Red Lights, Part II

Just when you think they are working on intersections to make them more efficient... The city of Dallas just put in new lights at Frankford and Midway. Previously you could yield on green to turn left from Midway on to Frankford. Now, you can only turn on the arrow and it only lets 3-5 cars through. It's pathetic!

Dude, I got a Dell!

My new Texas license plate now makes my car part of the Dell XPS line... 9--XPS

Red Lights and Speeding

With less than a month in Dallas, I can already understand why cities set up red light cameras. Well, more correctly, I understand why people run red lights...

The grid of intersections is vast and there is no good way to navigate it. Each intersection has different light patterns at different times of day. Mostly, one direction gets a leading left turn, then the other way gets the left turn at the end. Most of the left turns aren't long enough to clear up the queue (problem 1), especially if you have people U-turning (which they can't do well, problem 2).

Add in to the mix the fact that lights aren't based on traffic (problem 3). You have turn lights for no one, and long lights for little traffic. I even sat at a light where my direction was completely skipped a round!

The first solution is speeding up... You seem to leave one light and catch the next (problem 4), so people think speeding up is the answer. Thus, the majority is driving 10 over.

When this stops working, probably due to slower traffic, people start running lights. Obviously this isn't safe, but is it really Joe Citizen's fault?

Well, yes, duh... But at the same time, when a turn light lets four cars through when fourteen are waiting, or you've stopped at every side street, some thing's got to give. The cities would improve their roads, the commute time, and the air, if they would just work to optimize the lights to accommodate the traffic that exists, not the traffic they assume exists.

Blazer Network Sucks

During the summer of 2005 I was told about a pretty good web host that was cheaper than what I currently used. It supported .NET and offered a lot of features at a good price. Support was fairly responsive, though not many features were automated (such as upgrading to .NET 2.0).

Things were pretty good for a time. Then Memorial Day weekend hit and Blazer Network went out in a blaze of glory.

It started with what can only be described as a catastrophic failure. My sites went down. The control panel went down. Blazer's website went down. Blazer's website went down? Amazing, their site never went down, even when their servers were down.

After three days of being down, I gave a call to their support line. Nothing, just a message saying all support representatives were busy. That remained constant for a few days.

Later that week my sites start working intermittently. Email still didn’t work.

About ten days after ‘the incident’ the voicemail changed to a message saying a few things. First, there was a failure (duh). Second, a new support team was in place. Third, there were a lot of problems left from the old support team (sabotage?). They still didn’t answer, but they let you leave messages. I did this everyday.

Over the next few days things still sucked. I tried to change my domain supplier, but my domain was locked and I couldn’t log in to edit it. More phone messages.

A little over 2 weeks after Blazer blew up the site seemed a bit more stable. The control panel was accessible, though it wasn’t 100% functioning. MSSQL management was one thing not available. I was still unable to unlock my domain. My domain was expiring June 24, time was running out. Incidentally, I could have renewed my domain if I wanted; they still were allowing new business.

About June 19 Blazer started answering their phone. Support was slow, but they informed me I was able to change my domain registration information by email, which I did. My domain transferred June 23, one day before it expired.

Technical issues were ironed out slowly now that they were answering the phone, but they weren’t offering refunds for downtime or explanations. MSSQL was working but not accessible to log in and edit data or get a copy of my stored procedures.

The July Fourth holiday weekend brought some strange doings. At home I couldn’t access my sites that hadn’t been moved to a new host. I could at work, but still couldn’t get in to the SQL server to get my data.

Finally on July 10 I could. At this point MSSQL still didn’t work, but thankfully it didn’t matter anymore.

Blazer Network completely lost their credibility as a web host. If you see this and have had a similar experience, let me know with a link and a comment.

Oil Profits Explained

As people choose to point the finger at oil companies instead of understanding the oil industry, the federal government has responded by investigating price fixing. Even Jon Stewart doesn’t understand why oil profits are so high. It’s time for U.S. citizens to educate themselves instead of blindly throwing blame.

Why are prices high?

Supply and demand

Pretty basic idea here, also the biggest reason: supply is not increasing, demand is.

US refineries run as close to maximum output as they safely can, and it’s still not enough to quench our demand. When our local refining takes a hit, like with Katrina, we have to buy already refined products from overseas, which is much more expensive.

We’re not the only people who want the products either. Demand in Asia and India has steadily increased as they become more modernized. One advantage places like Japan have: they haven’t meddled in the Middle East’s affairs, so they can likely build stronger and closer relationships with the oil producing countries.

Ethanol

Most gasoline sold in the US has an additive called MTBE. This allows the gasoline to burn more completely and thus more cleanly. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is fazing MTBE out in favor of Ethanol. One reason is a concern that MTBE may contaminate groundwater. A more suspicious view is that it is a political move to aide farmers who grow corn.

Either way, this switch has caused refiners to change how they produce and distribute gasoline. Ethanol absorbs water so it can’t be transported through the pipelines, or it would damage your car. When California outlawed MTBE in 2003 they experienced some supply disruptions, something the northeast has been dealing with recently. Disruptions and changes to procedure both lead to increased prices.

Unrest in production environment

“The oil companies scour the freaking globe, going to the most gosh-forsaken dangerous places on earth to find the stuff.”

And to do that, it costs money to protect our people and our assets. There is also uncertainty that the product will continue to flow out of the area. This uncertainty leads to an increase in price. And we’re not talking just about everyone’s favorite hot spot. Unrest in Nigeria and the anti-American sentiment in Venezuela’s government are also causing prices to rise.

But you know what? Oil is cheaper than bottled water and has risen in price slower than inflation.

Since supply prices are higher, wouldn’t that mean the oil companies are paying more for their raw materials? What allows them to make more money?

This is a popular misconception for those not familiar with the industry. Fully integrated oil companies operate in the entire supply chain; finding oil, pulling it from the ground, shipping it, refining it, then selling it.

In reality, oil companies are still paying the same amount to get crude oil, since the cost to them is the labor and equipment already in place. Then they can sell it to the market at the going rate, which provides them their central source of profit. Their midstream trading works to acquire oil for their refineries at the lowest possible price. The lower the price they pay, the larger the refining margin. The final step is selling the refined product, where they again sell on the open market to optimize profit.

So, even though prices are higher, strong trading allows an oil company to increase their profits.

Who is price fixing? If you say no one, then explain why all the stations on my block sell for the same price. Wouldn’t someone operate more efficiently, allowing them to charge less?

Price fixing in the vast international commodity market would be as easy as adapting a polar bear to a tropical climate; sure it can be done, but it’s darn near impossible.

Oil companies do not own most gas stations in the US. They sell their product to marketers who pay them to use their brand of gasoline. Many times the connection to these marketers isn’t even a direct one. There is often a middleman that purchases and transports the finished product. Prices at the pump are set by so many different people; it would take a mass conspiracy to achieve price fixing over the entire market. Besides, if you do a little math, the price at the pump usually makes sense.

Now, on a smaller scale, you could start to believe local stations are price fixing because they all sell at the same price. Even I don’t understand how prices go up 10 cents over night, then another 4 during the day. Logic would say that the price at the pump should be determined by the price the station pays for the gasoline, with some consideration of things like operating costs.

When you look at the breakdown of gasoline prices and where the money goes, it becomes pretty obvious that the local mom and pop station doesn’t make much per gallon of gas; likely less than 10 cents, probably more like 4-5 cents. Much of the profitability of stations comes from internal sales of beverages and food. When I worked in fast food, I was told the cup, ice, and syrup mixture for a dollar drink probably amounted to 30 cents! Heck, just compare paying a dollar for a 20oz bottle in a machine to the $1.29 or higher at a gas station.

So low margins on the actual gasoline sale seem to explain why stations can’t afford to reduce their margins on gas, but not really why they always seem to match with their competitors. Since we are in a free economy, gas stations have the right (some say the responsibility) to charge as much as they can for their product; it’s simple supply and demand. So, if their neighbor decides to charge 2 cents more, they are free to go out and up their prices to match. It’s only when they chat with each other about what they want to charge that it becomes a problem.

Why should I not be mad at the oil industry? Why shouldn’t the government tax those profits?

Reinvestment

In the first quarter of 2006, ConocoPhillips reinvested 114% of their net income back into the business, working to find more oil and maintain aging refineries (it’s well documented that the newest US refineries are over 30 years old). A lot of the reserves are in unstable places, the companies have to protect their employees with safe housing, guards, and more. If you take part of their profits, operating in some of the more oil rich areas may become too financially burdensome. Having oil companies pulling out of regions like this would make the situation at the pump even worse.

Lean Years

While this isn’t a very big argument, it is worth noting that the oil industry went through tough times in the 80s with oil prices around $10. The government did nothing to help when the companies were struggling. Now, the market has allowed the strong oil companies to prosper, which is the American dream. Why should that allow the government to tax them above and beyond any other industry? Besides, who do you think in the end would likely pay the extra cost?

Being mad at the oil industry doesn’t make sense. They strive to operate as safely and cleanly as possible, with an often unnoticed effort to preserve the surrounding environment and help the communities they are in.

Can I be mad at Exxon’s $400 million golden parachute for their retiring CEO?

This is your choice.

On one hand, Lee Raymond took the reigns of Exxon in 1993 and turned it into the biggest company in the US, supplanting Wal-Mart. He managed to cut millions in annual costs and increased returns in record fashion. With the merger with Mobile, he had to make some tough decisions, but offered a fairly generous severance package. While you might disagree with his style, or dislike the size of his company, he did some great work and deserves to be compensated for it.

On the other hand, Exxon wasn’t a struggling company when he took the reigns. He made some smart deals to grow the company and increase their oil supply, but his accomplishments don’t equal $400 million, especially in an industry with such low profit margins.

Who can I blame?

Your government

Oil companies are not responsible for investing in alternate energy. That’s like asking airlines to find a better mode of ground transportation. The oil industry’s responsibility is to operate as responsibly and profitable as they can. They have to do this to satisfy their shareholders who invest their money to allow them to operate.

Alternate energy is the responsibility of university and government research. The US government has largely ignored the impending scarcity of oil and not provided research grants to help find ways to make alternate energy cost efficient.

The government is also going to be holding the bag when it comes to infrastructure.

Yourself

US demand for oil is astounding and still growing. Otherwise smart men and women fill up their large SUVs and drive by themselves to work. We insist our house stay a comfy 75 degrees in the dead of winter. Our grass has to be bright green and bug free. We treat oil like it’s unlimited, but it’s time to realize we are individually responsible for reducing the dependency.

Drunk in Texas

Taking after their former governor and current president, Texas has come up with the worst idea ever: preemptive arrests for being drunk... INSIDE the bar.

Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Carylon Beck said.

Public:
not private; open to or concerning the people as a whole; "the public good"; "public libraries"; "public funds"; "public parks"; "a public scandal"; "public gardens"; "performers and members of royal families are public figures"

Last I checked, most bars are privately owned, making them the opposite of public. Seems to contradict the ability to consider being drunk inside a bar public drunkenness.

"We feel that the only way we’re going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.

"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they’re intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."

So, instead of encouraging responsible drinking and designated drivers, they'll arrest people that haven't commited a crime? Since when is it the police's job to protect us from ourselves? If I'm an idiot and I get drunk and try and jump in a pool, that's my own damn fault.

This will work about as well as prohibition. People will hold parties in their private homes (or are they considered public too?), partiers will drive home drunk and try and jump in pools from balconies.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11965237/

Huh?

Amish Entertainment Center, available for purchase online...