Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Fine. Legislate for externalities. (Score 1) 450

by Trailer Trash (#48026497) Attached to: Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power

Nobody is quashing an emerging industry. What they're saying is that they don't want to have to buy electricity from everybody.

What they are saying is that they want to keep generating dirty, polluting electricity because it is profitable and easy for them. Unfortunately that has costs for society and the rest of the economy, so we are going to have to transition away from it.

They might be using nuclear in which case it's not dirty or polluting. The bottom line is that they're in the business of generating electricity in a certain way, it's pretty normal for them to keep doing what they're doing.

You might not like it. Fine. Get some folks together and build a solar energy electricity provider and sell to the grid. Others are doing it.

But don't act like existing utilities need to knock down their profitable coal plants just because you happen to not like them (even though you likely still use just as much electricity as anybody else).

Comment: How much money does Brown get from police unions? (Score 4, Insightful) 100

I love this part, too:

"It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs. Second, this let's the use the old "inspection" ruse to use the drone as long as they can get some inspector to tag along.

I would recommend you all remember this when it's time to vote. Make stuff like this a big deal. Call them to the carpet at town hall meetings. Etc.

Comment: Re:Fine. Legislate for externalities. (Score 2, Insightful) 450

by Trailer Trash (#48024351) Attached to: Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power

This. I have no problem at all if they want to split my bill into two parts, a fixed cost for just being hooked up and an incremental cost for generating the electricity I consume, as long as the two costs are calculated sanely. The proper fix is to adjust the tariffs to reflect the growing reality of universal connection without universal consumption.

That's what my electric utility already does. I do have a slight problem with this:

"But you shouldn't quash an entire emerging industry just to protect an old and established one."

Nobody is quashing an emerging industry. What they're saying is that they don't want to have to buy electricity from everybody.

Forcing them to buy electricity was a bone thrown to the solar energy, as are the various tax incentives for installing solar. I actually want to install solar myself, badly, but I would prefer this to proceed with the least government interference.

Comment: Re:Rent a Tesla for $1 (Score 1) 331

by Trailer Trash (#48023291) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

The fact that they are willing to spend a lot of money on attorney fees to challenge the laws probably means there is some other reason they don't want to do that. That's the question people should be asking.

It's called "principle", something that's uncommon in the left-wing world.

Comment: Re:Rent a Tesla for $1 (Score 1) 331

by Trailer Trash (#48018597) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

But again, why is it only automobile franchises that are the problem and not all fast food and retail franchises that are anti-competitive?

You have no idea what you're talking about. McDonald's can own stores and franchise the brand at the same time - nobody cares. I have no problem with auto dealers - the issue is that if Tesla wants to sell directly then they should be able to. The only reason to disallow it is to limit competition for entrenched players.

By the way, thanks for playing the part described above. If not you, somebody else would have. But you folks are always good for a laugh.

Comment: Re:Rent a Tesla for $1 (Score 0) 331

by Trailer Trash (#48011523) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

While I agree that not allowing the test drives is stupid, the whole dealer thing was to protect the consumer from purchasing a vehicle and not having any support for it. If the dealer requirement is removed so direct sells are allowed, expect an influx of inexpensive vehicles from SE Asia with no means of warranty repair or service. Yes, buyer be ware, but really, is it a good idea for the masses to be purchasing vehicles from Amazon?

I just popped in to find the token looney leftist who would inevitably show up to explain that anti-competitive crony "regulation" laws are really there to help the consumer.

Looks like Dcnjoe60 won....

Comment: Re:Costco bulbs almost too bright (Score 1) 595

by Trailer Trash (#48002313) Attached to: The Great Lightbulb Conspiracy

I've bought about a half-dozen of the Costco bulbs and so far no problems. You're right, they are bright, almost too bright!

The ones I've used the most have been replacements for the typical 65 watt recessed can lights. I have a mix of Philips Halogena 45 watt (reduced power halogen, "same" output as a 65 watt), normal incandescent and CFL. The Costco LEDs are by far brighter than any of the others, in some cases they seem almost too bright.

I have those, too. They are *not* replacements for 65 watt nor do they claim to be. They are replacements for 110 watt flood lights which are significantly brighter.

I have 5 of them - the roof over my kitchen glows at night now.

Comment: Re:Oh good (Score 1) 903

by Trailer Trash (#47997611) Attached to: Miss a Payment? Your Car Stops Running

Except that some percentage of that increased value is going to pay for the devices being installed, and their management.

That's not as big a cost as you think. You see, these kinds of car dealers that specialize in bad-credit buyers expect to repossess the cars eventually. They don't make their money from buying a car and selling it once at a higher price; they make their money from selling, repossessing, and re-selling the same car over and over again, while collecting usurious interest payments in the intervals between sale and repossession. All these devices do is make the cycle more efficient (and thus more profitable) by shortening the time between the first non-payment and the repossession.

They also make a considerable percentage of their profit from the "downpayment" that the repo-victim will lose when they repo the car. These people require a *weekly* payment for you to keep the car, and a downpayment to get it in the first place. You'll lose all of that when they repossess. But, yes, their money is made by reselling the same car many times.

Comment: Re:Too expensive (Score 4, Informative) 105

by Trailer Trash (#47940949) Attached to: Dremel Releases 3D Printer

Plenty of cheaper (and probably better) options from Makerbot etc.

Now it it came is at a $400 price point it would be a whole different discussion.

You're not their target market. There are a lot of old-school tinkerers who are familiar with Dremel - and a lot of people who are familiar with Home Depot - who know nothing about 3D printing. Many of those folks would be very interested in 3D printing if they knew about it. So here we are.

I think Dremel is going to raise the stature of 3D printing in an entirely new market and that will quite frankly help every other company out there in this space.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...