Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
imajoebob
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 months ago
in Draft On Power Hungry TVs on Ubergizmo
A tax credit? C'mon get serious. First, these only work for businesses. And the wealthy individuals who might use it probably buy 52" screens which won't have a chance of meeting any standard for a credit. Tax credits are a bad joke designed to fool average taxpayers into thinking boondoggles for the few well-connected will actually benefit everyone (I'll bet that last "tax rebate" of $10 a week made a big change in your lifestyle).
Second, the electricity bill savings are already a hidden "credit" for the buyer. An unintended consequence of this proposal is that it will probably benefit the lower incomes more quickly than usual. Few can afford to trade in their 4 year old Caravan for a $30K Prius, and these same people have held off buying a new TV, too. They're still waiting for flat screen prices drop to the same as tube TVs, so their current TVs are getting old. They'll probably die in the next few years and will have to be replaced by even more efficient models.
Most changes to efficient technology take an uneconomic short-term outlay. Even $7 CF bulbs take 3 to 5 years to pay for themselves. That's a great big 3¢ a week. Replacing all your bulbs will easily cost $200 and save you $1 a week. How long would it take to pay off a voluntary switch to these TVs costing 50 times more?
Electricity costs are economically regressive. While it is finally costing more (per unit) if you use more, the wealthier spend less disposable income on electricity, and (usually) use more per capita. This drives up the cost of electricity for everyone, meaning the lower incomes end up paying more, even as they use less.
Just like pollution controls on cars, the economic and social benefits are too far off to motivate most individuals, but by regulating the change we are forced to take the long term solution.
Second, the electricity bill savings are already a hidden "credit" for the buyer. An unintended consequence of this proposal is that it will probably benefit the lower incomes more quickly than usual. Few can afford to trade in their 4 year old Caravan for a $30K Prius, and these same people have held off buying a new TV, too. They're still waiting for flat screen prices drop to the same as tube TVs, so their current TVs are getting old. They'll probably die in the next few years and will have to be replaced by even more efficient models.
Most changes to efficient technology take an uneconomic short-term outlay. Even $7 CF bulbs take 3 to 5 years to pay for themselves. That's a great big 3¢ a week. Replacing all your bulbs will easily cost $200 and save you $1 a week. How long would it take to pay off a voluntary switch to these TVs costing 50 times more?
Electricity costs are economically regressive. While it is finally costing more (per unit) if you use more, the wealthier spend less disposable income on electricity, and (usually) use more per capita. This drives up the cost of electricity for everyone, meaning the lower incomes end up paying more, even as they use less.
Just like pollution controls on cars, the economic and social benefits are too far off to motivate most individuals, but by regulating the change we are forced to take the long term solution.
10 months ago
in Buffalo MicroStation on Ubergizmo
Uh, didn't the Apple nano beat them to it? If you're not that concerned about an extra 3 seconds to read a 500MB file, then didn't those 85-in-1 USB memory card readers beat them both? Now you can get a mini USB card reader and a 32GB SDHC card for as little as £60 on ebay. And unlike this device, it's got unlimited capacity.
Geez, remember those "massive" 100 MB iomega ZIP drives?
Geez, remember those "massive" 100 MB iomega ZIP drives?
2 years ago
in MsUnderestimated » Blog Archive » Laura Ingraham on Lynn Cheney & Fox’s Cheesecake (VIDEO) on MsUnderestimated
Ingraham is just parroting the neocon line, carrying water for wingnuts.
The REAL issue is that Blitzer lobbed Cheney a softball, and Cheney whiffed. The obvious, and correct, response for Cheney should have been that nobody, friend or foe, has any business using his daughter and her pregnancy as a political football. He wouldn't, so she had to do it for herself.
Dick is such a craven politician that he won't even stand up for his own daughter when his political masters abuse her. A real father would punch Dobson in the nose. What a worthless bastard.
The REAL issue is that Blitzer lobbed Cheney a softball, and Cheney whiffed. The obvious, and correct, response for Cheney should have been that nobody, friend or foe, has any business using his daughter and her pregnancy as a political football. He wouldn't, so she had to do it for herself.
Dick is such a craven politician that he won't even stand up for his own daughter when his political masters abuse her. A real father would punch Dobson in the nose. What a worthless bastard.
