-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Not so much "more significantly". The city council wanted sanctuary status, the voters overwhelming did not.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
But the voters wanted Democrats not Republicans. You're micro focusing on a single piece of legislation and hiding from the more significant trend which will have much greater long term influence.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
ARPANET was not "huge" by historical standards. It was groundbreaking, yes, but the amount of $$$ invested by historical standards was still small for a government project (55-107k per node at the time, 29 nodes - Cybertelecom :: ARPANET 1970s), and FAR FAR FAR less than the research by private entities to take that from the slow initial speeds to the 100Gbs and faster speeds that are in production today.
I stand by the comment that RELATIVE costs of public vs. private were still SMALL for Gov and LARGE for private for this. Hell, even by 1970s standards, the cost of this was less than a single destroyer, etc.
It's also a good example of the private sector succeeding where government failed. Anyone remember the OSI Model? Not just the 7 layer framework? It actually had a full set of protocols to compete against TCP/IP. Which, of course, failed in the marketplace.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
I've been involved in some similar projects on the molecular biology side. The NIH funded the "discovery" phase of the work, and then private companies funded the subsequent development. The grants from the private sector were always orders of magnitude larger than the NIH grants.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Although battery technology and solar technology, for example, are still to be improved for cost efficiency, the situation now is not that much a question of sponsoring technical advancements, anymore.
Our dependence on oil is now more like the whole country being addicted to opioid pain relievers.
Climate change denial is largely a result of dishonest campaigning, sponsoring and lobbying by the "private sector", most forms of which should be considered anti-competitive behavior or perhaps even fraud.
Our dependence on oil is now more like the whole country being addicted to opioid pain relievers.
Climate change denial is largely a result of dishonest campaigning, sponsoring and lobbying by the "private sector", most forms of which should be considered anti-competitive behavior or perhaps even fraud.
I don't know what the specific language of the sanctuary city initiative was. I have seen initiatives go down to defeat when the public supports the idea because the initiative itself was bad. Here is an article about the initiative from before the election:
Prop. 205 won't give immigrants any real sanctuary. But it would sabotage Tucson
When people are forced into a yes/no answer about a complex question, the results can be interpreted many ways.
From it's passage into the Trump administration polls showed the ACA was not popular. Only a few polls asked follow up questions about why it wasn't popular. Most just asked people if they supported it or not. Republicans assumed that everyone who didn't like it wanted it repealed, but I had been delving deeper into the polls that asked more questions and it was pretty obvious to me that somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of those who didn't approve of the ACA thought it didn't go far enough. When the Republicans tried to repeal it they found out the hard way that support for just getting rid of it was weak.
To know why the sanctuary city initiative went down to defeat in Tucson, somebody would have to ask a number of questions about why. Maybe the people of Tucson oppose the idea of being a sanctuary city, or maybe the reason is more complex including a lot of the factors in the article I posted? Considering that the city also elected a number of Democrats, the answer is not completely clear.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Current defense of Trump - Too dumb to execute abuse of power.
Joyce Alene on Twitter
Joyce Alene on Twitter
"It was incoherent," Sen @LindseyGrahamSC says of Trump's Ukraine policy. "They seem to be *incapable* of forming a quid pro quo."
Norbert
TSLA will win
That's from my own post above. I should add that this is a reference to a quote from Bush in his 2006 State of the Union speech:
"America is addicted to oil"
It is. But most car and truck buyers would switch tomorrow if you can make a business case for switching. That doesn't sound like an addiction. For a long time now, oil and gasoline has been the best bang for the buck for most travel needs. EVs are going to change that with or without subsidies and you'll see even the most strident F-150-driving, coal-rolling, gas-loving switch over.
Why would anyone keep a gas/truck car if EVs are shown to be half the cost to buy, half the cost to operate, and half the cost to maintain?
This has worked for almost every disruptive technology to date.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Virginia, with all of the massive amount of defense and other work I brought to you, and with everything planned, go out and vote Republican today. I know the Dems are saying that they have your vote locked up, but that would mean a long slide down. VOTE REPUBLICAN TODAY!
Oops.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I think most drug addicts would switch if you offered them a better drug.
Norbert
TSLA will win
We are now around 2% EV sales (not fleet). If there wasn't an addiction, we might have been at that stage 10 years ago. Or 20.
And it started changing because of those thinking more like Bush and Obama, not because of those thinking like Trump or you.
Solar doesn't do that well either. These things happen at the speed of a snail instead of right away.
The counter argument to this is anyone who is too dumb to understand they are abusing power is also too dumb to be president.
The more expensive the technology, the more difficult it is to disrupt the status quo because of momentum. Cars are one of the most expensive things people own. For most it's the most expensive or second most expensive thing they own.
People also sometimes go for inferior or more expensive tech for irrational reasons. Pickups are very popular in the US, but the majority of Americans would be fine most of the time with a cheaper to run car. There are people who need them for work, or have other reasons to have one, but there are a vast number of trucks running around with empty beds and not towing anything (ie being used as passenger cars).
Human behavior is sometimes rational, but not always.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Yes, what if EVs would always remain a little more expensive, in the absence of tax credits, carbon tax, cap and trade, cheap loans, emission trading, and so on. There would be no business case. We would be out of luck, by those principles.
- Status
Similar threads
