Let's say I really don't like one candidate because I disagree with him on a particular issue. Let's also say that because internet advertising is comparably cheep, I buy a run a banner ads that expresses my view. Under this regulation I am restricted in certain ways from doing just that. So......
From reading the article, it doesn't sound like they've gotten the material to stay that way at room temperature and pressure yet, so measuring much that stuff would be difficult.
(read: a voting system that avoids gaming, yet is simple enough to explain to the dumbest of the dumb... sorry, Condorcet Method defenders)
As a Parliamentarian I've had explained the Condorcet Method to several groups before (they needed a way of choosing between several choices effectively). I've found that most people just do a very bad job of explaining it (they start with mathmatic properties and graph theory *yuck*; yes this helps explain WHY but most people want to understand HOW). ( I would type up such an explination but slashcode doesn't like my ASCII art...)
$0.02 per unit likely won't make much of a difference at all.
Actually, for something like in ECU which would go in EVERY car the manufacturer makes (a few million) $.02 is a ton of money. (That's why Freescale chips tend to be more common in automotive stuff they are a few cents cheeper then the microchip stuff). Although for some reason freescale (now that it has been spun off) has decided to cancel that line of chips; I guess they weren't making money at the price they were charging *shrug*.
Given that the auto industry is moving AWAY from ASICs to save money, I'm somewhat sceptical of your claims. Perhaps the 2/10 of a cent is only under certain production cicumstances that don't hold for the automotive industry?
#3 was prevented for several years because of restrictions on exterior pannels. Congress finally came around.
#7 There were working systems (that really do work) as early as 1962. They used "electrical sensors" embeded in the roads. The only problem was that they didn't work with NON-equipped cars. So the big three offered to pay to have the Interstate system equipped with them for one designated lane. Congress refused (on the grounds that having lanes for people with certain types of cars was unfair). Since then the automakers and Congress have spent billions trying to do the same thing without infrastructure requirements (and under the assumption that we won't get a dedicated lane). You're unsafe comment refers to the newer, much more complicated systems.
#5 Chicken and the egg: We've got better materials but can't put them in cars because they arn't allowed. Congress doesn't want to ok it until "proven" safe. Crash dummies don't seem to count so there is no way to prove them safe short of cutting into profits by packaging Canadian or European versions differently (and then showing Congress that it worked there).
As for the others:
#1 Researched initially the late 60s early 70s (check public library for footage). Technology was originally developed for performance cars. Major hurdle was reducing production cost to an affordable point. Congress blocked due to concerns that some people would use the technology to drive dangerously fast (which may be true; but that shouldn't put a stop to the tech compleately).
#2 When Diesel Trucks first started getting really popular, it was found that an adjustment to the mandated mixture would reduce particulate emmissions when combined with a few tweaks to the engine "controller". Automotive industry got out-lobbied by the fuel industry.
As a side point Congress's decision to finally mandate lower sulfer content in diesel is going to let diesel cars become a lot more popular.
#4 Ever notice how race-car drivers have those complicated saftey harnesses? The initial seat-belts were designed to be easy to use but they are far from optimal from a saftey standpoint and can even harm pregnant mothers. There are better designs out there that don't have these drawbacks but do involve a two step latch process (but can still unlatch quickly). Congress doesn't Ok this because they worry that more steps will make people use seat belts less.
#6 There are other Thermodynamic cycles with different efficiency, power, and emmissions charecterists that might allow some interesting/improved vehicles. However the emmissions controlls are based on the assumption that the engine is "typical". Check a graduate level thermo book for more info.
Note that social security is not for public purposes
Yes it is. The idea is that society benefits because we are redistributing wealth to keep old people from burdening their children and dying in the streets because they planned their retirement poorly (Personally I think if someone fails to plan ahead they should get what's comming...). The government is taking your money and giving it to the general public presumably for the benefit of everybody.
Another way to look at this:
I pay money in that I will get out
No you pay in money that someone else takes out today. When you are old someonelse will pay for you (hence my pyramid scheme comment; this plan relies on continual population growth to work); historically, you also don't get out the same value as you put in (because of inflation and other factors). This is why it's a tax, Congress takes money from you and spends it on someone else.
So they should get free SS?
No, the tax code however shouldn't penalize them for being poor.
Actually you can get simple micro's for as little as $.25 (FPGAs are more expensive then micro's) even in relatively small quantaties. Those ASICs arn't going to save you any money. Any production cost they save is outweighed by engineering costs.
Almost all new electronics designs start by seeing if you can do what you need to with a micro. Only if that doesn't work do you think of ASICs.
Than do away with is all together dont shift the cost into income tax
That's what I'd like to see, but I'm realistic, that's not happening anytime soon.
SS is not a tax
A Tax is (according to Mirriam-Webster) "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons for public purposes". Social Security is supposedly for the public good and it's certainly a public program. By that definition, it's definately a tax; especially after you consider that even the poorest Americans get out less then they put in.
My point is that Bush wanted to cut taxes across the board so he opened up a new low 10% bracket, and reduced the percentage of federal revenue comming from the middle class (by increasing the percentage of federal revenue comming in from the top tax brackets). He did such a good job at middle class tax cuts that the bottom 25% of Americans spend a larger percentage of their income paying taxes then the middle class. Because these guys put in so little anyway, he should have cut their taxes as well.
My SS benefit will be the exact same as someone who makes half of what I do, to you this is not fair?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but here goes: Social Security and unemployment benefits are giant horribly run pyramid schemes that have no place in America. Medicare and Medicade (also financed through payroll taxes) as poorly run as they are do have some societal benefits (not that there arn't other ways to get them), but, like publicly funded schooling, are technically a form of wealth redistribution.
Reguardless on where you stand on any of this, it is unfair for someone who is poor to spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes then someone in the middle class. Optimally they'd spend the same percentage, and if you believe in wealth redistribution (which I am throughly convinced can never actually work), the poorer people should pay a lower percentage. No matter who's philosophy I apply, I can't think of any reason they should spend more.
Bush still didn't do what I wanted to see, completely eliminate payroll taxes and use the income tax to fund it.
If you graph salary v. % of income spent on taxes, it's really low as you approach that middle 50% but as you get up to the top 25% it goes up (no surprise here).
What is surprising is that as you go lower the federal taxes as a percent of income go up as well. Much of this can be attributed to payroll taxes. I'd like to see that problem get fixed; it's not fair no matter how you cut it.
Standing at the craps table in Ceasar's Palace at 3:00 am: do I play the point? Big 6 or 8? Play the field? How about covering the hard ways?
You should choose either "Pass" or "Don't Pass", bet the maximum odds you can after the point is established and do the same for two "come" or "don't come" bets.
This will give the best odds to walk away a winner (with the house keeping a razor thin edge).
> Auto manufacturers have created safety and/or environmental improvements in the past, but congress has blocked their implementation.
It's happened plenty of times:
Turbine Engines (use less fuel for the same power)
"Clean" Diesel (needed a slightly different mix then Congress allowed so they couln't sell because the fuel was illegal)
Pedestrian Airbags
Multi-point saftey harnesses
Improved cabin materials
Other style engines (that for example night produce less CO but slightly more NOx, so since they are out of the pollution regulation, even though they are overall less polutant, they can't be implemented)
Self navigating vehicles (for which the tech has existed in some form since the 60s)
None of this is surprising, the guys in Congress arn't engineers and the government advisors arn't the most talented guys in the world (if they were they could do way better for themselves working elsewhere), so they arn't going to always make decisions on the basis of solid engineering.
Obviously not because you arn't getting it. A given company has X research dollars and needs to net some return. Under the current system investing in new tech that would require changing regulations is very unprofitable. You assumption that Congress will change the regulation assumes the invention exists. Under Congressional regulation, there is zero economic incentive to invent a new method.
Here is how I see it.
And here's how I see it.
DOT spends $2.8 Billion of Taxpayer money to develop improved automotive saftey system to save lives. Research is promising but shows that some passengers could sustain serious or fatal injuries. However, the lives saved make the system worth while so long as it's use is properly explained and the system can be deactivated in unsafe situations.
Some congressman sees the idea, hears that it saves lives and decides these should be required in all cars. The automotive industry points out that making consumers who SHOULDN'T use the system pay for it is unwise, and that for saftey reasons the system should be able to be turned off in some circumstances.
Congress doesn't listen to well reasoned researchers because it wants to appear like it's taking on some big greedy industry and mandates the saftey system be put in all cars with no override. Congress furthermore neglects to tell the public about the dangers shown EARLY in research and puts pressure on auto execs to bury that information.
Airbags get put in all cars and save many lives, in some cases however, as predicted people were seriously injured or killed.
These deaths were preventable. We knew they were a strong possibilty long before air-bags became required and Congress ignored it for political expediency. Playing with people's lives is no game, and anyone who claims that the lives saved somehow offsets the avoidable loss of someonelse's life is showing how little they respect the lives of their fellow country men.
If you really have the job you claim to have, shouldn't you know about this?
If you are going to hurl insults, you should have the guts to post logged in.
if an auto company researched a better way
that's my point, why allocate reasearch funds for developing better ways if Congress says it's good enough and even if our 1/100 chance comes through they might not let put it into production quickly enough or in a manner profitable enough to recover our cost of research.
I have ridden in several new cars recently
So it's OK that all the people who died durring the years that Congress FORBID such a device because they finally saw the error of their ways? If some company did something so utterly foolish, there would be enormous law suits. You asked for examples I gave you a valid one. You can't mitigate it by changing the policy AFTER people have DIED!
You do realize there is a such thing as criminal negligence? The executives and major investors of said company would go to jail. Said investors could be sued for the money (because if their going to pony up the cash for a start up they've got it - and the liability protection does extend to gross negligence on the part of leadership).
Also there is a general fund for stuff like this; not to mention the EPA is going to clean up that spill. I'm not seeing how MORE regulation is going to help.
Well I work in research, it's my job to think up wacky new stuff that has about a 1/100 chance of working. However many of those research avenues are cut off because Congress sets certain requirements involving materials and ways of solving problems. Catalitic converters are mandatory even though they are really old technology and there is a lot of cool theories on other ways to deal with polution. But because those methods would be exclusive of CATs auto companies don't bother to research them.
Another example from the saftey department is that certain parts of your cabin have to be built in a certain way and with certain materials (even though other materials and construction methods would be safter).
Currently pedestrian airbags can't be factory installed cost effectively because of bumper and other exterior regulations. Air bags inside the car could also be possitioned better but the airbag regulation is a bit too specific.
Also some people SHOULDN'T drive with air-bags because they are too likely to harm them, but because of congress there is no way to turn them off. I could go on.....
No I work for an automotive company and am sick to hell of hearing "This is a great idea it would {insert save on gas milage/cut pollution/save lives}, but we can't do it because of Congressional regulations"
As I said above, I have much greater faith in organizations like consumer reports making sure stuff isn't unsafe for the users, and I'm pretty sure negligent homocide is still a crime in most states.
I don't think we need regulation here; especially after seeing first hand how f***ed automotive and fuel regulation makes cars less efficient, more pollutant, and more dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG MY RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!!!!!!
From reading the article, it doesn't sound like they've gotten the material to stay that way at room temperature and pressure yet, so measuring much that stuff would be difficult.
Wow, that link explains a lot about what happened to Horizons. I feel really sorry for DA....
I don't think so; I would propose instead that you are heavily opposed to Bush, hence the poll SEEMS biased towards Bush.
As a Parliamentarian I've had explained the Condorcet Method to several groups before (they needed a way of choosing between several choices effectively). I've found that most people just do a very bad job of explaining it (they start with mathmatic properties and graph theory *yuck*; yes this helps explain WHY but most people want to understand HOW). ( I would type up such an explination but slashcode doesn't like my ASCII art...)
Nope, just sold that way at the dealer. So if you want to put it in after market AFAIK you'll be fine.
Actually, for something like in ECU which would go in EVERY car the manufacturer makes (a few million) $.02 is a ton of money. (That's why Freescale chips tend to be more common in automotive stuff they are a few cents cheeper then the microchip stuff). Although for some reason freescale (now that it has been spun off) has decided to cancel that line of chips; I guess they weren't making money at the price they were charging *shrug*.
Given that the auto industry is moving AWAY from ASICs to save money, I'm somewhat sceptical of your claims. Perhaps the 2/10 of a cent is only under certain production cicumstances that don't hold for the automotive industry?
#7 There were working systems (that really do work) as early as 1962. They used "electrical sensors" embeded in the roads. The only problem was that they didn't work with NON-equipped cars. So the big three offered to pay to have the Interstate system equipped with them for one designated lane. Congress refused (on the grounds that having lanes for people with certain types of cars was unfair). Since then the automakers and Congress have spent billions trying to do the same thing without infrastructure requirements (and under the assumption that we won't get a dedicated lane). You're unsafe comment refers to the newer, much more complicated systems.
#5 Chicken and the egg: We've got better materials but can't put them in cars because they arn't allowed. Congress doesn't want to ok it until "proven" safe. Crash dummies don't seem to count so there is no way to prove them safe short of cutting into profits by packaging Canadian or European versions differently (and then showing Congress that it worked there).
As for the others:
#1 Researched initially the late 60s early 70s (check public library for footage). Technology was originally developed for performance cars. Major hurdle was reducing production cost to an affordable point. Congress blocked due to concerns that some people would use the technology to drive dangerously fast (which may be true; but that shouldn't put a stop to the tech compleately).
#2 When Diesel Trucks first started getting really popular, it was found that an adjustment to the mandated mixture would reduce particulate emmissions when combined with a few tweaks to the engine "controller". Automotive industry got out-lobbied by the fuel industry.
As a side point Congress's decision to finally mandate lower sulfer content in diesel is going to let diesel cars become a lot more popular.
#4 Ever notice how race-car drivers have those complicated saftey harnesses? The initial seat-belts were designed to be easy to use but they are far from optimal from a saftey standpoint and can even harm pregnant mothers. There are better designs out there that don't have these drawbacks but do involve a two step latch process (but can still unlatch quickly). Congress doesn't Ok this because they worry that more steps will make people use seat belts less.
#6 There are other Thermodynamic cycles with different efficiency, power, and emmissions charecterists that might allow some interesting/improved vehicles. However the emmissions controlls are based on the assumption that the engine is "typical". Check a graduate level thermo book for more info.
Yes it is. The idea is that society benefits because we are redistributing wealth to keep old people from burdening their children and dying in the streets because they planned their retirement poorly (Personally I think if someone fails to plan ahead they should get what's comming...). The government is taking your money and giving it to the general public presumably for the benefit of everybody.
Another way to look at this:
I pay money in that I will get out
No you pay in money that someone else takes out today. When you are old someonelse will pay for you (hence my pyramid scheme comment; this plan relies on continual population growth to work); historically, you also don't get out the same value as you put in (because of inflation and other factors). This is why it's a tax, Congress takes money from you and spends it on someone else.
So they should get free SS?
No, the tax code however shouldn't penalize them for being poor.
Almost all new electronics designs start by seeing if you can do what you need to with a micro. Only if that doesn't work do you think of ASICs.
Don't forget Automobiles: Engine, ABS, HVAC, and Airbag controllers all still use (well for the most part anyway) slow, cheep 8-bit micro-controllers.
That's what I'd like to see, but I'm realistic, that's not happening anytime soon.
SS is not a tax
A Tax is (according to Mirriam-Webster) "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons for public purposes". Social Security is supposedly for the public good and it's certainly a public program. By that definition, it's definately a tax; especially after you consider that even the poorest Americans get out less then they put in.
My point is that Bush wanted to cut taxes across the board so he opened up a new low 10% bracket, and reduced the percentage of federal revenue comming from the middle class (by increasing the percentage of federal revenue comming in from the top tax brackets). He did such a good job at middle class tax cuts that the bottom 25% of Americans spend a larger percentage of their income paying taxes then the middle class. Because these guys put in so little anyway, he should have cut their taxes as well.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but here goes: Social Security and unemployment benefits are giant horribly run pyramid schemes that have no place in America. Medicare and Medicade (also financed through payroll taxes) as poorly run as they are do have some societal benefits (not that there arn't other ways to get them), but, like publicly funded schooling, are technically a form of wealth redistribution.
Reguardless on where you stand on any of this, it is unfair for someone who is poor to spend a larger percentage of their income on taxes then someone in the middle class. Optimally they'd spend the same percentage, and if you believe in wealth redistribution (which I am throughly convinced can never actually work), the poorer people should pay a lower percentage. No matter who's philosophy I apply, I can't think of any reason they should spend more.
If you graph salary v. % of income spent on taxes, it's really low as you approach that middle 50% but as you get up to the top 25% it goes up (no surprise here).
What is surprising is that as you go lower the federal taxes as a percent of income go up as well. Much of this can be attributed to payroll taxes. I'd like to see that problem get fixed; it's not fair no matter how you cut it.
You could vote for me! (If I was every dumb enough to get talked into running......)
You should choose either "Pass" or "Don't Pass", bet the maximum odds you can after the point is established and do the same for two "come" or "don't come" bets.
This will give the best odds to walk away a winner (with the house keeping a razor thin edge).
It's happened plenty of times:
None of this is surprising, the guys in Congress arn't engineers and the government advisors arn't the most talented guys in the world (if they were they could do way better for themselves working elsewhere), so they arn't going to always make decisions on the basis of solid engineering.
Obviously not because you arn't getting it. A given company has X research dollars and needs to net some return. Under the current system investing in new tech that would require changing regulations is very unprofitable. You assumption that Congress will change the regulation assumes the invention exists. Under Congressional regulation, there is zero economic incentive to invent a new method.
Here is how I see it.
And here's how I see it.
- DOT spends $2.8 Billion of Taxpayer money to develop improved automotive saftey system to save lives. Research is promising but shows that some passengers could sustain serious or fatal injuries. However, the lives saved make the system worth while so long as it's use is properly explained and the system can be deactivated in unsafe situations.
- Some congressman sees the idea, hears that it saves lives and decides these should be required in all cars. The automotive industry points out that making consumers who SHOULDN'T use the system pay for it is unwise, and that for saftey reasons the system should be able to be turned off in some circumstances.
- Congress doesn't listen to well reasoned researchers because it wants to appear like it's taking on some big greedy industry and mandates the saftey system be put in all cars with no override. Congress furthermore neglects to tell the public about the dangers shown EARLY in research and puts pressure on auto execs to bury that information.
- Airbags get put in all cars and save many lives, in some cases however, as predicted people were seriously injured or killed.
These deaths were preventable. We knew they were a strong possibilty long before air-bags became required and Congress ignored it for political expediency. Playing with people's lives is no game, and anyone who claims that the lives saved somehow offsets the avoidable loss of someonelse's life is showing how little they respect the lives of their fellow country men.If you are going to hurl insults, you should have the guts to post logged in.
if an auto company researched a better way
that's my point, why allocate reasearch funds for developing better ways if Congress says it's good enough and even if our 1/100 chance comes through they might not let put it into production quickly enough or in a manner profitable enough to recover our cost of research.
I have ridden in several new cars recently
So it's OK that all the people who died durring the years that Congress FORBID such a device because they finally saw the error of their ways? If some company did something so utterly foolish, there would be enormous law suits. You asked for examples I gave you a valid one. You can't mitigate it by changing the policy AFTER people have DIED!
Also there is a general fund for stuff like this; not to mention the EPA is going to clean up that spill. I'm not seeing how MORE regulation is going to help.
Another example from the saftey department is that certain parts of your cabin have to be built in a certain way and with certain materials (even though other materials and construction methods would be safter).
Currently pedestrian airbags can't be factory installed cost effectively because of bumper and other exterior regulations. Air bags inside the car could also be possitioned better but the airbag regulation is a bit too specific.
Also some people SHOULDN'T drive with air-bags because they are too likely to harm them, but because of congress there is no way to turn them off. I could go on.....
No I work for an automotive company and am sick to hell of hearing "This is a great idea it would {insert save on gas milage/cut pollution/save lives}, but we can't do it because of Congressional regulations"
I don't think we need regulation here; especially after seeing first hand how f***ed automotive and fuel regulation makes cars less efficient, more pollutant, and more dangerous.
I have much more faith in independant review agencies like consumer reports then anything congress passes.