This is where you have a point: the combination of urban sprawl and lack of (use of) public transit means you need to do many short trips. But that doesn't mean I agree with grandparent... obviously the price of anything increasing that much over such a short period of time is painful.............
I don't think you understand that Europe is a fairly large group of sovereign nations, of wildly different geographical size and layout. Sweden has a population density of 20.6/km2, yet is larger than California (population density 93.3/km2). Certainly people commute comparable distances around Stockholm to what people do around Silicon Valley.
It is not really a fair comparison between Europe and the US or any particular part of the US. The problem arises with most of Europe being well established before cars and other means of quick transportation were available or affordable by the masses. The US on the other hand is relatively young in this regard and for the most part, outside of some old large cities, was built with the availability of speedy transportation. Without that, people who got jobs in other towns would tend to move to the other towns if not just for the period of time working the jobs. In the US, the bulk of development has been with the ability to just drive to the next town. This leads to the population areas being more wide spread simply because they can be
But in your example of California verses Sweden, despite Sweden having about twice the amount of land covered by water-mass or 70% of it being forested or glaciated mountain ranges, California also has 4 times the population and makes use of lands within it's borders on a wider scale. You might be better off comparing cities and metropolitan areas to gain an accurate scale.
I used to drive it about 15 times a year. Not that specific route, but when I drove a truck, I was averaging about 3500 miles (5600km) a week and when I drove team, we would do between 5500 to 6500 miles (8851-10,460km) a week for most of the year (10 months or so). Of course this was a commercial venture moving seasonal produce and other items. I do drive up to 1400 miles about once every year for private reasons. I can average 100 miles a trip if shopping 30 miles to the big city, 20 miles between shops, 20 miles to a family members home vist to consolidate trips, and then another 20-25 miles home. I'll do this about 2 or 3 times every 2 months.
This isn't crap I just made up, it's from our government Of course it is insulting that race would be brought up. But the logic of it costs more to subsidize people because of perceived medical costs associated with a behavior or potential increase in premium costs so they should be excluded from government employment is right there with it. It's no different then someone with 10 speeding tickets, they get charged more because of their actions. Don't discriminate based on behavior that is legal, just charge them the difference if there is one. If it is all about saving money, then there are some serious problems that can crop up as well. Do we think that government will be well served by only employing whites with a 4% body fat and no medical conditions because they're receiving health benefits subsidized by you and I ? And do not say that would never happen or that it's a strawman deserving to be rejected because it wouldn't happen. It also wouldn't be racial discrimination, it would be the established discrimination based on costs controls, not race.
It's a crock of crap is what it is. Hire people for their abilities and qualifications, not because their legal activity might cost a slight bit more.
Your map would be flawed unless it was also adjusted for policies implemented by them. The reason is because areas with the R's inside them tend to be cheaper to live in and have less regulation. The D's like California is in a particularly suffering because of added environmental regulations. Some of these are imposed by the federal government and some are adopted voluntarily by the state. If you follow the link I provide and select the RFG (reformulated gas) and then select area, you will find a lot of California is federally limited to gas that is not required to be used in the surrounding states.
California right now is suffering because of a formulation requirement in Gasoline that is different then all the states around them. A refinery that supplies the state had a fire and went off line where another refinery was doing some scheduled maintenance before gearing up for the winter blend, another lost power for a few days and had to completely shut down causing the latest spike, and a major pipeline carrying oil to the refineries was shut down because a sensor showed elevated levels of organic chloride.
This is a non-political issue in the current sense of politics. It is ultimately a political issue because it is imposed by politics- but it was the politics of past actions- not current or future actions and not because of subsidies. The subsidies the oil companies see are more of making the oil companies do certain things that aren't profitable to them. Most of them go to the smaller oil companies who are trying to compete with the big boys and if they are eliminated, it just means the smaller companies would be bought out by the big boys and some of the practices we decided the oil companies should be doing by dangling subsidies in front of them will disappear. Oil companies will simply reorganize their operation and big oil will not miss the oil subsidies whatsoever at all.
The last four refineries I know of that were going to be built weren't because people used the judicial process- not the democratic process. There was even the patch of desert land in Arizona where the BIG OIL company searched endlessly for signs of endangered species and so on just to lose in court over some law prohibiting the dumping of industry into minority communities because the land was originally owned by some Indian tribe who was championing the refinery (as they would get royalties from it).
Well, I guess you could say that was a democratic process, where outsiders used the courts and an interpretation of a law to stop people who wanted the revenue from getting it. That is if you accept that the democratic process is rigged and unjust and that the justice system comprises of justice for just us.
Not every state.. The nation is divided into zones regulated by the EPA based around climate and population and most states will fall into one of these zones and have a default formulation. California decided it was going to make its own more stringent requirements because it wouldn't hurt anything and save the environment. Some other states have followed but I'm not sure which ones.
This isn't a supply verses increased demand- supply problem.
Getting oil into California is not the problem with this jump in price that is largely isolated to California. The problem is that California requires a specific formulation in their gas that is more stringent then the rest of the country and only a few refineries bother producing it. One of the refineries are down for scheduled maintenance and another is hit with unscheduled maintenance creating a unique shortage condition for California.
In my area, gas prices have been going down lately. But this is a political problem not a supply problem. There are choices you have though. Leave California like a lot of people and companies seem to be doing, demand your politicians undo the formulation requirements and follow national standards even if just temporarily, take public transportation if possible, or buy a new car and have that $350-500 a month payment and $200-500 every 6 months increase in insurance premiums just so you can save $20 a week at the pump.
It might be ok for private companies to do, but no citizen should be barred from working for their own government for participating in acts that are completely legal. If they had committed a crime, maybe, if they are unqualified, sure, don't hire them. But as for smoking, you might as well claim you can't work there if you eat bacon as they are both legal and both can create health risks under certain circumstances.
The problem with barring people because of legal things or even illegal things that are addictive is that history has showed us people will pick the sin over the jobs,. It is a matter of instant gratification over long term comfort perceived or real. It is a matter of freedom over repression. someone can make the case to why X is bad, but if you do not convince them it is, they won't care or care enough to stop.
I'm saying that a diesel electric train is still burning fossil fuels directly to propel itself. If you take the massive generators away, you will not move. This is apposed to a true electric train that gains it's electricity from outside source like wire running over head or the rails being electrified.
You are 100% correct in that 'Electric' means the propulsion, but you lose on the fact that without diesel fuel to power the on board generators to provide the electricity, it doesn't move at all. The diesel or gas modifier makes it a hybrid by default.
Gas electric is not pure electric. Diesel electric is not pure electric. in fact, if they were pure electric, you likely wouldn't need to condition the term electric with the appropriate term to modify it. Nor would the op had made an allowance for hybrids.
I agree with your comment on the storage mechanisms. However not because of the storage efficiency issues. It's because we are producing electricity and trying to store it in a medium that is similarly intensive to process and create as extracting oil and refining it. In fossil fuels, the energy is or was created by natural processes long before we decided to burn it.
The resulting problem is really a two step process verses a one step process. "Generation and storage" for usage verses "storage" and usage. The Generation and storage option is always going to be a bit more expensive.
I'm pretty sure its not real./. has only removed a few posts and those had to do with court orders if I remember right. I think it had something to do with the MPEG dvd encryption code.
Actually, it is more for when the astronauts time warp into the future and discover humans are subservient to apes. It will be proof it should be the other way around and help the humans reclaim their status and we won't need to watch old actors yell those damn dirty apes again..
I did not say they "let him die" or that he "passed away under their care", I said "the VA killed him". Look at the language, the VA through their incompetence "killed" my father.
And no, I do not care if they use their terrorist goon squads to get my IP and Name or whatever from Slashdot and My email provider I set when signing up. The VA has admitted to killing him. Saying the truth is not a crime. When it becomes one and they attempt to haul me away, I will remind them what a crime really is.
I have dealt with his death a couple years ago, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone claim the VA is a success when they are incompetent to the point it caused patients under their care to die to die due to their incompetence instead of medical condition. Killing patients off due to incompetence is not a "success" as the GP claimed in anyone's book nor should it ever become one.
Perhaps, and no, I'm not saying this is true or it did happen, but perhaps he had to fill out a generic jury questionnaire before being considered and it was limited to 10 years and he thought that was what the judge was asking about?
I've had to fill one out in the past when I was considered for a jury. I don't remember what was on it, but it was basic background information. And no, i didn't make it onto a jury so i likely did something wright.
obviously, they didn't kill you from their complete incompetence. But if your situation was like my dad's care, you probably never would have needed the phenomenal care in the first place.
But since you posted AC, I doubt its worth getting into any real facts with you.
The VA demonstrably provides more health care bang for the buck than any other system in the US.
I'm calling bullshit. The VA is incompetent and killed my father because of it. If that is what you call bang for the buck, god save us all from it and you. Fuck the VA
I think the problem to this is that in switching over, the reduction isn't being realized because of the extra processes and material involvement in the switchover. In other words, there is no real benefit outside of saying you saved X from Y while ignoring adding A to B that brings us back to Y. Co2 is not the only GHG and it isn't being reduced.
It is like spending $20k on a new car to save $20 a week in gas costs and your insurance jumps $200 a year while replacing an otherwise good paid off car. You are not paying $20 a week less but people think they are and it somehow justifies it.
I wouldn't focus too much on the machine part of the equation.
Anonymity along with the internet bringing different cultures together creates a situation were people can get annoyed and frustrated combined with a degree of safety that allows them to become jerks with little to no repercussions.
In my travels, I have always found things people do different enough to annoy me mildly, sometime even a lot. The other people do not know it annoys me, they are used to it because it is normal for them. When we are face to face, we think more about hurting someone's feelings or the fact that they might punch us in the nose or something. When we are isolated by technology, we don't have to think about those things. But mostly, you will find other people's behavior to normally be different and that difference can be or can cause the rudeness on the interweb tubes thingy..
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, it's 2 partial posts combined into one?????
Something went wrong here.
WTF, this should have been posted in another story entirely.
It is not really a fair comparison between Europe and the US or any particular part of the US. The problem arises with most of Europe being well established before cars and other means of quick transportation were available or affordable by the masses. The US on the other hand is relatively young in this regard and for the most part, outside of some old large cities, was built with the availability of speedy transportation. Without that, people who got jobs in other towns would tend to move to the other towns if not just for the period of time working the jobs. In the US, the bulk of development has been with the ability to just drive to the next town. This leads to the population areas being more wide spread simply because they can be
But in your example of California verses Sweden, despite Sweden having about twice the amount of land covered by water-mass or 70% of it being forested or glaciated mountain ranges, California also has 4 times the population and makes use of lands within it's borders on a wider scale. You might be better off comparing cities and metropolitan areas to gain an accurate scale.
I used to drive it about 15 times a year. Not that specific route, but when I drove a truck, I was averaging about 3500 miles (5600km) a week and when I drove team, we would do between 5500 to 6500 miles (8851-10,460km) a week for most of the year (10 months or so). Of course this was a commercial venture moving seasonal produce and other items. I do drive up to 1400 miles about once every year for private reasons. I can average 100 miles a trip if shopping 30 miles to the big city, 20 miles between shops, 20 miles to a family members home vist to consolidate trips, and then another 20-25 miles home. I'll do this about 2 or 3 times every 2 months.
This isn't crap I just made up, it's from our government Of course it is insulting that race would be brought up. But the logic of it costs more to subsidize people because of perceived medical costs associated with a behavior or potential increase in premium costs so they should be excluded from government employment is right there with it. It's no different then someone with 10 speeding tickets, they get charged more because of their actions. Don't discriminate based on behavior that is legal, just charge them the difference if there is one. If it is all about saving money, then there are some serious problems that can crop up as well. Do we think that government will be well served by only employing whites with a 4% body fat and no medical conditions because they're receiving health benefits subsidized by you and I ? And do not say that would never happen or that it's a strawman deserving to be rejected because it wouldn't happen. It also wouldn't be racial discrimination, it would be the established discrimination based on costs controls, not race.
It's a crock of crap is what it is. Hire people for their abilities and qualifications, not because their legal activity might cost a slight bit more.
Your map would be flawed unless it was also adjusted for policies implemented by them. The reason is because areas with the R's inside them tend to be cheaper to live in and have less regulation. The D's like California is in a particularly suffering because of added environmental regulations. Some of these are imposed by the federal government and some are adopted voluntarily by the state. If you follow the link I provide and select the RFG (reformulated gas) and then select area, you will find a lot of California is federally limited to gas that is not required to be used in the surrounding states.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/index.htm
California right now is suffering because of a formulation requirement in Gasoline that is different then all the states around them. A refinery that supplies the state had a fire and went off line where another refinery was doing some scheduled maintenance before gearing up for the winter blend, another lost power for a few days and had to completely shut down causing the latest spike, and a major pipeline carrying oil to the refineries was shut down because a sensor showed elevated levels of organic chloride.
This is a non-political issue in the current sense of politics. It is ultimately a political issue because it is imposed by politics- but it was the politics of past actions- not current or future actions and not because of subsidies. The subsidies the oil companies see are more of making the oil companies do certain things that aren't profitable to them. Most of them go to the smaller oil companies who are trying to compete with the big boys and if they are eliminated, it just means the smaller companies would be bought out by the big boys and some of the practices we decided the oil companies should be doing by dangling subsidies in front of them will disappear. Oil companies will simply reorganize their operation and big oil will not miss the oil subsidies whatsoever at all.
The last four refineries I know of that were going to be built weren't because people used the judicial process- not the democratic process. There was even the patch of desert land in Arizona where the BIG OIL company searched endlessly for signs of endangered species and so on just to lose in court over some law prohibiting the dumping of industry into minority communities because the land was originally owned by some Indian tribe who was championing the refinery (as they would get royalties from it).
Well, I guess you could say that was a democratic process, where outsiders used the courts and an interpretation of a law to stop people who wanted the revenue from getting it. That is if you accept that the democratic process is rigged and unjust and that the justice system comprises of justice for just us.
Not every state.. The nation is divided into zones regulated by the EPA based around climate and population and most states will fall into one of these zones and have a default formulation. California decided it was going to make its own more stringent requirements because it wouldn't hurt anything and save the environment. Some other states have followed but I'm not sure which ones.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/index.htm
Will give some information on the federal requirements and maps.
The refineries will be about a month ahead so the product will be in stock.
What you are seeing now is the old product running out combined with a fire at one of the refineries.
This isn't a supply verses increased demand- supply problem.
Getting oil into California is not the problem with this jump in price that is largely isolated to California. The problem is that California requires a specific formulation in their gas that is more stringent then the rest of the country and only a few refineries bother producing it. One of the refineries are down for scheduled maintenance and another is hit with unscheduled maintenance creating a unique shortage condition for California.
In my area, gas prices have been going down lately. But this is a political problem not a supply problem. There are choices you have though. Leave California like a lot of people and companies seem to be doing, demand your politicians undo the formulation requirements and follow national standards even if just temporarily, take public transportation if possible, or buy a new car and have that $350-500 a month payment and $200-500 every 6 months increase in insurance premiums just so you can save $20 a week at the pump.
It might be ok for private companies to do, but no citizen should be barred from working for their own government for participating in acts that are completely legal. If they had committed a crime, maybe, if they are unqualified, sure, don't hire them. But as for smoking, you might as well claim you can't work there if you eat bacon as they are both legal and both can create health risks under certain circumstances.
The problem with barring people because of legal things or even illegal things that are addictive is that history has showed us people will pick the sin over the jobs,. It is a matter of instant gratification over long term comfort perceived or real. It is a matter of freedom over repression. someone can make the case to why X is bad, but if you do not convince them it is, they won't care or care enough to stop.
I'm saying that a diesel electric train is still burning fossil fuels directly to propel itself. If you take the massive generators away, you will not move. This is apposed to a true electric train that gains it's electricity from outside source like wire running over head or the rails being electrified.
You are 100% correct in that 'Electric' means the propulsion, but you lose on the fact that without diesel fuel to power the on board generators to provide the electricity, it doesn't move at all. The diesel or gas modifier makes it a hybrid by default.
Gas electric is not pure electric. Diesel electric is not pure electric. in fact, if they were pure electric, you likely wouldn't need to condition the term electric with the appropriate term to modify it. Nor would the op had made an allowance for hybrids.
I agree with your comment on the storage mechanisms. However not because of the storage efficiency issues. It's because we are producing electricity and trying to store it in a medium that is similarly intensive to process and create as extracting oil and refining it. In fossil fuels, the energy is or was created by natural processes long before we decided to burn it.
The resulting problem is really a two step process verses a one step process. "Generation and storage" for usage verses "storage" and usage. The Generation and storage option is always going to be a bit more expensive.
You've heard of organic quantum computing haven't you?
I'm sure you have.. now I'm betting you are wondering if I'm serious. Well, just keep eating plenty of carrots so you will have good eyesight.
I'm pretty sure its not real. /. has only removed a few posts and those had to do with court orders if I remember right. I think it had something to do with the MPEG dvd encryption code.
Actually, it is more for when the astronauts time warp into the future and discover humans are subservient to apes. It will be proof it should be the other way around and help the humans reclaim their status and we won't need to watch old actors yell those damn dirty apes again..
Maybe her husband is banking on it being an effective one way trip and saving money in the long run?
Did anyone else read this and think it was just some sort of inside joke or coy insult to insinuate Tynan blows a lot of smoke up things?
I did not say they "let him die" or that he "passed away under their care", I said "the VA killed him". Look at the language, the VA through their incompetence "killed" my father.
And no, I do not care if they use their terrorist goon squads to get my IP and Name or whatever from Slashdot and My email provider I set when signing up. The VA has admitted to killing him. Saying the truth is not a crime. When it becomes one and they attempt to haul me away, I will remind them what a crime really is.
I have dealt with his death a couple years ago, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone claim the VA is a success when they are incompetent to the point it caused patients under their care to die to die due to their incompetence instead of medical condition. Killing patients off due to incompetence is not a "success" as the GP claimed in anyone's book nor should it ever become one.
Perhaps, and no, I'm not saying this is true or it did happen, but perhaps he had to fill out a generic jury questionnaire before being considered and it was limited to 10 years and he thought that was what the judge was asking about?
I've had to fill one out in the past when I was considered for a jury. I don't remember what was on it, but it was basic background information. And no, i didn't make it onto a jury so i likely did something wright.
obviously, they didn't kill you from their complete incompetence. But if your situation was like my dad's care, you probably never would have needed the phenomenal care in the first place.
But since you posted AC, I doubt its worth getting into any real facts with you.
Well, that's what my dad would say before the Cincinnati Ohio VA killed him. Did us a lot of fucking good.
And the "oh sorry we killed you old man, here's $100k to divide between 5 people and your lawyers now go away" doesn't cut it,
I'm calling bullshit. The VA is incompetent and killed my father because of it. If that is what you call bang for the buck, god save us all from it and you. Fuck the VA
Well, I was thinking more in the lines with this But the other entries in the wikipedia article seem to fit as well.
Customer complains something is broken- provider says it's a feature not a bug. It's the same thing or close enough for government work.
Maybe it's not a bug, it's a feature.. Now where have I heard that before? opps wrong company- I think.
I think the problem to this is that in switching over, the reduction isn't being realized because of the extra processes and material involvement in the switchover. In other words, there is no real benefit outside of saying you saved X from Y while ignoring adding A to B that brings us back to Y. Co2 is not the only GHG and it isn't being reduced.
It is like spending $20k on a new car to save $20 a week in gas costs and your insurance jumps $200 a year while replacing an otherwise good paid off car. You are not paying $20 a week less but people think they are and it somehow justifies it.
I wouldn't focus too much on the machine part of the equation.
Anonymity along with the internet bringing different cultures together creates a situation were people can get annoyed and frustrated combined with a degree of safety that allows them to become jerks with little to no repercussions.
In my travels, I have always found things people do different enough to annoy me mildly, sometime even a lot. The other people do not know it annoys me, they are used to it because it is normal for them. When we are face to face, we think more about hurting someone's feelings or the fact that they might punch us in the nose or something. When we are isolated by technology, we don't have to think about those things. But mostly, you will find other people's behavior to normally be different and that difference can be or can cause the rudeness on the interweb tubes thingy..