Spot on. The rise of the multi-national corporation continues. At some point their power will eclipse that of all but a few countries. This will result in a strengthened form on international government to counteract that power. Or, we are looking at rule of the people through corporations. Some will argue this has already happened.
I started to right the same message, but did some research first. The l4 and L5 points are 60 degrees off of the minor body's position. Therefore when Earth-Mars is out of sight, a communication satellite at this point could be used.
No I'm not. Simply pointing out that you don't really think it is good for other people to fund my solar paneled house. It is simply a transfer of wealth that benefits only one household at the expense of others.
Let's pretend that your idea is a valid one. It isn't, but we will pretend for now.
Do you think the 70k and less crowd are the ones that will get the subsidies to put solar panels on their house. If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
If your entire post was sarcastic, I apologize. I have read so many ridiculous posts, that I no longer know what is meant to be humorous, and what is meant to be serious.
If it is too big a chunk, you point out the solution. For my education, I did take out a loan. The homeowner can do the same thing with a home equity loan. Having the government tax me to provide a private benefit is ridiculous.
In certain cases (like the Pell grant), I can see where this is necessary for lower income folks. However, someone who owns his own home should not get money from me for a home improvement that benefits him exclusively.
"Upgrading your house with a solar roof only makes sense if you're going to stay there for ~20 years"
Untrue. That may be the payoff point, but the other factor is that the value of your house increases. This means if you move out in five years, you recoup part of the sunk cost in the sale price.
Bigger problem with your analysis. You are claiming that 4.5 KW of solar capacity added to a centralized power plant benefits the public, but the same 4.5 KW of capacity on top of a private residence does not? Can you explain how this is?
Short answer: The subsidized person gets the benefit of the electricity production. He is not putting a public solar plant on his private residence. He controls the solar, and can use it for his own uses or sell it back to the grid. How can you possibly say that you get all the benefit of a public electric grid and the private homeowner reduces his personal load and can sell back to the grid? Somehow, you are pulling a benefit out of thin air.
Long Answer Okay, let's say in both cases the 4.5KW solar capacity would cost $10,000, regardless of whether it is centralized or not. We will assume this thing last forever with $500 per year maintenance. Let us assume also that regardless, it will produce $2,000 worth of electricity I suspect that it would be cheaper per KW to centralize, but for the sake of this argument, I will concede this point.
Joe Subsidized gets this thing added to his house on the public dime. Each year he personally pays $500 for $2,000 worth of electricity. What do I get out of it? Theoretically, a slightly reduced demand should drive costs down a miniscule amount. IN practice, though, we are simply saying that we will not build more plants to keep up with demand, so I get nothing except for the $10,000 bill
Now i use that $10,000 for a public plant. No different than the scenario as before. Except now, I get the benefit of the cheap electricity to me. Sure, I have to pay maintenance on it, but that is outweighed by the cheaper electricity. Now, my $10k will not build a plant, but pooled together it would. If it is a viable choice, then that is the way to go.
In your model, the solar panel on the private residence would have to be used strictly for powering the grid, or the homeowner himself would have to pay market rates for the electric generation from his solar panel.
When one is funding the roads, one is giving a direct benefit to the public as a whole.
Corn farming should not be subsidized. It makes no sense when we have a surplus of food. Ethanol production seems like it is a lobbying group which managed to get ahold of enough congress critters.
If we were talking about subsidizing a solar power plant, that would be one thing. In exchange, I'd want tight controls on the price we get charged for the power. If my money is being used to help build it, then that is the tradeoff that must get made.
When we are talking about adding value to your personal home with me picking up most or all of the cost, then I get upset. The utility to me personally for this happening is minuscule. If it the preponderance of the benefit goes to one person, then that one person should pay for it.
Sounds great. Let's subsidize home owners. We will tax every family $5,000 to provide a $5,000 subsidy for everyone. Sounds great.
Wait a minute, I think we will have some overhead in the program. Administration costs, etc... let's say maybe a 20% overhead. So, let's alter our plan. Every family get's taxed $5,000 so we give households a $4,000 subsidy.
I love your idea.
Alternatively, we might consider limiting subsidies altogether.
Slight problem. If I am paying to put a solar panel on your house, I am giving you reduced rates AND making the value of your house go up by a significant percentage of what I am giving you. There is very little benefit to the public as a whole.
If you were talking about government subsidizing a solar power plant, that would be an entirely different scenario altogether. The public as a whole would be getting the benefit.
This is the kind of thinking that has gotten this country in the mess it is in. Everyone from the poor to the rich looking for a way to take a swig from the trough and not worrying about putting it back in. Want a new car? Go to the government. Screwed up your bank? Go to the government.
I think we have abstracted money (which in itself is an abstract concept) to the point that no one gets that resources are not infinite. If a project is not worth doing without government subsidy, then it is economically not viable. Sometimes, gov't should offer subsidies to kick start a program. But solar is far past that point.
The bottom line is that practically everyone is looking to someone else to pay for their wants, needs and desires. That is no sustainable. I fear that my children will be the first generation to inherit a country that is in worse condition than the one I inherited.
You realize that there is an upfront cost whether the state kicks in or not, right? Basically your argument is "this is not worthwhile for me to do, but it is worthwhile for other people to do it for me". If the overall cost of solar isn't worth it to you, then it is likely not an economically viable project.
You are technically correct. However from a practical standpoint, which is more secure: a home with a small wired network and no wireless and no encryption? Or a home with a wireless network and no encryption? Most folks are not going to try to tap into my wired network to eavesdrop, but any schmuck can war drive and do the same.
The quotes come from the Yahoo page. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but this is not part of a peer reviewed research paper where only scientists are talking to scientists. Sometimes, speakers will target their language to the audience with which they are trying to communicate. Since the audience is likely going to be folks without a scientific background, the speaker will tailor his speech accordingly.
So in this instance, a U.S. based audience will want to hear Fahrenheit. They will also user terms like "a billion earths" to give the audience an idea of size. Cubic meters simply would not work, I am afraid.
Overall, the impression that I get from your post is that you have an overinflated sense of your own mental superiority.
Re:The bold new face of science fiction!
on
Stargate Universe
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that is the quote and what started the firestorm. Problem is there is not corroborating evidence. Others have chimed in and claimed that the exchange never occurred. So did it happen? Maybe. but if one is claiming to be a skeptic, then one needs a little higher standard of proof before tagging a quote onto someone like that.
Re:The bold new face of science fiction!
on
Stargate Universe
·
· Score: 1
It is doubtful that the former President ever said this.
Sorry for the reply to myself. If you have never read "I have no mouth, and I must scream", it is very applicable. It is a classic of the science fiction genre, and a well written dystopian story.
Slashdot Mirror
Spot on. The rise of the multi-national corporation continues. At some point their power will eclipse that of all but a few countries. This will result in a strengthened form on international government to counteract that power. Or, we are looking at rule of the people through corporations. Some will argue this has already happened.
I started to right the same message, but did some research first. The l4 and L5 points are 60 degrees off of the minor body's position. Therefore when Earth-Mars is out of sight, a communication satellite at this point could be used.
No idea what you are talking about. It was a wonderful movie. One of the best I've seen recently geared toward the youngsters.
So, if Michael Dell's profits doubled this year, he WOULDN'T work to sell you on the idea of buying Windows 7 and a new PC?
Well, then, it obviously not worth spending 40k on the system in the first place then. It ain't complicated, folks. Basic present value math.
"If you persist, I will have to assume you are some form of idiot."
Brilliant debating technique.
No I'm not. Simply pointing out that you don't really think it is good for other people to fund my solar paneled house. It is simply a transfer of wealth that benefits only one household at the expense of others.
I don't have a problem with the people who live under the pieces of the solar plant getting free power.
Okay, tell ya what. Let's put it to the test.
Send me a check to cover the cost of my solar panels and installation. If you'll do this, then I will believe you.
Let's pretend that your idea is a valid one. It isn't, but we will pretend for now.
Do you think the 70k and less crowd are the ones that will get the subsidies to put solar panels on their house. If so, I have a bridge to sell you.
If your entire post was sarcastic, I apologize. I have read so many ridiculous posts, that I no longer know what is meant to be humorous, and what is meant to be serious.
Sean,
Yes, the two items are equivalent.
If it is too big a chunk, you point out the solution. For my education, I did take out a loan. The homeowner can do the same thing with a home equity loan. Having the government tax me to provide a private benefit is ridiculous.
In certain cases (like the Pell grant), I can see where this is necessary for lower income folks. However, someone who owns his own home should not get money from me for a home improvement that benefits him exclusively.
"Upgrading your house with a solar roof only makes sense if you're going to stay there for ~20 years"
Untrue. That may be the payoff point, but the other factor is that the value of your house increases. This means if you move out in five years, you recoup part of the sunk cost in the sale price.
Bigger problem with your analysis. You are claiming that 4.5 KW of solar capacity added to a centralized power plant benefits the public, but the same 4.5 KW of capacity on top of a private residence does not? Can you explain how this is?
Short answer: The subsidized person gets the benefit of the electricity production. He is not putting a public solar plant on his private residence. He controls the solar, and can use it for his own uses or sell it back to the grid. How can you possibly say that you get all the benefit of a public electric grid and the private homeowner reduces his personal load and can sell back to the grid? Somehow, you are pulling a benefit out of thin air.
Long Answer
Okay, let's say in both cases the 4.5KW solar capacity would cost $10,000, regardless of whether it is centralized or not. We will assume this thing last forever with $500 per year maintenance. Let us assume also that regardless, it will produce $2,000 worth of electricity I suspect that it would be cheaper per KW to centralize, but for the sake of this argument, I will concede this point.
Joe Subsidized gets this thing added to his house on the public dime. Each year he personally pays $500 for $2,000 worth of electricity. What do I get out of it? Theoretically, a slightly reduced demand should drive costs down a miniscule amount. IN practice, though, we are simply saying that we will not build more plants to keep up with demand, so I get nothing except for the $10,000 bill
Now i use that $10,000 for a public plant. No different than the scenario as before. Except now, I get the benefit of the cheap electricity to me. Sure, I have to pay maintenance on it, but that is outweighed by the cheaper electricity. Now, my $10k will not build a plant, but pooled together it would. If it is a viable choice, then that is the way to go.
In your model, the solar panel on the private residence would have to be used strictly for powering the grid, or the homeowner himself would have to pay market rates for the electric generation from his solar panel.
Howdy,
When one is funding the roads, one is giving a direct benefit to the public as a whole.
Corn farming should not be subsidized. It makes no sense when we have a surplus of food. Ethanol production seems like it is a lobbying group which managed to get ahold of enough congress critters.
If we were talking about subsidizing a solar power plant, that would be one thing. In exchange, I'd want tight controls on the price we get charged for the power. If my money is being used to help build it, then that is the tradeoff that must get made.
When we are talking about adding value to your personal home with me picking up most or all of the cost, then I get upset. The utility to me personally for this happening is minuscule. If it the preponderance of the benefit goes to one person, then that one person should pay for it.
Sounds great. Let's subsidize home owners. We will tax every family $5,000 to provide a $5,000 subsidy for everyone. Sounds great.
Wait a minute, I think we will have some overhead in the program. Administration costs, etc... let's say maybe a 20% overhead. So, let's alter our plan. Every family get's taxed $5,000 so we give households a $4,000 subsidy.
I love your idea.
Alternatively, we might consider limiting subsidies altogether.
Slight problem. If I am paying to put a solar panel on your house, I am giving you reduced rates AND making the value of your house go up by a significant percentage of what I am giving you. There is very little benefit to the public as a whole.
If you were talking about government subsidizing a solar power plant, that would be an entirely different scenario altogether. The public as a whole would be getting the benefit.
This is the kind of thinking that has gotten this country in the mess it is in. Everyone from the poor to the rich looking for a way to take a swig from the trough and not worrying about putting it back in. Want a new car? Go to the government. Screwed up your bank? Go to the government.
I think we have abstracted money (which in itself is an abstract concept) to the point that no one gets that resources are not infinite. If a project is not worth doing without government subsidy, then it is economically not viable. Sometimes, gov't should offer subsidies to kick start a program. But solar is far past that point.
The bottom line is that practically everyone is looking to someone else to pay for their wants, needs and desires. That is no sustainable. I fear that my children will be the first generation to inherit a country that is in worse condition than the one I inherited.
You realize that there is an upfront cost whether the state kicks in or not, right? Basically your argument is "this is not worthwhile for me to do, but it is worthwhile for other people to do it for me". If the overall cost of solar isn't worth it to you, then it is likely not an economically viable project.
You are technically correct. However from a practical standpoint, which is more secure: a home with a small wired network and no wireless and no encryption? Or a home with a wireless network and no encryption? Most folks are not going to try to tap into my wired network to eavesdrop, but any schmuck can war drive and do the same.
I always new that Gmail users were not to bright. If you want to respond, please carbon me at MyLongNickName@gmail.com. Thanks.
Hi,
The quotes come from the Yahoo page. I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but this is not part of a peer reviewed research paper where only scientists are talking to scientists. Sometimes, speakers will target their language to the audience with which they are trying to communicate. Since the audience is likely going to be folks without a scientific background, the speaker will tailor his speech accordingly.
So in this instance, a U.S. based audience will want to hear Fahrenheit. They will also user terms like "a billion earths" to give the audience an idea of size. Cubic meters simply would not work, I am afraid.
Overall, the impression that I get from your post is that you have an overinflated sense of your own mental superiority.
Yeah, that is the quote and what started the firestorm. Problem is there is not corroborating evidence. Others have chimed in and claimed that the exchange never occurred. So did it happen? Maybe. but if one is claiming to be a skeptic, then one needs a little higher standard of proof before tagging a quote onto someone like that.
It is doubtful that the former President ever said this.
You are from Los Angeles?
Sorry for the reply to myself. If you have never read "I have no mouth, and I must scream", it is very applicable. It is a classic of the science fiction genre, and a well written dystopian story.
This is the only link I could find. I know I have seen it in others...
http://web.archive.org/web/20070227202043/http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/ellison/ellison1.html
Better than being dead.
You really think so? I tend to think that there are certain fates that are worse than death.