As for rare six-person trips, I know quite a few families with four or five kids. The six or seven person trip is a daily thing for them. Again, that's an unusual need, but it's part of the market that needs consideration. A Prius doesn't fit two toddler seats, two booster seats, and two adults. A Ford Escape Hybrid does, so that's a decent compromise between efficiency and capacity for some people. Families with four or five kids do have an unusual need, and hopefully it's becoming more unusual over time. The biggest threat to the environment is overpopulation. A Prius is a fine vehicle for those who aren't into conspicuous overconsumption (which includes having 5 kids). It's fine if the market supports an efficient vehicle that seats six, but I'm not going to feel bad for those self-indulgent induhviduals who end up paying $500 a month in gas if the market doesn't.
Yes, every new idea has serious obstacles to overcome, but the "half-empty" problem of V2G is one of the least significant. IMO, your issue, while certainly real for a small percentage of consumers, is no more than FUD for most. Thus encouraging them to be energy pigs.
Your comparison of this real (or almost real) car to your imagined "rapidly recharging electric car with a range of 120 miles... if quick charging stations are available" is meaningless. Of course, very few would be against an electric car if a number of significant problems were solved and I'm not saying that you are among the few who would be against this fantasy car. But that's not the issue here, it's the V2G option for an electric car (any car). If you had the quick charging ability that you imagine then leaving your house with a half-empty battery is not a very big issue. Let alone that the existing technology allows you to charge to full at home in about an hour, anyway.
To put it another way, imagine you have an electric car that you are quite happy with. Now, how much would it be worth to you to hook it up with the V2G option? I think most people would gladly take $10 a day, knowing that only in extremely rare circumstances they may encounter a situation where they have a long drive, the battery has been drained by half, and they must leave instantaneously.
So the real problem is to figure out how much this is worth to utilities (is it really $4000 a year?) and how much wear and tear it takes on the battery (and costs to replace). It may be there isn't enough margin to make this profitable for everyone, but that remains to be seen. Maybe V2G makes much more sense for something like the Tesla, maybe not.
I don't fault consumers for making environmentally bad choices regarding their chosen vehicles or shipping options when it suits their selfish needs. The key to influencing consumers in the proper direction is instead to make them pay their fair share. If gas were fairly priced (perhaps at $6 per gallon or more) to include the true costs of acquisition and environmental impact, then moving to electric cars (including V2G options) probably makes a lot more sense and they will realize they don't need to have a station wagon for those rare 6 person trips or an SUV for the large load they carry only once a year.
Please don't take my direct statements as flames, I'm just being as straight-forward as I can.
It's very clearly fraud as you are misrepresenting yourself to get an advantage over others. In this case the party most harmed is the honest person who isn't getting a Wii because you lied in order to get one straight from Nintendo's inventory. But it causes other less obvious harm. For example, it compromises the value of the replacement system, and if this happens enough Nintendo will make the process harder for owner's with legitimate problems. If it were in Nintendo's best interest to offer $200 consoles to current owners they would just have that as an official policy.
Where is the ethical limit for this kind of behavior? You can use this rationale to justify any manner of fraud (or theft). E.g. you can argue that by pirating CDs (which you weren't planning on buying) you are broadening the fan base of the band and it might encourage you to attend a concert or buy their merchandise. Win-win!
You're welcome. Your sense of entitlement and unwillingness to compromise is why we are in such a tenuous state regarding energy and the environment.
I'm sure you're very proud of your town, but if all major sporting events, amusement parks, decent jobs, and even friends are "hundreds of miles" away, then I think it is fair to characterize that as "middle of nowhere". Feel free to apply that label to your own location if you want, but I didn't. That was simply how I characterized the "some people" who you were using as your argument against the practicality of V2G.
If you had simply stated that this car would not have worked for you, personally, then I wouldn't have even considered responding. But when you generalize and try to make a case for how this is an impractical solution for others I have to challenge your assumptions and give anyone who might read it an alternate viewpoint. On face value you might have a lot of people who agree that this system is impractical for them, but they (like you) either don't understand it or haven't done the math.
So all I ask is that they reconsider how often they have such "emergencies" and if they really are emergencies, and if they really need to have their own gas powered, long-range car to deal with them. I'm betting that after they do the math (which, perhaps because of my bluntness, you still fail to want to do) they will think differently.
I don't assume you're against the electric car, I state that it "seems" to be so. And that's only because I can't see how anyone can interpret your post any other way. If you can explain to me how this electric car with a range of 120 miles is going to get you to your NFL game when the stadium is 200 miles away, or "big job interview a few hundred miles away" I will take your endorsement of the electric car more seriously.
So still, the only substantial point is that "this V2G option for electric cars" will not be the best choice for every car owner in America. Which is hard to disagree with, but the same can be said for just about every type of vehicle and if people plan only for their own convenience and the worst possible eventuality we will have everyone driving monster SUVs and getting 10 mpg.
How so? Assuming there are recharging stations outside the home makes it even more practical to have the V2G option (i.e. fewer situations where having your battery at 1/2 charge is a catastrophe, imagined or real).
So your point is simply that this system does not work for every single driver. Perhaps these "emergencies" happen to you often enough that you feel the need to worry and plan for them, but they do not for many of us.
Some people love to worry and think negatively about any new idea that doesn't fit their current misconceptions and rationalizations. Have you really thought this through? How often do these "emergencies" really happen? What are the chances that your car will actually be at 1/2 capacity at the time of the emergency? If the battery is only at half full, can you really not wait the hour that it would take to fully charge it? How many of those "emergency" trips did you have the range for at full, but not after being partially drained?
Your arguments seem to be more against the concept of the electric car itself. Even if you don't take advantage of V2G it will not get you to the ballgame or your job interview. That's part of the problem with living in the middle of nowhere.
But it is practical for millions of others and is an idea worth pursuing. The biggest obstacle to overcome is convincing people who think they need something they don't really need.
So $100 doesn't make much of a difference? Then why such pressure on Sony to lower the original price of the PS3? Why would sales of consoles dramatically increase when they drop the price? And why wouldn't console makers just bump up the price by $100 to ensure covering the cost of manufacturing rather than frequently selling them below cost?
Maybe that $100 difference shouldn't make a huge difference when you factor in the initial cost of setting up a good system and it almost definitely shouldn't when you consider the $1200 to $2000 spent over the lifetime of the system. But in the real world it does.
The cost is not the only reason for the Wii's success, but it certainly is a significant one.
[quote]It would be like playing a game of chess where the 3rd party referee says "You are allowed to smack your opponents hand to prevent him from picking up pieces" and then getting mad at the other player for doing it. Heck, I'd probaly wouldn't play that game, but the fault lies with the referee for allowing such a rule and not the player who simply does it because he can. All I can do is complain to the referee that his rules leave something to be desired.[/quote]
It's more like playing chess with someone who intentionally distracts you or talks trash or does any number of other unsociable and unpleasant acts that aren't explicitly prohibited by the rules. If you extend this personal philosophy to real life (i.e. anything that isn't explicitly illegal is acceptable), you would be a very unpleasant person to be around.
You may not be 'forced' to get an ID, but your life is made pretty darn difficult. Honestly, I don't have a problem with that since by not having an ID you're making everyone else's lives more difficult. The rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for the minority who for whatever obscure (and probably misguided) reason don't want to have ID.
And the rest of society has significant trouble dealing with the exceptions - have you tried opening a bank account without a 'driver's license' at hand? Depending on the IQ of the clerk, convincing them of accepting other government-issued IDs (e.g.: passport) can be difficult / impossible. Case in point. Why expect banks, bars, etc. to handle more forms of ID if it isn't necessary? That brings up the cost for the rest of us who aren't being intransigent, and I don't want to have to pay for that (or wait in line behind such a person).
But when the policy is a regulation by government or commerce authorities, you do not have that option - implicitly you are requiring the driver license for completely unrelated transactions.At that point, you might just institute a national ID system and be done with it - or it just gets absurd and inefficient over time. A national ID card would eliminate some of the inefficiency since you would only need to verify a single form of ID. However, requiring every individual to have one (and even worse carry it at all times) is a totally different matter.
But this is off-topic to the original question, which is whether it is reasonable and practical for an individual store to try to enforce a 17 and over policy for M rated games. And it is.
My reference to credit-card verification was not to a specific business policy. I was referring to legislation (I think COPA is what I was thinking of) - where ALL businesses are required to deny you access to those services if you don't have a credit card. This is even further off topic, IMO. I agree that there are many reasons why such legislation is stupid, but they have little to do with the original topic.
Such a requirement doesn't make the assumption that you all 17 year-olds have a license. If you're 17 and don't have any ID then tough luck. Maybe getting some ID should be a higher priority than playing a mature game.
The same applies to drinking. You aren't forced to have an ID when you are 21, but you can't expect to go into a liquor store and have them take your word for it. And it also applies to your example of credit-card verification. You aren't forced as a citizen to have a credit-card, but your rights aren't being violated if specific e-business deny your access to porn or gambling (or whatever) because you don't have one.
The problem with credit-card verification is the opposite. I.e. that it doesn't prove conclusively you're not a minor (although it certainly is a deterrent for some).
In which state can you not at least get a restricted driver's license at age 17? I didn't see one, and I'm guessing your extensive research didn't unearth one either.
But that's beside the point. The post you responded to was not seriously arguing that every single 17 year old in America has a driver's license and for you to take it to such an extreme is a little childish. Many, if not most 17 year olds do have an license and anyone who is mature enough to handle a "Mature" game can be expected to be mature enough to go out and get some form of ID.
What difference does it make whether it is a guideline or a law? It's not impossible for stores to ensure (with reasonable accuracy) that they are only selling to the over 17 crowd. Of course, because it is not a law they may not think it's worth the effort, but they certainly could if they chose to.
Is your point that the case is baseless and should be thrown out of court? If not, then you seem to have missed the point of the post you're responding to. He's not saying that Activision is "the big bad" nor that Midler validates the Romantics' lawsuit. He's just saying that it is not unreasonable for an artist to object to a cover that is an almost exact copy, that there is a precedent for an artist suing successfully over a cover and that the case should be taken seriously.
| In real life, scarcity is real. The rules that enforce it, were created by no one.
You've apparently never been engaged. But if you have then you should have no problem if I take your wife's ring, in fact you share some of the blame by participating in the diamond game in the first place. So blame yourself and De Beers, not me.
The admins can (and should) remove the stolen items, but that takes time and therefore money (probably far more money than the item is worth). But is that (even with banning) enough of a deterrent to other would-be scammers/hackers? I don't think so.
To push the analogy even further, that would be like punishing a car thief by forcing him to return the car and telling him to stay out of town.
You're ignoring the time it takes the admin to verify that data theft occurred and to recreate that object. That time is also a limited resource.
And you don't think the government couldn't also just digitally add another 10 billion dollars to the money supply if they chose to?
You get defrauded by a Nigerian scammer? No problem, just send an email to the treasury and ask them to wire the same amount of money back into your bank account. That would be a lot more efficient than trying to prosecute the scammers, wouldn't it?
It has been explained in several other posts how this extra revenue will reduce costs for other travelers. The $300 United (hypothetically) makes on this program from each flight means that each passenger who doesn't use this option will save about a buck on their own tickets. Without the extra revenue United would have needed to raise prices for everyone to maintain their profitability (or whatever passes for it in their industry).
Q: Would you think it would be priced so that the amount of people who bought the service was similar to the amount of people who fly first class?
A: It would be priced to maximize revenue while only modestly affecting other passengers, so about the same as (first class + ff elites) would be a good first approximation.
Q: Would it make business sense that people flying coach would want to purchase the option?
A: Yes. Some people would, otherwise it wouldn't be priced properly.
Q: Could this end up being a first-class only service?
A: Unlikely.
Q: And finally, is this something that would be absorbed into the price of a first class ticket? An airline that extended its first class service to include first class bagagge claim would be ahead of the others.
A: If you have a first class ticket you already get priority baggage handling, so I guess that's a yes. Although it wouldn't be a differentiator because almost everyone does it.
How does this new line of questioning relate to your previous post? There is certainly some price point for this service that makes sense to customers and to the carrier. Whether it will be acceptable to the many fliers who don't understand economics and think they are being treated unfairly is the question.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, skip the timer and let the power company choose the best time to charge (or discharge) the battery (see recent V2G thread).
Your ethics are very convenient (for you). I hope I never have to deal with you on a personal or professional level.
Yes, every new idea has serious obstacles to overcome, but the "half-empty" problem of V2G is one of the least significant. IMO, your issue, while certainly real for a small percentage of consumers, is no more than FUD for most. Thus encouraging them to be energy pigs.
... if quick charging stations are available" is meaningless. Of course, very few would be against an electric car if a number of significant problems were solved and I'm not saying that you are among the few who would be against this fantasy car. But that's not the issue here, it's the V2G option for an electric car (any car). If you had the quick charging ability that you imagine then leaving your house with a half-empty battery is not a very big issue. Let alone that the existing technology allows you to charge to full at home in about an hour, anyway.
Your comparison of this real (or almost real) car to your imagined "rapidly recharging electric car with a range of 120 miles
To put it another way, imagine you have an electric car that you are quite happy with. Now, how much would it be worth to you to hook it up with the V2G option? I think most people would gladly take $10 a day, knowing that only in extremely rare circumstances they may encounter a situation where they have a long drive, the battery has been drained by half, and they must leave instantaneously.
So the real problem is to figure out how much this is worth to utilities (is it really $4000 a year?) and how much wear and tear it takes on the battery (and costs to replace). It may be there isn't enough margin to make this profitable for everyone, but that remains to be seen. Maybe V2G makes much more sense for something like the Tesla, maybe not.
I don't fault consumers for making environmentally bad choices regarding their chosen vehicles or shipping options when it suits their selfish needs. The key to influencing consumers in the proper direction is instead to make them pay their fair share. If gas were fairly priced (perhaps at $6 per gallon or more) to include the true costs of acquisition and environmental impact, then moving to electric cars (including V2G options) probably makes a lot more sense and they will realize they don't need to have a station wagon for those rare 6 person trips or an SUV for the large load they carry only once a year.
Please don't take my direct statements as flames, I'm just being as straight-forward as I can.
It's very clearly fraud as you are misrepresenting yourself to get an advantage over others. In this case the party most harmed is the honest person who isn't getting a Wii because you lied in order to get one straight from Nintendo's inventory. But it causes other less obvious harm. For example, it compromises the value of the replacement system, and if this happens enough Nintendo will make the process harder for owner's with legitimate problems. If it were in Nintendo's best interest to offer $200 consoles to current owners they would just have that as an official policy.
Where is the ethical limit for this kind of behavior? You can use this rationale to justify any manner of fraud (or theft). E.g. you can argue that by pirating CDs (which you weren't planning on buying) you are broadening the fan base of the band and it might encourage you to attend a concert or buy their merchandise. Win-win!
You're welcome. Your sense of entitlement and unwillingness to compromise is why we are in such a tenuous state regarding energy and the environment.
I'm sure you're very proud of your town, but if all major sporting events, amusement parks, decent jobs, and even friends are "hundreds of miles" away, then I think it is fair to characterize that as "middle of nowhere". Feel free to apply that label to your own location if you want, but I didn't. That was simply how I characterized the "some people" who you were using as your argument against the practicality of V2G.
If you had simply stated that this car would not have worked for you, personally, then I wouldn't have even considered responding. But when you generalize and try to make a case for how this is an impractical solution for others I have to challenge your assumptions and give anyone who might read it an alternate viewpoint. On face value you might have a lot of people who agree that this system is impractical for them, but they (like you) either don't understand it or haven't done the math.
So all I ask is that they reconsider how often they have such "emergencies" and if they really are emergencies, and if they really need to have their own gas powered, long-range car to deal with them. I'm betting that after they do the math (which, perhaps because of my bluntness, you still fail to want to do) they will think differently.
I don't assume you're against the electric car, I state that it "seems" to be so. And that's only because I can't see how anyone can interpret your post any other way. If you can explain to me how this electric car with a range of 120 miles is going to get you to your NFL game when the stadium is 200 miles away, or "big job interview a few hundred miles away" I will take your endorsement of the electric car more seriously.
So still, the only substantial point is that "this V2G option for electric cars" will not be the best choice for every car owner in America. Which is hard to disagree with, but the same can be said for just about every type of vehicle and if people plan only for their own convenience and the worst possible eventuality we will have everyone driving monster SUVs and getting 10 mpg.
How so? Assuming there are recharging stations outside the home makes it even more practical to have the V2G option (i.e. fewer situations where having your battery at 1/2 charge is a catastrophe, imagined or real).
How many "big" trips can you not plan an hour in advance?
So your point is simply that this system does not work for every single driver. Perhaps these "emergencies" happen to you often enough that you feel the need to worry and plan for them, but they do not for many of us.
Some people love to worry and think negatively about any new idea that doesn't fit their current misconceptions and rationalizations. Have you really thought this through? How often do these "emergencies" really happen? What are the chances that your car will actually be at 1/2 capacity at the time of the emergency? If the battery is only at half full, can you really not wait the hour that it would take to fully charge it? How many of those "emergency" trips did you have the range for at full, but not after being partially drained?
Your arguments seem to be more against the concept of the electric car itself. Even if you don't take advantage of V2G it will not get you to the ballgame or your job interview. That's part of the problem with living in the middle of nowhere.
But it is practical for millions of others and is an idea worth pursuing. The biggest obstacle to overcome is convincing people who think they need something they don't really need.
That's your definition of fraud? As long as you believe the other party is better off by your deceit and trickery that makes it ethical?
It seems like your policy is ripe for all kinds of abuse and rationalization.
So $100 doesn't make much of a difference? Then why such pressure on Sony to lower the original price of the PS3? Why would sales of consoles dramatically increase when they drop the price? And why wouldn't console makers just bump up the price by $100 to ensure covering the cost of manufacturing rather than frequently selling them below cost?
Maybe that $100 difference shouldn't make a huge difference when you factor in the initial cost of setting up a good system and it almost definitely shouldn't when you consider the $1200 to $2000 spent over the lifetime of the system. But in the real world it does.
The cost is not the only reason for the Wii's success, but it certainly is a significant one.
[quote]It would be like playing a game of chess where the 3rd party referee says "You are allowed to smack your opponents hand to prevent him from picking up pieces" and then getting mad at the other player for doing it. Heck, I'd probaly wouldn't play that game, but the fault lies with the referee for allowing such a rule and not the player who simply does it because he can. All I can do is complain to the referee that his rules leave something to be desired.[/quote] It's more like playing chess with someone who intentionally distracts you or talks trash or does any number of other unsociable and unpleasant acts that aren't explicitly prohibited by the rules. If you extend this personal philosophy to real life (i.e. anything that isn't explicitly illegal is acceptable), you would be a very unpleasant person to be around.
But this is off-topic to the original question, which is whether it is reasonable and practical for an individual store to try to enforce a 17 and over policy for M rated games. And it is. My reference to credit-card verification was not to a specific business policy. I was referring to legislation (I think COPA is what I was thinking of) - where ALL businesses are required to deny you access to those services if you don't have a credit card. This is even further off topic, IMO. I agree that there are many reasons why such legislation is stupid, but they have little to do with the original topic.
Such a requirement doesn't make the assumption that you all 17 year-olds have a license. If you're 17 and don't have any ID then tough luck. Maybe getting some ID should be a higher priority than playing a mature game.
The same applies to drinking. You aren't forced to have an ID when you are 21, but you can't expect to go into a liquor store and have them take your word for it. And it also applies to your example of credit-card verification. You aren't forced as a citizen to have a credit-card, but your rights aren't being violated if specific e-business deny your access to porn or gambling (or whatever) because you don't have one.
The problem with credit-card verification is the opposite. I.e. that it doesn't prove conclusively you're not a minor (although it certainly is a deterrent for some).
Ha! You're a troll.
In which state can you not at least get a restricted driver's license at age 17? I didn't see one, and I'm guessing your extensive research didn't unearth one either.
But that's beside the point. The post you responded to was not seriously arguing that every single 17 year old in America has a driver's license and for you to take it to such an extreme is a little childish. Many, if not most 17 year olds do have an license and anyone who is mature enough to handle a "Mature" game can be expected to be mature enough to go out and get some form of ID.
Is this a trick question? You ask "Can I see some ID?" If they don't provide an ID which indicates they are over 17 then you don't sell them the game.
What difference does it make whether it is a guideline or a law? It's not impossible for stores to ensure (with reasonable accuracy) that they are only selling to the over 17 crowd. Of course, because it is not a law they may not think it's worth the effort, but they certainly could if they chose to.
Is your point that the case is baseless and should be thrown out of court? If not, then you seem to have missed the point of the post you're responding to. He's not saying that Activision is "the big bad" nor that Midler validates the Romantics' lawsuit. He's just saying that it is not unreasonable for an artist to object to a cover that is an almost exact copy, that there is a precedent for an artist suing successfully over a cover and that the case should be taken seriously.
| In real life, scarcity is real. The rules that enforce it, were created by no one.
You've apparently never been engaged. But if you have then you should have no problem if I take your wife's ring, in fact you share some of the blame by participating in the diamond game in the first place. So blame yourself and De Beers, not me.
The admins can (and should) remove the stolen items, but that takes time and therefore money (probably far more money than the item is worth). But is that (even with banning) enough of a deterrent to other would-be scammers/hackers? I don't think so.
To push the analogy even further, that would be like punishing a car thief by forcing him to return the car and telling him to stay out of town.
You're ignoring the time it takes the admin to verify that data theft occurred and to recreate that object. That time is also a limited resource.
And you don't think the government couldn't also just digitally add another 10 billion dollars to the money supply if they chose to?
You get defrauded by a Nigerian scammer? No problem, just send an email to the treasury and ask them to wire the same amount of money back into your bank account. That would be a lot more efficient than trying to prosecute the scammers, wouldn't it?
Your analogy comprehension score: 3/10
Yeah, pretty much exactly like that. Or would you rather pay a premium for a ticket on an airline that promises to never oversell seats?
I didn't think so.
It has been explained in several other posts how this extra revenue will reduce costs for other travelers. The $300 United (hypothetically) makes on this program from each flight means that each passenger who doesn't use this option will save about a buck on their own tickets. Without the extra revenue United would have needed to raise prices for everyone to maintain their profitability (or whatever passes for it in their industry).
Q: Would you think it would be priced so that the amount of people who bought the service was similar to the amount of people who fly first class?
A: It would be priced to maximize revenue while only modestly affecting other passengers, so about the same as (first class + ff elites) would be a good first approximation.
Q: Would it make business sense that people flying coach would want to purchase the option?
A: Yes. Some people would, otherwise it wouldn't be priced properly.
Q: Could this end up being a first-class only service?
A: Unlikely.
Q: And finally, is this something that would be absorbed into the price of a first class ticket? An airline that extended its first class service to include first class bagagge claim would be ahead of the others.
A: If you have a first class ticket you already get priority baggage handling, so I guess that's a yes. Although it wouldn't be a differentiator because almost everyone does it.
How does this new line of questioning relate to your previous post? There is certainly some price point for this service that makes sense to customers and to the carrier. Whether it will be acceptable to the many fliers who don't understand economics and think they are being treated unfairly is the question.
I'm all in favor of drugs that let us do whatever the hell we want, as long as they work and are cheap (which they eventually will be).