Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:We vote on leaders not lightbulbs (Score 1) 1146 1146

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?

Comment: Re:Can someone please explain ... (Score 5, Insightful) 658 658

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.

Comment: Re:Can someone please explain ... (Score 1) 658 658

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.

Comment: Re:Testla is good... (Score 1) 452 452

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.

Comment: Re:Capitalism is failing (Score 2) 183 183

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!

Comment: Our temperature scale goes up to 54 (Score 5, Funny) 289 289

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.

Comment: Re:Oh I just love (Score 1) 475 475

Yes, we should really be falling forward and springing back rather than the opposite; the sun sets at like 4:40pm here now =/ on DST that'd be 5:40; if we fell forward, that'd be 6:40; in fact, we could fall forward *TWO* hours and it'd be getting dark at 7:40pm... that'd be more reasonable...

I call for DST (+1) in the summer, and Super DST (SDST, +3) in the winter!

(the sun would get up at 10:50am, but np... at least I'd see the sun; right now it gets up at 7:50am, and i'm getting to work at that point anyway; rises and sets while i'm at work =/)

Comment: Re:It's like this. (Score 1) 878 878

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.

What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake

Working...