For a house built in the 60's in upstate New York, it has typical insulation properties (i.e. 4 inch thick stud cavities already filled with fiberglass (figure R-13) and same in attic augmented by an additional 4-6 inches of blown in cellulose insulation. Energy prices in New York tend to be above average, but if my annual heating bills run approximately $1000, in a house we might stay in for another 10 years, how does one justify the investment/ROI? There are ways to augment the majority of the insulation (i.e. the walls), but none if it will be very inexpensive, and will certainly not add much re-sale value (i.e. if I double the insulation values and lower my annual heating cost to $500 per annum, then over 10 years I will have saved a total of $5,000). There is no way I could double my insulation values for anywhere close to that amount of money (nor would a potential buyer value the improvements in a way to justify the investment). Most business look for ROI's of 3-5 years for capital investments (some longer based on the improvements), but even us poor schlubs look for an ROI of 10 years with 15 and 20 being on the absolute outside edge -- and their is no way I could double the insulation on a 2,500 square foot 2 story home for a mere $5,000 or $10,000...
Not to be a contrarian, but I am not sure that any of the "renewable" mechanisms you list are really going to be cost effective for heating my house when it drops down to 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less which is fairly common in northern locales. I get it that I could probably "invest" thousands of dollars on a monthly basis to do so, but I am sure that my home operating budget would flatline -- besides which I prefer my $200 a month heating bill in the winter...
No question that the government decided to get out of the ISS re-supply business (first cargo, then crew). As they decided to retire the Shuttle (for which they spent many billions in development contracts going back to the 70's with many "private" companies, including Rockwell and a whole list of typical "cost plus vendors"). They could have simply purchased rockets and capsules already available on the open market to perform re-supply and crew change out tasks -- except there were no private companies which such available services, at least in the United States. As no cost plus U.S. contractor was going to invest billions with no foreseeable way to not going bankrupt attempting to provide such services, the U.S. had three options: abandon the ISS, contract with foreign governments for such services, or fund development contracts followed by services contracts (or bundled together) to U.S. based contractors.
These contracts were put out to bid, and the government chose contractors to deliver the necessary services (including some development components). For the crew contracts, the U.S. decided on 2 primary contractors, awarding much more money to an existing cost plus contractor (Boeing) for the same service (except Boeing committed to deliver fewer testing services and also re-use of their capsules -- while SpaceX offered more testing in their bid (including max Q abort test) and also new capsules for each crew transports. Now I could be wrong, but I don't see nearly the vitriol directed at the cost plus contractor for delivering less for far more money -- which kind of leaves me to believe that some of the SpaceX naysayers have some tie in to these contractors...
Could not agree more -- I am sure Netflix expects that when one is paying extra for 4 simultaneous streams, that that account is being used by an immediate family (i.e. parents, children) and not a single person...
Hmmm, not much needs to be said other then: "legacy rural telecom provider Windstream Holdings, Inc.". While is is true that they have made some investments in "high speed networking", the reality is that the bulk of the coverage map is in providing rural landline services. The epitome of the buggy whip business in the 21st century -- which no doubt was the inspiration (or desperation) for their shenanigans. I'm still not sure my these rural landline telco's think that there is good business to be had in buying assets similar to their already dismal and no future assets. Maybe they are practicing the CA (Computer Associates) model of business except applied to telecommunications -- i.e. but up assets on the decline, cut the support costs, maintenance, help desk, etc. and milk the declining install base while you look for another set of distressed assets to show up in the M&A trough.
Note, I call this entity Citizens as that is the bulk of past and future business, although they did buy the remnants of the old Rochester Telephone business (which had been renamed Frontier Communications), but not before the interesting parts had been spun off including their internet and cell phone components -- leaving just the old local land line business -- the buggy whip part of the communications space. After acquiring Frontier, they assumed the newly acquired entity's name as their own.
Needless to say, "new" Frontier brought their mostly rural landline business to the party, and have been acquiring additional tradional land line businesses frequently in rural areas -- mostly because no other communications company want anything to do with this part of the space. After all, running new copper POTS based lines, in mostly rural areas with mostly an older, poorer clientele just seems so 70's... Additionally, young people are largely mobile focused and more affluent folks are looking for faster, more reliable cable or fiber based internet services.
Lastly, as people got rid of their 2nd POTS lines decades ago when dial-up internet went the way of the dodo, and gave up the only related POTS landline for a mobile phone number or maybe a cable provided VOIP line, the old POTS infrastructure is used less and less, which means no "investment" in this antiquated technology base (kind of like the abandoned railway lines with the old telegraph signaling wire, with the old cute glass insulators -- and none of which is in use anymore).
So therefore, Frontier is now in the business of riding the buggy whip part of the communications business into the ground -- and DSL might as well be ISDN -- too slow, not reliable (literally running on 50+ year old copper). They have no presence in the mobile/cell part of the market, they are not a cable company nor have they made any significant investments in fiber. So they are truly "dead man walking", and if someone "attempts" to force then to make the necessary investments to bring their "plant" up to date, without a significant increase in rates (or government subsidies), they will just go bankrupt.
Seems to me a perfectly workable compromise could exist here. Trump could agree to no additional funding for the wall, while the Democrats could agree to redirect all social services spending (i.e. food stamps, housing assistance, education funding, medical assistance, etc.) currently being spent on people here illegally, being spent instead on building a wall and repatriating those not here lawfully.
Try gross income, i.e. before costs or profit are figured in. If a company is in a 2% margin business, it would effectively be their entire worldwide profit for the year.
Not making any judgements here, but as with most profit seeking businesses, they normally do some kind of cost/benefit analysis, i.e. increase pay for our 25 workers by $3.00 per hour, weekly cost assuming each worker gets 20 hours is $1500, annual cost is $78,000 (in the hopes that all of our worker will be more loyal and will refrain from steeling in the future) OR go cashless, which saves money (i.e. more efficient, no bank deposits, etc.) at the expense (perhaps) of some customer dis-satisfaction). If it was your business, which would you choose?
Having just been to NYC and experienced this first hand over the holidays, my belief is a bigger reason for businesses going cashless is to avoid problems like register skimming (i.e. employees pocketing cash from the till). Businesses lose anywhere from 3-6 billion dollars a year in the U.S. from their own employees, and for some of these smaller establishments that might not trust all of their workers and in general are just looking for efficient methods for minimizing this type of theft, removing the temptation of ready cash around just seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
And where are the incentives to reduce cost. The SLS is being built by private companies on cost + contracts -- exactly what you appear to think will be a great deal for the U.S. taxpayers...
It is also important to note that this just covers tuition and not room and board, books, etc. At most "elite" schools, these other expenses can be 1/2 to 2/3's of the actual bill. A nice thing to do no doubt, but unless your parents live in the same city, a 100% tuition scholarship is not really going to get you over the goal line of total educational costs...
The reality is that there will be different classes of service. Want a newer, nicer, cleaned everyday by real people ride-share, expect to pay a premium. The question is will the premium price of such a vehicle used multiple times a day (i.e. to work, from work, shopping, etc.) really be less expensive then owning a personal car. Of course the alternative would be to get the cheapest available service, which might/would likely be less expensive, but one which might not be clean and pleasant to ride in...
Not sure what you are suggesting here -- that the security agencies of the U.S. should secretly and illegally maintain metadata on millions and millions of American citizens on the off chance that these same agencies can cull through this data to target their "enemies"? This just gets to the related problem that there are so many laws currently on the books and since ignorance of the laws is no excuse, that almost anyone can be jailed for breaking one or more of them based on prosecutorial discretion...
Since I currently live in the Great Lakes water basin, where population is stagnant (or declining as it is in upstate New York), and where last year Lake Ontario were at record high levels (my dock being inundated for several weeks -- a once in decades event). Access to "lots" of fresh water is not necessarily a large concern. There are also treaties in place between the U.S. and Canada which makes it nearly impossible for ANY water to be shipped out of the basin -- so that over abundance of clean fresh water is very unlikely to change. The U.S. side of the basin does not have many economic advantages (note the population growth (or lack thereof)) as proof of this, but water -- no problem. We would really be happy for more "legal" immigration to occur, as we are really not overcrowded in any meaningful way -- those who immigrate will just have to accept the tax and regulatory environment:-)...
I very frequently drive 75+ on interstates in total darkness (far from any city lights) for hours at a time with only low beams on -- and can see much farther then can be ascertained by viewing that video. Which leads me to assume that the camera was either of very low quality, that the technology is still insufficient or that the video was modified in some way. The sight lines on that road looked fine (and she was not entering the roadway from behind a tree/parked car). Looking at the video, even the road was "visible" for a very short distance (and with the pink bike, she should have been far more visible). Heck, if I am paying attention, I can avoid potholes in the highway doing 75+ in the dark -- and a pothole is much harder to see on a highway in the dark. Something doesn't make sense here -- and if the available cameras are really limited to that level of quality in the dark -- then either these vehicles shouldn't be authorized to work in the dark -- or they will have to prove that other sensors (radar or lidar) are both configured, can provide sufficient "visibility" and are working properly. To be honest, if my eyesight was limited to what the camera footage showed, it would be gross negligence to drive at almost any rate of speed exceeding 20 MPH in the dark -- ever.
Having just had the joyful experience of driving over 200 miles on snow and ice encrusted highways with no pavement visible, no lane markers visible and enough active snow to obliterate whatever post delineators (snow) are out there (typically every 400-500 feet) -- especially at night, I personally would like to believe that the current driving AI's out there will or are mastering this type of driving -- I am just somewhat doubtful of the current "state of the art". This type of driving is fairly nuanced, particularly as the snow/ice surfaces rut up and changing lanes involve a very delicate hand -- and you can forget about any aggressive maneuvers (acceleration, braking or turning), even when the vehicle is not doing what you expect or need it to do and where reacting to problems too "assuredly" just results in even bigger problems. Unfortunately, this type of driving is fairly common in the northern parts of the country for 4-5 months a year. It'd be nice to "take the winter off", but that is not realistic and people have adapted to driving in these conditions (some better then others) -- and therefore, these autonomous AI's will either have to become just as proficient, or they just won't be adopted in all climates. Either starting (or more problematically during a trip) and having the AI "announce that due to some issue outside of it's control (no lane markers, snowed over sensors, insufficient traction, etc.)", it is unable to proceed will not be acceptable (nor be safe).
The newer Mustangs are also significantly bigger (1994 had a passenger volume of 75.9, the 2015 had 84.5, 11% more, whereas the weight increased by 12% -- mostly a wash). So the weight went up to make a bigger car, not just a more powerful car. Heck, I remember the first 90's Mustang I ever rented, I'm 5' 9", and when I got in it, the seat position was "way" forward to my tastes, went to adjust it back a couple of inches only to find out it was already all the back. I would be hard to believe that a 6' plus person could have justifiably purchased the vehicle...
Not sure you live in the states, because even assuming your electricity is free (nice trick that one), 20,000 * 8 = 160,000 km ~= 100,000 miles / 20mpg = 5,000 gallons of fuel, which means that your gas costs $5.00 / gallon -- which has never been true in the sates (think usually between $2.00 and $3.00 tops (although you use of km is probably indicative)). And given the U.S. is now moving to being an oil exporter again, is not likely to change anytime soon.
Would agree in general, but the struggle is that a modern car that can accelerate more quickly then older cars are prevalent across the spectrum -- i.e. technology has made smaller cars/smaller engines much more performant. In addition, it is much harder to make the argument that a car next to you capable of accelerating faster then a typical car from the 70's is causing you direct harm, unlike second hand smoke.
When speaking of sedans, I would actually argue they weigh less (heck, even the latest F150 was built out of aluminum, and weighs significantly less then F150's of yore) and their engine displacements are significantly smaller then cars from the 60's/70's. Heck, a 2.0 liter engine (fairly common nowadays) is easily able to pump out 250HP/250 lb-ft of torque, even if that HP measurement takes into account all of the additional loads/devices on the engine -- which equates to a 122 cubic inch engine. Can you imagine a American muscle car from the late 60's bragging about it's 122 cubic inch engine.
Slashdot Mirror
For a house built in the 60's in upstate New York, it has typical insulation properties (i.e. 4 inch thick stud cavities already filled with fiberglass (figure R-13) and same in attic augmented by an additional 4-6 inches of blown in cellulose insulation. Energy prices in New York tend to be above average, but if my annual heating bills run approximately $1000, in a house we might stay in for another 10 years, how does one justify the investment/ROI? There are ways to augment the majority of the insulation (i.e. the walls), but none if it will be very inexpensive, and will certainly not add much re-sale value (i.e. if I double the insulation values and lower my annual heating cost to $500 per annum, then over 10 years I will have saved a total of $5,000). There is no way I could double my insulation values for anywhere close to that amount of money (nor would a potential buyer value the improvements in a way to justify the investment). Most business look for ROI's of 3-5 years for capital investments (some longer based on the improvements), but even us poor schlubs look for an ROI of 10 years with 15 and 20 being on the absolute outside edge -- and their is no way I could double the insulation on a 2,500 square foot 2 story home for a mere $5,000 or $10,000...
Not to be a contrarian, but I am not sure that any of the "renewable" mechanisms you list are really going to be cost effective for heating my house when it drops down to 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less which is fairly common in northern locales. I get it that I could probably "invest" thousands of dollars on a monthly basis to do so, but I am sure that my home operating budget would flatline -- besides which I prefer my $200 a month heating bill in the winter...
No question that the government decided to get out of the ISS re-supply business (first cargo, then crew). As they decided to retire the Shuttle (for which they spent many billions in development contracts going back to the 70's with many "private" companies, including Rockwell and a whole list of typical "cost plus vendors"). They could have simply purchased rockets and capsules already available on the open market to perform re-supply and crew change out tasks -- except there were no private companies which such available services, at least in the United States. As no cost plus U.S. contractor was going to invest billions with no foreseeable way to not going bankrupt attempting to provide such services, the U.S. had three options: abandon the ISS, contract with foreign governments for such services, or fund development contracts followed by services contracts (or bundled together) to U.S. based contractors. These contracts were put out to bid, and the government chose contractors to deliver the necessary services (including some development components). For the crew contracts, the U.S. decided on 2 primary contractors, awarding much more money to an existing cost plus contractor (Boeing) for the same service (except Boeing committed to deliver fewer testing services and also re-use of their capsules -- while SpaceX offered more testing in their bid (including max Q abort test) and also new capsules for each crew transports. Now I could be wrong, but I don't see nearly the vitriol directed at the cost plus contractor for delivering less for far more money -- which kind of leaves me to believe that some of the SpaceX naysayers have some tie in to these contractors...
Could not agree more -- I am sure Netflix expects that when one is paying extra for 4 simultaneous streams, that that account is being used by an immediate family (i.e. parents, children) and not a single person...
Hmmm, not much needs to be said other then: "legacy rural telecom provider Windstream Holdings, Inc.". While is is true that they have made some investments in "high speed networking", the reality is that the bulk of the coverage map is in providing rural landline services. The epitome of the buggy whip business in the 21st century -- which no doubt was the inspiration (or desperation) for their shenanigans. I'm still not sure my these rural landline telco's think that there is good business to be had in buying assets similar to their already dismal and no future assets. Maybe they are practicing the CA (Computer Associates) model of business except applied to telecommunications -- i.e. but up assets on the decline, cut the support costs, maintenance, help desk, etc. and milk the declining install base while you look for another set of distressed assets to show up in the M&A trough.
Note, I call this entity Citizens as that is the bulk of past and future business, although they did buy the remnants of the old Rochester Telephone business (which had been renamed Frontier Communications), but not before the interesting parts had been spun off including their internet and cell phone components -- leaving just the old local land line business -- the buggy whip part of the communications space. After acquiring Frontier, they assumed the newly acquired entity's name as their own. Needless to say, "new" Frontier brought their mostly rural landline business to the party, and have been acquiring additional tradional land line businesses frequently in rural areas -- mostly because no other communications company want anything to do with this part of the space. After all, running new copper POTS based lines, in mostly rural areas with mostly an older, poorer clientele just seems so 70's... Additionally, young people are largely mobile focused and more affluent folks are looking for faster, more reliable cable or fiber based internet services. Lastly, as people got rid of their 2nd POTS lines decades ago when dial-up internet went the way of the dodo, and gave up the only related POTS landline for a mobile phone number or maybe a cable provided VOIP line, the old POTS infrastructure is used less and less, which means no "investment" in this antiquated technology base (kind of like the abandoned railway lines with the old telegraph signaling wire, with the old cute glass insulators -- and none of which is in use anymore). So therefore, Frontier is now in the business of riding the buggy whip part of the communications business into the ground -- and DSL might as well be ISDN -- too slow, not reliable (literally running on 50+ year old copper). They have no presence in the mobile/cell part of the market, they are not a cable company nor have they made any significant investments in fiber. So they are truly "dead man walking", and if someone "attempts" to force then to make the necessary investments to bring their "plant" up to date, without a significant increase in rates (or government subsidies), they will just go bankrupt.
Anonymous coward -- kind of says it all...
Is this really on topic?
Seems to me a perfectly workable compromise could exist here. Trump could agree to no additional funding for the wall, while the Democrats could agree to redirect all social services spending (i.e. food stamps, housing assistance, education funding, medical assistance, etc.) currently being spent on people here illegally, being spent instead on building a wall and repatriating those not here lawfully.
Because the cable companies are actually paying the content owners, this entity -- I suspect not so much...
Try gross income, i.e. before costs or profit are figured in. If a company is in a 2% margin business, it would effectively be their entire worldwide profit for the year.
Not making any judgements here, but as with most profit seeking businesses, they normally do some kind of cost/benefit analysis, i.e. increase pay for our 25 workers by $3.00 per hour, weekly cost assuming each worker gets 20 hours is $1500, annual cost is $78,000 (in the hopes that all of our worker will be more loyal and will refrain from steeling in the future) OR go cashless, which saves money (i.e. more efficient, no bank deposits, etc.) at the expense (perhaps) of some customer dis-satisfaction). If it was your business, which would you choose?
Having just been to NYC and experienced this first hand over the holidays, my belief is a bigger reason for businesses going cashless is to avoid problems like register skimming (i.e. employees pocketing cash from the till). Businesses lose anywhere from 3-6 billion dollars a year in the U.S. from their own employees, and for some of these smaller establishments that might not trust all of their workers and in general are just looking for efficient methods for minimizing this type of theft, removing the temptation of ready cash around just seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
And where are the incentives to reduce cost. The SLS is being built by private companies on cost + contracts -- exactly what you appear to think will be a great deal for the U.S. taxpayers...
It is also important to note that this just covers tuition and not room and board, books, etc. At most "elite" schools, these other expenses can be 1/2 to 2/3's of the actual bill. A nice thing to do no doubt, but unless your parents live in the same city, a 100% tuition scholarship is not really going to get you over the goal line of total educational costs...
The reality is that there will be different classes of service. Want a newer, nicer, cleaned everyday by real people ride-share, expect to pay a premium. The question is will the premium price of such a vehicle used multiple times a day (i.e. to work, from work, shopping, etc.) really be less expensive then owning a personal car. Of course the alternative would be to get the cheapest available service, which might/would likely be less expensive, but one which might not be clean and pleasant to ride in...
Not sure what you are suggesting here -- that the security agencies of the U.S. should secretly and illegally maintain metadata on millions and millions of American citizens on the off chance that these same agencies can cull through this data to target their "enemies"? This just gets to the related problem that there are so many laws currently on the books and since ignorance of the laws is no excuse, that almost anyone can be jailed for breaking one or more of them based on prosecutorial discretion...
Since I currently live in the Great Lakes water basin, where population is stagnant (or declining as it is in upstate New York), and where last year Lake Ontario were at record high levels (my dock being inundated for several weeks -- a once in decades event). Access to "lots" of fresh water is not necessarily a large concern. There are also treaties in place between the U.S. and Canada which makes it nearly impossible for ANY water to be shipped out of the basin -- so that over abundance of clean fresh water is very unlikely to change. The U.S. side of the basin does not have many economic advantages (note the population growth (or lack thereof)) as proof of this, but water -- no problem. We would really be happy for more "legal" immigration to occur, as we are really not overcrowded in any meaningful way -- those who immigrate will just have to accept the tax and regulatory environment :-)...
I very frequently drive 75+ on interstates in total darkness (far from any city lights) for hours at a time with only low beams on -- and can see much farther then can be ascertained by viewing that video. Which leads me to assume that the camera was either of very low quality, that the technology is still insufficient or that the video was modified in some way. The sight lines on that road looked fine (and she was not entering the roadway from behind a tree/parked car). Looking at the video, even the road was "visible" for a very short distance (and with the pink bike, she should have been far more visible). Heck, if I am paying attention, I can avoid potholes in the highway doing 75+ in the dark -- and a pothole is much harder to see on a highway in the dark. Something doesn't make sense here -- and if the available cameras are really limited to that level of quality in the dark -- then either these vehicles shouldn't be authorized to work in the dark -- or they will have to prove that other sensors (radar or lidar) are both configured, can provide sufficient "visibility" and are working properly. To be honest, if my eyesight was limited to what the camera footage showed, it would be gross negligence to drive at almost any rate of speed exceeding 20 MPH in the dark -- ever.
Having just had the joyful experience of driving over 200 miles on snow and ice encrusted highways with no pavement visible, no lane markers visible and enough active snow to obliterate whatever post delineators (snow) are out there (typically every 400-500 feet) -- especially at night, I personally would like to believe that the current driving AI's out there will or are mastering this type of driving -- I am just somewhat doubtful of the current "state of the art". This type of driving is fairly nuanced, particularly as the snow/ice surfaces rut up and changing lanes involve a very delicate hand -- and you can forget about any aggressive maneuvers (acceleration, braking or turning), even when the vehicle is not doing what you expect or need it to do and where reacting to problems too "assuredly" just results in even bigger problems. Unfortunately, this type of driving is fairly common in the northern parts of the country for 4-5 months a year. It'd be nice to "take the winter off", but that is not realistic and people have adapted to driving in these conditions (some better then others) -- and therefore, these autonomous AI's will either have to become just as proficient, or they just won't be adopted in all climates. Either starting (or more problematically during a trip) and having the AI "announce that due to some issue outside of it's control (no lane markers, snowed over sensors, insufficient traction, etc.)", it is unable to proceed will not be acceptable (nor be safe).
Hmmm... Carbon-12 is a stable isotope. Carbon-14, on the other hand, undergoes radioactive decay.
The newer Mustangs are also significantly bigger (1994 had a passenger volume of 75.9, the 2015 had 84.5, 11% more, whereas the weight increased by 12% -- mostly a wash). So the weight went up to make a bigger car, not just a more powerful car. Heck, I remember the first 90's Mustang I ever rented, I'm 5' 9", and when I got in it, the seat position was "way" forward to my tastes, went to adjust it back a couple of inches only to find out it was already all the back. I would be hard to believe that a 6' plus person could have justifiably purchased the vehicle...
Not sure you live in the states, because even assuming your electricity is free (nice trick that one), 20,000 * 8 = 160,000 km ~= 100,000 miles / 20mpg = 5,000 gallons of fuel, which means that your gas costs $5.00 / gallon -- which has never been true in the sates (think usually between $2.00 and $3.00 tops (although you use of km is probably indicative)). And given the U.S. is now moving to being an oil exporter again, is not likely to change anytime soon.
Would agree in general, but the struggle is that a modern car that can accelerate more quickly then older cars are prevalent across the spectrum -- i.e. technology has made smaller cars/smaller engines much more performant. In addition, it is much harder to make the argument that a car next to you capable of accelerating faster then a typical car from the 70's is causing you direct harm, unlike second hand smoke.
When speaking of sedans, I would actually argue they weigh less (heck, even the latest F150 was built out of aluminum, and weighs significantly less then F150's of yore) and their engine displacements are significantly smaller then cars from the 60's/70's. Heck, a 2.0 liter engine (fairly common nowadays) is easily able to pump out 250HP/250 lb-ft of torque, even if that HP measurement takes into account all of the additional loads/devices on the engine -- which equates to a 122 cubic inch engine. Can you imagine a American muscle car from the late 60's bragging about it's 122 cubic inch engine.