A few months ago, I wondered what the effect would be on all of the used cars being taken out of circulation by Cash for Clunkers:

So, first of all, they’re destroying the engines of perfectly good cars making them useless as cars, which reduces the supply of used cars on the market. By definition cars must be “drivable” to be eligible for the rebate and therefore could be serviceably resold.

. . .

A case could be made here that this is an attempt to weaken the used car market to the benefit of the new car market. I guess the idea is that if there are fewer used cars, then folks that normally wouldn’t buy new cars will do so now. That may be true for a thin slice of the economic spectrum but for the rest of us who continually buy used cars, we might should be angry.

Well, it only took about three months:

“Customers used to be able to find a good car for their son or daughter to take to college for $2,000 or $3,000, but now that same car may cost $5,000,” [general manager of Perry Auto Service & Sales George] Tabakelis said. “It’s sad.”

Of course, in this recession with unemployment high, I’m sure if people can’t get a used car, they’ll just buy a new one.

Right?

The TV networks finally seem to be coming to their senses. The New York Times reports that network executives are beginning to see what many of us knew all along: DVRs are a good thing.

Against almost every expectation, nearly half of all people watching delayed shows are still slouching on their couches watching messages about movies, cars and beer. According to Nielsen, 46 percent of viewers 18 to 49 years old for all four networks taken together are watching the commercials during playback, up slightly from last year.

And rather unsurprisingly, when you include DVR playbacks, ratings for some shows improve dramatically. The article mentions substantial ratings boosts for shows like House, Heroes, and FlashForward; the biggest increase was for The Office, which gained 26 percent when DVRs were included.

In an ironic twist, the article also mentions the so-called “Leno effect”: topical shows like talk shows have lower relative viewership when DVRs are included (nobody wants to watch a topical show three days later). While the networks used to consider it a good thing for a show to be “DVR-proof,” they’re realizing that that just means fewer people will watch.

In an unrelated but equally heartening story, Ars Technica reports on a survey showing that consumers of P2P music downloads end up buying more music than they otherwise would, not less. Which means the record labels have been busily persecuting their biggest customers. Are we surprised?

Today’s Federalism reading comes from the 3rd section of the 43rd chapter: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered (continued).

But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

In essence, it is important to define treason in the Constitution, lest “violent factions” attempt to define each other as treasoners in order to hold them up before the nation on high charges.

Most interesting part? “the natural offspring of free government”. The founders knew their system would be abused, they just didn’t realize quite how.

I found a News & Observer blog post that confirms that the Barrel Monster I saw at the State Fair was indeed created by Joe Carnevale, the creator of the original, whose career seems assured. In fact, he apparently created two new Monsters for the Fair; the blog post shows a picture of one I didn’t see (I saw the one at Gate Nine).

The post also includes a photo of the Barrel Monster entry in the pumpkin-decorating contest, and credits ten-year-old Spencer Mangum with its creation.

Driving drunk is dangerous. Making calls on your cellphone while driving is also dangerous. Calling someone on your cellphone while driving drunk would seem to be the height of insanity. But what if you’re calling 911 to report yourself for driving drunk? Is that a bad thing or a good thing?

Also, the article has again been updated, this time by someone with a dictionary:

Updated: Oct. 30 6:07 p.m.

Long lines at H1N1 vaccination clinics Friday in Durham and Wake counties exemplify the situation across the country, where demand outstrips supply.

At the very least if someone wasted your time with an email they thought was really important (i.e. had a relatively high payout), at least you’d have the satisfaction of the time not being a total loss.

I’ve always rather liked the idea of making e-mail non-free, but I was looking at it from the perspective of the sender: associating a cost with sending e-mail will reduce the amount that gets sent. (This idea has been proposed as a remedy for spam, and one that I think makes a lot of sense. A trivial per-note cost wouldn’t bother most of us, but it would put spammers out of business.)

You propose an interesting twist, where the amount you pay to send a note is proportional to its importance (to you, anyway). It would be fascinating to see how such an economy would affect the mix of e-mail one receives; but I’m not sure whether it would be good or bad. After all, the sender’s sense of what is important is often not the same as mine.

Oh, and I think sense 3 of exemplary is what was meant: “serving as an example, instance, or illustration.” A correct usage, if not the one normally employed nowadays.

I can think of one other method of sending a message to a high-profile blogger that virtually guarantees it will be read: write him a letter. On paper. Address the envelope by hand, and stick a stamp on it instead of using a postage meter.

Such a message will almost certainly be read for two reasons. First, it will will be noticed, because almost no one is going to go to the trouble of doing this; e-mail is so much easier. Second, it will get past the recipient’s perceptual junk-mail filter, which looks for things with machine-printed address labels and bulk-rate postage. Your envelope will be perceived as a letter and opened.

This method does require you to obtain a postal address for the recipient. That can be a challenge, but it’s usually possible if you’re creative. For example, I think my chances of finding a home address for Glenn Reynolds are pretty low (although a search of phone directories for Knoxville and its suburbs might work). But a letter addressed to him at the University of Tennessee Knoxville Law School will end up in his faculty mailbox. Mail sent to him care of Thomas Nelson Books (his publisher for An Army of Davids) will also reach him, although it may take a while.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken new pictures of the Apollo 17 landing site. They show not only the LEM descent stage, but also the flag planted by the astronauts.