In another clear attempt to reduce our carbon footprint, Minister Jacinta Allan joined Caltex and GM Holden to publicize a distribution of fuel containing up to 85% ethanol across Caltex’s set of connections, including Victoria, by end of October, 2010. E-Flex, is Caltext’s ethanol based bio fuel that will hopefully cut carbon emissions down by 20% in 2020. The fuel, referred to as “home grown ” will ultimately improve Victoria’s fuel security. Ms Allan boldly states that it will also “stimulate investment in local supply.” The fuel itself has the ability to reduce carbon emissions up to 50%; this is in direct comparison to traditional fossil fuels.

The promotion of efforts like this, along with the implementation of green jobs, was all a part of Brumby Labor Government’s $175 million jobs for the Future Economy Action Plan.

Carbon Cutting projects like the example listed above provide greater sustainability. Accordingly, the introduction of ethanol based bio fuels are a step towards a more optimal supply of renewable energy. Ms Allan goes on to state that they’ll continue to work tirelessly to build a plant for high-tech ethanol production in Victoria.

Meanwhile, Doug Band and the Clinton Global Initiative continue to invest in similar sustainability projects, similar to the fleet emission reduction program in San Francisco Bay. The plan will effectively lower green house gas emissions from specific vehicle fleets of the county through fleet route optimization. In other words ESRI and the CGI are deemed responsible for developing software that will optimize fuel usage.

Both projects are a step in the right direction. With the development of things like PETE (photon enhanced thermionic emissions), and less expensive, more efficient alternative energy projects in place, the world will continue to become a more sustainable planet.

AT&T said Wednesday it will eliminate its $30 unlimited data plan for new smartphone subscribers starting June 7, when Apple Inc. is expected to announce its latest iPhone. The plan will be replaced by new offerings costing $15 an month for 200 megabytes of data traffic or $25 a month for 2 gigabytes. AT&T says 98% of its customers use less than those amounts. Users who exceed 2 gigabytes of usage will pay $10 a month for each additional gigabyte.

Logically, it would seem to make a lot of sense for customers to like this.  If 98% of them don’t use this much data, then that’s $5 (or more) per month cheaper for them to use.  Moreover, it captures the negative externality that some cell phone users place on others – that is, they’re overconsuming the network bandwidth and not paying for it.

On the other hand, I see serious potential backlash.  First, those that develop media-heavy applications, particularly the MLB’s baseball game streaming application and other such developers will likely use a ton of their users.  Second, many users will psychologically face some stress now in deciding what to do with their phones, and may potentially spend time and energy considering which applications to use at which times.  One of the joys people seem to get out of smartphones (I don’t have one myself, but what I observe) is that you can do whatever you want with it, whenever you want to.  If all of a sudden you have to keep a close eye on the bandwidth meter, things become a little more constrained.  Now having a smartphone may require keeping an eye on a variety of different meters – you’ve got to check the battery frequently since these things are power-hungry devices, and you also need to keep an eye on your bandwidth meter.

Anyway, I see some pros and cons here.  Logically this makes a lot of sense, but I can see that some people would be pretty uncomfortable about this.  I am sure that Verizon and the other networks will have an interesting choice to make: either take this opportunity to hop on board with AT&T or take this opportunity to claim that AT&T’s network is so weak and overused that it had to start charging for bandwidth usage.  I hope, at the very least, that this will spur a bit more price competition from all of the major carriers.

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

For an interesting article applying this quotation, see this excellent article about a terrible proposed law.

Caller: As you know, the new healthcare legislation passed.  However, Sarah Palin and the Republicans, are saying extreme things about it to make everyone hate it.  They’re calling it socialism instead of debating the facts.  And they’re raising a lot of money to fight it.  If you donate to us today, we’ll triplicate your donation.

Me: I’m sorry, I really do not want to donate.

Caller: But don’t you dislike what the Republican party is doing right now and what Sarah Palin is saying?

Me: Sure.  I can’t stand Sarah Palin.

Caller: Don’t you see how important this is?

Me: I really don’t support major political parties.  They’re too extreme for me.

Caller: Don’t you know that President Obama has been described by some as a centrist?

Me: Sorry, the reason I don’t donate is because I think political parties make issues too polarized in this country, not because of the characteristics of individual politicians.  I’m sorry, I really do not support you.

Caller: OK, well maybe we’ll get you on board sometime in the future.

Me: Thanks, bye.

Since I’m a pretty passive person, I don’t like to say mean things to people on the phone, so obviously I did not do so with this conversation.  But the conversation really exemplified what I do not like about political parties.  The caller assumed that if I disliked the Republican Party’s extreme tactics, then I would surely prefer the Democratic Party, and seemed to be confused as to how I could dislike the Republican Party and not like the Democratic Party.  In fact, the whole conversation was a bit of irony.  The caller was accusing the Republicans of using improper debate tactics, but was essentially making a straw man argument by lumping all of the Republicans in with Sarah Palin and crazy people that use the word socialism instead of debating the facts.  Sure, lots of Republican politicians did that, but it was certainly not everybody.  And not all Republicans are as radically incompetent as Sarah Palin.  I told him I don’t like political parties because they’re too extreme—I dislike political parties just as much for their straw man arguments as I do for their hyperbolic accusations.

File this under reason #492 why I dislike political parties.

Duren had picked his daughter up from school and was driving to his Nashville, TN home when Harry Weisiger pulled up next to his car, pointed to the Obama-Biden bumper sticker on the back, and flipped him off . . . . At a stop sign he starting honking his horn and causing a scene and when the two were underway again, he hit Duran’s car. Being a normal person, Duren slowed to deal with the accident but Weisiger sped up and smashed into the bumper, causing serious damage.

My two cents: if someone is stupid enough to turn to violence about a political issue, they likely don’t have the intelligence to actually understand the political issue itself.

P.S. This is NOT an endorsement of the healthcare legislation, of which I have many doubts.

I took my car to Koon’s Tysons Toyota in Northern VA.  I called to make an appointment for 12:30pm.  I got there at about 12:10 pm, gave them the keys, and sat down to do some schoolwork on my laptop.  At about 12:45pm, they already called me to pick up the car.  I also noticed that the customer just before me had the same exact experience.  It did not appear that the service bay was empty—there were a ton of people that were getting their cars serviced at the time.

As for the effects of the repair, I drove about ten miles to get home after the repair, and I did not notice much difference.  It seems like the brake is slightly more sensitive when I press it down, now.  Though that could just be a placebo effect.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my experience, since it was very positive.  I don’t know whether this experience is common throughout the US, or other dealerships, but I really enjoyed my service at Koon’s.

I don’t get the entire “Who Dat.” Thing. Why would a fan base pride itself on a poor command of the English language?

It sounded like a good idea: Provide a little government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.

But as laudable as that goal sounds, it could end up causing more economic damage than good — driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that has long used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry, and highlighting the many challenges involved in decreasing the nation’s dependence on oil by using organic materials to create biofuels.

In a matter of months, the Biomass Crop Assistance Program — a small provision tucked into the 2008 farm bill — has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy that is funneling taxpayer dollars to sawmills and lumber wholesalers, encouraging them to sell their waste to be converted into high-tech biofuels. In doing so, it is shutting off the supply of cheap timber byproducts to the nation’s composite wood manufacturers, who make panels for home entertainment centers and kitchen cabinets.

This sounds a lot like the dumbest idea of 2009: “Cash for Clunkers.”  First, find a process that is relatively efficient (say, using leftover wood to make useful products, or, selling used cars to people who need them).  Next, make that process less efficient and more exciting (for instance, by taking the wood away from making useful products and instead using it in a relatively inefficient biomass-to-energy conversion, or, taking used cars and permanently immobilizing them so that no one will ever drive them again).  In both cases the government increases the price of products people need (wood products, cars) but claims it is doing something “green” while improving the economy.  Bogus.