Great idea. While we're at it, let's have universal internet plans from ISPs. We could have universal pricing on vehicles. Universal pricing on gasoline. We could all pay the same money for a house - universal housing! Oh, and universal restaurant pricing - everyone pays the same amount for a steak no matter where ya go.
Think how grand it would be if the government set prices on every single thing sold in the US. It would make things so much easier to take away that pesky free market. I mean, who REALLY wants to have to bother with having to make their own decisions in their life? It'd be so much easier to just let our government make all our decisions and run every aspect of our lives. Eventually, we could just depend on government run services for everything from food, clothing, transportation, toilet paper, etc./sarcasm
There's a large difference in trying to tow a load with 415HP at +5,000rpm, and towing a load with 450HP with grunt on the low RPMs.
I have a hunch this was more government intervention instead of innovation...
Yet today, we still need a club to beat the farts out of the liberal hippy who thinks that because his 35HP hybrid pregnant-rollerskate is good enough for him, it's good enough for everyone else too.
Well, it's actually called an iPhone auto-correct fuck-up, and I'm in my mid-30's. But thanks for playing.
Yes, the landowners are being paid. With stipened government funds through tax abatements which eventually end.
The companies are granted a tax break, so the taxes are increased elsewhere to tax payers like myself. So, I'm actually paying for the land through a company who is peddling a product which has a negative profit that is absorbed through the American tax payer against their will.
Coming from a long family history of farmers and ranchers, I beg to differ that you won't loose anything to the windmills. You'll loose land at the very least. You may not think it's worth anything, but, if it were MY land, and even if it only took a square foot of land, that's a square foot of MY land. Every inch of a farmer/rancher's land is valuable, even if to no one but to the farmer/rancher.
On the contrary, I live in an area where rain isn't always abundant; the soil varies from very good to very rocky and not so great. That's the exact reason why every square foot of it is valuable. The less arid and fertile, the more valuable the quantity. 100 head of cattle may feed well on 50 acres of high quality fertile land with irrigation in perfect conditions. 100 head of cattle on 100 acres in normal conditions. 100 head on 500 acres on poor soil/moisture land. The more acres you can keep as grazing, the more profitable the rancher.
Poor soil content and low moisture types of land isn't "invaluable". You just need more of it to do what you need to make a living.
Throw some windmills on a 500 acre farm and loose 50 acres due to a few windmills, lease roads, power lines, etc, and you loose more than just a few acres of land. You loose profit.
Most all the interstate power lines that don't follow a road; they usually have a right-of-way with the land owner to allow them reasonable access to the lines. There are very few leased roads to the power lines.
The pads themselves for windmills are are LOT bigger than the pads for power lines. And the lease roads are permanent caliche based roads that wind miles across a land owner.
And these are going out in the middle of cultivated fields and un-cultivated pasture land. They eliminate the option of most above ground irrigation, and take away valuable acres of crop. When they're put on pasture land, that becomes that much less natural grass and grazing for cattle, sheep, etc.
Say what you will, but, they make a much larger impact on farmers/ranchers than what the government and lobby groups like to mention.
Cattle-smattle. Go take a look at the amount of space the anchor pads, lease roads, sub stations, etc. just one of those wind farms takes up on a ranch/farm, and you'll realize what I meant.
Hmmm.. They take up a LOT of real estate, muck up a perfectly beautiful horizon, require a large amount of huge power lines to be run all over private land, cost more to build and maintain than they produce, wreck havoc with radio/television reception anywhere around them, are loud, produce extremely annoying constant moving shadows, and now are showing to be a threat to to the one thing that helps NOAA try to save a few lives during severe weather? Nice... glad we invested all our tax dollars in those over-sized pieces of junk...
It IS a free market (should be MORE so), for the fact that if one company comes in and completely saturates an area with an 1800MHz band coverage, there is nothing that gives another company the right to whine to the government because they can't play in the 1800MHz range. They can develop technology to use other frequencies, spend the money themselves on towers and equipment, and provide the same kind of service on different frequencies.
If a company puts up a tower to specifically block another company's frequencies, there is a legal issue there that then falls under fair practice.
Wired communications is also a free market as well. There is nothing that prevents someone from using their own money to construct another wired infrastructure on their own set of poles.
Now, if a company deliberately cuts another phone company's phone lines to prevent them from working, again, there's a legal issue there that again falls under fair practice.
Back to the point. AT&T's iPhone was developed by Apple, and AT&T entered into an agreement with them to carry their phone on the wireless network they created with their own money. There's no legitimate reason why government should force them to allow apps on their phones and on AT&T's network that the two companies feel would be a detriment to their profit.
If google wants their app to be on a cellular network, no one is preventing google from creating their own wireless network with their own phone running their own apps.
Now, one app from google isn't going to be the downfall of the iPhone and AT&T. It would behoove both the companies to work with google and make compromises, but, as a free market, government shouldn't FORCE one company to allow another company to profit off their own infrastructure.
I heard so many times while working for competitors of AT&T about how bad AT&T is at restricting competition. I never saw it. All I saw was smaller companies whining when their own network wasn't as reliable as AT&T's because they refused to put the money and engineering into it that AT&T did. AT&T was a great scapegoat because they had the profit and the network before others did.
My point is, this is a free market. If AT&T and Apple want to screw their customers, what business is it of the government to be involved? Let the businesses screw their customers.
hire back all the men/women that lost their job when the wind turbines were completed, have them take down every single waste of government subsidized pieces of junk, and voila! Solves multiple problems. No more ugly wind turbines killing bats and crapping up the horizon.
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that the more a person presents themselves to be "green", the more they enjoy the idea of suppressing the freedoms of others?
Ya know, something like "I'm so green, that I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to live in Arizona by their own free will."
Aparantly you've never heard of Juniper Networks. They're router solutions beat the pants off of Cisco for throughput and price, and, they're running FreeBSD on their routers.
Slashdot Mirror
Great idea. While we're at it, let's have universal internet plans from ISPs. We could have universal pricing on vehicles. Universal pricing on gasoline. We could all pay the same money for a house - universal housing! Oh, and universal restaurant pricing - everyone pays the same amount for a steak no matter where ya go. Think how grand it would be if the government set prices on every single thing sold in the US. It would make things so much easier to take away that pesky free market. I mean, who REALLY wants to have to bother with having to make their own decisions in their life? It'd be so much easier to just let our government make all our decisions and run every aspect of our lives. Eventually, we could just depend on government run services for everything from food, clothing, transportation, toilet paper, etc. /sarcasm
I'd like to know how that thing is going to tow a 12,000lb gooseneck trailer full of cattle.... I have my guesses...
There's a large difference in trying to tow a load with 415HP at +5,000rpm, and towing a load with 450HP with grunt on the low RPMs. I have a hunch this was more government intervention instead of innovation...
Yet today, we still need a club to beat the farts out of the liberal hippy who thinks that because his 35HP hybrid pregnant-rollerskate is good enough for him, it's good enough for everyone else too.
Well, it's actually called an iPhone auto-correct fuck-up, and I'm in my mid-30's. But thanks for playing. Yes, the landowners are being paid. With stipened government funds through tax abatements which eventually end. The companies are granted a tax break, so the taxes are increased elsewhere to tax payers like myself. So, I'm actually paying for the land through a company who is peddling a product which has a negative profit that is absorbed through the American tax payer against their will.
Coming from a long family history of farmers and ranchers, I beg to differ that you won't loose anything to the windmills. You'll loose land at the very least. You may not think it's worth anything, but, if it were MY land, and even if it only took a square foot of land, that's a square foot of MY land. Every inch of a farmer/rancher's land is valuable, even if to no one but to the farmer/rancher.
On the contrary, I live in an area where rain isn't always abundant; the soil varies from very good to very rocky and not so great. That's the exact reason why every square foot of it is valuable. The less arid and fertile, the more valuable the quantity. 100 head of cattle may feed well on 50 acres of high quality fertile land with irrigation in perfect conditions. 100 head of cattle on 100 acres in normal conditions. 100 head on 500 acres on poor soil/moisture land. The more acres you can keep as grazing, the more profitable the rancher. Poor soil content and low moisture types of land isn't "invaluable". You just need more of it to do what you need to make a living. Throw some windmills on a 500 acre farm and loose 50 acres due to a few windmills, lease roads, power lines, etc, and you loose more than just a few acres of land. You loose profit.
Most all the interstate power lines that don't follow a road; they usually have a right-of-way with the land owner to allow them reasonable access to the lines. There are very few leased roads to the power lines. The pads themselves for windmills are are LOT bigger than the pads for power lines. And the lease roads are permanent caliche based roads that wind miles across a land owner. And these are going out in the middle of cultivated fields and un-cultivated pasture land. They eliminate the option of most above ground irrigation, and take away valuable acres of crop. When they're put on pasture land, that becomes that much less natural grass and grazing for cattle, sheep, etc. Say what you will, but, they make a much larger impact on farmers/ranchers than what the government and lobby groups like to mention.
Cattle-smattle. Go take a look at the amount of space the anchor pads, lease roads, sub stations, etc. just one of those wind farms takes up on a ranch/farm, and you'll realize what I meant.
Hmmm.. They take up a LOT of real estate, muck up a perfectly beautiful horizon, require a large amount of huge power lines to be run all over private land, cost more to build and maintain than they produce, wreck havoc with radio/television reception anywhere around them, are loud, produce extremely annoying constant moving shadows, and now are showing to be a threat to to the one thing that helps NOAA try to save a few lives during severe weather? Nice... glad we invested all our tax dollars in those over-sized pieces of junk...
I swear... by the time this whole "green" fad is over, it'll be illegal to breathe....
It IS a free market (should be MORE so), for the fact that if one company comes in and completely saturates an area with an 1800MHz band coverage, there is nothing that gives another company the right to whine to the government because they can't play in the 1800MHz range. They can develop technology to use other frequencies, spend the money themselves on towers and equipment, and provide the same kind of service on different frequencies. If a company puts up a tower to specifically block another company's frequencies, there is a legal issue there that then falls under fair practice. Wired communications is also a free market as well. There is nothing that prevents someone from using their own money to construct another wired infrastructure on their own set of poles. Now, if a company deliberately cuts another phone company's phone lines to prevent them from working, again, there's a legal issue there that again falls under fair practice. Back to the point. AT&T's iPhone was developed by Apple, and AT&T entered into an agreement with them to carry their phone on the wireless network they created with their own money. There's no legitimate reason why government should force them to allow apps on their phones and on AT&T's network that the two companies feel would be a detriment to their profit. If google wants their app to be on a cellular network, no one is preventing google from creating their own wireless network with their own phone running their own apps. Now, one app from google isn't going to be the downfall of the iPhone and AT&T. It would behoove both the companies to work with google and make compromises, but, as a free market, government shouldn't FORCE one company to allow another company to profit off their own infrastructure. I heard so many times while working for competitors of AT&T about how bad AT&T is at restricting competition. I never saw it. All I saw was smaller companies whining when their own network wasn't as reliable as AT&T's because they refused to put the money and engineering into it that AT&T did. AT&T was a great scapegoat because they had the profit and the network before others did.
My point is, this is a free market. If AT&T and Apple want to screw their customers, what business is it of the government to be involved? Let the businesses screw their customers.
Understood. But how does the meat of this story involve the FCC?
Since when has the FCC become the government's "private company czar"?
hire back all the men/women that lost their job when the wind turbines were completed, have them take down every single waste of government subsidized pieces of junk, and voila! Solves multiple problems. No more ugly wind turbines killing bats and crapping up the horizon.
So artificially diverting water to areas without a substantial amount is a bad thing?
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that the more a person presents themselves to be "green", the more they enjoy the idea of suppressing the freedoms of others? Ya know, something like "I'm so green, that I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to live in Arizona by their own free will."
Aparantly you've never heard of Juniper Networks. They're router solutions beat the pants off of Cisco for throughput and price, and, they're running FreeBSD on their routers.