Electrify I-40, I-95 and I-5

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:19:55 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Personally, I'll play under any reasonable set of rules, so I don't
bother to vote.

You aren't going to get a reasonable set of rules without voting and
voting is the easiest part of citizenship.

But the rules are quite reasonable. And the probability of my vote
changing the outcome of any election, especially in the Peoples
Republic of San Francisco, is literally zero.

Quit agonizing over things you don't understand and couldn't control
if you did. Relax. Design and build something that actually works.
You'll feel better.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/17/BAMT14PE9V.DTL&hw=mental+task&sn=001&sc=1000

See?


John

 

[Bret Cahill]

The individualist "right to travel" and freedom of communication are
always 100% dependent on taxation.

There is no end run to this basic fact/law/truth.


Bret Cahill

When you are off these interstates you run your hybrid electric or EV
on gas or batteries respectively and when you are on these interstates
you run off the grid.

Conventional drive trains could be used along side the newer until it
is cheaper to upgrade.

Phasing in digital TV is much more difficult.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Personally, I'll play under any reasonable set of rules, so I don't
bother to vote.

You aren't going to get a reasonable set of rules without voting and
voting is the easiest part of citizenship.

But the rules are quite reasonable. And the probability of my vote
changing the outcome of any election, especially in the Peoples
Republic of San Francisco, is literally zero.

Like the Henry David Walden guy said, voting is the weakest part of
citizenship.

Quit agonizing over things you don't understand and couldn't control
if you did.

Actually you can control more than you think.

A whole lot more.

Relax. Design and build something that actually works.
You'll feel better.

Been there done that.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:46:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Personally, I'll play under any reasonable set of rules, so I don't
bother to vote.

You aren't going to get a reasonable set of rules without voting and
voting is the easiest part of citizenship.

But the rules are quite reasonable. And the probability of my vote
changing the outcome of any election, especially in the Peoples
Republic of San Francisco, is literally zero.

Like the Henry David Walden guy said, voting is the weakest part of
citizenship.

Quit agonizing over things you don't understand and couldn't control
if you did.

Actually you can control more than you think.

A whole lot more.

Yes, by direct individual action, with results I can see. But not by
collective action, where a winner-take-all election system makes my
votes never count, and where resources are squandered and results
don't matter.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:49:22 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The individualist "right to travel" and freedom of communication are
always 100% dependent on taxation.

There is no end run to this basic fact/law/truth.

Except for toll roads. And canoes.

John

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0i3jk4pqospit5sclfsvih25d15eat4uah@4ax.com...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:27:50 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

.....................
Fear and greed. They seem to have different time constants. Greed is
slower, so people wait before jumping into a market; they usually wait
until they've seen lots of other people make a bundle, then get in. Of
course, then it's too late. And as soon as the thing starts to look
bad, the much faster fear factor takes over, and all the lemmings
panic and sell at a loss. So we get a relaxation oscillation, a long
slow rise punctuated by faster crashes, positive feedback on both
slopes. Smart people, who can do the numbers and force their reason to
overcome their emotions, make money on both edges.

Why are you still working ?

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:bi3lk41ubf57f73aftuu4blhhrn8gbarq3@4ax.com...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:46:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
......

Yes, by direct individual action, with results I can see. But not by
collective action, where a winner-take-all election system makes my
votes never count, and where resources are squandered and results
don't matter.

OT, but I agree.
The election system here is quite rediculous.
It's not just "winner takes all", but also in the smaller states your vote counts much more than in the larger states (especially
for elections for senate seats).
One man one vote ? Not in the US....

With utmost respect, but why didn't the founding fathers install a "popularity vote" system like what is common in European
countries rather than copying the outdated British system ?

Rob

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0i3jk4pqospit5sclfsvih25d15eat4uah@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:27:50 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

....................
Fear and greed. They seem to have different time constants. Greed is
slower, so people wait before jumping into a market; they usually wait
until they've seen lots of other people make a bundle, then get in. Of
course, then it's too late. And as soon as the thing starts to look
bad, the much faster fear factor takes over, and all the lemmings
panic and sell at a loss. So we get a relaxation oscillation, a long
slow rise punctuated by faster crashes, positive feedback on both
slopes. Smart people, who can do the numbers and force their reason to
overcome their emotions, make money on both edges.

Why are you still working ?

Some people actually live to work. Others are lazy bastards who cheat
their boss at every turn.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[krw]

In article <Tpz2l.9330$D32.4239@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
rob@verific.com says...>

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:bi3lk41ubf57f73aftuu4blhhrn8gbarq3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:46:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
.....

Yes, by direct individual action, with results I can see. But not by
collective action, where a winner-take-all election system makes my
votes never count, and where resources are squandered and results
don't matter.

OT, but I agree.
The election system here is quite rediculous.
It's not just "winner takes all", but also in the smaller states your vote counts much more than in the larger states (especially
for elections for senate seats).
One man one vote ? Not in the US....

Until a hundred years ago (give or take) we didn't elect Senators.

With utmost respect, but why didn't the founding fathers install a "popularity vote" system like what is common in European
countries rather than copying the outdated British system ?

Because this is a country of states, not people. The states are
supposed to be superior to the federal government.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:32:08 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0i3jk4pqospit5sclfsvih25d15eat4uah@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:27:50 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

....................
Fear and greed. They seem to have different time constants. Greed is
slower, so people wait before jumping into a market; they usually wait
until they've seen lots of other people make a bundle, then get in. Of
course, then it's too late. And as soon as the thing starts to look
bad, the much faster fear factor takes over, and all the lemmings
panic and sell at a loss. So we get a relaxation oscillation, a long
slow rise punctuated by faster crashes, positive feedback on both
slopes. Smart people, who can do the numbers and force their reason to
overcome their emotions, make money on both edges.

Why are you still working ?

Because I like fooling with electronics and don't care much about
money.

John

 

[Rob Dekker]

"krw" <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.23b492ca55fc8e59989715@news.individual.net...

In article <Tpz2l.9330$D32.4239@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
rob@verific.com says...
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:bi3lk41ubf57f73aftuu4blhhrn8gbarq3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:46:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
.....

Yes, by direct individual action, with results I can see. But not by
collective action, where a winner-take-all election system makes my
votes never count, and where resources are squandered and results
don't matter.

OT, but I agree.
The election system here is quite rediculous.
It's not just "winner takes all", but also in the smaller states your vote counts much more than in the larger states (especially
for elections for senate seats).
One man one vote ? Not in the US....

Until a hundred years ago (give or take) we didn't elect Senators.


With utmost respect, but why didn't the founding fathers install a "popularity vote" system like what is common in European
countries rather than copying the outdated British system ?

Because this is a country of states, not people. The states are
supposed to be superior to the federal government.

Interesting...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...."

But I DO understand how this system worked well (practical) in the olden days, for a country as vast and 'decentralized' as the US.
I just feel (as John) that a popularity vote would much more 'fair' towards voters in the country.

Problem of course is that by now it will be virtually impossible to change this system across the nation, because the current system
self-reinforces the power of the two-parties who's votes would both be needed to change the system

Rob

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:vonlk4dnqohc7rfb37c7hgjmlocsiq6f70@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:32:08 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0i3jk4pqospit5sclfsvih25d15eat4uah@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:27:50 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

....................
Fear and greed. They seem to have different time constants. Greed is
slower, so people wait before jumping into a market; they usually wait
until they've seen lots of other people make a bundle, then get in. Of
course, then it's too late. And as soon as the thing starts to look
bad, the much faster fear factor takes over, and all the lemmings
panic and sell at a loss. So we get a relaxation oscillation, a long
slow rise punctuated by faster crashes, positive feedback on both
slopes. Smart people, who can do the numbers and force their reason to
overcome their emotions, make money on both edges.

Why are you still working ?



Because I like fooling with electronics and don't care much about
money.

Exact same thing here (although I work on the software side of electronic design).

Still, I disagree that 'timing the market' would be possible by being 'smart' or without 'fear or greed', as you suggest above.
The market is notoriously inpredictable, since if it were (rationally predictable) we would have written computer programs that
would beat humans all the time.

Rob

John

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4949A1F3.AF215E2B@hotmail.com...

Bret Cahill wrote:

Tell us how rightards plan to get back into power.

WTF has that got to do with EVs ?

If rightards don't even have any talking points on how they plan to
get back into power -- apparently they don't as that question shut up
that rightard --, then it's full speed ahead on electrification of
ground transportation.

Pure EVs will succeed or fail on their COMMERCIAL and practical merits,
not the colour of the Government you MORON !

Government determines what is 'economical' (and to a certain extend also what is 'practical') by regulations and taxes.
So the colour of Government DOES matter.
No need to 'moron' anyone.

I predict they will fail for all non strictly urban uses.

For pure EVs, with their limited range (and non-existing charging infrastructure) you are probably right.
Although 'strictly urban' use is still a huge market (think of small delivery trucks, city busses, small private vehicles etc which
hardly ever see a highway).

But the big market (80% of private vehicles) is for plug-in 'series' hybrids that can run 40 miles or so per charge.
I predict that once these start coming on the market in various models, they will quickly change the landscape.

Rob

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:15:59 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4949A1F3.AF215E2B@hotmail.com...


Bret Cahill wrote:

Tell us how rightards plan to get back into power.

WTF has that got to do with EVs ?

If rightards don't even have any talking points on how they plan to
get back into power -- apparently they don't as that question shut up
that rightard --, then it's full speed ahead on electrification of
ground transportation.

Pure EVs will succeed or fail on their COMMERCIAL and practical merits,
not the colour of the Government you MORON !


Government determines what is 'economical' (and to a certain extend also what is 'practical') by regulations and taxes.
So the colour of Government DOES matter.
No need to 'moron' anyone.

I predict they will fail for all non strictly urban uses.


For pure EVs, with their limited range (and non-existing charging infrastructure) you are probably right.
Although 'strictly urban' use is still a huge market (think of small delivery trucks, city busses, small private vehicles etc which
hardly ever see a highway).

But the big market (80% of private vehicles) is for plug-in 'series' hybrids that can run 40 miles or so per charge.
I predict that once these start coming on the market in various models, they will quickly change the landscape.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A hybrid need all the gas engine
stuff - engine, fuel system, cooling, exhaust/catalytic converter -
and then you have to add a generator, batteries, electric motors, and
all the interfaces and controls. All to bring the electric grid to its
knees.

Hybrids aren't efficient so much because they're electric, most are
small and slippery. It makes more sense to make a gas powered car
small and slippery.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:02:49 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:vonlk4dnqohc7rfb37c7hgjmlocsiq6f70@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:32:08 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0i3jk4pqospit5sclfsvih25d15eat4uah@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:27:50 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

....................
Fear and greed. They seem to have different time constants. Greed is
slower, so people wait before jumping into a market; they usually wait
until they've seen lots of other people make a bundle, then get in. Of
course, then it's too late. And as soon as the thing starts to look
bad, the much faster fear factor takes over, and all the lemmings
panic and sell at a loss. So we get a relaxation oscillation, a long
slow rise punctuated by faster crashes, positive feedback on both
slopes. Smart people, who can do the numbers and force their reason to
overcome their emotions, make money on both edges.

Why are you still working ?



Because I like fooling with electronics and don't care much about
money.


Exact same thing here (although I work on the software side of electronic design).

Still, I disagree that 'timing the market' would be possible by being 'smart' or without 'fear or greed', as you suggest above.

Well the stock market is not a good venue for speculation, because too
many other smart people, with immense resources, are playing against
you, and it's mostly a betting pool, with little real economic input.

The market is notoriously inpredictable, since if it were (rationally predictable) we would have written computer programs that
would beat humans all the time.

There are lots of computer programs playing the market these days,
which is one reason the aggregate situation is such a volatile mess.

Now is probably a great time to buy real estate, or maybe start a
small business. And perhaps to buy certain stocks, to hold for
long-term appreciation.

The worst thing to do is buy near the end of a buup, and dump at the
trough of a bust, which is what the conventional fear-and-greed
motivations too often inspire.

John

 

[krw]

In article <QqB2l.7045$pr6.380@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>,
rob@verific.com says...

"krw" <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.23b492ca55fc8e59989715@news.individual.net...
In article <Tpz2l.9330$D32.4239@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
rob@verific.com says...
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:bi3lk41ubf57f73aftuu4blhhrn8gbarq3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:46:24 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
.....

Yes, by direct individual action, with results I can see. But not by
collective action, where a winner-take-all election system makes my
votes never count, and where resources are squandered and results
don't matter.

OT, but I agree.
The election system here is quite rediculous.
It's not just "winner takes all", but also in the smaller states your vote counts much more than in the larger states (especially
for elections for senate seats).
One man one vote ? Not in the US....

Until a hundred years ago (give or take) we didn't elect Senators.


With utmost respect, but why didn't the founding fathers install a "popularity vote" system like what is common in European
countries rather than copying the outdated British system ?

Because this is a country of states, not people. The states are
supposed to be superior to the federal government.


Interesting...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...."

....and?

But I DO understand how this system worked well (practical) in the olden days, for a country as vast and 'decentralized' as the US.
I just feel (as John) that a popularity vote would much more 'fair' towards voters in the country.

That's still the form of government the Constitution prescribes.
"Fair" is a bullshit word used by leftist weenies to abuse whomever
they see fit by abusing whatever power they see fit.

Problem of course is that by now it will be virtually impossible to change this system across the nation, because the current system
self-reinforces the power of the two-parties who's votes would both be needed to change the system

It is "virtually impossible to change" because there aren't enough
dumbasses who want to throw away what, for the most part, works.

--
Keith

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:l9tlk4tmtj5bl6uc8r17hcm5elnunfvtn6@4ax.com...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:15:59 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


.....


For pure EVs, with their limited range (and non-existing charging infrastructure) you are probably right.
Although 'strictly urban' use is still a huge market (think of small delivery trucks, city busses, small private vehicles etc
which
hardly ever see a highway).

But the big market (80% of private vehicles) is for plug-in 'series' hybrids that can run 40 miles or so per charge.
I predict that once these start coming on the market in various models, they will quickly change the landscape.


Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A hybrid need all the gas engine
stuff - engine, fuel system, cooling, exhaust/catalytic converter -
and then you have to add a generator, batteries, electric motors, and
all the interfaces and controls. All to bring the electric grid to its
knees.

Yes and no. Lots of side-notes here. Not enough time.

Hybrids aren't efficient so much because they're electric, most are
small and slippery. It makes more sense to make a gas powered car
small and slippery.

John

It certainly makes efficiency sense to make ALL cars more airodynamic and many of them smaller.
But hybrids add efficiency on top of that.
Even the first generation 'parallel' hybrids on the market today have features like regenerative braking, smaller (more efficienct)
ICE needed because of electric motor assist, shutting engine off during idling and all-electric cruising up till 30mph.

I just bought such a parallel hybrid (Toyota Camry) and get some 35 mpg in city traffic (where I spend most of my miles).
Not bad for a mid-size vehicle that is more spacious than the 18 city mpg Volvo I used to drive.
By the way, electric cruising is amazing : no noise, no vibrations, but 'float' like a space ship. Really cool !

Once 'series' hybrids hit the road, there will be an even bigger boost in efficiency.
The Chevy Volt gets around 50 mpg city/highway on auxilary power (a small ICE) for example.
I doubt that the Volt will ever see the light, because of GM's troubles, and has put it's engine production line on hold.
But amazing efficiency improvement are possible with series hybrids versus classic ICE under the hood.
And when you 'plug-in', then you will really start to feel what the automobile future will look like.

Rob

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:37:04 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:l9tlk4tmtj5bl6uc8r17hcm5elnunfvtn6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:15:59 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


....


For pure EVs, with their limited range (and non-existing charging infrastructure) you are probably right.
Although 'strictly urban' use is still a huge market (think of small delivery trucks, city busses, small private vehicles etc
which
hardly ever see a highway).

But the big market (80% of private vehicles) is for plug-in 'series' hybrids that can run 40 miles or so per charge.
I predict that once these start coming on the market in various models, they will quickly change the landscape.


Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A hybrid need all the gas engine
stuff - engine, fuel system, cooling, exhaust/catalytic converter -
and then you have to add a generator, batteries, electric motors, and
all the interfaces and controls. All to bring the electric grid to its
knees.

Yes and no. Lots of side-notes here. Not enough time.


Hybrids aren't efficient so much because they're electric, most are
small and slippery. It makes more sense to make a gas powered car
small and slippery.

John


It certainly makes efficiency sense to make ALL cars more airodynamic and many of them smaller.
But hybrids add efficiency on top of that.
Even the first generation 'parallel' hybrids on the market today have features like regenerative braking, smaller (more efficienct)
ICE needed because of electric motor assist, shutting engine off during idling and all-electric cruising up till 30mph.

I just bought such a parallel hybrid (Toyota Camry) and get some 35 mpg in city traffic (where I spend most of my miles).
Not bad for a mid-size vehicle that is more spacious than the 18 city mpg Volvo I used to drive.
By the way, electric cruising is amazing : no noise, no vibrations, but 'float' like a space ship. Really cool !

We have a friend with a Camry hybrid. Her city mileage, in San
Francisco, is no better than the gas version, maybe because she's
hauling a lot of extra weight up and down the hills.

Once 'series' hybrids hit the road, there will be an even bigger boost in efficiency.
The Chevy Volt gets around 50 mpg city/highway on auxilary power (a small ICE) for example.
I doubt that the Volt will ever see the light, because of GM's troubles, and has put it's engine production line on hold.
But amazing efficiency improvement are possible with series hybrids versus classic ICE under the hood.
And when you 'plug-in', then you will really start to feel what the automobile future will look like.

If we had more nukes, electric cars would make more sense.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:55:30 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

The individualist "right to travel" and freedom of communication are
always 100% dependent on taxation.

There is no end run to this basic fact/law/truth.

Except for toll roads.

If you are paying a toll, then it isn't free by definition. You have
no right to travel on a toll road without paying the toll.

A toll is not a tax.

And canoes.

Every publicly owned creek, pond, river, lake, bay and deep water port
is regulated with public funding.

Unless it's not.


You need to get a day job.

John

 

[Bret Cahill]

The individualist "right to travel" and freedom of communication are
always 100% dependent on taxation.

There is no end run to this basic fact/law/truth.

Except for toll roads.

If you are paying a toll, then it isn't free by definition. You have
no right to travel on a toll road without paying the toll.

And canoes.

Every publicly owned creek, pond, river, lake, bay and deep water port
is regulated with public funding.

The same it true for freedom of communication with the public. If you
want to go wireless then the FCC does not keep jammers off the air for
free. Landlines are regulated by the public utilities commission.

So the two most important individualist rights are always 100%
dependent on the collective paying for it.

It need not be a major cost -- it certainly is very low in the case of
communication -- but that cost is always there and like the weakest
link in a chain there is no way to eliminate it entirely.

Smart people replace the expense, trouble, time and risks of travel
with communication whenever possible.


Bret Cahill