Cash for Clunkers – Raw Numbers

Trade-ins:

• Average fuel efficiency: 15.8 mpg
• Gallons of gas used per year: 760⁽¹⁾

New Cars:

• Average fuel efficiency: 24.9 mpg
• Galons of gas used per year: 482⁽¹⁾

Fuel Savings:

• Galons of gas saved each year per vehicle: 760-482 = 278
• Vehicles traded in: 700,000
• Total fuel savings: 195 million gallons / year

Barrels of Oil:

• Gallons of oil per barrel: 42
• Gasoline obtained from a barrel of oil: ~20
• Barrels of oil imported: ~11 million / day
• Barrels of oil saved by CFC program: 9.75 million / year
• Cost of a barrel of oil: ~$70
• Dollars saved: $682 million / year
• Import days saved: <1

Dollars and Cents:

• Cost of the CFC program: $3 billion
• Dollars saved per year: $682 million
• Years to recoup inital outlay: 5⁽²⁾

Summary:

Looking at the dollars and cents, did the program make sense?  The $3 billion dollar outlay will be recovered after 5 years but then continue to create gains.

However, cars don’t live for ever.  All the program did was encourage owners to exchange their cars sooner.  If CFC caused an owner to replace a car that they would have replaced anyway within the next 5 years, then this was a net loss.  I don’t know how many of the clunkers exchanged had a life expectency of at least 5 years @ 12,000 miles per year.  For every exchanged car that didn’t save us 5 years we need another exchanged car to have saved us more than 5 years.

The only time the collective american pocketbook comes out ahead is if we encouraged someone to replace a clunker that was not going to be replaced anyway within the next 5 years.  How likely is that?  How likely is it that the average trade in wouldn’t have been replaced anyway within the next 5 years?

There is also the issue of reducing our dependency on foreign oil.  All of the clunkers traded in let us reduce our annual imports of barrels of oil by less than 1 day.  Factor in the impact of cars that may have been traded in ayway and you probably get to less than 1/2 of 1 day of imported barrels of oil saved.  Sure, every little bit helps, but was $3 billion in debt worth it to save 1/2 of 1 day of imports?  That equates to spending $2.2 trillion to end our dependency on foreign oil (ignoring the fact that we don’t have enough oil to service ourselves without foreign oil imports).  Is that worth it?  Maybe, I don’t know.

---

⁽¹⁾based on 12,000 miles per year of driving
⁽²⁾based on 5% interest rate, on a loan of $3 billion repaid at $682 million / year

---

Sources:

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/09/02/cash-for-clunkers-upgrades-fuel-efficiency-58/

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp

IMPORTANT!

“IMPORTANT changes to your video conferencing system“

I recently received an email at work with a subject similar to the above (the topic of the email and other details have been changed to protect the innocent).  Not only was the email not important, but it also did not apply to me.  Further, the email didn’t need to be sent at all.  However, it got me thinking about something which I wanted to share with all (5) of you, I call it Josh’s First Law:

The importance of any communication is inversely proportional to how hard the author works to grab your attention.

The fact that the author had to tell me that this was important was my first red flag.  (I have lots of red flags).  If it really was important then I should have been able to recognize this myself.  I don’t use the video conferencing system, so I really don’t care about the changes.  Also, rather than spam the entire company, a note could just as easily have been placed in the video-room explaining the changes.

We all apply a similar technique when filtering SPAM from our in-boxes.  We just look for phrases like “important” and “please read”.  But few of us keep this in mind when writing emails.  This leads to a Corollary to Josh’s First Law:

To get people’s attention, focus on content not on grabbing attention.

I find that the most important emails I get at work are very short and succinct.  The author either spent a lot of time writing, proof-reading, and shortening the email so as to get their message across clearly, or spent a lot of time working on the problem, and is seeking help.  Authors of the lesser important emails appear to waste most of their time formatting, coloring, and adding the word “important” to their emails to attract your attention.

The lesson in all of this is simple.  If your message is important, people will notice.  If you focus on writing clearly and succinctly, people will notice.  If you spend more time trying to get people to read your email than on the message itself, people will notice and will hit delete faster than you can say “important”.

Everyone thinks what they have to say is important.  Let your recipients decide for themselves.

Amtrak Carbon Offsets

I travel a lot for work, commuting weekly about 250 miles round trip.  For various reasons I take Amtrak rather than driving.  The train is more comfortable and relaxing, and I can get work done along the way, or watch a movie.  I’m also helping the environment, generating at lest 15% less CO2 emissions on the train than in my car (as per Amtrak’s own calculations). 

Amtrak recently announced that riders can offset their carbon footprint either by spending Amtrak Guest Rewards points or by purchasing offsets via carbonfund.org.

However, given the principles of Waxman-Markey, the cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed The House, shouldn’t I be permitted to sell off my CO2 savings, rather than pay to offset the remainder?  Where’s my market incentive?

Red Alert

I recently received an email that contained a sentence of the form: “The decision has been made…”.  This immediately set off alarms in my head.  There is a subtle difference between this passive form and a more active conjugation: “I/We have decided…”

With the active form the author is stepping up and taking responsibility.  The author is not hiding from any potential debate, in fact they are indicating participation in the decision and appear accepting of it.

With the passive form, as I received it, it is clear that the decision is controversial.  Most likely the author does not even agree.  The passive voice distances the author from the debate and hides them from any fallout due to this “bad” decision.  Likewise, no indication is given as to who made the decision so, at the same time, passive voice discourages further debate on the topic.

Why is this important?  Why bother writing a blog post about it?  It is very difficult to convey expression and tone of voice over email.  This is a primary reason emoticons like and came into common use as it allows you to indicate emotion.  But what is also important is your sentence structure and grammar choices.  Subtle decisions, like using the passive voice, can change the entire mood of your email and your recipients.

My recommendation, and what I do with most of my communications, is to read over my correspondence at least once, if not twice.  I think to myself, “Self, how will my intended audience perceive this email?”  Usually a quick once over can help you find issues such as this and have your audience be more accepting and interested.  Remember, you can never take back a first impression.  This counts not only in “real life” but in email (and blog posts) as well.

Newspapers

Senator John Kerry, Democrat, Massachusetts, recently called for Senate hearing to discuss the plight of the newspaper industry.  He sent a letter to the struggling Boston Globe in which it is reported that he said:

“America’s newspapers are struggling to survive and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the [Boston] Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount,”

If a business is failing, there is nothing wrong with letting it fail.  Businesses succeed and businesses fail every day.  In this case, the newspaper industry failed to adapt itself to the technological changes of the day.  While previous generations got their news from the print industry, current generations prefer higher technology solutions.  They prefer to read their news on computers or PDAs.  They prefer websites like CNN.com and abcnews.go.com.  Healthy, strong businesses adapt as their client needs and wants change.  A business that fails at adapting should fail as a business.

Let’s assume for a moment that the government finds a way to “rescue” the papers.  Then what?  The landscape hasn’t changed and the papers have proven they won’t change.  The businesses will fail later, rather than sooner, after flushing more government money down the drain.

Mr. Kerry goes on to suggest that newspapers are vital to the democrat process of debate.  Hogwash!  Newspapers generally have one or two “opinion pages” dedicated to editorials, op-ed, and letters to the editor.  The Boston Globe itself admits that it gets significantly more letters than it can print saying “[Letters to the editor] are selected from a extremely large volume by the letters editor…”.  Further, newspapers generally “reserve the right to edit letters“.

Arguably the biggest advances in free and open debate and discussion of ideas in this country has come from the internet.  Anyone can start a blog.  Publishing is cheap, if not free.    There is almost an infinite supply of customers.  If you don’t agree with other people’s opinions, you can comment and debate, or start your own blog.  If your blog is popular (engadget, The Drudge Report, PerezHilton) it will survive.  If your blog fails to attract readers and doesn’t adapt, it will fail, just as The Boston Globe should.

Double Standards

We all remember how much flack Don Imus took for his comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team.  A white man called a team of black female players “nappy-headed hos”.  His numerous apologies, appearance on Al Sharpton’s radio show, and extensive charitable work on behalf of children with cancerwas not enough to withstand the pressure from Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.  He was ultimately fired from CBS radio.

Recently, Jamie Foxx, a black man, made offensive comments about a 16 years-young white girl.  While broadcasting his radio show, Mr. Foxx called Miley Cyrus, of Hannah Montana fame, a:

“white bitch [who needs to]  make a sex tape and grow up. Get like Britney Spears and do some heroin. Do like Lindsay Lohan, start seeing a lesbian, and get some crack in your pipe; catch Chlamydia on a bicycle seat.”

Other than some conservative radio hosts and bloggers, nobody in the “main stream media” picked the story.  Jamie Foxx was not fired from his radio show or from any movie sets.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson remained quiet.  The double standard should be obvious.  Perhaps white Americans need an equivalent to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, someone to rally the troops and boycott advertisers. 

My next example comes from Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC.  His guest for the evening was actress Janeane Garofalo of “24″ and “The West Wing”.  The topic was the Tax Day Tea Parties, a nationwide gatherings of citizens opposed to dramatic increases in government spending.  Mrs. Garofalo remarked:

“… let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that … but these people, all white, for the most part, unless there’s some people with Stockholm Syndrome.”

In this case the double standard is not between races, but between people of differing political ideologies.  When a conservative speaks, every single word is scrutinized.  Rush Limbaugh is frequently assailed in the media for things he says, or even things he doesn’t say.  Mr. Limbaugh’s comments about wanting this country to succeed despite President Obama’s agenda were front page news for days.  How many media outlets have picked up Mrs. Garofalo’s comments?  Why has she not been chastised for her hatred?

It seems clear to me that the racist in this story is none other than Mrs. Garofalo herself.

The Capital Grille

The Capital Grille

I recently made a dinner reservation at The Capital Grille. My friends and I really enjoy their meal. While a bit pricey, the food, wait-staff, and general dining experience is amazing. My praise for The Capital Grille is not the point of this post.

When I made the reservation I used a newly created email address, unique to The Capital Grille, something like: CAPITALGRILLE@my_domain.com. This is a common practice of mine and allows me to track how spammers are obtaining my email address.

This morning, I received the following spam:

To: CAPITALGRILLE@mydomain.com
From: thabo mbazima <t-mbazima@hotmail.com>
Subject: REPLY

Dear Friend

I am the manager of bill and exchange at the foreign remittance department
of African Developent bank(ADB) here in Johannesburg,South Africa
...

This is your standard 419 scam. What’s interesting is that it was sent to the email address that I had supplied to The Capital Grille. The only way that a spammer could be using that email address is if either the restaurants database was hacked, or sold.

Using their website’s feedback form, I sent them a strong, yet polite message explaining the situation. While I no longer have a copy of that message, I pointed out that either their database was hacked or they sold my email address. Either way, I was upset. Here is their response:

From: "Matthew Milewski" <xxxx@tcgdine.com>
To: CAPITALGRILLE@mydomain.com
Subject: Your Capital Grille Account

Mr. Lehrer,

Thank you for contacting us at The Capital Grille. I just received your letter, and you are
correct, our database was recently partially compromised. While we know that no vital guest
information was taken, since we do not keep any sensitive data (such as credit card numbers)
in our system, we do apologize for the inconvenience. Please rest assured that we do not sell
our database information.

Since learning of the breach, we have taken steps to increase our security measures to better
protect our guests’ privacy, including the requirement of stronger passwords. I will have your
current account deleted from our system, and ask that you re-register with us at your
convenience.

To thank you for your patience and loyalty to our restaurant, I would like to have a gift card
sent to you for your next visit with us. Please confirm that this is the correct address to use,
and I will have something sent out immediately:

-- mailing address removed --

Sincerely,

Matthew Milewski
Brand Manager
___________________________________
6880 Lake Ellenor Drive i  Orlando , FL 32809
thecapitalgrille.com  i  xxxxx@tcgdine.com
___________________________________
THE CAPITAL GRILLE ®

Needless to say, I was shocked. I thought for sure they would either ignore my message, send me an automated response, deny my allegations, or tell me I was crazy.

While I may be crazy, I appreciate their honesty and will enjoy whatever gift card they send me. I just won’t make the reservation online.

UPDATE – My gift cards have arrived. Two $50 certificates. Not bad for less than an hour’s work.

Help People to Help You

Why is it so hard for some people to explain their problem?  I am a senior software engineer at a company where our consultants work with clients and file bug reports on their behalf.  I recently received a bug report that read, in part:

 ”The client is having trouble saving her password.  Please help.”

How can I possibly be expected to fix the problem without more information?  I try to be nice in my response and dig for more information without sounding too angry:

“Did the client try pressing the save button?  What happens?  Does an error dialog appear?  If so, what does it say?  Is the save button disabled?”

What I really want to say is a quote I have stolen from a colleague of mine:

“Did you turn off the *&%#*!^ detector?”

Supplying as much relevant information as possible helps people help you.

I recently had to call my doctor’s office to dispute a charge on a bill and was ready with the bill, my account number, the date of service and a copy of my credit card receipt for the co-payment.  They fixed the problem quickly.  The extra minute or so it took me to prepare wasted less of the operator’s time on the phone, and the speed at which he solved my problem showed that he was clearly greatful.

When I file bug reports with my compiler vendor (which, thankfully, is not that often), they get immediate attention.  The vendor responds not because we are an influential shop, nor because we pay lots of extra money, but because our bug reports are well thought out, researched, detailed and yet concise.  We do not file frivolous bugs.  The ones we do file are usually spot on, including short sample code demonstrating the problem, and sample output from other standard compilers doing the right thing.  I am sure that we get attention before other bugs that read “the compiler doesn’t handle this code right, can you fix it?”

When you file a bug, keep it short, but include as many relevant details as possible.  This will assist the person helping you out by preventing unnecessary back-and-forth questions.  Also, your responder will recognize the extra thought you put into the bug.  Both of these things will contribute to getting your problem solved more quickly.

—–

Follow up: A few days later I found out that the specific problem that prompted this post had absolutely nothing to do with the client having trouble saving her password.  The password was “saving” just fine.

Florida, Michigan, and The Democratic Party

The Democratic primary is a very tight race. While Senator Obama holds a slight lead over Senator Clinton, it looks like the nomination won’t be decided until late August at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Meanwhile, the Republican nomination has already been decided. Senator McCain can now focus his attention on winning the general election in November. Many argue that this gives the Republicans a huge advantage because the Democrats continue to spend money, time, and energy fighting one another.

One way for the Democrats to resolve their nomination sooner is to count the primaries that were already held in Florida and Michigan. As it stands right now, the Democratic primaries in those two states will not count. Those states violated a Democratic Party agreement on the timing of primaries and caucuses. Party rules were set up to protect Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

The penalty established by the DNC against any state violating the primary timing rules was that their delegates would not count. However, now that the Democratic nomination is very close, there is some discussion about either counting these existing primaries, or having a re-vote.

Let me understand this. The real penalty assessed to Florida and Michigan was that if their delegates weren’t going to matter anyway, then they would not be counted at the national convention. But, if their delegates could make a difference, then they will have their say. In other words, if these states went for Obama, and Obama was the clear nominee, these states wouldn’t matter so it doesn’t matter that their delegates are ignored. But if their is no clear nominee, then their delegates will be considered. So what exactly was their penalty?

The five states that violated the Republican rules were stripped of half of their delegates. This rule makes much more sense. The states still get their say in the primary and were penalized at the same time.

The Democrats should stick to their guns and reject the Florida and Michigan delegates. Those states violated their rules and were punished according to the rules. Rules are enacted for a reason. What stops another state in the next presidential primary season from moving their primary up too early? If their delegates mattered, they would be reinstated, right? So what harm is there in breaking the rule?