I've upgraded to all LED's myself, and my electricity is only 8.5c / kwh; so it'll pay off eventually, but not quite as fast.
I keep looking for an LED lamp to replace my 300W halogen up-right, but haven't found anything yet (haven't found any decent multi-bulb uprights or anything either); anybody know of any LED type in this style of lamp?
This; why should we charge based on distance travelled, when some are driving super-lightweight gas-efficient cars that cause minimal damage to infrastructure, and some are driving gas guzzling dually trucks that cause significantly more damage to infrastructure, or even transport trucks.
Raising the gas tax encourages using less fuel, which also encourages less driving.
You could also increase registration fees based on the weight of a vehicle.
Well, you could tax assets just as easily, with minimum deductibles. Also, I think increasing federal revenues by ~38% (4.5/12) would add quite a lot of breathing room. I could do a lot with $1.3T.
Incidentally, even *IF* the electricity is coming from a coal fired power plant, the exhaust from a car is far worse than what is coming out any modern coal power plant with scrubbers. They also run at much higher efficiency. Both these points are mostly attributable to scale and the fact that a car has to stay mobile.
This is a good idea, except it would probably be easily abused by "splitting companies" into smaller ones.
Having progressive taxrates where the marginal rate below the median national income is close to 0% and rises quickly above that would be my solution.
While you do want to incentivize working harder, if you make it impossible for the poor to work hard and get ahead, what is the point.
Also, inheritance tax!
It's not 50. You see, most charts, you know, will be capped at 50. You're at 50 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 50 on your chart. Where can you go from there? Where?
I don't know.
Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
When/if I have kids, when they ask for a computer I intend to give them a box of my old parts and tell them they can have whatever they can build from it.
Maybe with some Dapper CD's in the box to install.....
This is definitely true of some people; my father once emailed his MP, saying he would not vote for him again if he continued to have "egregious grammatical errors" on his webpage. He recieved an apologetic reply basically stating that the MP in question hadn't written the webpage, and that it would be corrected.
It feels a bit like... Why would you need a web browser, when you can get all the same things with wget, nano, and the gimp! All your text reading and image viewing desires in 3 completely separate, inconvenient things?
Yea, I also use iGoogle in Chrome; I don't see how chrome is at all a replacement for this; I happen to have slashdot, ars technica, wired, bbc, micheal geist's blog, linux today, phoronix, Gmail, the weather, torrentfreak, fsdaily, and a graph of the crude oil price all on one page in iGoogle. Oh and the time. And links to any other google service I want to use....
I don't see how that functionality is duplicated by *anything* else; least of all Chrome; or RSS readers... as others have said, I don't want to have to click through each one to find stories I want to read, I want to see them ALL at once, expand the summary, and read the whole thing if it sounds interesting.
This is the part I have trouble believing, assuming of course that it's not a massive battery pack; yes, batteries have been getting better, and they probably will get better still; and yes we've been making advances in using less power per device; but if you want a large fancy screen, a GPU powerful enough to drive it, a powerful CPU, and want to do ACTUAL WORK on it for an entire day... I have trouble believing we'll get to the energy densities required to do that.
As an aside, I was out of town on the weekend and tried continuing my coding on my 14" laptop; after about 20 minutes of frustration I decided just to wait 'till I got back to continue on my 2x24" 1920x1200 screens...
...and as cool as a 40" (collapsable?) tablet would be I don't see it happening in the near future...
Agreed; it seems odd to me that they'd kill something that (at least to my eyes) doesn't look like it requires any maintenanace, and is really quite a good tool. Maybe they have something up their sleeves, but I'd have appreciated if they did that they'd release it before killing something like this...
This; it's so useful it's all I've used since it came out; I haven't tried google reader, but I doubt it will it allow me to spread out various feeds all over + have the weather and some stock prices, all in one place, so i don't *HAVE* to switch between tabs or apps or programs or whatever....
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, thanks! Good thing I checked back here!
6 * 3.5W LED's ~= 6* 40W-equivalent ~= 6*400 lumens(?) ~= 2400 lumens (?)
vs
300W halogen ~= 3000 lumens
Looks Reasonable to me; Only problem is the $650 price tag =(
http://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?t=3s
You wouldn't steal a handbag.
I've upgraded to all LED's myself, and my electricity is only 8.5c / kwh; so it'll pay off eventually, but not quite as fast.
I keep looking for an LED lamp to replace my 300W halogen up-right, but haven't found anything yet (haven't found any decent multi-bulb uprights or anything either); anybody know of any LED type in this style of lamp?
Right; Also, importantly, this would heavily incentivize railroads, which we should be doing anyway!
Sure, weight x distance is generally fairer than just direct gas usage. But if we're going to go there, why not do it properly?
Damage to infrastructure is proportional to the 4th power of weight; thus, we should probably tax something like
([miles travelled]/1000miles)*([vehicle weight]/1500lbs)^4
for vehicle registration. That would take into account the proper damage.
The average american drives 13476 miles and the average fleet curb weight (in 2004, latest i could quickly find) was 3239 lbs; this would give a result of $293 for registration. If you drove the same amount in a vehicle half that, you'd pay like $17, and if you drove a vehicle twice that weight you'd pay $4466.
That would take into account proper damage incurred on infrastructure.
This; why should we charge based on distance travelled, when some are driving super-lightweight gas-efficient cars that cause minimal damage to infrastructure, and some are driving gas guzzling dually trucks that cause significantly more damage to infrastructure, or even transport trucks. Raising the gas tax encourages using less fuel, which also encourages less driving. You could also increase registration fees based on the weight of a vehicle.
Well, you could tax assets just as easily, with minimum deductibles. Also, I think increasing federal revenues by ~38% (4.5/12) would add quite a lot of breathing room. I could do a lot with $1.3T.
Or August 2002? or August of year 2?
:)
Or February 2008...
Incidentally, even *IF* the electricity is coming from a coal fired power plant, the exhaust from a car is far worse than what is coming out any modern coal power plant with scrubbers. They also run at much higher efficiency. Both these points are mostly attributable to scale and the fact that a car has to stay mobile.
This is a good idea, except it would probably be easily abused by "splitting companies" into smaller ones. Having progressive taxrates where the marginal rate below the median national income is close to 0% and rises quickly above that would be my solution. While you do want to incentivize working harder, if you make it impossible for the poor to work hard and get ahead, what is the point. Also, inheritance tax!
It's not 50. You see, most charts, you know, will be capped at 50. You're at 50 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 50 on your chart. Where can you go from there? Where?
I don't know.
Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Put it up to 54.
54. Exactly. 4 Hotter.
When/if I have kids, when they ask for a computer I intend to give them a box of my old parts and tell them they can have whatever they can build from it. Maybe with some Dapper CD's in the box to install.....
This is definitely true of some people; my father once emailed his MP, saying he would not vote for him again if he continued to have "egregious grammatical errors" on his webpage. He recieved an apologetic reply basically stating that the MP in question hadn't written the webpage, and that it would be corrected.
I AGREE! THE SHIFT KEY IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST!
:) (I had to add this small section to get through the filter)
We'll know things have gotten horribly out of hand when we initiate shock & awe vs Antarctica.
Clean energy technologies typically are users of rare earths, not avenues to avoid using rare earths.
It feels a bit like... Why would you need a web browser, when you can get all the same things with wget, nano, and the gimp! All your text reading and image viewing desires in 3 completely separate, inconvenient things?
Yea, I also use iGoogle in Chrome; I don't see how chrome is at all a replacement for this; I happen to have slashdot, ars technica, wired, bbc, micheal geist's blog, linux today, phoronix, Gmail, the weather, torrentfreak, fsdaily, and a graph of the crude oil price all on one page in iGoogle. Oh and the time. And links to any other google service I want to use....
I don't see how that functionality is duplicated by *anything* else; least of all Chrome; or RSS readers... as others have said, I don't want to have to click through each one to find stories I want to read, I want to see them ALL at once, expand the summary, and read the whole thing if it sounds interesting.
"Your batteries will last all day"
...and as cool as a 40" (collapsable?) tablet would be I don't see it happening in the near future...
This is the part I have trouble believing, assuming of course that it's not a massive battery pack; yes, batteries have been getting better, and they probably will get better still; and yes we've been making advances in using less power per device; but if you want a large fancy screen, a GPU powerful enough to drive it, a powerful CPU, and want to do ACTUAL WORK on it for an entire day... I have trouble believing we'll get to the energy densities required to do that.
As an aside, I was out of town on the weekend and tried continuing my coding on my 14" laptop; after about 20 minutes of frustration I decided just to wait 'till I got back to continue on my 2x24" 1920x1200 screens...
Agreed; it seems odd to me that they'd kill something that (at least to my eyes) doesn't look like it requires any maintenanace, and is really quite a good tool. Maybe they have something up their sleeves, but I'd have appreciated if they did that they'd release it before killing something like this...
This; it's so useful it's all I've used since it came out; I haven't tried google reader, but I doubt it will it allow me to spread out various feeds all over + have the weather and some stock prices, all in one place, so i don't *HAVE* to switch between tabs or apps or programs or whatever....
haha brilliant! :) maybe samsung should have included that pic as prior art...
When I read the title first, I thought it said "Robots to Search for Amelia Earhart's Lost Phone"
... and then was thinking that I could use a robot like that.
Why is it that I never hear about these places until they close?
Unfortunately, with Apple practising predatory patent behaviour, it seems as though they were justified...