EV Charging: Let It Be Free

Most I've known, including those here, are into virtue signaling. Sorta like the Toyota Pious owners.

...or 50% off diamond jewelry at JC Penney's.

Trailing clouds of smug.

The hybrids seem to get bad mileage on the hills here. One friend keeps buying really expensive supposedly-efficient cars, to save a little on gas. She doesn't even drive much.

ote:

ote:

le

ment

nanny" government? Clearly attempting to "herd" the flock.

oking and as a result smoking and deaths from smoking have declined. Same with the use of seat belts and traffic deaths except we didn't just "encour age" people to wear seat belts, we REQUIRE it by law.

g time and will always be a nanny government. That is the government most people want.

lf

ves. We elect people to do it for us. But no, I don't believe people are very good at making decisions, especially about politics, but that's not th e issue in this case. Providing incentives to encourage buyers of EVs is a bout getting EVs over the hump and into wide spread use. Like throwing the rubber band airplane to launch it.

is good for us all. I can see where others would disagree, but that doesn' t mean it is wrong to do so.

on-

ck

ves

rhetoric.

s to the real issue being discussed. I think that has happened here.

There is the problem. You think that your *beliefs* are facts and facts ar e other's beliefs.

There is no more point in trying to discuss an issue with you as talking to a rock. Or even talking to John Larkin.

Enjoy...

rote:

ote:

James Arthur has a rather eccentric idea of what the US federal government ought to do, and wants to restrict what the voters can ask to do match thos e eccentric ideas.

g and as a result smoking and deaths from smoking have declined. Same with the use of seat belts and traffic deaths except we didn't just "encourage" people to wear seat belts, we REQUIRE it by law.

me and will always be a nanny government. That is the government most peop le want.

That doesn't follow. The government provides the information encourages peo ple take what are generally agreed to be the right decisions.

There's no implication that you shouldn't make up your own mind, or let som e other busybody, like the Koch brothers, make it up for you.

ou don't believe people are fit to govern themselves.

A bizarre over-reaction. Providing good advice isn't any kind of suggestion that people shouldn't search out other sources of advice.

The government may have an implicit duty to prosecute people who provide ba d advice in order to further their own interests - that is fraud, and the e ntire climate change denial business should have been jailed years ago - bu t nobody in the US is pressing for even that.

If this were the case, the USA would have stuck with the articles of associ ation, rather than working out the 1788 constitution, which did centralise power and decision making enough to allow effective government.

Human society is collaborative, and that collaboration has to be regulated

- democratic institutions do seem to work, though the quasi-democratic inst itutions that the founding tax evaders set up back in 1788 aren't exactly s tate of the art.

Primitive designs do get improved by testing out improved versions and pick ing the most successful of those improved version. It's more intelligent de sign than evolution, and while the founding tax evaders were tolerably inte lligent designers the state of the art they were trying to improve on wasn' t all that wonderful.

ote:

ote:

lf

ves. We elect people to do it for us. But no, I don't believe people are very good at making decisions, especially about politics, but that's not th e issue in this case. Providing incentives to encourage buyers of EVs is a bout getting EVs over the hump and into wide spread use. Like throwing the rubber band airplane to launch it.

is good for us all. I can see where others would disagree, but that doesn' t mean it is wrong to do so.

So each infantryman in an army is fighting as an isolated individual?

Each employee in a company is making up their own mind as to what is best f or the company (and their interest in it)?

James Arthur does go in for rhetorical flights of fancy.

on-

ck

ves

rhetoric.

It's a simple statement of James Arthur's delusions about the subject, whic h include a rather inflated idea of the "brilliance" of the founding tax ev aders, who managed to device their constitution without any help from two o f their most brilliant thinkers - Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine - who were fans of the radical enlightenment,rather than the moderate enlightenment th at the land-owners fancied.

Totalitarian central control doesn't work well. Democratic institutions can allow control to be centralised enough to be effective while letting it re act to the needs and desires of the population represented. The 1788 consti tution wasn't all that democratic, and it hasn't been improved as much as could have been.

From the point of view that the Founding Tax Evaders were brilliant, and th e US is the best of all possible worlds. It's called lying to children, and is very popular.

You'd certainly need to read more to find out where they got it wrong and h ow slightly less old - and foreign - guys got it more nearly correct.

The contempt is all for the shallow thinking that allows you peddle such no nsense.

It may be plain to James Arthur, but he gets to his conclusion by making so me exceedingly fatuous assumptions.

us.

The proposition that people aren't sheep seems reasonable. The proposition that shepherds aren't intellectually or morally better really ought to include a phrase identifying who they are better than. The implication is that the p eople who have been elected or appointed to the shepherd role aren't necess arily better than the people they are shepherding, which is an implicit cri ticism of the selection process, which asn't been specified.

s to the real issue being discussed. I think that has happened here.

James Arthur loves vagueness. It lets him get away with murder.

James Arthur loves principles, and wants other people to understand them. Like Groucho Marx, he has new set for every occasion.

But if more people buy them, they are manufactured in larger volume, and ca n be sold more cheaply. One of the more reliable rules of thumb in manufact uring is that making stuff on a ten times larger scale lets you sell it for half the price.

Subsidising EV's gets the manufacturing volume up to a point where the high er capital cost isn't stopping people from buying vehicles that are cheaper to run.

Once that has happened, you don't need subsidies any more.

James Arthur is bad at perceiving how short term nudges are supposed to wor k, and tends to carry on as if a short term expedient is going to be a perm anent feature. I've never been able to persuade him that Keynesian pump-pri ming deficit spending is only appropriate when an economy is in recession, and has to be stopped as soon as that economy emerges from recession.

The contingent element escapes him. Or perhaps his training in high school debating has encouraged him to go in for silly rhetorical tricks ...

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You seem to have a problem with folks being in space.

You got religigous issues, Johnny?

You think the Earth is flat?

It's not sustainable. One year in space ravages a body. Radiation damage accumulates, and might be lethal on a trip to Mars. There's nothing being done in ISS that robotic instruments couldn't do better and much cheaper. Actually, ISS isn't doing much but demonstrating how hostile space is.

There's nothing very interesting on the moon, and robots can investigate that anyhow. Sustaining human life on Mars is impossible with current technology.

I don't like to see good people die.

Earth is an amazing place. One could imagine that is was designed for life, and for human life. Space is cold and hard and lethal. Why do the Enterprise and the Millenial Falcon always have air and gravity no matter how much they are shot up? They make space travel look like fun.

Do you have a rational argument for sending people into space? How many schoolkids were inspired by seeing Christa McAuliffe killed in real time?

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Stick me in a can and kick it that way and we'll find out. I am ready. I have no one keeping me here, and have been alone for years, so no problem there. Give me a computer with VLC player and stream me new movies and I'll be fine. If something breaks, I can fix it... I'm an electronics dude.

If I die, then we'll know. If I turn thin like a gray, then we'll know. If I turn gray, like a gray, then we'll know.

Better to send me, than the guys they have spent hundreds of millions investing in. I am far cheaper and just as capable of determining some critical factors for their trip.

Put me in a cheap airbag ball contained landing craft, and if I make it through the trip segment, be sure to send along some food.

Boost from a platform in space in a craft assembled in space. Or send me along with a spaceX self landing booster modified to set me down on the surface.

I am ready, right now.

We also find out if an old fogey can do the job.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Instead of Mars, send me to the Moon. I'll set up a base in the shade of a crater rim at the edge of the dark side. You'd be amazed at the thinking I have put into a moon base. We could even have a golf course one day... enclosed, of course.

The Gray Dust Crater Bowl Country Club.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Do you know who Nobel was?

Mankind marches ahead one step at a time.

It is never intentional that such steps should cost a man (or woman) his (or her) life, regardless of his or her goodness level. However that gets measured by those thinking it needs measuring. Folks' goals typically ignore the measure of potential peril... or I should say historically. I watch what I am doing.

But todays carriers are complex machines, and the scientists on them have important work to do. That is what they lined up and signed up for. The degree of failure mode incidence is pretty low too.

You probably would not mind me being the volunteer for Moon or Mars flights. I mean the odds of me then going away would go up, no?

My wife just read a book by an astronaut; I'll check it out. It sounds disgusting. Even the ex fighter pilots keep getting sick and spraying various body fluids everywhere. Simple daily functions are very messy and smelly. It stinks in the ISS. Returning astronauts are so weak they can't stand up on their own, and some are damaged for life. Their vision deteriorates in space, brains and joints malfunction, and in zero-g body fluids redistribute in the wrong places.

Doesn't sound like an adventure.

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I'm an old man. I need to have my body fluids redistributed.

Maybe I'll just move to Australia.

I hope you're good on the monkey-bars. We all have to hang on here, or we'd fall off.

I watch a lot of Australian TV shows and I'm pretty sure that's not true. But then they can fake a lot of stuff on TV.

Sure. The sky is a full of kangaroos heading off into low earth orbits.

On Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 9:01:11 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote :

ople

rnment

"nanny" government? Clearly attempting to "herd" the flock.

smoking and as a result smoking and deaths from smoking have declined. Sam e with the use of seat belts and traffic deaths except we didn't just "enco urage" people to wear seat belts, we REQUIRE it by law.

ong time and will always be a nanny government. That is the government mos t people want.

self

elves. We elect people to do it for us. But no, I don't believe people ar e very good at making decisions, especially about politics, but that's not the issue in this case. Providing incentives to encourage buyers of EVs is about getting EVs over the hump and into wide spread use. Like throwing t he rubber band airplane to launch it.

k is good for us all. I can see where others would disagree, but that does n't mean it is wrong to do so.

sion-

back

lives

of rhetoric.

cts to the real issue being discussed. I think that has happened here.

are other's beliefs.

to a rock. Or even talking to John Larkin.

Well gee, it seems pretty obvious that distributed decision-making is superior to centralized in almost every way.

I mean, we don't power 100% of our electronic devices from a single centrally-regulated power source from Washington D.C., do we?

Of course not. We have billions of local SMPS regulators for exactly the same reason that local individual decision-making is better: the local micro-devices have better, faster feedback, and can respond and allocate energy to the specific demand (need) better than one giga-device decision-maker in Washington ever could.

America went with the individual freedom model, which is why we've out-performed the centrally-regulated models.

See how easy that was? I just saved you reading shelves of economic and political philosophy theory. (You're welcome.)

And America /was/ founded on the idea that an educated people could govern itself, and you /are/ promoting the previous idea, that people need to be ruled. Those are facts.

I first met John decades ago in New York. John Larkin's funny and smart, a fine engineer, a pretty good skier and a decent cook. So yes, I find it odd that you reflexively caricature-assassinate[sic] & ascribe him so many bogus attributes. It's weird.

Cheers, James Arthur

I do have the common sense to wear long pants when I ski... unlike certain people that I am too polite to name.

But decent cook? My red beans and rice and bread pudding and pancake disasters are world-class.

Pretty good skier maybe, when I'm paralleling backwards.

Clifford Heath wrote in news:xHvoE.3$ snipped-for-privacy@fx45.iad:

I figured you guys all hung out at the park, playing chess from your inversion tables.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You have to watch it from an inversion table if you are in the northern hemisphere.