda example was pretty much as you describe. It was done in small claims court, so it was lawyer-free (at least from the Plaintiff's standpoint... I suppose a corporation has to send an attorney!). The original settlement was $100, which is on-par with a laptop screen settlement. The reason people sued for $10,000 is because that is the small-claims limit... it would be silly to start lower, especially given the $30k+ that they spent on the car.
Can you cite any examples of companies being swamped by "thousands" of individual lawsuits over small-cash issues?
Tobacco. Class action status was rejected in the 90s, and they've been fighting lawsuits ever since.
Honda has had a recent revolt from hybrid owners, if you want small claims. Over 1700 people that opted-out of a class settlement (for $100) and sued individually (for $10,000). The lady in this particular link lost.
Vendors prefer the class action. They defend a single lawsuit instead of thousands, and you are a member of the class unless you proactively opt-out. It really cuts down on legal costs.
I would rather he was sentanced to spend several nights a week in soup kitchens for as long as he is medically able, if you really need to sentance him to something... why give him a forced retirement in a cell? Have him do something useful for society. I mean, its not like anyone is going to trust the guy with investments again, and he certainly isn't a physical danger to anyone.
Exactly. Put him to use in society. Why pay for his incarceration? Fines, wage garnishments, community service, supervision, even a short prison stint are all better. The man is a notorious convicted felon and can't possibly be a harm to society through financial scams - all jailing him does is make us feel better.
But they also sell some of the same Euro and Asian built cars in the US, and the claimed mileage difference is hilarious.
The EPA estimates are pretty decent - especially the city number. I never get the highway number, though. Well, I usually drive like a wuss for one tank in a new car just to hit the number, but then revert to my old habits.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is in one case you are giving someone money and in the other you are not taking their money. Yes, the math works out the same, but the method is important. I suspect people use the word to make it seem like the government is actively propping-up the entity, like welfare.
So if you don't want to loose this race to Europe or even more the Chinese, then the government has to invest more than just $20 billion dollars.
I'm not 100% sold that we need to win this race. If China wants to subsidize solar panels for US citizens, what's the harm? Yes, they will distort the market and the US will lose some solar panel manufacturing jobs, but in return they get pieces of paper... IOUs. So we get real stuff that pumps out electricity and they get paper producing less than 1% interest. And then, at some point, they will probably want to cash in that paper (at inflation reduced value). What will they buy with it? American goods and services! So here come the jobs back...
The whole strategy of subsidizing industries is short-sighted and ultimately a loss. The only way it can work is if you completely monopolize production and then make a ton of money by gouging until alternative supply can ramp up.
He figured out that, for better or for worse, in America you don't "compromise". Instead, you dart from crisis to crisis to demonstrate how awesome you are to your base... never mind that in the end, you actually raised taxes on the rich a little less than you intended, but also had to cut spending more than you wanted.
That's the amazing thing, how no one is talking about how Obama managed to get his higher taxes on the rich and how the Republicans managed to get their budget cuts.
Don't internalize it - make "carbon" a tradable commodity and try to constrain it at zero or some other satisfactory number. If someone wants to release it, they first have to buy the rights to do so from someone who is sequestering it.
Personally, I think it's a waste of time since you'll never get China and other developing countries to sign on, but the solution to the problem is pretty straightforward - if maybe a bit bureaucratic and cumbersome. Better to start funding mitigation efforts :)
I love how tax breaks are referred to as "subsidy". It's not just this article, but it's still funny every time I see it.
I actually agree with you. "Seeding" companies and subsidizing loans seems to be something that the government is bad at. I don't, however, mind that we use the government to support fundamental research. I think the track record is much better here, and fundamental research - provided it is done openly - has a long-term public benefit. I'm not sure that using gas taxes is the way to go, but that is more of a political argument.
The point is, private industry is not going to account for the fact that fossil fuels will run out. There is simply no mechanism in place to account for that kind of long-term problem. Futures contracts - which would normally handle this sort of thing - don't really handle dates 30 or 50 years out in the future. As such, I think it is responsible for us as a society to come up with the technology we will need to replace fossil fuels in the future. That does NOT mean funding electric car companies or windmill manufacturers.
(Look at their zero tolerance to drug policy).
That is not unique to Singapore. Asia is very sensitive to drugs (see the Opium Wars). It is quite common to have Draconian drug rules in Asia.
many of the countries under that umbrella enjoy a better average standard of living and healthier economy than the US, too.
Sure, pick on the US when it's down. It wasn't so long ago that the US enjoyed a sub-6% unemployment rate while Europe looked on in envy with 25% of their youth out of work. And for every Germany or Norway in Europe you have an Italy or Spain (Greece is too easy). For every Brazil in South America, you have a Venezuela. Socialism can quickly send your country over a cliff when the voters run up the debt and the financiers decide to make borrowing more expensive. Even the US has gone down this road - can you imagine the carnage if our Treasury yield suddenly were in the 7% range? We'd be in a austerity spiral like half of Europe.
They will last longer than 5800 hours so you eventually come out ahead.
Probably, if I get that life. The bulb is probably never going to burn out - but the converter could quit before 50,000 hours... In any event, these $15 bulbs will probably be a dollar by then - which is part of the reason I feel financially stupid buying them now. As I redo rooms in this 60s house, I'm stringing low-voltage wiring to the same locations as AC so that I can use a single high-quality DC power supply. I'm pretty sure whatever lighting tech rules the next 30 years will be DC, and the DC wire is cheap. Already they sell under-cabinet and recessed DC lighting. My house even has halogen under-cabinet lights that run on DC.
I have 4 outdoor lights that previously ran a combined 240 watts and now they run 60 watts, so that's fine with me. They run all night, let's say an average of 12 hours. Payback is probably about half a year.
I use them where I don't need light soon, or much light, or for very long
I actually use this to my advantage in bathrooms. I have a line of small globe lamps on the top of the vanity. 5 of them are cold-cathode CFL lamps, which are VERY slow to warm up. 1 of them is a regular incandescent. When you flick on the lights in the middle of the night, you are not greeted with blinding light - the lights take about a minute to come up to full brightness. I normally hate the way my face looks in the mirror with CFL bulbs, but the single incandescent brings the quality of light way up.
If instant light is what you desire, GE makes a "hybrid" bulb that has a halogen inside the CFL coil. The bulb runs the halogen for a few minutes until the fluorescent part is up to full brightness. Note that the quality varies quite a bit within the brand. I find the ones rated for indoor/outdoor hold up far better than the indoor only. Problem is, GE does not mark the packaging - only the bulb itself! I see the indoor/outdoor variety at Walgreens for $10 and the indoor only in 2-packs at Target for $14.
Of course, a $10 bulb is going to screw up the payback time, so... :) I mostly use them because my house has so many lights that changing lightbulbs was a daily chore. Gotta love the 70s and the popularity of can-lights!
How many $20 LED lamps have you bought? How many $10 ones? ALL SHIT.
I've been buying the Phillips candelabra 3.5 watt LEDs at Home Depot as my kitchen lights burn out. They go for around $15 each, and they aren't bad. I go from 200 watts to 28 watts. I tried various CFL candelabra bulbs... not THOSE are "all shit". :)
Now, payback period is another matter... it'll take 5800 hours of run time just to break even (on electricity.... yes, I'm neglecting the non-zero cost of replacement incandescents) at $0.12/kw-h. That's 5 years at 3 hours per day! So my investment strategy is not great, but honestly I'm just tired of replacing bulbs :)
I don't have time to do a big search, but the Honda example was pretty much as you describe. It was done in small claims court, so it was lawyer-free (at least from the Plaintiff's standpoint... I suppose a corporation has to send an attorney!). The original settlement was $100, which is on-par with a laptop screen settlement. The reason people sued for $10,000 is because that is the small-claims limit... it would be silly to start lower, especially given the $30k+ that they spent on the car.
Can you cite any examples of companies being swamped by "thousands" of individual lawsuits over small-cash issues?
Tobacco. Class action status was rejected in the 90s, and they've been fighting lawsuits ever since.
Honda has had a recent revolt from hybrid owners, if you want small claims. Over 1700 people that opted-out of a class settlement (for $100) and sued individually (for $10,000). The lady in this particular link lost.
Vendors prefer the class action. They defend a single lawsuit instead of thousands, and you are a member of the class unless you proactively opt-out. It really cuts down on legal costs.
I know someone never gets laid.
192.168.xxx.xxx is LAN-only.
I would rather he was sentanced to spend several nights a week in soup kitchens for as long as he is medically able, if you really need to sentance him to something... why give him a forced retirement in a cell? Have him do something useful for society. I mean, its not like anyone is going to trust the guy with investments again, and he certainly isn't a physical danger to anyone.
Exactly. Put him to use in society. Why pay for his incarceration? Fines, wage garnishments, community service, supervision, even a short prison stint are all better. The man is a notorious convicted felon and can't possibly be a harm to society through financial scams - all jailing him does is make us feel better.
This one time, at band camp, I stuffed a Slashdot comment up my flute.
You are off to a good start by using the <tt> tag. Now post this question on every article for a week and your submission will go away.
Yes, then TP-Link sends a Chinese hacker/technician to your house to exploit this LAN-only security problem.
The US uses the same method of measurement as Europe plus an additional method. The two are then averaged together. Our gas is mostly the same :)
But they also sell some of the same Euro and Asian built cars in the US, and the claimed mileage difference is hilarious.
The EPA estimates are pretty decent - especially the city number. I never get the highway number, though. Well, I usually drive like a wuss for one tank in a new car just to hit the number, but then revert to my old habits.
They are just the inverse of one another, so it's not that big of a deal. But I certainly agree that volume/distance makes comparisons more intuitive.
I understand how torquey diesels are, but they do not provide as much power. They are necessarily heavier and they spin slower.
Free or low-cost diesel would indeed change the equation :)