[Swappable cars]

[NEOWatcher]

Freedom is a funny thing. When Edison invented the lightbulb no one complained about being "forced" to only purchase incandescents...

Who forced it?
We can still buy lanterns and candles and buildings still had gas light available. It was a technology shift, not a political one.

[starcanuck64]

Freedom is a funny thing. When Edison invented the lightbulb no one complained about being "forced" to only purchase incandescents. Then again, I wasn't alive back then, so perhaps there were people agitating for Edison to release the data on the 2000 other combinations he tried. Come to think of it, the Gaslight lobby probably had something to say... and candle-makers had something to say to them... and oil lamp makers and whalers would have had their say too. And colliers and charcoal-makers and lumberjacks probably fit in there somewhere. And way back when, I bet some vaunted "keeper of the flame" got upset when someone discovered flint and tinder or rubbing two sticks together.

Power elites (no pun intended) always resist the democratization of light. With more efficient light there is less need to purchase energy for lighting from Big Producers like Big Energy, Big Coal, Big Apiary, Big Whaling, Big Olive Orchard, and Big Temple Flame Priesthood. And they always have the ability to shut you off. If we all switch to LEDs then we get closer to meeting our lighting needs with our own power generation, such as solar or wind or handcrank. But people tell you that you're losing freedom when what incandescents actually make people lose is lives. Literally, incandescents start fires -- we had a lamp fall over onto a bed and start a small fire, but we caught it before it burned the house down -- but the more power that is needed for less efficient lights means more people die from coal disasters and coal effluent and global warming related harms. Perhaps people should look back at the saying and realize that the right to Life comes ahead of Liberty, which comes ahead of the pursuit of happiness, which itself replaced property, which is what the purported lovers of incandescents are actually complaining about.

You're describing soci-economic entropy to a very large degree IMO, which can make positive and needed innovation a challenge.

[NEOWatcher]

-- we had a lamp fall over onto a bed and start a small fire, but we caught it before it burned the house down --

And; when I was a kid we had a fire (that lost one room in the house) that was caused by the cord of a lamp. Accidents happen, some more preventable than others.

[danscope]

As a carpenter, we take note of the condition of every electrical tool and appliance we see. It is a very simple matter to replace power cords. Heavy is better. Every day I see some pathetic examples of cords which people just shrug and continue to abuse.
Learn how to put a plug on or pay someone to do it, but do it, and prosper.

[HenrikOlsen]

Anyone keeping track of Zero? Reviews give these bikes pretty good ratings. I'm not sure I'm ready to give up my very angry Buell, but I would consider a Zero as a second bike. Also note: swappable batteries. A feat, I think, no cars are ever going to be ready for.

I expect the "let's make it blast massive amounts of noise out the back so I'll be safer because those in front can hear I'm coming" morons hate it though.

[Ara Pacis]

Who forced it?
We can still buy lanterns and candles and buildings still had gas light available. It was a technology shift, not a political one.

Electrification itself was a political issue. I don't just mean between AC and DC but rural electrification that needed government intervention to get going. And then adjustments to electrification, such as putting cables underground in the cities, like NYC, became a bigger deal after the Great Blizzard of 1888.

[Ara Pacis]

You're describing soci-economic entropy to a very large degree IMO, which can make positive and needed innovation a challenge.

Right. The problem is that people have confused the right to liberty withthe right to property, perhaps due to increased materialistic tendencies.

On the other hand it used to be that if you went for a walk without a weapon, you might get eaten by an animal. Now we have government-run animal control. They're taking away our freedoms.

Part of the problem is the change over the last century of the concept of liberty to liberties, but explaining the difference may get into politics.

[JCoyote]

As a carpenter, we take note of the condition of every electrical tool and appliance we see. It is a very simple matter to replace power cords. Heavy is better. Every day I see some pathetic examples of cords which people just shrug and continue to abuse.

I once assisted with a court case involving a fire started by a tiny little cord used to run a space heater... coiled. Do NOT coil an overloaded AC line!

[danscope]

Yes...Mr. Coyote. You speak well. And always go with the heavy gauge wire.

[HenrikOlsen]

People aren't being forced to buy certain bulbs, the manufacturers are changing them to suit new rules (some of which are still incandescent, but more efficient), just like cars had to start being made with seat belts and airbags after certain dates. There are portable digital TVs. I've sold them.

Actually - via a change in the law - they are.

Actually, via the change in law, they're prevented from buying certain bulbs.
There's no mandate on what those are replaced with.

You're even allowed to buy kerosene lamps if you think it's a conspiracy of the light bulb manufacturers to make us buy more expensive bulbs.

[NEOWatcher]

Electrification itself was a political issue.

But it was a political issue to make something available, not to eliminate existing alternatives.

I don't just mean between AC and DC...

That was entirely marketing and accepting a better alternative.

Besides, that is something related to an "interconnected" infrustructure. While charging stations, battery swap, or whatever technology eventually wins out (or coexists), it is not interconnected. Each outlet can decide what they want to provide.

[Ara Pacis]

But it was a political issue to make something available, not to eliminate existing alternatives.

Well, to clarify the issue, incandescent bulbs are NOT banned by tech. The ban is on any tech that does not reach a certain level of efficiency and only for certain classes of bulb (e.g. General Service). There are incandescent bulbs that comply with the new standards. There are new types of incandescent bulbs being worked on and some are already available like the Philips EcoVantage and Halogena lines.

I don't think this is much different than new codes than mandate safer electrical distributions instead of knob and tube, or GFCI or AFCI.

That was entirely marketing and accepting a better alternative.

Besides, that is something related to an "interconnected" infrustructure. While charging stations, battery swap, or whatever technology eventually wins out (or coexists), it is not interconnected. Each outlet can decide what they want to provide.

It's hard to have a battery swap when there's no one else swapping batteries. Besides, they are just as connected because there are ways of converting from AC to DC and vice-versa -- there were some DC customers in America as recently as 2006.

[utesfan100]

Right. The problem is that people have confused the right to liberty withthe right to property, perhaps due to increased materialistic tendencies.

In the original draft it was the right to Life Liberty and Property. Someone pointed out that many of us would rather party in a libertine fashion than accumulate wealth, so is was changed to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I, personally, enjoy working less, earning less and doing less.

Part of the problem is the change over the last century of the concept of liberty to liberties, but explaining the difference may get into politics.

The bigger problem is that people no longer recognize that exercising liberties requires being responsible for the consiquences of those liberties we pursue.

[utesfan100]

Oh, and on the topic of swappable cars...

This will become viable when cars can drive themselves. This is already legal in Nevada.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/05/...iverless-cars/

These will start as a luxury item, and then it will be imposed on DUI offenders. Who needs a designated driver when our car can drive us home? Like horses of old, our cars would return home without running into each other or off of cliffs even if we pass out with the reigns.

Next we will have phone apps that call a driverless cab. There would be the cheap rate cabs (which might stop to pick someone else up with flee ridden dogs along the way) to the expensive luxury limousines (guaranteed to be cleaned every use).

Since automated vehicles will need to pass high standards to be road worthy, they will be much safer than DUI offenders and teenagers that we may encounter. Failure rates will be less than the rate of drivers falling asleep. And when a car gets a flat, the company should have another on the way to pick you up. (At least if you are anywhere near civilization.)

And once the kids whose parents had such a car grew up we would have a generation that thinks of driving a car the same quaint way we think of riding a horse, and chauffeurs will go the way of the calculators.

[Ara Pacis]

In the original draft it was the right to Life Liberty and Property. Someone pointed out that many of us would rather party in a libertine fashion than accumulate wealth, so is was changed to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That was Locke, who also referenced happiness. It's less clear where Jefferson took his cue from, as the Virginia Declaration of Rights has both property and happiness listed as well as safety. The wikipedia article gives some good information.

The bigger problem is that people no longer recognize that exercising liberties requires being responsible for the consiquences of those liberties we pursue.

Actually, that's not the point. I'm referring to the pluralizing of liberty to liberties (and freedoms and rights), which has had a deleterious effect on the subject since it used to be considered unlimited liberty except where expressly limited in a few enumerated rules. The more modern paradigm via pluarlization (in multiple meanings of the word) has reversed this.