I'm not going to claim there is justification for this type of "lobying foreign governments" but I will say that it's happened for years.
And yes, we are attempting to influence China and Russia in the same ways. They just aren't folding as easily. But if you remember, just recently the US lost an attempt to force China to destroy confiscated pirated materials and control it's flow across it's borders.
No there's not a thing wrong with that. I do it all the time too. In fact, I do it so much, the often, I will just skip selling it. I also do that and mass market the brand name while threatening to sue anyone using it so when the OSS closes start to compete, i can make sure they can't compare what is essentially the same product with my product.
It's all in the
Step 1: X Step 2: Y Step 3:????? Profit for idiots book I purchase with the last stimulous check I got.
The policy is on their sites somewhere. I read it a while back when I had my merchant account and just showed something about a year ago but failed to book mark the merchant agreement.
Here is a PDF of MasterCard's rules though. Section 5.6.3 says "A Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards. A Merchant may require additional identification from the Cardholder if the information is required to complete the Transaction, such as for shipping purposes. A Merchant in a country or region that supports use of the MasterCard Address Verification Service (AVS) may require the Cardholder's ZIP or postal code to complete a Cardholder-Activated Terminal (CAT) Transaction, or the Cardholder's address and ZIP or postal code to complete a mail order, phone order, or e-commerce Transaction."
There is another section about minimum purchases too. Section 5.9.x is chocked full of goodies like not being able to charge more for using a credit card and no minimum charges, and so on.
I don't know if that helps you, Visa was the same when I had an account and like the op you were talking with said, Visa wasn't as pedantic about it but MasterCard are strict.
Rats and Mice are adaptive. They tend to stop eating the poison if they can link it to the death of another.
He will need to switch the poisons out every quite frequently and change their locations. They might forget what was killing them and their young won't know the difference. Same things go for traps.
I agree that the easiest way to remove them is to shut off their food supply. But to protect the cables, a mixture of corn starch and cyan pepper dust (the power food type) diluted in water then rubbed along the cables then let to dry might keep them away from the cables. If you can find a hotter pepper dust, the better but don't use fresh peppers. The starch will bind the cyan pepper to the cables when it dries and they will get a hot mouth when chewing on them. If your pulling the cables behind walls and such, don't forget that conduit can prevent most of it but just put the corn starch solution onto a spray bottle and have someone spray it as it goes behind the walls.
A note, you can use this to keep squils out of bird feeders for the most part too. It doesn't effect the birds because they cannot taste the pepper for some reason.
BTW, if anyone does the Cyan peeper trick, remember not to touch your eyes when pulling the cables or after touching them in the future. The benefit of that is that it sticks around for a good while but they make pepper spray out of the stuff so it will burn if it gets into your eyes or nose and stuff. Also, the rats will remember that they don't like the cables and possibly leave the ones not treated along.
Not to mention the Bush National security directives that place certain agencies in charge until such time the government can be functional enough to enact the replacements.
Not only do we have backups, we have redundant pipes tied to off site hosted servers on standby in case the backups get hosed too.
What in your little mind would "to the same respect" mean then?
I mean it's pretty obvious, well, to anyone but you, your the only one who had an issue with it enough to say something, but it's pretty obvious that the same respect would mean the same thing I was just talking about. What was I just talking about? How people are held accountable under the law. I'm not sure how you could look at it and not draw that conclusion.
Perhaps I should just draw pictures and include them.
As for justice, the only power you have over anyone else is the power the law gives you. That's why it is called the justice system and judges are justices. Like I said, get the fishermen to file a lawsiute for their loss because of Exxon's negligence. If they refuse to do that, then they got all the justice they wanted. If the law doesn't allow them to do it, then they got all the justice they were legally entitled to. I would suggest changing the law.
Either way, your point is still meaningless because nothing was hidden because they were a corporation. Justice no matter how you want to describe it, was not hindered because they are a corporation. If it was the same situation and your family business that wasn't incorporated, the exact same penalties would have happened if you pursued it the same way as Exxon did. Exxon did nothing that you don't have an inherent ability to do. Even if you can't take "with the same respect" to mean exactly what I was just talking about, you cannot point to anything that a "corporation" protected Exxon from that you or I would have been subject to.
You mean stop the democratic process from reflecting population shifts?
Well, no, I mean to stop LA and Mass from dictating laws and policy for Ohio or Iowa which are a lot different then those places. Besides, we have never has a democratic process for electing the president outside the states allowing us to have some say. And now, you have states like Iowa who want to ignore what their populations says.
As opposed to with the current system in which a candidate concentrates on the swing states and ignores more than two thirds of the other states?
Well, sort of. The candidate isn't ignorant of the other states, otherwise they would become swing states. I mean the states obviously have something in common else they wouldn't be voting for them. The goal isn't to impose the will of the small states onto the large one, it is to make the candidates aware of them to when catering to one, they don't destroy or damage the others.
And that is OK. I live in Wisconsin and we know that most of the country considers us a "fly-over" state. We only get attention once every four years if/when we are a swing state in the presidential election...and that's OK. Do you really want the state of Wisconsin (pop ~5 million) having as much or more influence than the city of New York (pop > 10 million)? It is important to prevent the population centers from having all the power, but that is already implemented in congress. The electoral college serves no purpose most years (a candidate wins both the college and the popular vote) and enrages > half the country when they differ . At least a popular vote can be accepted by everyone. No ones feels their vote was more or less important (as IS the case right now...think of the citizens of Florida in 2000).,
Well, actually, I would consider Wisconsin to be a little more sane then New York. New York has bleed the rest of the state dry, driven most of the industry and business out and doesn't seem to care about much other the NYC and it's surrounding burrows. Yes, I wouldn't mind if some ice jack from Wisconsin had more pull then New York did. However, that wasn't the point. The point isn't to override someone, NY will have more electoral votes then Wisconsin will, but the president will have to consider Wisconsin and keep in mind that when pandering to NY for their electoral votes, he can't screw over Wisconsin either. Without the electoral college, then the population of NY alone can make up for any losses from Wisconsin.
If anything, make the electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state. Giving up all recognition and possibly going against the people of the state in the process is just an idiotic idea from the start.
Actually, that makes quite a bit of sense. Well, to some extent anyways. I'm not sure I would trust an electric oil pump for an every day driver but the rest, sure.
But the population only votes on the president through the legislation of the states. Nothing in the constitution give the people any regards to who is elected president.
I think your a little confused. The people have never had a constitutional right to choose the electors. The constitution has always gave the option to the state to decide what to do and it had to make a law concerning it then follow it.
The electoral college was specifically set up to address ignorant people, large populous areas influencing smaller areas, and the president's role is to the states, not the people. Actually, the federal government's role is to the states, not the people. Their connections to the people are specifically spelled out in the constitution and by right of the people making up the states.
The electoral college has nothing to do with populated areas v. rural areas. It's an outdated system based on the premise that most people don't have enough information about candidates on the national level. This has clearly run its course.
The electoral college does no such thing. It doesn't even know the people exist. It's entire role has been nothing more then a system for the states to elect the president. The constitution has always said that it was up to the state to decide by law how they did that. The state doesn't even have to let the people vote on the presidency. In fact, this is what Iowa is planning on doing, it's planning on selecting it's votes based on something totally independent of it's people. The people of Iowa could over overwhelmingly vote candidate A as their choice for president by 99% and the state could ignore them by selecting the popular winner even if he won by less then one half of a percent because some other state found a million ballots in a Uhaul parked outside the election headquarters.
The original people's representation was their representative. The 17th amendment gave them the ability to elect the senators directly according to the state but the constitution has never suggested that the people chose the president or that the president represented the people. If you want that changed, then amend the constitution.
I'm not putting anything around anything that the country wasn't founded on. The people never had a right to chose the president outside of an individual state's willingness to let them. I'm not sure where people are getting this idea that "the people" have the some right to chose the president. They never have, at least according to the constitution.
The constitution and the government was set up in this manor. The states picked two senators. The states picked the president. The people picked representatives. The president is supposedly the governor of governors who is a figurehead that does the will of the states, not the people. Everything in the president's role is shaped around the states, Negotiating treaties, being commander in chief and so on, Those things are roles the governor of the states would be doing if they didn't join the Union. In fact, the US is the only country that calls it's provinces a state. In all other parts of the world, a State is a country of it's own right. That's why the State department deals with international relations, not relations between the states.
With the 17th amendment, we took the senators and made them elected directly by the people. The people have never had the right to elect the president. If a state chooses to not allow them to vote for president and instead lets the state legislature decide who the electors will be, it's completely constitutional because it was set up and designed that way.
The president's role is to be concerned with the states, not the people.
1. The president doesn't have to cater to the rural population nor does he have to cater to Iowa when making policy. He does however need to be aware of their needs and concerns because if he or someone from his party wasn't to carry the state again, he can't screw them in efforts to get the vote from large populations centers.
2. Actually no. The president is there for the states. He is the governor of governors. The constitution speaks specifically how to elect the president and outside of appointing electors, it was always up to the state to decide how to appoint those electors. There has never been a requirement of the constitution for the state ro hold elections for the presidential ticket nor has there been any requirement for the state to follow the people's vote if the position was on the ballot. The state always could just decide by whatever way their law made availible, who the electors were and who they would vote for. Iowa and following states are going to be using that exact principle to ignore the will of their citizens if Iowa would every vote for Candidate D by 90% and candidate R won the national popular vote by 2%
3:Nothing prevents this by getting rid of the electoral college not does it prevent it by switching to the system Iowa is attempting to. Sure, the candidates are playing the college right now because it is the system. When it is gone or ineffectual, they will play whatever is effectual. If this means playing on the large population centers then be it. The US currently has 303 million some odd people. Not all of them can vote because of various reasons (age, felony convictions, complacency, whatever). Not all of them that can vote will register to do so for some of the same reasons. Of those registered, a fraction will show up. Now, assuming that all things are equal and everyone could vote, then any candidate could take the 12 most populated states and have the popular vote. That leave 38 other states that don't matter. Now suppose of those top 12, any given candidate can only take 8 of them unanimously. Then he only needs to determine where he can pick up the other votes from. Perhaps they will be 3/4 of the next 10 states or whatever. Suppose I was running and managed to get unanimously elected by the top 12 populated states because I prmosed that they would pay no federal taxes and they didn't have to work if they didn't want to and the feds would increase the taxes on the other 38 states to make up the difference and pay you some wage above the median average for the area. What would you think then?
Sure, that's not likely to happen in reality but it's the same types of tricks that will be attempted and it is just the same as the swing states. You see, currently, in order to get the swing states, you have to win them. If you end up winning the states, you are going to be getting more votes then the other candidates. The only thing that would be different would be the swing states now revolve around the percentage of the population who voted.
These shocks will add range to a battery-only car such as the Tesla, and that is a critical selling feature at this point, far beyond cost. They will also reduce the amount of fuel used by a hybrid, so your analysis should include the elimination of some CO2 emissions. What's the formula for that?
Why is everyone acting like I doomed the project just because I pointed out some issues that "might" need to be considered?
Here is the thing, if the idea is to sell the cars with these things, they it needs to add value along with the costs. IF the costs outweigh the value, then the car will be an over expensive car that only people with other motives would be interested in. If there is a value and people see it, they will retrofit their current cars as well as purchase a new car with it. I set out some simple math examples of how it would need to perform to be worth it from an economical standpoint. If you want to talk convenience or saving the environment, then you will have to assess values that fit you in determining if it's worth it or not.
Seriously, think about that. If the car costs X and can get you 200 miles between charges, then your looking at 200/X worth. Now if it costs Y and Y is greater then X, how much greater can it be before you stop thinking it is a good Idea? If X is 10, then Y being 11 doesn't seem that bad. But if Y is 200, does it still look as attractive? As for the going green with Co2 savings, how do we know that the amount of Co2 saved is more then the amount expended in creating the devices and installing them. It could be possible that the copper to wind the generator and the hydraulic oils to make it work or the petrochemicals to make the hoses to connect it all together cause more carbon to be emitted then any amount of savings could prevent. That's even more likely of a scenario with the electric only vehicle where the carbon output is much more efficient then burning gasoline.
Not to mention that the cost/benefit of a motor vehicle for the vast majority of people is a complete bust anyway. You are much better off with a bike, transit, or even taking a taxi everyday. Well, not really. That would depend on a lot of personal factors like how close to work you live and so on. IF it takes 35 minutes to drive to work already at 65MPH and your riding a bike at an average cruising speed of 15 MPH, then it will take you roughly 4 hours to get to work and another 4 hours to get back. There is 8 hours wrapped around a 9-10 hour shift (8 hours plus 15 minutes before and after to get ready and a half hour lunch with an occasion work over). Then you have to pick the kids up from the sitter's house or daycare or school or whatever, get groceries, make dinner and so on. Suppose you make a modest living of around 35k a year. 38 hours a week times 48 weeks in a year divided by the salary would come to around $19.00 and hour. The 3.25 hours longer to and from work would be worth $125 a day that your time was worth which could be applied to something else. That comes out to about $600 a week and of course $2400 a month. Now you don't have to do anything with that time saved but it makes it worth driving just to reclaim that time.
Of course, I picked a case that is sort of extreme. It was to point that there are no absolutes just like if the shocks end up costing 10 times anything it could save, someone will probably still want to buy one.
I have have heard your argument so many times, and never understood it. How does implementing a "one person = one vote" policy strip rights away from small towns? If most of the people in the US want someone to be president, shouldn't that person be president?
The president isn't the president of the people. HE is the president of the UNITED STATES. There is a meaning in the word United and states.
Your confusion is sparked by the government's continued indulgence in powers never intended for it to have. The united State was formed as a union of several state for a common goal but the state did not give up their rights as a state. In every other country, a State actually means country. You can see this legacy in that the State department deals with foreign affairs, not affairs with the states in the Union. The federal government was never supposed to overshadow the state and local governments like they do today. The state's were supposed to send senators to represent them in congress, and decide on a leader for president. The people were represented by their representatives in congress. We changed the senators to being directly elected through an amendment and mover the president/vice president role away from the most popular person of the states. The constitution provides that the States select electors in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. There isn't even a requirement for the President and Vice president to be elected by the people. The states could simply declare this is going to be our votes and go with it. After all, that is exactly what Iowa is planning on doing.
So the president was never, ever, supposed to be selected by the people outside the state allowing it at their discretion. The idea that your struggling with shouldn't even exist.
You seem to be suggesting that the votes of people who live in small towns should be worth more than the votes of people who do not.
I'm suggesting that the votes period shouldn't matter let alone the adapting the scheme so that the votes in largely populated areas take away the state's representation. The only requirement for the people to chose in the original constitution was for the representatives. All the others was up to each state at their discretion. Typically, the governor selected someone to be a senator and the state legislature selected one of their members to be a senator. But nothing required that from a federal or constitutional level. The constitution was later amended to select senators by the people but not the president or the electors to the college.
People who live in big cities are not out to get you. If I see a candidate who is going to try to screw over middle America, I am not going to vote for them. No one in their right mind would vote for someone intent on dividing the country against itself.
It's not that they are out to get anyone. It's that what is good in the big city isn't necessarily good in the small towns or rural areas. And what works there isn't neccesarily what works or is needed in the big city. As an example of this, I remember walking to school with my 12 gauge shotgun to practice Skeet and trap shooting for the school team at a time when NYC was putting in metal detectors to keep guns out. Of course once at school, the gym teacher took possession and locked it in the arms locker until practice and they were strict about when you could hold ammo and stuff. It really isn't near as dangerous as it sounds in light of the school shootings and such in recent times. BTW, this was in the early to mid 80's so it's not like I'm a left over from 1950.
Anyways, because the two are so different in their needs, it easy to see how one can adversely effect the other and so on. What is needed is for a balance so that the concentration of policy isn't to the needs of just one area but balanced towards the needs of all areas. This is what the electoral
Ok, let's agree on less than 10% of passenger cars today. I can add that it affects zero% of my car(s) -- an equally irrelevant fact.
Well, no, it isn't irrelevant. It puts things into perspective.
We sure can, and the bottom line is that for 5% of the cost of a $20K car, you can get 10% better fuel economy. [2.5% of a $40K car, 1% of a $100K car, 0.1% of one of these] This "spend 5%, get 10%" thing should already be a clue but here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation anyway: over 150,000 miles, a 25mpg car will use 6,000 gallons of fuel. 10% of that is 600 gallons. At today's price, that is about $1,200, FTW. 5 or 10 years from now it will be higher.
Well, first, we don't know the overall increase in costs on a production vehicle. It is probably easier to assume retrofitting older and capable vehicles. And seeing how we are dealing with hybrids here and not 25 MPG regular cars, your looking at 40 and 60 MPG not 25. That cuts your assumption quite a bit unless your implying that hybrids don't currently get better fuel mileage then a midsized Chevrolet. Using your 150,000 example (I have personaly got 200,000 and more but I think you might have a decent average) at 40 MPG, we are looking at 3750 gallons and of course the claimed 60 would be 2500. 10% of those would be 375 amd 250 respectivly. At $2.00, we have about $750 and $500 saved, at $4.00, those numbers would double to $1500 and $1000. So, if it costs less then that over the 150,000 mile life of the car, then we have a winner. If it costs more, we have useless junk that is doing little more then driving the costs of owning a car up. I know some would like to price that out of most people's hands, but I don't see it as a just thing.
Also, 10% more energy translates to a savings in weight somewhere else. For example, the batteries can be 10% smaller, and a 10% battery weight savings could lead to a further 10% gain. Yes, adding a small "Shock Energy Recovery System" to each wheel would add weight, but most likely not equal to 10% of 68KG. And those 68KG only take a Prius for about 5 miles (currently). The next gen is going for 11 miles of electric-only range, so scale the battery weight accordingly. And that is the point -- if you scale the battery range to 50 miles for example, the weight goes to 680KG, and the SERS savings becomes 68KG since it is not necessary to scale the size/weight/cost of the SERS system.
We are jumping the gun a little bit here. The mechanism is going to replace the existing shocks with a set filled with hydraulic oil, that oil will be plumbed into a turbine that creates or recovers the energy when the shock is forced up and down similar to one of these. We aren't sure that the total extra weight of the system won't be more then or the same as or less then what is currently there or the amount of weight that the extra energy can displace. It might provide a positive, it might not. Until we find out more about these things (*and they will probably be made smaller and smaller as time goes by).
Bad guess -- electrical systems last vastly longer than purely mechanical systems like a shock absorber. SERS could be an induced system, without physical contact, and thus without wear.
I'm sorry, I can only go off what the article says, not what I imagine it might say if I wanted to attempt to create it. The article said "Their prototype shock absorbers use a hydraulic system that forces fluid through a turbine attached to a generator. The system is controlled by an active electronic system that optimizes the damping, providing a smoother ride than conventional shocks while generating electricity to recharge the batteries or operate electrical equipment.".
Current shocks and struts already operate in a manor like this. They either use a gas o
Given the specific mention of military hummers, which are most certainly NOT hybrids or electic, it must have some benefit for non-hybrids.
Actually, yes, the Military is/has developing Hummers that are hybrids. They are attempting to cut costs and have less of an impact on the environment as well as stretch their mission capabilities in certain situations.
Then again, how difficult would it be to replace the starter and alternator with a motor/generator capable of putting power to the drivetrain? Even if it's only a 5hp sustained, that'd be more than enough to take the 1kw each of the six shocks is capable of putting out(1hp=746W). Switch out the lead battery for a LiIon/NiMH of substantially more capacity. Increased cost, but probably actually lighter than traditional systems. For cold areas, there are LiIon that perform *as rated* at -40C. Not the 'put a bigger battery than you could possibly need in warm weather so you still have enough power to start when the oil is like jelly and the battery has 10% capacity left'.
You'd end up with a mild hybrid that can do stuff like shut off the engine at stops. Oh and stick the energy gained from the shocks back into moving the vehicle.
I think the Hybrids are more of the traditional types. I also believe that the Shock generator (that doesn't sound right) will work similar to the wave generators powering hydraulic turbines. How they work is by attaching floats with enough ballast to keep them in contact with the water that are hinged in the middle by hydraulic cylinders. When the waves push one up or gravity pulls the other down, the cylinders have to either pull or push the hydraulic fluids in order to bend at the pivot points. The hydraulic oil is forced through a turbine or pump that creates energy when the waves lift one side or the other of the floats. I highly suspect that they are going to use the same principle as this but fill the shock with the oil and when the tires move up and down, it moves the fluid through the generator. It may be possible to move the regenerative breaking system into a hydraulic setup combined by a electric clutch or something then they would just have to plumb the shocks to it.
However, I'm speculating on this, I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned the specifics in this detail.
The only problem I see with your figures is that they're explicity talking about trucks and other heavy vehicles. So you might want to redo your figures for 12-20 mpg ranges. Their test mule was a heavy truck with six shocks. Indeed, they also mention that it provides a better ride than traditional shocks, so there's a possible selling point there. 20 mpg/15,000 miles=750 gallons. Save 75 gallons a year(10%), that'd be $150@$2 gas, $300@$4 gas. Ten year timeframe? Could save them $3k, more if they've got a really heavy truck or are driving on particularly bumpy roads.
While I don't dispute your numbers, I'm not sure if we read the same articles. The one I saw was talking about regenerative breaking and hybrids and used the 6 shock heavy truck as an example of how much energy could be there. Now, I could be wrong on that, and because they didn't specifically name the truck we might not know. I have seen 2 axle 1 ton and 1.25 ton trucks that used two sets of shocks per side in the rear. I have also seen 3 axle trucks that used one shock on each axle for each side. However, I'm not aware of any of them being electric or hybrids. But that does bring up an interesting idea, Trains have been operating by diesel motors that power electric motors (diesel electric) because of the torque and power ratios being the same at all motor speeds. In a sense, this is sort of the original hybrid vehicles (shi
That means Iowa would hold off on doing this until almost every other state did the same thing.
Didn't you read my post? I included the other states too. I mean what does this mean? "If this happens, then expect Iowa and every other state stupid enough to follow suit to end up like California which couldn't even pay out tax refunds because they spent too much on stupid shit."
I said the populations of the largest cities could could be enough to win the popular vote without ever winning a state. In fact, winning the top 12 state by population can be enough to gain the popular vote.
And how can you actually argue FOR the electoral college with a straight face?
So you don't think a state in the Union should have a say in who leads the Union? I mean why wouldn't you want the electoral college, that is how the founding fathers set it up. In fact, they originally set it up so the state's themselves chose the electors in whatever way the state chose to do it. They believed that a popular vote would be too disadvantaged to smaller states and less developed states. The federal government isn't supposed to be a government over the people, it is supposed to be a government over the states that extend to the people. The 12th amendment went one step further and made it so that no elector can vote for a president or vice president from the same state, one has to be from another state. This was to avoid larger areas from dominating both seats.
"equalize the effects of the larger populations" is flat out ridiculous. Why should some rural farmer get more pull than the 10k people jammed into a square mile in new york city? Because they have more land? Population density flat out shouldn't matter. Geography shouldn't matter. One man, one vote, all counted the same. That is the point, sir.
That has never been the point in choosing the president and vice president. Never, ever, in the history of the Unisted States of America has that been the point on the elections of the president or vice president. And the reason a rural state should get a say is because they are citizens of these "UNITED STATES". How long would you be united in any cause if two or three groups of people ignored your say and not only over rulled you but also made rules contrary to what you know to be best for your area? Seriously, think about this. Suppose your a manager of an IT team for some local branch. Now suppose you know that every employee calls in sick the day after payday because they are hung over so you want to make a rule that makes payday on the last day of the week before everyone gets two days off. Now suppose the corporate office says you have to pay half the people on Monday and the other half on Wednesday. Now you have everyone buying the other drinks and calling off on Tuesday and Thursday. So you threaten to discplin people who call off without a doctors excuse and possibly fire them. Then all the sudden Corporate says you can't write them up or threaten termination for not showing up. Now suppose someone from Human resources comes in and starts their drinking day off buy promising to buy them drinks at the local pub. Corporate is on your ass because things aren't getting done and your department is being run like shit. Should you have a say in how you run your own department? After all, your the manager right? How long would you stay at a company like that?
Seriously, do you think the Civil War was bad? Imagine how states who claim they aren't being properly represented and adopt the same philosophy as the founding fathers when they broke away from England. The entire idea behind this country is of representation and ignoring states that became part of the union with the understanding that they would have a say in how they are governed by the federal government is nothing but an invitation for them to leave.
How can you sit there and think it is a good Idea for the p
Lol.. You think it needs government funding? I would figure if it actually was efficient as in saved more money they it costs, then there would be a market for it and people would be begging to have it.
Here is the problem with government funding for crap like this. Now keep in mind, I say crap not because it is, but because you assume I think it is. I wasn't attempting to talk anyone out of it, I was attempting to show the practical savings of it. Anyways, if it exists only because of the government funneling money to it, then all your doing is spreading the costs out to people who don't even drive. If you have to tax "Tom the bicycle rider" or Sally, "I'm 16 and just got my first job" in order to pay for you 10% in energy savings that currently can only effect less then 20% of of the registered motor vehicles on the road, your not saving anything, your robbing Paul to pay Peter. And because every tax dollar get wattered down to some extent, when Paul attempts to work harder to make up the difference, he ends up using more energy in the process (creating things cost more energy then saving energy by abstaining from it) so there is no net savings.
On the other hand, if, and there might be a good possibility that if could be true, that these things could be installed at the factory for two or three hundred bucks extra and last a decent amount of time, and actually save in energy as well as money. But if it can't, getting the government to pay for it isn't the way to go because it only means that people no using it will end up paying for it and they will spend more in the process. Look at the entire picture, this thing even if it works will not save the country or the world. If it isn't cost effective, then there needs to be research and advancements into tech and ideas that will be. The only thing stopping people from going alternative or green is the costs is too much. Taxing the people doesn't remove that costs, it just makes people resent it more.
It's actually worse then that, if a candidate gets 81% of the votes in Iowa but the other candidate wins the popular election with 51% of the vote, Iowa disregards what the people of their state thinks and votes for the other guy.
If they were to do anything, they should award electoral votes based around the percentage of votes within the states. The electoral system was designed to make sure smaller states still had some say and so candidates couldn't just concentrate on largely populated areas. The System Iowa is purposing suggests that not only are they fine with ignoring the will of their citizens but they are willing to be neglected by candidates who concentrate on more populated areas. Most higher populated areas have more electoral votes but each vote carries a larger percentage of their population. California, the east coast cities, and probably florida can be enough to get the popular vote and those other states will not only be ignored but be happy to give their only chance at forcing a candidate to pay attention to them away in the process.
This is one of the absolutely dumbest Ideas I have ever heard. It would makes Iowa completely irrelevent in the national elections. The idea of the Electoral college is to stop the largely populated areas from dominating the smaller and rural areas with policy that simple doesn't translate effectivly. That is why each state got two senators instead of the same amount as the representatives. It's to equalize the effects of the larger populations.
If this happens, then expect Iowa and every other state stupid enough to follow suit to end up like California which couldn't even pay out tax refunds because they spent too much on stupid shit. California alone has more of a population they their electoral representation compared to say Iowa or Ohio or KY or WV. The east coast states typically will too. It could be possible for a candidate to get the popular vote simply by concentrating on the population centers and ignoring more then two thirds of the other states and plans like this one only makes it possible.
What is good in one state doesn't mean it is good in another, the electoral college signifies that by making the candidates visit and court each state. The founding fathers knew about this and feared large groups of concentrated population centers making it impossible for smaller areas to be effectivly represented. It's the reason why it is there, the state has the election, not the nation.
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
Here is some things to consider, in 2006there were a little over 135 million registered passenger cars in the US. Now that's not counting pickup trucks that had to be registered as commercial vehicles but are still used as personal vehicles. Since 2000, not more then 2.5-3 percent of new car registrations have been to hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles until 2007 which saw around 5%. This means that this can effect less then 10% of the passenger vehicles on the road and more likely that number is much lower.
The second thing is, if these shocks produce a gain of around 10% in energy recovered, then we can do some math on the economics of it. If a hybrid electric car gets 60 MPH, Some say on 40, and they travel an average of 1500 miles a month, then we can find how much 10% is worth. So 1500/60 and 1500/40 respectivly come out to 25 and 37.5 gallons of fuel. At $2.00 a gallon, that would be about $50 a month for the 60MPH and $75 a month for the 40MPG. A 10% savings of them would be $5 and $7.50 per month savings. Regular shocks wear out after about 5 years or so of driving, some last around 10 years before they are noticeably shot. So $5 * 12 months * 10 years means this device would only save about $600 and $900 over ten years. That's the price point they have to beat in order for there to be a savings. If they can't get the cost of this stuff under those dollar figures, then they are probably costing more then any savings.
My guess is that their effectiveness is going to go as the shock absorption abilities go and will only be effective for that typical 5 years then severely degrade after that like regular shocks and struts seem to do. The concept doesn't seem to be much different then a wave generator but applied to an existing gas or oil filled cylinder instead of hydraulic pistons connecting floats. This means that they will have to create a valve system and generator and a way to connect it to the cars power inputs. They might be able to do that for less then $6-900 every ten years. But I doubt it.
I said they would be held accountable to the law. Where is the law that says they owe the fishermen anything?
In fact, there is this thing called a paragraph. It is used to group thoughts pertaining to the same ideas together. If you would have read the entire paragraph instead of just concentrating on what you wanted, you would see that I said they would be held accountable to the law. Here, read it again
"Don't let this separate entity thing confuse you. It you take all the people out of a corporation, it will do exactly nothing. It won't sell anything, it won't poison anyone, it won't pollute the environment, it won't do anything. Now just as there are with most laws, there is a component called intent. If you intend to set out and do something illegal, you get the full charges pressed against you. If you unintentionally do the same, then you get lesser penalties. Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect. At best, the corporation will end up being fined in addition to any penalties assessed to the employees responsible for any wrong doing."
Do you see where I said that most laws have a component called intent and that intent dictates the severity of the punishment of the law? Do you see where I said that with the corporation, it doesn't hide anyone from the law. You quoted it when you posted my part that said "held accountable to the same respect".
I'm sorry this isn't panning out the way you want it too, but your not hitting any balls here. You might as well stop swinging.
I see what your saying but I'm pessimistic about the government in that they tend to half ass something and it takes either some catastrophic issue or a mass revolt and politicians running for the "cause" in order to get something changed or fixed. I have the feeling that just doing it is all that will happen.
Seriously... I agree with everything you said... but at the same time, complaining feels a bit shrill. Like Obama signing a signing bill to shut down gaunatamo and then complaining that they just used the first airline that came to mind to transport the prisoners out instead of opening up a bidding process.
Actually, what I was going for was complaining about the government deciding to help a campaign asset out by closing down Guantanamo just to use their airlines and pay them back. To me, given all that is known about Google and Obama, this is very much like Cheney and Haliburton but everyone seems to be giving Obama a free a pass. At least Cheney waited a couple years after taking office and suffered a terrorist attack before paying Haliburton back.
Have they sued? I know Exxon made a deal with 5 or 7 of the fisheries in alaska.
I said the law would be applied to them and no corporate veil would hide anyone responsible. The law was applied, the company as well as the captain was held accountable under the law. Perhaps you need to get the laws changed or rally those fishermen for a class action lawsuit so they can get compensation. If nothing in the law allows it, then that's a fault of the law, not of Exxon's.
You see, we have this principle of Post facto and ex post facto which states that you cannot create a law today and have it effect actions that happened yesterday. It's the same thing that stops the government from creating a law saying you can't use Falcon in any name associated with posting on the internet and them arrest you for the 2000 accounts of posting under that name before the law took effect. Now if the law doesn't allow the fishermen to go after Exxon, then the law certainly needs to be changed. But Exxon and the captain were taken to task under the law and a jury as well as the supreme court applied the law in the correct and just way according to what it actually said. We cannot make laws up and retroactively apply them because you don't think someone was penalized enough.
By that logic, any company that wins a government contract (e.g Lockheed Martin) can be sued by another potential contractor (e.g Northrup Grumman).
If there is an open bidding contract and the execs of Lockheed Martin didn't back the president's election just to be rewarded with the contract, then no. If it's a no bid contract rewarding supporters and donors, then I would say yes just like Farms can sue other farms for using illegal labor and other outlawed farming practices for compete unfairly.
Clearly the government can enrich any private corporation in exchange for services and products, based on its needs, yes? One would be more worried about the government enriching failed CEO's with multi-million dollar goodbye packages out of honest taxpayer money, but that's another story.
Being worried about one wouldn't negate the other. There never has been a standard of let this corruption go because that corruption happened. Google was on the verge of investigation until the administration it backed during the elections got in office now they are being rewarded with a no bid contract to do something that the government is already set up to do (CSPAN) but they get control and the ability to pass ads onto it for revenue. This isn't exactly the government enriching a private corporation, I can't see how it is much different then Haliburton.
I hope Google says no, or at least manages this wisely. If the government invades the "promoted content" section with propaganda, especially to US-based IPs, it will not be a good thing.
I hope that the government stops and does this properly. IF CSPAN ( http://www.cspan.org/VideoLibrary ) or any part of it isn't up to snuff, then the primary goal should be to make it work, not to reward some company that put some resources behind the president's election.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to claim there is justification for this type of "lobying foreign governments" but I will say that it's happened for years.
And yes, we are attempting to influence China and Russia in the same ways. They just aren't folding as easily. But if you remember, just recently the US lost an attempt to force China to destroy confiscated pirated materials and control it's flow across it's borders.
No there's not a thing wrong with that. I do it all the time too. In fact, I do it so much, the often, I will just skip selling it. I also do that and mass market the brand name while threatening to sue anyone using it so when the OSS closes start to compete, i can make sure they can't compare what is essentially the same product with my product.
It's all in the
Step 1: X
Step 2: Y
Step 3:?????
Profit for idiots book I purchase with the last stimulous check I got.
The policy is on their sites somewhere. I read it a while back when I had my merchant account and just showed something about a year ago but failed to book mark the merchant agreement.
Here is a PDF of MasterCard's rules though. Section 5.6.3 says "A Merchant must not refuse to complete a Transaction solely because a Cardholder who has complied with the conditions for presentment of a Card at the POI refuses to provide additional identification information, except as specifically permitted or required by the Standards. A Merchant may require additional identification from the Cardholder if the information is required to complete the Transaction, such as for shipping purposes. A Merchant in a country or region that supports use of the MasterCard Address Verification Service (AVS) may require the Cardholder's ZIP or postal code to complete a
Cardholder-Activated Terminal (CAT) Transaction, or the Cardholder's address and ZIP or postal code to complete a mail order, phone order, or e-commerce Transaction."
There is another section about minimum purchases too. Section 5.9.x is chocked full of goodies like not being able to charge more for using a credit card and no minimum charges, and so on.
I don't know if that helps you, Visa was the same when I had an account and like the op you were talking with said, Visa wasn't as pedantic about it but MasterCard are strict.
Rats and Mice are adaptive. They tend to stop eating the poison if they can link it to the death of another.
He will need to switch the poisons out every quite frequently and change their locations. They might forget what was killing them and their young won't know the difference. Same things go for traps.
I agree that the easiest way to remove them is to shut off their food supply. But to protect the cables, a mixture of corn starch and cyan pepper dust (the power food type) diluted in water then rubbed along the cables then let to dry might keep them away from the cables. If you can find a hotter pepper dust, the better but don't use fresh peppers. The starch will bind the cyan pepper to the cables when it dries and they will get a hot mouth when chewing on them. If your pulling the cables behind walls and such, don't forget that conduit can prevent most of it but just put the corn starch solution onto a spray bottle and have someone spray it as it goes behind the walls.
A note, you can use this to keep squils out of bird feeders for the most part too. It doesn't effect the birds because they cannot taste the pepper for some reason.
BTW, if anyone does the Cyan peeper trick, remember not to touch your eyes when pulling the cables or after touching them in the future. The benefit of that is that it sticks around for a good while but they make pepper spray out of the stuff so it will burn if it gets into your eyes or nose and stuff. Also, the rats will remember that they don't like the cables and possibly leave the ones not treated along.
Not to mention the Bush National security directives that place certain agencies in charge until such time the government can be functional enough to enact the replacements.
Not only do we have backups, we have redundant pipes tied to off site hosted servers on standby in case the backups get hosed too.
What in your little mind would "to the same respect" mean then?
I mean it's pretty obvious, well, to anyone but you, your the only one who had an issue with it enough to say something, but it's pretty obvious that the same respect would mean the same thing I was just talking about. What was I just talking about? How people are held accountable under the law. I'm not sure how you could look at it and not draw that conclusion.
Perhaps I should just draw pictures and include them.
As for justice, the only power you have over anyone else is the power the law gives you. That's why it is called the justice system and judges are justices. Like I said, get the fishermen to file a lawsiute for their loss because of Exxon's negligence. If they refuse to do that, then they got all the justice they wanted. If the law doesn't allow them to do it, then they got all the justice they were legally entitled to. I would suggest changing the law.
Either way, your point is still meaningless because nothing was hidden because they were a corporation. Justice no matter how you want to describe it, was not hindered because they are a corporation. If it was the same situation and your family business that wasn't incorporated, the exact same penalties would have happened if you pursued it the same way as Exxon did. Exxon did nothing that you don't have an inherent ability to do. Even if you can't take "with the same respect" to mean exactly what I was just talking about, you cannot point to anything that a "corporation" protected Exxon from that you or I would have been subject to.
Well, no, I mean to stop LA and Mass from dictating laws and policy for Ohio or Iowa which are a lot different then those places. Besides, we have never has a democratic process for electing the president outside the states allowing us to have some say. And now, you have states like Iowa who want to ignore what their populations says.
Well, sort of. The candidate isn't ignorant of the other states, otherwise they would become swing states. I mean the states obviously have something in common else they wouldn't be voting for them. The goal isn't to impose the will of the small states onto the large one, it is to make the candidates aware of them to when catering to one, they don't destroy or damage the others.
Well, actually, I would consider Wisconsin to be a little more sane then New York. New York has bleed the rest of the state dry, driven most of the industry and business out and doesn't seem to care about much other the NYC and it's surrounding burrows. Yes, I wouldn't mind if some ice jack from Wisconsin had more pull then New York did. However, that wasn't the point. The point isn't to override someone, NY will have more electoral votes then Wisconsin will, but the president will have to consider Wisconsin and keep in mind that when pandering to NY for their electoral votes, he can't screw over Wisconsin either. Without the electoral college, then the population of NY alone can make up for any losses from Wisconsin.
If anything, make the electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in the state. Giving up all recognition and possibly going against the people of the state in the process is just an idiotic idea from the start.
Actually, that makes quite a bit of sense. Well, to some extent anyways. I'm not sure I would trust an electric oil pump for an every day driver but the rest, sure.
But the population only votes on the president through the legislation of the states. Nothing in the constitution give the people any regards to who is elected president.
I think your a little confused. The people have never had a constitutional right to choose the electors. The constitution has always gave the option to the state to decide what to do and it had to make a law concerning it then follow it.
The electoral college was specifically set up to address ignorant people, large populous areas influencing smaller areas, and the president's role is to the states, not the people. Actually, the federal government's role is to the states, not the people. Their connections to the people are specifically spelled out in the constitution and by right of the people making up the states.
The electoral college does no such thing. It doesn't even know the people exist. It's entire role has been nothing more then a system for the states to elect the president. The constitution has always said that it was up to the state to decide by law how they did that. The state doesn't even have to let the people vote on the presidency. In fact, this is what Iowa is planning on doing, it's planning on selecting it's votes based on something totally independent of it's people. The people of Iowa could over overwhelmingly vote candidate A as their choice for president by 99% and the state could ignore them by selecting the popular winner even if he won by less then one half of a percent because some other state found a million ballots in a Uhaul parked outside the election headquarters.
The original people's representation was their representative. The 17th amendment gave them the ability to elect the senators directly according to the state but the constitution has never suggested that the people chose the president or that the president represented the people. If you want that changed, then amend the constitution.
I'm not putting anything around anything that the country wasn't founded on. The people never had a right to chose the president outside of an individual state's willingness to let them. I'm not sure where people are getting this idea that "the people" have the some right to chose the president. They never have, at least according to the constitution.
The constitution and the government was set up in this manor. The states picked two senators. The states picked the president. The people picked representatives. The president is supposedly the governor of governors who is a figurehead that does the will of the states, not the people. Everything in the president's role is shaped around the states, Negotiating treaties, being commander in chief and so on, Those things are roles the governor of the states would be doing if they didn't join the Union. In fact, the US is the only country that calls it's provinces a state. In all other parts of the world, a State is a country of it's own right. That's why the State department deals with international relations, not relations between the states.
With the 17th amendment, we took the senators and made them elected directly by the people. The people have never had the right to elect the president. If a state chooses to not allow them to vote for president and instead lets the state legislature decide who the electors will be, it's completely constitutional because it was set up and designed that way.
The president's role is to be concerned with the states, not the people.
OK, in order,
1. The president doesn't have to cater to the rural population nor does he have to cater to Iowa when making policy. He does however need to be aware of their needs and concerns because if he or someone from his party wasn't to carry the state again, he can't screw them in efforts to get the vote from large populations centers.
2. Actually no. The president is there for the states. He is the governor of governors. The constitution speaks specifically how to elect the president and outside of appointing electors, it was always up to the state to decide how to appoint those electors. There has never been a requirement of the constitution for the state ro hold elections for the presidential ticket nor has there been any requirement for the state to follow the people's vote if the position was on the ballot. The state always could just decide by whatever way their law made availible, who the electors were and who they would vote for. Iowa and following states are going to be using that exact principle to ignore the will of their citizens if Iowa would every vote for Candidate D by 90% and candidate R won the national popular vote by 2%
3:Nothing prevents this by getting rid of the electoral college not does it prevent it by switching to the system Iowa is attempting to. Sure, the candidates are playing the college right now because it is the system. When it is gone or ineffectual, they will play whatever is effectual. If this means playing on the large population centers then be it. The US currently has 303 million some odd people. Not all of them can vote because of various reasons (age, felony convictions, complacency, whatever). Not all of them that can vote will register to do so for some of the same reasons. Of those registered, a fraction will show up. Now, assuming that all things are equal and everyone could vote, then any candidate could take the 12 most populated states and have the popular vote. That leave 38 other states that don't matter. Now suppose of those top 12, any given candidate can only take 8 of them unanimously. Then he only needs to determine where he can pick up the other votes from. Perhaps they will be 3/4 of the next 10 states or whatever. Suppose I was running and managed to get unanimously elected by the top 12 populated states because I prmosed that they would pay no federal taxes and they didn't have to work if they didn't want to and the feds would increase the taxes on the other 38 states to make up the difference and pay you some wage above the median average for the area. What would you think then?
Sure, that's not likely to happen in reality but it's the same types of tricks that will be attempted and it is just the same as the swing states. You see, currently, in order to get the swing states, you have to win them. If you end up winning the states, you are going to be getting more votes then the other candidates. The only thing that would be different would be the swing states now revolve around the percentage of the population who voted.
Why is everyone acting like I doomed the project just because I pointed out some issues that "might" need to be considered?
Here is the thing, if the idea is to sell the cars with these things, they it needs to add value along with the costs. IF the costs outweigh the value, then the car will be an over expensive car that only people with other motives would be interested in. If there is a value and people see it, they will retrofit their current cars as well as purchase a new car with it. I set out some simple math examples of how it would need to perform to be worth it from an economical standpoint. If you want to talk convenience or saving the environment, then you will have to assess values that fit you in determining if it's worth it or not.
Seriously, think about that. If the car costs X and can get you 200 miles between charges, then your looking at 200/X worth. Now if it costs Y and Y is greater then X, how much greater can it be before you stop thinking it is a good Idea? If X is 10, then Y being 11 doesn't seem that bad. But if Y is 200, does it still look as attractive? As for the going green with Co2 savings, how do we know that the amount of Co2 saved is more then the amount expended in creating the devices and installing them. It could be possible that the copper to wind the generator and the hydraulic oils to make it work or the petrochemicals to make the hoses to connect it all together cause more carbon to be emitted then any amount of savings could prevent. That's even more likely of a scenario with the electric only vehicle where the carbon output is much more efficient then burning gasoline.
The president isn't the president of the people. HE is the president of the UNITED STATES. There is a meaning in the word United and states.
Your confusion is sparked by the government's continued indulgence in powers never intended for it to have. The united State was formed as a union of several state for a common goal but the state did not give up their rights as a state. In every other country, a State actually means country. You can see this legacy in that the State department deals with foreign affairs, not affairs with the states in the Union. The federal government was never supposed to overshadow the state and local governments like they do today. The state's were supposed to send senators to represent them in congress, and decide on a leader for president. The people were represented by their representatives in congress. We changed the senators to being directly elected through an amendment and mover the president/vice president role away from the most popular person of the states. The constitution provides that the States select electors in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. There isn't even a requirement for the President and Vice president to be elected by the people. The states could simply declare this is going to be our votes and go with it. After all, that is exactly what Iowa is planning on doing.
So the president was never, ever, supposed to be selected by the people outside the state allowing it at their discretion. The idea that your struggling with shouldn't even exist.
I'm suggesting that the votes period shouldn't matter let alone the adapting the scheme so that the votes in largely populated areas take away the state's representation. The only requirement for the people to chose in the original constitution was for the representatives. All the others was up to each state at their discretion. Typically, the governor selected someone to be a senator and the state legislature selected one of their members to be a senator. But nothing required that from a federal or constitutional level. The constitution was later amended to select senators by the people but not the president or the electors to the college.
It's not that they are out to get anyone. It's that what is good in the big city isn't necessarily good in the small towns or rural areas. And what works there isn't neccesarily what works or is needed in the big city. As an example of this, I remember walking to school with my 12 gauge shotgun to practice Skeet and trap shooting for the school team at a time when NYC was putting in metal detectors to keep guns out. Of course once at school, the gym teacher took possession and locked it in the arms locker until practice and they were strict about when you could hold ammo and stuff. It really isn't near as dangerous as it sounds in light of the school shootings and such in recent times. BTW, this was in the early to mid 80's so it's not like I'm a left over from 1950.
Anyways, because the two are so different in their needs, it easy to see how one can adversely effect the other and so on. What is needed is for a balance so that the concentration of policy isn't to the needs of just one area but balanced towards the needs of all areas. This is what the electoral
Well, no, it isn't irrelevant. It puts things into perspective.
Well, first, we don't know the overall increase in costs on a production vehicle. It is probably easier to assume retrofitting older and capable vehicles. And seeing how we are dealing with hybrids here and not 25 MPG regular cars, your looking at 40 and 60 MPG not 25. That cuts your assumption quite a bit unless your implying that hybrids don't currently get better fuel mileage then a midsized Chevrolet. Using your 150,000 example (I have personaly got 200,000 and more but I think you might have a decent average) at 40 MPG, we are looking at 3750 gallons and of course the claimed 60 would be 2500. 10% of those would be 375 amd 250 respectivly. At $2.00, we have about $750 and $500 saved, at $4.00, those numbers would double to $1500 and $1000. So, if it costs less then that over the 150,000 mile life of the car, then we have a winner. If it costs more, we have useless junk that is doing little more then driving the costs of owning a car up. I know some would like to price that out of most people's hands, but I don't see it as a just thing.
We are jumping the gun a little bit here. The mechanism is going to replace the existing shocks with a set filled with hydraulic oil, that oil will be plumbed into a turbine that creates or recovers the energy when the shock is forced up and down similar to one of these. We aren't sure that the total extra weight of the system won't be more then or the same as or less then what is currently there or the amount of weight that the extra energy can displace. It might provide a positive, it might not. Until we find out more about these things (*and they will probably be made smaller and smaller as time goes by).
I'm sorry, I can only go off what the article says, not what I imagine it might say if I wanted to attempt to create it. The article said "Their prototype shock absorbers use a hydraulic system that forces fluid through a turbine attached to a generator. The system is controlled by an active electronic system that optimizes the damping, providing a smoother ride than conventional shocks while generating electricity to recharge the batteries or operate electrical equipment.".
Current shocks and struts already operate in a manor like this. They either use a gas o
Actually, yes, the Military is/has developing Hummers that are hybrids. They are attempting to cut costs and have less of an impact on the environment as well as stretch their mission capabilities in certain situations.
I think the Hybrids are more of the traditional types. I also believe that the Shock generator (that doesn't sound right) will work similar to the wave generators powering hydraulic turbines. How they work is by attaching floats with enough ballast to keep them in contact with the water that are hinged in the middle by hydraulic cylinders. When the waves push one up or gravity pulls the other down, the cylinders have to either pull or push the hydraulic fluids in order to bend at the pivot points. The hydraulic oil is forced through a turbine or pump that creates energy when the waves lift one side or the other of the floats. I highly suspect that they are going to use the same principle as this but fill the shock with the oil and when the tires move up and down, it moves the fluid through the generator. It may be possible to move the regenerative breaking system into a hydraulic setup combined by a electric clutch or something then they would just have to plumb the shocks to it.
However, I'm speculating on this, I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned the specifics in this detail.
While I don't dispute your numbers, I'm not sure if we read the same articles. The one I saw was talking about regenerative breaking and hybrids and used the 6 shock heavy truck as an example of how much energy could be there. Now, I could be wrong on that, and because they didn't specifically name the truck we might not know. I have seen 2 axle 1 ton and 1.25 ton trucks that used two sets of shocks per side in the rear. I have also seen 3 axle trucks that used one shock on each axle for each side. However, I'm not aware of any of them being electric or hybrids. But that does bring up an interesting idea, Trains have been operating by diesel motors that power electric motors (diesel electric) because of the torque and power ratios being the same at all motor speeds. In a sense, this is sort of the original hybrid vehicles (shi
Didn't you read my post? I included the other states too. I mean what does this mean? "If this happens, then expect Iowa and every other state stupid enough to follow suit to end up like California which couldn't even pay out tax refunds because they spent too much on stupid shit."
I said the populations of the largest cities could could be enough to win the popular vote without ever winning a state. In fact, winning the top 12 state by population can be enough to gain the popular vote.
So you don't think a state in the Union should have a say in who leads the Union? I mean why wouldn't you want the electoral college, that is how the founding fathers set it up. In fact, they originally set it up so the state's themselves chose the electors in whatever way the state chose to do it. They believed that a popular vote would be too disadvantaged to smaller states and less developed states. The federal government isn't supposed to be a government over the people, it is supposed to be a government over the states that extend to the people. The 12th amendment went one step further and made it so that no elector can vote for a president or vice president from the same state, one has to be from another state. This was to avoid larger areas from dominating both seats.
That has never been the point in choosing the president and vice president. Never, ever, in the history of the Unisted States of America has that been the point on the elections of the president or vice president. And the reason a rural state should get a say is because they are citizens of these "UNITED STATES". How long would you be united in any cause if two or three groups of people ignored your say and not only over rulled you but also made rules contrary to what you know to be best for your area? Seriously, think about this. Suppose your a manager of an IT team for some local branch. Now suppose you know that every employee calls in sick the day after payday because they are hung over so you want to make a rule that makes payday on the last day of the week before everyone gets two days off. Now suppose the corporate office says you have to pay half the people on Monday and the other half on Wednesday. Now you have everyone buying the other drinks and calling off on Tuesday and Thursday. So you threaten to discplin people who call off without a doctors excuse and possibly fire them. Then all the sudden Corporate says you can't write them up or threaten termination for not showing up. Now suppose someone from Human resources comes in and starts their drinking day off buy promising to buy them drinks at the local pub. Corporate is on your ass because things aren't getting done and your department is being run like shit. Should you have a say in how you run your own department? After all, your the manager right? How long would you stay at a company like that?
Seriously, do you think the Civil War was bad? Imagine how states who claim they aren't being properly represented and adopt the same philosophy as the founding fathers when they broke away from England. The entire idea behind this country is of representation and ignoring states that became part of the union with the understanding that they would have a say in how they are governed by the federal government is nothing but an invitation for them to leave.
How can you sit there and think it is a good Idea for the p
Lol.. You think it needs government funding? I would figure if it actually was efficient as in saved more money they it costs, then there would be a market for it and people would be begging to have it.
Here is the problem with government funding for crap like this. Now keep in mind, I say crap not because it is, but because you assume I think it is. I wasn't attempting to talk anyone out of it, I was attempting to show the practical savings of it. Anyways, if it exists only because of the government funneling money to it, then all your doing is spreading the costs out to people who don't even drive. If you have to tax "Tom the bicycle rider" or Sally, "I'm 16 and just got my first job" in order to pay for you 10% in energy savings that currently can only effect less then 20% of of the registered motor vehicles on the road, your not saving anything, your robbing Paul to pay Peter. And because every tax dollar get wattered down to some extent, when Paul attempts to work harder to make up the difference, he ends up using more energy in the process (creating things cost more energy then saving energy by abstaining from it) so there is no net savings.
On the other hand, if, and there might be a good possibility that if could be true, that these things could be installed at the factory for two or three hundred bucks extra and last a decent amount of time, and actually save in energy as well as money. But if it can't, getting the government to pay for it isn't the way to go because it only means that people no using it will end up paying for it and they will spend more in the process. Look at the entire picture, this thing even if it works will not save the country or the world. If it isn't cost effective, then there needs to be research and advancements into tech and ideas that will be. The only thing stopping people from going alternative or green is the costs is too much. Taxing the people doesn't remove that costs, it just makes people resent it more.
It's actually worse then that, if a candidate gets 81% of the votes in Iowa but the other candidate wins the popular election with 51% of the vote, Iowa disregards what the people of their state thinks and votes for the other guy.
If they were to do anything, they should award electoral votes based around the percentage of votes within the states. The electoral system was designed to make sure smaller states still had some say and so candidates couldn't just concentrate on largely populated areas. The System Iowa is purposing suggests that not only are they fine with ignoring the will of their citizens but they are willing to be neglected by candidates who concentrate on more populated areas. Most higher populated areas have more electoral votes but each vote carries a larger percentage of their population. California, the east coast cities, and probably florida can be enough to get the popular vote and those other states will not only be ignored but be happy to give their only chance at forcing a candidate to pay attention to them away in the process.
This is one of the absolutely dumbest Ideas I have ever heard. It would makes Iowa completely irrelevent in the national elections. The idea of the Electoral college is to stop the largely populated areas from dominating the smaller and rural areas with policy that simple doesn't translate effectivly. That is why each state got two senators instead of the same amount as the representatives. It's to equalize the effects of the larger populations.
If this happens, then expect Iowa and every other state stupid enough to follow suit to end up like California which couldn't even pay out tax refunds because they spent too much on stupid shit. California alone has more of a population they their electoral representation compared to say Iowa or Ohio or KY or WV. The east coast states typically will too. It could be possible for a candidate to get the popular vote simply by concentrating on the population centers and ignoring more then two thirds of the other states and plans like this one only makes it possible.
What is good in one state doesn't mean it is good in another, the electoral college signifies that by making the candidates visit and court each state. The founding fathers knew about this and feared large groups of concentrated population centers making it impossible for smaller areas to be effectivly represented. It's the reason why it is there, the state has the election, not the nation.
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
Here is some things to consider, in 2006there were a little over 135 million registered passenger cars in the US. Now that's not counting pickup trucks that had to be registered as commercial vehicles but are still used as personal vehicles. Since 2000, not more then 2.5-3 percent of new car registrations have been to hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles until 2007 which saw around 5%. This means that this can effect less then 10% of the passenger vehicles on the road and more likely that number is much lower.
The second thing is, if these shocks produce a gain of around 10% in energy recovered, then we can do some math on the economics of it. If a hybrid electric car gets 60 MPH, Some say on 40, and they travel an average of 1500 miles a month, then we can find how much 10% is worth. So 1500/60 and 1500/40 respectivly come out to 25 and 37.5 gallons of fuel. At $2.00 a gallon, that would be about $50 a month for the 60MPH and $75 a month for the 40MPG. A 10% savings of them would be $5 and $7.50 per month savings. Regular shocks wear out after about 5 years or so of driving, some last around 10 years before they are noticeably shot. So $5 * 12 months * 10 years means this device would only save about $600 and $900 over ten years. That's the price point they have to beat in order for there to be a savings. If they can't get the cost of this stuff under those dollar figures, then they are probably costing more then any savings.
My guess is that their effectiveness is going to go as the shock absorption abilities go and will only be effective for that typical 5 years then severely degrade after that like regular shocks and struts seem to do. The concept doesn't seem to be much different then a wave generator but applied to an existing gas or oil filled cylinder instead of hydraulic pistons connecting floats. This means that they will have to create a valve system and generator and a way to connect it to the cars power inputs. They might be able to do that for less then $6-900 every ten years. But I doubt it.
I said they would be held accountable to the law. Where is the law that says they owe the fishermen anything?
In fact, there is this thing called a paragraph. It is used to group thoughts pertaining to the same ideas together. If you would have read the entire paragraph instead of just concentrating on what you wanted, you would see that I said they would be held accountable to the law. Here, read it again
Do you see where I said that most laws have a component called intent and that intent dictates the severity of the punishment of the law? Do you see where I said that with the corporation, it doesn't hide anyone from the law. You quoted it when you posted my part that said "held accountable to the same respect".
I'm sorry this isn't panning out the way you want it too, but your not hitting any balls here. You might as well stop swinging.
I see what your saying but I'm pessimistic about the government in that they tend to half ass something and it takes either some catastrophic issue or a mass revolt and politicians running for the "cause" in order to get something changed or fixed. I have the feeling that just doing it is all that will happen.
Actually, what I was going for was complaining about the government deciding to help a campaign asset out by closing down Guantanamo just to use their airlines and pay them back. To me, given all that is known about Google and Obama, this is very much like Cheney and Haliburton but everyone seems to be giving Obama a free a pass. At least Cheney waited a couple years after taking office and suffered a terrorist attack before paying Haliburton back.
Have they sued? I know Exxon made a deal with 5 or 7 of the fisheries in alaska.
I said the law would be applied to them and no corporate veil would hide anyone responsible. The law was applied, the company as well as the captain was held accountable under the law. Perhaps you need to get the laws changed or rally those fishermen for a class action lawsuit so they can get compensation. If nothing in the law allows it, then that's a fault of the law, not of Exxon's.
You see, we have this principle of Post facto and ex post facto which states that you cannot create a law today and have it effect actions that happened yesterday. It's the same thing that stops the government from creating a law saying you can't use Falcon in any name associated with posting on the internet and them arrest you for the 2000 accounts of posting under that name before the law took effect. Now if the law doesn't allow the fishermen to go after Exxon, then the law certainly needs to be changed. But Exxon and the captain were taken to task under the law and a jury as well as the supreme court applied the law in the correct and just way according to what it actually said. We cannot make laws up and retroactively apply them because you don't think someone was penalized enough.
If there is an open bidding contract and the execs of Lockheed Martin didn't back the president's election just to be rewarded with the contract, then no. If it's a no bid contract rewarding supporters and donors, then I would say yes just like Farms can sue other farms for using illegal labor and other outlawed farming practices for compete unfairly.
Being worried about one wouldn't negate the other. There never has been a standard of let this corruption go because that corruption happened. Google was on the verge of investigation until the administration it backed during the elections got in office now they are being rewarded with a no bid contract to do something that the government is already set up to do (CSPAN) but they get control and the ability to pass ads onto it for revenue. This isn't exactly the government enriching a private corporation, I can't see how it is much different then Haliburton.
I hope that the government stops and does this properly. IF CSPAN ( http://www.cspan.org/VideoLibrary ) or any part of it isn't up to snuff, then the primary goal should be to make it work, not to reward some company that put some resources behind the president's election.