Accountability? I read it as laying out some goals for pretty damned good government.
And I voted for Obama (because Romney didn't in ANY way represent what the GP is asking for, frankly.) Obama, at least, had a few good points I could get behind. Mostly, they both suck.
These do not adequately (or even vaguely) characterize GDP (Gross Domestic Product.) There are innumerable effects from simple supply and demand to consumer taste and fashion that push production and consumption and exports and imports all over the map. You simply can't reasonably use food and fuel as a metric for this.
There's all kinds of hardware. And all kinds of software. I wrote this (SdrDx), for instance, starting from a really basic program called CuteSDR; primarily, it uses the RSPACE SDR-IQ for HF and below, and the FunCube dongle for 50 mhz and above. There's a new one, just beginning to ship, the funcube dongle pro plus, that does 150 khz to above a ghz. Haven't used it yet, but it sounds good. Google around, you'll find all kinds of stuff.
...and the cost. Between the materials price and the install cost and the "batteries suck" problem and the panel lifespan, motivation to do it, so far, has been hard to come by. Even building the panels yourself (not that difficult, on balance, if you can cut aluminum, handle a few chemicals, and solder reasonably well), the cost is still imposing.
The percent is the only measure of fairness. Don't insult our intelligence.
About "Fairness." Ok. Let's think about this. The government gives me a road to ride on. It also gives the rich guy a road to ride on. Is the road it gives the rich guy any better than the one it gives me? No? Then why does the rich guy have to pay more for it?
The government gives me an army to protect me. It also gives the rich guy protection. Is the protection it gives the rich guy any better than the protection it gives me? No? Then why does the rich guy have to pay more for it?
So no, it's not about fairness. What it's about is capacity. When there's a heavy object to be moved, you -- perfectly reasonably -- ask the little guy to hold the door, and the big guy to carry it. And he does. Because he knows his appropriate contribution is made in that scale, and he knows the little guy simply can't do it. The reason it's appropriate is because it's scaled to his capacity, and in society, we consider it appropriate -- not fair, but appropriate to contribute proportionally according to our abilities.
Any rich person with any sense of honor at all doesn't grinch for one second about taxes.
One last thing: If you're rich, your taxes weren't too high. The one precludes the other. And as long as you're taxed on earnings, rather than what you have, you're not going to get significantly less rich due to any change in income tax rates.
On the other hand, when you already don't have enough money to have any left over from your earnings, and you have no savings, and someone decides to take more from your earnings... that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
So rich people, buck up and do your part. If you want respect, that's the golden path, right there. That, and unforced charitable giving.
I would contend a normal sedan is a burger. A triple patty with cheese is a corvette, a steak dinner is a Lamboghini, and an all-out crazed no-holds-barred feed-fest with champagne is a Rolls. A good convertible is a chicken sandwich without the top bun. That would make Tesla S... about a double patty, but with special cheese.
One of those bubbles with wheels is more like a half a McNugget, with no sweet and sour sauce, where every time you try to eat it, your fingers get stuck in the cardboard. And just when you think you've got it handled, the dog steps on it and ruins your meal.
What? "Lower than required" has nothing to do with it. The point is, a lot of the price of fuel is road tax. There is no road tax on electricity. My contention is, there will be, or else as we go to electric vehicles -- and we're going there, sure as can be -- they'll find some other way to incorporate it into the price of the car. Because the roads need to be maintained, and charging those who use them most is a reasonable way to do it.
...and what about after they add road taxes to the cost of that electricity? Because right now, if you drive with gas, you're paying for the road. If you drive with electric created anywhere but a gas-station fueled engine, you're not. Pretty sure they're gonna fix that.
Yeah, it'd be something if they started putting those on Montana highways... but I'm not holding my breath.
And I do have gas fueled vehicles that can make the trip, so for the rare times we go, we're covered. I'd just like to have an efficient, reliable, comfy EV for running around town with right here. Not a luxury car, but not a tiny bubble with wheels, either. I'd pay some extra for a jeep / 4wd form factor, they're very practical here. I run around in this thing, which is a super-cheap 4wd, and it has served us extremely well for almost all of our needs.
Well, maybe. I could buy it easily, without resorting to a loan or a trade-in. I just wouldn't. From my POV, that's about 58k that I would be using very, very poorly, and that's not part of my approach to life. All I have to do is consider what great things can be done with 58k; things that would have far more lifespan and day to day use than a car, too. To me, that car simply makes no economic sense.
I think the price is ridiculous because I can buy a decent car for a lot less than that, that's all.
Buying at that price make no economic sense; and that's one of the metrics I use when selecting an automobile. Pretty much that simple.
If someone wants to pay that kind of money for a car, they're using metrics other than economic to make their selection. That's why I say this is luxury territory. It's a luxury car, plain and simple.
As for used vehicles, thanks for the "cash for clunker" program of Obama there are considerably fewer of those vehicles around to buy and their price is currently quite a bit higher... if you can even find them.
Well... not that hard. I recently (January/2012) bought a full-sized pickup for $1000. Runs perfectly, probably has many years of life left in it. So far, my only investment has been a $2.00 pushbutton to serve as the starter relay drive in lieu of the ignition switch, which went nipples north one morning.
If it doesn't fit your budget, don't be complaining.
Not complaining. Just not buying, and indicating where I sit, and what would entice me to buy. That's why my post was titled "Exactly. 78k is luxury territory" As you might imagine, a car I have zero interest in isn't exactly in the running for my own candidates for "car of the year", lol
Are you sure a 15 mile range would be all that useful?
Yes, I sure am. It's about 2 miles to work; major challenges here are deep cold starting / operating and various other weather factors. Rain, snow, high wind. Definitely need transport, and it definitely needs to be a closed cabin car, it definitely needs to be able to reach highway speeds, but range isn't much of an issue. Even the model S doesn't have enough range to make it to the nearest city in my state, which is 300 miles away. Not a common use case by any means, but it is mine.
As for the price w/5k pack, I was kidding. Hence the smiley.
At the current $4.17/gall, that works out to $21,834 for gas
Well... see, the thing is, gasoline isn't really $4.17 / gallon. The gas is much less, and the rest of that price is taxes that go for road maintenance.
The lurking problem here for pure electric uses is that no mechanism exists (yet) to add the road maintenance cost to the fueling (electric) costs of running an electric car, or a hybrid running on electricity from the wall (electricity from the gas engine is covered -- we pay for it when we fuel the gas engine.) Because of this, the actual running cost of electric-from-other-than-petro operation is being vastly underestimated, or perhaps "put off" is a better term.
I have no quibble with the higher efficiency of the powerplant...transmission...storage system as compared to direct, small-vehicle burning of petro fuels, but the running cost is clearly not being compared apples-to-apples at this point in the game. Just something to think about. Operating costs could (and I expect will) change significantly when the legislators decide to get around to it.
So then how do people get illegal drugs? Are doctors supplying those?
No, legislators are creating the supply out of thin air via the "war on drugs", which created and maintains the profitable black market to sell them in. Without the war on drugs, they (obviously) wouldn't be illegal, they wouldn't be so expensive because they wouldn't be black market, and easy access to them could be had by consenting, informed individuals. Oh, and we'd have more tax income, and considerably better quality control so that the results people desire would actually be what they got.
Of course, that would end the welfare program for LEOs and the private prison system, both with very strong Washington lobbies, so it isn't going to happen.
You know you can just buy carbon monoxide, right?
That's a nasty way to go. Headaches, all the oxygen starvation symptoms... ugh.
I agree, except I'd go a little further to say that $78k is ridiculous.
Wake me up when an electric car is $20k new - it's a motor, controller and a chassis, for crying out loud. Built by non-union robots. Said pricing probably isn't going to happen unless we can roll back quite a few government mommy laws, but I can wait them out. If they never make a reasonably priced electric car, I just won't buy one.
Personally, I feel there are far better things to spend money on than expensive cars, considering there are inexpensive ones to be had that are truly serviceable, particularly in the used market.
Musk has said that his intention is to end up manufacturing a truly affordable electric car, and that this stage (the model S) isn't that; I'll take him at his word. Maybe next time!:)
...so you're saying, yes, we have begun throwing out some of X, but not all of X, so no one is throwing out X...
Sigh. We've begun throwing out some of Paul. What remains of Paul's writing -- that which is not presently held as dubious -- is awful, misogynist and patriarchal, and if you step back and think about it, it reflects Jesus's attitude not very well at all. What I'm suggesting to you is that this disconnect should be taken seriously.
Look. Paul is obviously a terrible guy. Reading the letters with a straight face would make any modern thinking person want to take him aside and slap him silly. The good news is that some of that is pure revisionist nonsense; the bad news is that no matter what Paul says, he doesn't get to say "yeah, Jesus told you X, but you should actually do Y." And that, my friend, is the point of my remarks to you, which you are avoiding most assiduously. Please go read this, it'll help you with your misperception of that whole revisionist "Jesus kicks the OT out off the stadium" business you have going on if you read it carefully and honestly and follow the references. I'll deal with any arguments in that thread; not here. A response here indicates you don't really want to engage.
Slashdot Mirror
Accountability? I read it as laying out some goals for pretty damned good government.
And I voted for Obama (because Romney didn't in ANY way represent what the GP is asking for, frankly.) Obama, at least, had a few good points I could get behind. Mostly, they both suck.
These do not adequately (or even vaguely) characterize GDP (Gross Domestic Product.) There are innumerable effects from simple supply and demand to consumer taste and fashion that push production and consumption and exports and imports all over the map. You simply can't reasonably use food and fuel as a metric for this.
There's all kinds of hardware. And all kinds of software. I wrote this (SdrDx), for instance, starting from a really basic program called CuteSDR; primarily, it uses the RSPACE SDR-IQ for HF and below, and the FunCube dongle for 50 mhz and above. There's a new one, just beginning to ship, the funcube dongle pro plus, that does 150 khz to above a ghz. Haven't used it yet, but it sounds good. Google around, you'll find all kinds of stuff.
But you can
About "Fairness." Ok. Let's think about this. The government gives me a road to ride on. It also gives the rich guy a road to ride on. Is the road it gives the rich guy any better than the one it gives me? No? Then why does the rich guy have to pay more for it?
The government gives me an army to protect me. It also gives the rich guy protection. Is the protection it gives the rich guy any better than the protection it gives me? No? Then why does the rich guy have to pay more for it?
So no, it's not about fairness. What it's about is capacity. When there's a heavy object to be moved, you -- perfectly reasonably -- ask the little guy to hold the door, and the big guy to carry it. And he does. Because he knows his appropriate contribution is made in that scale, and he knows the little guy simply can't do it. The reason it's appropriate is because it's scaled to his capacity, and in society, we consider it appropriate -- not fair, but appropriate to contribute proportionally according to our abilities.
Any rich person with any sense of honor at all doesn't grinch for one second about taxes.
One last thing: If you're rich, your taxes weren't too high. The one precludes the other. And as long as you're taxed on earnings, rather than what you have, you're not going to get significantly less rich due to any change in income tax rates.
On the other hand, when you already don't have enough money to have any left over from your earnings, and you have no savings, and someone decides to take more from your earnings... that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
So rich people, buck up and do your part. If you want respect, that's the golden path, right there. That, and unforced charitable giving.
Ah. Now we're cooking. Car::food analogies!
I would contend a normal sedan is a burger. A triple patty with cheese is a corvette, a steak dinner is a Lamboghini, and an all-out crazed no-holds-barred feed-fest with champagne is a Rolls. A good convertible is a chicken sandwich without the top bun. That would make Tesla S... about a double patty, but with special cheese.
One of those bubbles with wheels is more like a half a McNugget, with no sweet and sour sauce, where every time you try to eat it, your fingers get stuck in the cardboard. And just when you think you've got it handled, the dog steps on it and ruins your meal.
What? "Lower than required" has nothing to do with it. The point is, a lot of the price of fuel is road tax. There is no road tax on electricity. My contention is, there will be, or else as we go to electric vehicles -- and we're going there, sure as can be -- they'll find some other way to incorporate it into the price of the car. Because the roads need to be maintained, and charging those who use them most is a reasonable way to do it.
Yes, ok. Well, let's see. Electric cars were introduced in... 1828.
Ok, kidding. Yes, and I'm waiting. I'd really like one of these in electric, with a range of, oh, say 20 miles or more.
Yeah, it'd be something if they started putting those on Montana highways... but I'm not holding my breath.
And I do have gas fueled vehicles that can make the trip, so for the rare times we go, we're covered. I'd just like to have an efficient, reliable, comfy EV for running around town with right here. Not a luxury car, but not a tiny bubble with wheels, either. I'd pay some extra for a jeep / 4wd form factor, they're very practical here. I run around in this thing, which is a super-cheap 4wd, and it has served us extremely well for almost all of our needs.
Well, maybe. I could buy it easily, without resorting to a loan or a trade-in. I just wouldn't. From my POV, that's about 58k that I would be using very, very poorly, and that's not part of my approach to life. All I have to do is consider what great things can be done with 58k; things that would have far more lifespan and day to day use than a car, too. To me, that car simply makes no economic sense.
I think the price is ridiculous because I can buy a decent car for a lot less than that, that's all.
Buying at that price make no economic sense; and that's one of the metrics I use when selecting an automobile. Pretty much that simple.
If someone wants to pay that kind of money for a car, they're using metrics other than economic to make their selection. That's why I say this is luxury territory. It's a luxury car, plain and simple.
Well... not that hard. I recently (January/2012) bought a full-sized pickup for $1000. Runs perfectly, probably has many years of life left in it. So far, my only investment has been a $2.00 pushbutton to serve as the starter relay drive in lieu of the ignition switch, which went nipples north one morning.
Not complaining. Just not buying, and indicating where I sit, and what would entice me to buy. That's why my post was titled "Exactly. 78k is luxury territory" As you might imagine, a car I have zero interest in isn't exactly in the running for my own candidates for "car of the year", lol
I don't consider that an adequately sized car. When I say "car", I'm talking a traditional sedan.
No offense if you like very small cars. But I don't, and I wouldn't buy one.
So, do you professionally manufacture straw men with a side order of ad hominem, or did you make this up especially for me?
Have a nice day, Mr. troll.
Yes, I sure am. It's about 2 miles to work; major challenges here are deep cold starting / operating and various other weather factors. Rain, snow, high wind. Definitely need transport, and it definitely needs to be a closed cabin car, it definitely needs to be able to reach highway speeds, but range isn't much of an issue. Even the model S doesn't have enough range to make it to the nearest city in my state, which is 300 miles away. Not a common use case by any means, but it is mine.
As for the price w/5k pack, I was kidding. Hence the smiley.
Well... see, the thing is, gasoline isn't really $4.17 / gallon. The gas is much less, and the rest of that price is taxes that go for road maintenance.
The lurking problem here for pure electric uses is that no mechanism exists (yet) to add the road maintenance cost to the fueling (electric) costs of running an electric car, or a hybrid running on electricity from the wall (electricity from the gas engine is covered -- we pay for it when we fuel the gas engine.) Because of this, the actual running cost of electric-from-other-than-petro operation is being vastly underestimated, or perhaps "put off" is a better term.
I have no quibble with the higher efficiency of the powerplant...transmission...storage system as compared to direct, small-vehicle burning of petro fuels, but the running cost is clearly not being compared apples-to-apples at this point in the game. Just something to think about. Operating costs could (and I expect will) change significantly when the legislators decide to get around to it.
I think I'd be perfectly happy to pay $20k for a Model S with a 5kw battery. You think they'd go for it? :)
No, legislators are creating the supply out of thin air via the "war on drugs", which created and maintains the profitable black market to sell them in. Without the war on drugs, they (obviously) wouldn't be illegal, they wouldn't be so expensive because they wouldn't be black market, and easy access to them could be had by consenting, informed individuals. Oh, and we'd have more tax income, and considerably better quality control so that the results people desire would actually be what they got.
Of course, that would end the welfare program for LEOs and the private prison system, both with very strong Washington lobbies, so it isn't going to happen.
That's a nasty way to go. Headaches, all the oxygen starvation symptoms... ugh.
I agree, except I'd go a little further to say that $78k is ridiculous.
Wake me up when an electric car is $20k new - it's a motor, controller and a chassis, for crying out loud. Built by non-union robots. Said pricing probably isn't going to happen unless we can roll back quite a few government mommy laws, but I can wait them out. If they never make a reasonably priced electric car, I just won't buy one.
Personally, I feel there are far better things to spend money on than expensive cars, considering there are inexpensive ones to be had that are truly serviceable, particularly in the used market.
Musk has said that his intention is to end up manufacturing a truly affordable electric car, and that this stage (the model S) isn't that; I'll take him at his word. Maybe next time! :)
So, not familiar with the constitution, then?
He's not trying to make a right. He's trying to call attention to a wrong.
Obligatory 'toon
...so you're saying, yes, we have begun throwing out some of X, but not all of X, so no one is throwing out X...
Sigh. We've begun throwing out some of Paul. What remains of Paul's writing -- that which is not presently held as dubious -- is awful, misogynist and patriarchal, and if you step back and think about it, it reflects Jesus's attitude not very well at all. What I'm suggesting to you is that this disconnect should be taken seriously.
Look. Paul is obviously a terrible guy. Reading the letters with a straight face would make any modern thinking person want to take him aside and slap him silly. The good news is that some of that is pure revisionist nonsense; the bad news is that no matter what Paul says, he doesn't get to say "yeah, Jesus told you X, but you should actually do Y." And that, my friend, is the point of my remarks to you, which you are avoiding most assiduously. Please go read this, it'll help you with your misperception of that whole revisionist "Jesus kicks the OT out off the stadium" business you have going on if you read it carefully and honestly and follow the references. I'll deal with any arguments in that thread; not here. A response here indicates you don't really want to engage.
Yes, of course, sigh. My apologies. It's obviously 5:17-18.
I went into this here:
Matthew 5:17-18