Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Cellphones and laptops will save us all. (Score 1) 328

by Ichijo (#47418667) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis

The real problem is not energy generation, but energy storage.

Very little storage is needed to prevent blackouts, as long as the price of electricity is never set below market equilibrium. Unless you can think of a good reason why you would want to set the price below market equilibrium?

+ - Tesla Battles Trademark Troll in China

Submitted by cartechboy
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Looks like Tesla is battling copyright issues over its name in China, as a single businessman there trademark trolls them. Zhan Baosheng has sued Tesla to stop the company from selling cars in China because he filed for the Chinese copyrights of the Tesla name in 2006 and was granted those trademarks in 2009. Baosheng had also set up a website and trademarked the Tesla logo--hoping to profit from Tesla's expected plans to sell in cars in China. Tesla, meanwhile, says its claim to the name has already been upheld by other Chinese authorities and that the lawsuit is without merit. The electric car company has actually considered using the phonetic name "Te Su Le" to sell its cars if needed. China drivers now buy more cars than those in any other country and the market is a key for luxury car sales."

+ - Here comes the Panopticon: Insurance Companies

Submitted by jbmartin6
jbmartin6 (1232050) writes "The Panopticon may be coming, but perhaps not how we think. Instead of a massive government surveillance program, we might end up subjected to ubiquitous monitoring to save on our insurance premiums. The "internet of things (you can't get away from)" makes this more and more possible. Here a company saved money on its health insurance premiums by distributing Fitbits and an online service to enable reporting fitness gains back to the insurance company. We've already seen the stories on using black boxes to monitor drivers. There is even an insurance company named Panoptic! Heck why not a premium hike for owners of this or that "aggressiveness gene"? What if in the future we got a quick "+50 cents" tweet for every scoop of iced cream? I suppose the natural stopping point might be the balance between an individual's willingness to be monitored and the desire to reduce insurance premiums."

Comment: Re:Got To Be A Ritual (Score 1) 63

by Ichijo (#47404827) Attached to: IBM Tries To Forecast and Control Beijing's Air Pollution

The poor tend to be the source of their own pollution moreso than suffering other people's pollution.

Why is that relevant in any discussion about whether the rich should pay their fair share for the pollution they cause?

Also, in the US at least, the poor do not pay their medical bills.

Again, not relevant, unless you are arguing that welfare should pay the poor's medical bills and not those who injure the poor.

Yes, it will mean their electricity is turned off...

Or they spend the day at the mall or the library on hot days. Back in the first half of the 20th century before residential air conditioners, air conditioning was a big selling point for movie theaters.

...and their ability to own a car- the one sense of freedom they might have a connection with...

In your neighborhood, can you buy a gallon of milk without driving to the store in a car? Have you ever done so? If not, you are a slave to your car, not the other way around.

The soccer mom will make two and three trips instead of one round to get the gang to their sports, music, and such because that SUV is no longer within their price range to operate.

Why drive at all when you can bike everywhere? Oh that's right, because we've made the streets faster for cars and more dangerous for bicyclists, and pushed destinations farther apart and harder to get there by bicycle in order to make room for parking. We've taken away our freedom in order to give ourselves the perception of freedom. Isn't that ironic?

you don't care if the poor are poorer as long as you can make the rich less rich.. Do I have it summed up right?

I don't think paying the poor's medical bills and lost work days will make them poorer. Nor will keeping schoolchildren healthy and able to attend classes keep them from achieving their full potential.

The fact of the matter is that we do not have the capabilities to use wind and solar for our electrical demands and there isn't sufficient storage to compete with other methods. If we could, it would be online right now without governments mandating it.

Or it would be online right now if externalities and other market failures were corrected.

Comment: Re:Got To Be A Ritual (Score 1) 63

by Ichijo (#47403927) Attached to: IBM Tries To Forecast and Control Beijing's Air Pollution

More like it will allow the misfortune (probably poor) to be able to afford the products and services you just made super expensive.

Who is more likely to be injured by pollution, the poor or the rich? (The poor, because they tend to live in dirtier areas.) And therefore who stands to gain the most, relative to their discretionary income, from recouping the medical costs and lost sick days from that pollution? (Also the poor, because they have little to no discretionary income.)

So you are correct that it will raise prices, but it will also provide the poor with two benefits. Two for the price of one is a good deal, don't you think?

Of course the rich will complain about paying the full societal cost of their lifestyle because they won't see as much benefit in it as the poor, but I wouldn't worry too much about them being able to afford it. By the way, are you rich?

And no, wind and solar are not there- neither is storage capabilities.

Not much energy storage is needed to prevent blackouts, even with intermittent sources such as wind and solar, as long as electricity is always priced at market equilibrium to prevent blackouts. And since pricing something below market equilibrium is never a good long-term strategy, there's no technical reason why wind and solar cannot provide most of the nation's needs.

Comment: Re:Got To Be A Ritual (Score 1) 63

by Ichijo (#47402157) Attached to: IBM Tries To Forecast and Control Beijing's Air Pollution

If it pollutes just shut it down.

You pollute. Where's your "off" switch?

Once you've realized that there's no way to completely eliminate pollution, and that markets work most efficiently when negative externalities are internalized into prices, the solution becomes obvious: charge the polluters for the damage they cause, and give the revenue to those injured by pollution. This will give polluters the proper incentive to curb their emissions and it will pay the medical costs and lost sick days of those injured by pollution, all without harming the economy.

+ - 3D Printed PiGRRL - Raspberry Pi Gameboy

Submitted by coop0030
coop0030 (263345) writes "Celebrate the 20th anniversary of the classic gaming device, Game Boy, by building your own with 3d printing and DIY electronics. This project uses a Raspberry Pi and TFT touch screen to make an epic DIY Game Girl. The 3d printed enclosure houses all of the components and can be printed in your favorite color. It's controlled with SNES gaming controller components, reusing the printed circuit board, buttons and elastomers. The 3D files can be found on Thingiverse, and a video of the finished product is provided as well."

Comment: Re:Property Tax? (Score 1) 76

A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage...

That is nonsense.

Do the math if you don't believe me. Show your work.

People with more expensive property do not use the fire department more or the police more just because it is more expensive.

Ask an insurance company whether more expensive properties are more expensive to insure than cheaper properties.

Either way, the problem with the article is that a city is not supposed to be making a profit off the people.

The word "profit" is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

But most strikingly, the cost of living is much higher in the so called profitable one. The average cost per square foot of residential space in the profitable one was $350/sq ft. All the others ranged between $89/sq ft and $113/sq ft. That's not how it should be-

So you agree that urban areas should stop subsidizing the less urban areas?

Comment: Re:Property Tax? (Score 2) 76

There is absolutely no correlation real or hypothetical between property value and amount of property to the use of services.

A longer street frontage requires more asphalt and concrete and buried infrastructure than a shorter street frontage, and it requires police and fire response to travel a longer distance.

We have far fewer roads shared among a smaller amount of people but they are much lower quality.

And that's how it should be, because the usual alternative is for urban areas to heavily subsidize the less urbanized areas.

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.