Slashdot Mirror
Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA
An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"
You must be new to bureaucracies.
... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?
Oh darn. That's just horrible.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
My question is, who owns the rights to this technology they are going to enforce everyone to have?
I know when they passed legislation requiring motorcycle helmets to be worn, they didn't specify "where", so people were strapping one to their knee or hanging it from an elbow.
Perhaps you can do the same thing, and sell glazed drinking glasses, stick one in your cup-holder, you're golden?
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
The CARB should be barred from mandating equipment, and simply mandate emissions standards. Who cares why your car gets good or shitty mileage? Let's just see them have mandated emissions and, if necessary, mileage; we already have both, of course. But at the same time, the CARB has done amazing things for California's air quality; there's more Chinese pollution in LA now than the local stuff. Which highlights the NEXT phase of the problem... but we're not done here, yet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I say it's a win-win situation.
[places pinky finger to mouth]
An .. Aerial !!!!
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
...bar none the home of the absolute dumbest government in Known Space.
I'm not exaggerating. You see these... creatures on the news, and you wonder how they escaped from whatever home for the mentally ill failed to contain them.
It's the inescapable end result of gerrymandering and fanatical Party loyalty. People wonder why I rail against ideology. What happens in Sacramento is prime exhibit #1.
I've spent the past several years designing and prototyping a new type of eco-friendly air conditioning for automobiles that solves both these problems. By using the intrinsic velocity of an automobile and cutting-edge gas dynamics, I've discovered that the inside of a car can be cooled merely by adding an additional aperture to the side of the vehicle. This aperture can even be temporary, thanks to an innovative sliding glass mechanism that preserves visibility and allows a variety of different settings to suit the user's preference. A slight decrease in aerodynamics and therefore fuel efficiency, as well as a tendency for papers to blow around in the back seat, is the only downside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVTO-2Qrt7U
... I really would appreciate having this kind of glass in my car. If there is one thing I hate most about the summer, it's having my car being boiling hot inside when I return. I know this glass wouldn't be perfect at reducing the "greenhouse effect" in the car, but it's something I'd be willing to pay to put on my own car. Besides, I don't see what's so bad about not being able to use a cell phone in a car, or blocking GPS (people should learn to read maps more often).
So - I'll just have to leave the windows down when I'm chatting on the phone, stopped in traffic, trying to find a GPS route around, with my cool air conditioning on. Unless they interlock the AC relay to only engage between 30-45mph, and ambient air is 65F or cooler.
I don't suppose I could instead get the ECM shielded against EMP could I ? Or maybe a engine that runs on hot air from CARB ?
I wondered why General Motors dropped the Oldsmobile brand.
Infuriate left and right
. . . before wireless carriers and GPS makers begin making billions on selling special antennas you have to wire up, mount externally, and plug into an already overworked battery. Seems to me people would rather crank their engines harder than have their battery conk out in the middle of their commute because they needed to power a mobile cell tower to make an outgoing call.
So what's going to actually happen is that folks will roll down all their windows when they take a call while driving and then roll them back when they hang up their cell phone. Because they are talking, they'll forget to turn off the A/C so this new regulation combined with actual physics means more energy will be used.
But it's California so it's got to be a good idea since the intentions of the populace are correct.
So to reduce fuel consumption, they're enacting a law that is going to force people to roll down their windows to get cell, radio and GPS signals, therefore increasing drag and fuel consumption? Yay!
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
I must be an idiot but my radio antenna is outside my car connected with a cable to my radio. Why would glazed glass be an issue. not only that but unless your car is made of plastic isn't the frame of the car in fact a passive antenna since it isn't grounded? (I could be wrong here, too many years since school). Feel free to correct me but since the windows are not contigious isn't this an issue of weaker cell phone signals and with more states passive anti-cell phone while driving laws isn't this a moot issue?
I must be old and cranky or just plain stupid but how is this a bad idea? A cooler car, less gas burned in AC, and potential to stop an alien laser weapon long enough to duck before it melts through the glass seems like a good idea. While we are at it can we require bulletproof glass to boot in the wind shield and rear windows since they always seem to get shot up in the movies but no one ever takes a shot from the side...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
... illegal window tint. The ricers were just ahead of their time.
Have gnu, will travel.
It has everyone complaining about the stoopid government but did you notice that this was printed in a Detroit newspaper? Gee, I wonder why people in Detroit would care about a new type of glass in a car window that adds extra cost to a vehicle? You just got played due to your knee-jerk anti-government attitude. Regardless of whether you agree with the manufacturers or the government you should realize when you are being manipulated by the media.
Glazed glass?
On a more pertinent note, this is what happens when you move away from a performance spec - instead of just saying "Fuel efficiency shall be X" and letting the makers figure out how to do it, they feel compelled to tell the makers HOW to get better mileage - with expected results.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
> Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even
> for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and
> no air conditioning.
The alternative would be to leave a loophole in a rule intended to be followed by automotive corporations. Historically, that hasn't worked out so well.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Roll down the windows? :)
Did you know that some of that old glazing material was Abseto in old homes... I wonder what crap they want put on our windows now; that in 30 years we'll find out causes cancer, autism, allergies, Liberal Rage Disorder, NIMBY Rightwing Syndrome, a taste for Bud Light, and a yearing for Married With Children reruns...
I am a firm beliver in colored glass+copper foil+lead with two sheets of clear wire reinforced safety glass on the outside.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Its mandating a standard behavior for the glass in the non-visible part of the spectrum, that has a conequesnce of keeping your car from getting so F@#)(*@# hot in the sun.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Whoa, wait a minute... short-sighted, ineffectual, over-reaching, burdensome laws... IN CALIFORNIA? As a California native, I am shocked, SHOCKED!
"Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning."
Then you know "somebody" in the car glass industry had a very good friend at a high place :)
Privacy is terrorism.
Your government is defective. Huge budget deficits, stealing from local cities and counties and flawed regulations being rammed through the legislative process.
Living here, I vote we rip up the state's constitution and start fresh. The first step is ousting the assholes currently in charge.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
making even more likely to attract alien invasion....
"garble garble...Ooooooh....shiny"
The problem is, this is how California effectively legislates for the entire nation. The auto industry won't sell 2 different versions of their cars (that would cost too much money, having to have different assembly lines to satisfy the laws of a single state), they will just change the assembly line and install this glass on all new cars regardless of where they are destined. So in effect California is going to create a nationwide mandate and degrade wireless signals inside of cars nationwide. Also, they will raise the cost of cars nationwide, for something they admit has a 12 year ROI. The fact that it costs $250 but takes 12 years to save $250 in gas is pretty insane.
They don't allow you to do that here in California - you can't just bring a 49 state car here. This state is run by egomaniacs who have no concept of finance.
I bet that they didn't even think about whether the cost of the glazed glass pays for the fuel it saves.
California really does feel like a separate country. They place zero value on personal freedom here.
I live in California, Sacramento no less, and one of two things is going to happen eventually. Taxes are going to have to be raised, or massive cuts to services will happen. The problem is that there is no political will to do either because people want the government to do all this wonderful stuff for them, but they don't want to pay for it. There's an incredible entitlement complex in California but there's also this idea that no matter how much money you make it should always be the MORE wealthy who should have to pay for everything.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Its called a "minor action" now in 4th edition
No sig for the moment.
And in India, it is illegal to have your car windows tinted black, because a few years ago, a Swiss tourist was raped in a car that had tinted windows and apparently that made it 'difficult' for the cops to know what was going on inside.
Boy, talk about irony.
RutSum.com
The 'B' is for 'Bargain'?
What is "glazed glass" ? Is that glass that has glass in it ?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&num=20&q=glazed&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people?
The private sector could easily do something this stupid. It's just that, we have only one government, and in the private sector, stupid businesses are supposed to fail, unless they happen to be banks.
This is my sig.
1. Never regulate the means, only the end result.
2. All legislation must specify a metric by which an implementation may be measured to be compatible with desired result.
Thats is it. Follow those rules and a huge amount of f#$%^ red tape will be avoided.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
Importing hemp products is "legal", but you have to jump through hoops. I'm not searching for citations, but I've read a couple of articles detailing precisely how much THC is permitted to be in a product. The limit is so ridiculously low that many products that are impossible to get a "high" from are excluded. To many hoops to make importation feasible.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Put this glass in all cars, and people will then need to open their windows and/or sunroof to make a cell phone call or use their GPS. And of course, they then will have to crank up the A/C to compensate for the open windows! (Yes, I have driven convertibles with top down and heater on at the same time. Not the A/C, though.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I don't have an EZPass, but if it relies on this spectrum that would be a serious drawback -- politically speaking.
Curious if this new coating also interferes with radar detectors?
My radio antenna was on the outside of my car meaning that this would not interfere with my radio reception. Sorry, my tinfoil hat is still being fitted
. .
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Do you have a citation for that?
My understanding is that you can buy tax stamps for your drugs (and you really CAN), but that doesn't make them legal. It just means you're facing one fewer charge when they bust you for possession and intent to distribute.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Uh, don't most automobile radios have the antenna located OUTSIDE the passenger compartment? If your in-car entertainment system involves a portable radio, then you definitely may be a redneck!
If I recall correctly, it is currently against the law in California to tint the glass in your windshield. Pass this legislation, and both tinted and non-tinted glass will be unlawful. Clearly, this legislation is intended to provide more funding for traffic enforcement -- they can now stop and ticket anyone they choose!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
and see the nice little FAQ they have. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/coolcarsfaq.pdf Will my GPS still work? Yes. Many automobile manufacturers currently equip their vehicles with external antennas to ensure proper functioning of factory installed GPS devices. For aftermarket GPS devices, deletion windows, or areas without reflective coatings, will be created in the windshield and the location of these windows noted in the owner’s manual. ARB tests showed that placing the GPS device or the external antenna within the deletion window allows the device to operate as effectively as in a car with no reflective glass.
I hope this doesn't spread, we need all the heat from the sun we can get up here in Canada,... Trouble is legislators/regulators tend to follow the leader and not think for themselves. Using this kind of glass in colder climates would be a big mistake. For example today at 8 degrees Celsius, my car interior was warm when I got in it a little bit ago, with all frost melted off.
*Pssst* Your uninformed arrogance is showing...
My stock radio antenna is built into my rear window... actual issue.
I don't want to buy an external GPS antenna, my GPS worked just fine until this was passed... actual issue.
I like to open my garage door at the end of the street so it's all the way up when I pull into the driveway... actual issue.
Agreed on the cell phone... non-issue.
3/4 complaints are valid.
... so who cares if it blocks the signal? The only thing that it would really impair would be a dash mounted GPS unit (which would suck admittedly), but you have to wonder how hard it would be to get an external antenna for them.
or drive around with a window down with the phone held outside, and the AC on full :) I would be more pissed if I can't get my GPS to work on the dash.
With manufactures already wanting to sell services like on-star, with cell & GPS locked to your car, they likely don't need much of a good excuse to block yours.
I would likely replace one window with plain glass and a holder for the phone next to that, blue-tooth the remaining distance.
I recently bought a new car, a 2008 Nissan, and I noticed that the RF gate opener to get into my parking lot at work doesn't function now either. It works like the Tolltag / EZ pass badges where the card is not powered and is detected by an RFID like transceiver, now I have to roll down my window and wave the pass around like a moron to get in.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
..marijuana really isn't illegal at the federal level
NO, that's wrong. It's a SCHEDULE I drug along with opium, Heroin, LSD and a long list viewable here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#c
The complex litany of penalties is viewable here:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/841.htm#a
There was a Marihuana Tax Act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937:
Excerpt From Wikipedia
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself. In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
There is nothing so important that you have to talk on the phone in the car while driving.
That's a silly thing to say. If you said that there was almost never a reason to talk on the phone while driving, I'd agree. That's like saying there's never a reason to speed... you would be absolutely correct, 99% of the time; but when you need to, you need to, despite a slightly increased risk.
Here's the problem with CARB's proposal:
The air conditioner in your car is NOT like the one in your house. Your home's air conditioner turns on when the temperature gets too high and turns off when it gets too low. The air coming out the vents is always cooled by the same amount, roughly 20 degrees cooler than the outside air.
But the AC in your car doesn't work this way. When you turn on the AC in your car, you can set the temperature coming out the vents by changing the ratio of air fed from the evaporator coil and the car's heater coil. That's what the little Blue/Red slider does. When the little "AC" light is on, your car's air conditioner is ALWAYS WORKING, always drawing maybe 2 horsepower from your engine. That's maybe 10-15% of the power you're using at highway-speeds.
So how is this reflective glass, which may make a 5 difference, supposed to help AT ALL? Since the compressor runs all the time anyway, how is this supposed to make a difference?
And here's the thing: I see no quantifiable difference in my gas mileage between summer and winter. That's right... NONE. Maybe the lighter traffic during the summer months means I get better MPG, offsetting the 10% power drain of using the AC. Maybe it's that anything less than 5% is hard to calculate when you figure your mileage a tank at a time.
Or maybe it's just that automotive air conditioners leech so little power from your engine that it doesn't really make a difference...
Either way, it seems like the "no dark paint" proposal and now the "tinted glass" proposal are just CARB trying to look good doing something at the expense of Californians. They've done this over and over, costing Californians BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to no real end... I, for one am sick of it.
Between the debacle surrounding MTBE's (which put every independent gas station in CA out of business) and forcing farmers to rebuild all their (perfectly functioning) farm equipment, CARB has done nothing positive for this state and has done lots to hurt us.
Yes, pollution has gone down, but how much of this is because of CARB initiatives and how much is due to rising pollution and fuel economy standards that affect the whole country and have nothing to do with California's stupid rules?
Pretty soon, the only business left in California will be Hollywood, and with rising prices, even they'll be thinking about going elsewhere...
It blocks EM frequencies, but does it block zombies?
Really? California has always had a separate standard for pretty much everything, and you can buy pretty much any car in any state with the "California Emissions Package". In California that this "option" is required of any new car purchased there.
The car manufacturers have, by and large, been making "California" versions of their vehicles for years. Some other states (like Maine) mandate the same package rather than going to the effort of developing their own standards.
So California is legislating, in effect, for themselves and a handful of other states. But certainly not for the nation.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
..marijuana really isn't illegal at the federal level, they just have a so much an ounce tax on it
False. Marijuana is classified as Schedule I, which means that the federal government claims that it has no medicinal value, in spite of the fact that they are still providing medical marijuana to a patient or three for their ongoing care. That means that any unauthorized possession, use, or sale is illegal, and authorization is nearly impossible to get. Only a handful of psychologists or psychiatrists or whoever the hell they are are allowed to perform experiments or treatment with LSD or MDMA for the same reason, even though it has repeatedly been argued that they have benefits for psychological treatment and no study has ever been conducted which shows that they do not.
The federal government (we the people) would do good to just eliminate several agencies as doing more harm than good, to the economy, to society, etc, those guys in the DEA (the war on some drugs is an abject complete failure),
It's not a failure, it makes a lot of money... for a few people, for whom the government actually works. You know, the people who can afford lobbyists.
Anyway, you didn't even mention the IRS, which could be entirely eliminated if we instituted a flat tax.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>But should be up to the customer.
No. It should be up to society. Some people are just too thick at act responsibly. And car manufacturers are hardly going to build cars for 'a few stupid idiots' - they will design a car and market it hard, and try to sell as many as possible. Regulating will take away the option to make cars suitable for the dumb.
That's not how we do things in the USA. People are free to buy the products they want - and it is their responsibility to select appropriately. If you live here and you don't like it, I suggest you leave and go somewhere where freedom is frowned upon, like the UK for example.
I drive very few miles. I drive a vehicle that does about 10MPG. I chose it because it's very very safe, extremely comfortable, and it was inexpensive compared to many other options. Because I drive very few miles, even at 10MPG I am using far less fuel and producing far less emissions than my neighbor who drives much further every day in their fuel efficient vehicle.
We don't need jerks like you mandating what everyone does just so you can feed your own self-righteous sense of self worth.
Putting moderation advice in your
Right. This proves that government would be the solution if we had absolutely superhuman, omniscient lawmakers.
The same standard might well apply to businesses, co-ops, non-profits, religions, and pretty much any other human organization.
The important isn't necessarily which kind of social institution you're bringing to bear on a problem, it's whether or not it's adaptable and accountable to the people it touches.
Tweet, tweet.
Not exactly true. The temperature difference between the passanger cabin and the evaporaror will affect the load on the compressor.
If the state of California believes they need to regulate negative externalities resulting from the operation of internal combustion engines, then they should tax the operation of internal combustion engines across the board.
Instead, we have an authoritarian government telling us what light bulbs we can screw in, what size of televisions we can own, and now the brand of auto glass we use.
What we have here is government singling out specific groups, behaviors, and industries with coercive power in a manner that is anathema to individual liberty.
Economic liberty is a civil liberty.
I live in California, born and raised here. It is a wonderful place to live. It is also a FAILED state. Neither the people or the politicians have the backbone to do what is required to fix it. I don't blame anyone from leaving, I've been considering it seriously myself.
"Kittens give Morbo gas!"
The bad thing about government regulating any type of technology is that when a newer technology comes along we are stuck with the current laws and regulations. No doubt these will be highly expensive and susceptible to cracking. Three years from now we will read about California passing a new law making it illegal for drivers to hang their head out the window due to increased cases of decapitation. I'm sure Pelosi will have sold her stock in the windshield factory by then... Hopefully she doesn't invest in anal probes are we'll all be screwed...
I ride a motorcycle ;)
(and I don't live in CA)
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
I'm surprised at much of the reaction to this topic. Slashdot is supposed to be home to a lot of good technical minds. So why is the dominant reaction to this article a general anti-government knee jerk? This is an engineering problem. Maybe there's a way to block the heating effects of light (very high frequency) while minimizing the attenuation of (much lower) radio frequencies. Sounds like a fun challenge to me.
You can't name anything hence your "That's a silly thing to say." comment.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Are you attempting to contradict what I've stated?
1. The folks on the phone in the back seat or in the passenger seat are not driving are they?
2. They'll call after the accident when the car isn't moving.
So, I'll state again, there is no reason ever to talk while driving.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
If you ever move to California, do exactly that. Then try to register it as a resident.
I've never lived in California, but I have a hard time believing they would allow such a loophole. I expect the conversation would go something like this:
You: "Hi, I just bought a car and I'd like to register it, please."
DMV: "Great. Congrats. So let's see the paperwork, please." (shuffles paperwork). "Hmm, you a resident of California?"
You: "Yes"
DMV: "OK, you are aware that you needed to buy the California package as a resident of California for a car you intend to use here, right?"
You: "Yes, that's why I drove across state lines, to avoid that and California's use tax on vehicles."
DMV: "Ah, I think we have the problem sorted! OK, great, we can register that for you. Just take it to a local shop and pay the extra $250 for the gear we require, plus of course $1000 labor to install it, and please be aware this probably voids your warranty, though that's between you and the auto manufacturer. Then, remit the California use taxes that a California dealer would have been aware of and withheld for you, as opposed to the Nevada use taxes you paid which I'm sure Nevada is thrilled for the donation you just gave them."
All you'd be doing is driving across state lines and, in effect, donating a second dose use tax to another state and upgrading the vaseline with expensive sand.
When I moved from Tax-Free New Hampshire to Kentucky some years back, I had to pay use tax on the Kelly Blue Book value of all of the cars I "imported" into Kentucky, even though the cars were purchased BEFORE I WAS A RESIDENT and I had paid all of the fees (only none of them were called "use tax") when I purchased the vehicles originally. The total came to well over two thousand dollars for a 4-year-old car and a 2-year-old car.
When I moved to Maine, I had to show proof of payment of that use tax to Kentucky and, as a new resident, I was allowed a one-time exemption for my two vehicles since I had paid Use Tax in another state whose rate was as high as or higher than Maine's. If Kentucky's had been lower, I would have been on the hook for the difference. I was also informed that if I purchased a car outside the state once I became a resident, I'd have to pay full Maine use tax. Fortunately, Kentucky and Maine have "reciprocal agreements" in place, because if I'd moved to some states I would have owed use taxes all over again.
Neither of my cars had the California Package, which Maine requires, but I was still allowed to import them because they were not purchased in Maine and I was not a resident at the time of purchase, so the law did not apply to me. However, I would have trouble registering a new car purchased in another state if it lacked that package.
Better option: Don't move to California. Or declare your legal residence as Florida and register your cars there, then buy a mailstop address there. IANAL, so that may or may not be technically legal in your state.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Oh, and the passengers who can't talk because of the glass coating, well, tough shit. They could talk to one another.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
You must not be very familiar with California...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You're just being deliberately obtuse.
Blocking all radio signals is a problem because passengers will still want to use their phones and laptops even if the driver is not.
Stating that someone else will always be available to dial 911 is false because sometimes people get into accidents where there are no passengers or witnesses.
It was not an oversight. At least call it what it is, misguided, an error, pure mistake, uninformed, oblivious to the facts, but it was NOT an oversight.
An oversight would have been adding an exemption and then leaving it out. And even that is incompetence.
Or perhaps miswording it. Still incompetence.
We let our government off the hook all too easily. They claim to be smart people doing the right thing, or at the very least well-meaning people doing what they see as the right thing.
And their actions have consequences. We shoudl be holding them to account. Even the bureaucrats.
Maybe especially the bureaucrats. No, all of them...
(what was i thinking?)
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
CARB "scientists" aren't really considered as scientists by real scientists.
Shoot, even one of the "scientists" from CARB faked his credentials.
CARB's also behind MTBE which nationally was mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 but was predated by California's own state law, California Clean Air Act of 1988.
And as early as 1986, there was a scientific report that stated that MTBE was a "bad cookie" (finding the exact copy is a tad difficult but it is referred by the USGS in a 1993 report)
A major local (to the Bay Area) opponent to CARB is Dr. Bill Wattenburg (an older version of his site is here)
And apparently, CARB wants to require particular" paints (PDF) and barring any scientific/engineering breakthrough, that probably means dark colored cars (black, dark blues, etc.)
And dang, CARB's budget for 2009-2010 is over 600 million, just the imagine how many teachers would have been spared lay-offs...or how many professors, TAs, faculty at UC/CSU schools would have been spared from furloughs.
Not to forget the CARB vs Diesel fiasco
Like someone once said: If a person wishes to rule, that person should in no way be given any power.
Yeah, the problem is that we seem to adapt only marginally to the alternatives, which are:
1) Randomly select (and periodically change) leadership
2) Distribute leadership over as much of the group as possible.
I suppose there's another model, which is to entirely eschew systemic power, but that runs on the assumption that if you don't architect a system there won't be one.
Tweet, tweet.
They would get rid of Ethanol. My mileage is always better when I fill up in Nevada.
our tinfoil hats when we're in the new cars? Sounds like a big plus to me.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I wonder if this is going to affect ezpass toll systems, which use battery powered RFID transponders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass
Our technical minds are thinking of all the other government solutions we have had the last 6 months.
You just proved my point.
Actually, the government does a LOT more than roads, schools, and police. I think if it were that simple, we wouldn't all be up in arms about the government and what they are doing.
I think, perhaps, its time you grow up and start thinking about the real role of government nowadays and quit taking notes from your 7th grade civics class. The role of government in ordinary lives is FAR larger than it has been at any point in our country (sans WWI and WWII). I got news for you kid, it ain't just roads, schools, and police they are getting into....
The parent is correct, but a bit terse. I thought I'd elaborate a bit:
"Federal Reserve Board data shows that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics."
- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
The stats don't back up the idea that any public institution or law bears the brunt of the responsibility for problematic lending.
It also doesn't make much sense. Take the fingers pointed at the CRA. It didn't force banks to make risky loans. They could deny an application based on income, credit rating, or any other relevant factors. What it *did* force them to avoid was "red-lining": denying loans based on the current living location (used as a proxy for the applicant's race). A person's race and living location might have some correlation with risk of defaulting, but as we all know here on slashdot, correlation is not causation, and a responsible financial institution would deal with the more directly relevant information: an individual's income/asset information and their credit history.
Here's some other links:
http://www.ptmortgage.com/blog/2008/10/01/pointing-fingers-was-it-cra-and-minority-lending-that-caused-the-mortgage-mess/
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=73500
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_liberals_cause_the_subprime_crisis
http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/0331.html
http://www.ccc.unc.edu/news/news.021809.php
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/Commentary/2000/1100.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls564.htm
Wikipedia also has a summary.
Tweet, tweet.
I'm not usually on the side of the states-righters, but how on earth is this crap constitutional? The Constitution says in Article 1, Section 9:
I mean --- you can dance around some constitutional restrictions, and Congress can invoke the commerce clause until it turns blue in the face, but what Kentucky does seems to directly contravene the plain meaning of the text. How can they get away with it?
What happens when someone is trapped inside their vehicle and can't call 911 for help? This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
You should check your facts before you spout this hysterical nonsense. The auto industry has been making CA versions of cars for years now. It hasn't impacted the rest of the market in a noticeable way. CA has all kinds of crazy emissions laws, and the rest of the country is considerably more lax.
Up here in OR smart consumers make a point of checking to see if the car is a CA model before they buy it (used), because we don't want or need the extra crap that is required there. As for any new car from a dealership, unless it's overflow from a CA dealer, it won't have any of the extra crap on it by default, including this glass.
Further, you seem to have a flawed idea of how cars are actually built. The lines that manufacture cars are capable of making minor and even major changes between options packages and models all without a hitch, they've been doing it for decades. This glass, and all the extra shit CA requires is just one example of why they do this. Mainly though the practice started due to options packages and model differentials. Different parts for different packages are integrated into the smart lines and the system allows for on the fly changes as required. This is why you can get a Passat with a w8 engine from the same line that makes the Passat GL with a 1.8T engine. Even thought the W8 requires a separate, and longer subframe and a different drive train. It's a modern system, but it's not magic.
Our GPS tracking systems use cell signals and they will usually track from inside the trunk of a car. I doubt the glass would prevent the signal from transmitting.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Almost all our problems could be solved by changing the state's constitution so that citizens don't directly vote on taxes and spending. It's a classic case of the individual doing what's best for themselves, but when everyone does that it hurts the entire society because no one is looking at the big picture and how individual decisions aggregate to the detriment of everyone.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
That is, a textbook example of a tragedy of the commons.
you can always move out of california.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
First of all, we need a citation on that Model-T mpg number. I am skeptical but I will take you at your word for the time being. Second, is it wrong? Well, no not really. I can't really say I am all that surprised about it. To demonstrate my point, lemme ask a few questions about your Model-T, if I may:
1. Did it have powered air conditioning?
2. Did it have a powered radio?
3. Power brakes?
4. Power steering?
5. Powered wipers?
Are you seeing the keyword yet or do I need to go on? Power has to come from somewhere. Where do you think all the features in a modern car are powered from?
As with all things engineering, there are trade-offs to be made.
Using your rationale, I should trade in my Chevy Tahoe and get a Model-T. Uhhhh, no thanks. You first.
It's a little different when talking about taxes and spending though because there's not an actual "commons" that is being destroyed unless you consider the solvency of the government to be a commons. The psychology behind it is exactly the same though.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
It requires a supermajority to raise taxes and a simple majority to cut authorized services, and sufficient votes in the Legislature don't currently exist to do either except in various means that have low visibility or which can be obfuscated as not really being either one of those even though they, in fact, are.
This is not the same as there being "no political will" to do either, however. Its that California has a Constitutional system which, compared to (for instance) the US federal system, structurally produces impasse very frequently because routine decisions require much broader support (the fact that it also requires a substantial supermajority to pass the annual budget is an example of this, and is also frequently pointed to as a symptom of a lack of political will; its not, particularly, though; other state governments and the federal government don't have as big of a problem with routine tasks not because they have greater "political will", but because they don't, for the most part, have structural rules set up that are quite as effective at preventing action that has majority support.)
Not really. You'll find that, by and large, the people advocating for service cuts and voting against tax increases (whether on the wealthy or even regressive taxes like sin tax or general sales tax increases) are not the people arguing for massive spending cuts, not the same people arguing to maintain programs. The problem is not that there is one group of people that wants taxes not to be increased (and, generally, to be decreased) and also wants programs maintained, the problem is that there are two distinct groups of people, one of whom wants no taxes increased and the more progressive taxes reduced, and one of whom want to minimize cuts to programs, and neither of these groups has sufficient votes to enact its own preferences, but each still has sufficient votes to prevent its opposition from being able to have an unqualified success in implementing its preferences, producing all kinds of chaotic, incoherent policy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All you people talking on cell phones are endangering we pedestrians, cyclists, motorbike riders, and our kids.
So I'm glad they're blocking you from using cell phones that aren't tied into a cars own bluetooth vehicle rebroadcast.
Using a cell phone in a car, or texting on your blackberry, is the same as having downed EIGHT SHOTS OF VODKA.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since you have to pay for the glass up front, but can distribute the cost of the fuel over the entire 12 years, you have to take interest into account when determining the ROI. Specifically, you would need to save about $290 over 12 years, minimum, to break even on a $250 up-front investment at the extremely conservative savings-account return of 1.30% APR.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
My VW has special glass that prevents the interior from
heating up and it works *great*. Park the thing on blacktop
all day in the hot summer sun and the interior barely gets
warm at all. Orders of magnitude more comfortable than cars
with regular glass. I assume the glass is low-e although VW
didn't describe it as such.
The glass is no darker than normal factory tinted glass.
The garage door opener remote works fine.
For those of you whining about the heavy hand of government,
there are many far worse problems than requiring decent
glass in cars. Many of these problems are discussed in
slashdot so you ought to be aware of them.
> we do not have thermostatic regulators on cars that vary
> the work of the compressors
Maybe yours doesn't but mine does.
The glass blocks cell signals? Cell phone antennas are weak anyway. You can buy external antennas that mount on your card (like police use) and either re-broadcast inside the vehicle or plug directly in (if your phone has a plug).
Wilson Electronics is one manufacturer of this kind of equipment. (My company is a dealer.)
Honestly I'd like to see vehicle manufacturers give an option to have this kind of equipment built in to a vehicle.
Will this attenuate my HERF gun? I'm gonna miss the sight of cell phone drivers spinning off the road with a handful of melting plastic...
Perhaps "import" was a poorly chosen term on my part. Art 1 Sec 9 is referring to imports from other countries, not sales tax laws across domestic (State or Local) governments.
Same thing if I bought a major appliance in Tax Free New Hampshire and brought it up here to Maine. Legally, as a resident of Maine, I'm obligated to pay Maine Sales Tax on that purchase.
Maine even has an "alternate use tax" where you can check a little box to pay a certain percentage of your income to cover "incidental purchases" for the year, so you're covered in case you get audited and the State discovers you imported something from another state and didn't pay Maine taxes on it.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
I could imprison and/or kill you because I find your actions offensive. And if it weren't for my own innate sense of morality, the government would be the only entity with the ability and the authority to stop me.
Is my refusal to stay in your basement when you demand it the same as my refusual to go to jail when the government demands it? No, and not just because the government is bigger. It is qualitatively different. I can be killed by an individual, a company, a religion, or a government. I don't disagree with you there; they ALL have the power to imprison and kill me. However, it is only the government that we entrust with the LEGAL power to do so. Because we entrust it with abilities that no other group is allowed to have, we should trust it the least.
Because I find the inevitable apoplectic reaction from a certain type of person, hilarious.
HEH, I think it is funny that some cars are exempt are the really old ones with "collector plates" that smoke like a damned chimney.
I own a car and truck, the truck i hardly drive except when i NEED a truck to do somethign TRUCK specific. Like hauling dirt/wood/furniture purchase, etc.... I drive a mid-size car the rest of the time. I pollute a hell of a lot less with this setup than some Yuppie Schmuck in their SUV who owns a SUV because they may need to use the "Truck abilities" of the SUV, but of course lug around all of that extra mass EVERYWHERE. Plus I have the benefit that if my car dies on me I am not up shit's creek without a paddle if I need to be somewhere the bus don't go.
Yet there are schmucks to who want to limit the number of cars per person as a pretext to "save the earth". It would make sense if I could separate into two beings and drive around in both vehicles at once. If they make me go down to one vehicle, I will just Buy an SUV and tell them to stuff it down their pie holes.
SCREW THEM!!! THEY HAVE IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
"passengers?" Hmm... never heard this phrase before. Are those the fuzzy thing up front with soft padding that you can sit on or the soft fuzzy thing in the back seat where all the trash gets thrown? (I really should clean that out... it's getting hard to see when people sneak up behind me traveling at 45 in the left lane.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Thats basically the same logic people refusing to use safety belts are using.
If you think hard enough you can imagine a scenario where you would be worse of if you were stuck in your safety belt after the initial accident, but for each such scenario, the number of cases where safety belts would save you outnumbers that freak accident by propably 1000 to 1. So generally there will always be random odd border cases, but safety and economics are all about statistics, if something is usefull and makes sense 999 times, the 1000th time must be considered unfortunate but worth the prize, even if that isnt any consolation for the victim in that specific case.
My Mercedes already has glass like that and it doesn't pose a problem with any of those electronic gadgets. Plus, there is a couple of "clear" areas on the windscreen where you can stick the antenna's if needed.
The logic is that this is a dumb law that inconveniences millions of people at great expense for a dubious benefit and causes some potential harm.
The tax is for the privilage of using the vehicle in the state, not exporting it, etc. as prohibited by the constitution.
Michigan (and most others) have USE taxes for all items purchased outside the state; if you use it in the state, you have to prove that you paid at least as much sales tax in the other state as you would have in MI, or you have to pay the use tax which just happens to be the same 6% as the MI sales tax.
This was enacted long, long ago first to discourage people from shopping across the border, then to discourage people from mail-ordering when they could shop locally, and it nicely fits in with internet shoppers the same way. The place to fill in any use tax in on the tax form wasn't the obvious in the past, but for the last several years, MI has made it very obvious so that you can't miss it.
Now for most things the state has a hard time proving that you purchased something outside for use within, although with credit cards and databases this is probably getting easier. With vehicles that have to be registered, it is very easy.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
How about passing a law which mandates that no laws can be passed which mandate the use of a particular product or process, only the desired end result?
In this case, why not pass a law which says that cars must be manufactured to reduce the average use of electricity, aircon gas, or whatever they were on about (or that internal cooling efficiency/effectiveness must be at least a certain minimum)? That way, car makers can either use the special glass, or find other (possibly better) ways to achieve the same ends.
To counter this dodge, the fees are VERY steep (and in some cases it is just plain forbidden) if you attempt to bring a car into California and register it with less than 7500 miles on it. Heaven help you if your tags run out on the prior state before you hit 7500 miles.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
I think they just created a new market...
But to carry that to its logical conclusion: WE are the government. WE empower the government to act in our names because the vast majority of us are too busy/too stupid/too inexperienced/too dangerous to be allowed to police ourselves and others. So all the individuals, companies, religions, etc come together to form a government. Ultimately (IMHO)your logic fails because the end result is to trust no one save yourself - and it is that ethos which is coloring your argument.
You do have a valid point in saying that I don't have the authority to imprison and/or kill you. But in making that point you undermine your logic in that you are implicitly granting the government that power to imprison and/or kill you, which means that you do trust it to NOT do so, and to prevent others from doing that to you.
We must trust the government to a degree (which is probably where you and I could find our middle ground here), because the alternative is to be governed by the mob, which is far worse. Enlightened Anarchy is an unattainable ideal as long as human individuality remains our single greatest common factor.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
I think that a lot of people in the USA have become MUCH more insular. Elsewhere, mostly in Europe, we now have the government working for us, and there is a lot of diversity.
Particularly, post 1989, people understand what is important, and intend to get control of their governments.
It isn't that government is intrinsically bad, just it usually is, and becomes corrupt quickly, IF it can be BOUGHT. In the modern world only DIRECT DEMOCRACY eg Schweiz can stand against the culture of corruption.
What a crock of shit.
The USA that actually exists, rather than the fantasy one ideologues like to fantasise about, has all manner of regulations.
Far from existing "just so you can feed your own self-righteous sense of self worth" they exist for public benefit. For example lead content in paint is limited. Tetra-ethyl lead usage in petrol is banned. Both for fairly obvious reasons.
So if you want to argue against this, I suggest you do so by arguing there isn't sufficient public benefit to warrant intervention because pretending that there is a USA that doesn't legislate for the public interest (and with good reason) just makes you look delusional.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
They're already talking about banning dark color cars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603316.html
While at the same time mandating that we only use darker color paints: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/draft_regs_coolcars_032709.pdf
My big problem with all this behavior legislation is that I want a black sports car because it makes me happy, and I'm willing to pay a lot of extra money in order to get it. The government of a free country should not stop that pursuit. The stupid car is supposed to get poor MPG! It's a damn race car! And it's black because black is the best color and I'll keep driving black race cars until they make a darker color race car. It costs me more money not you. So stay the hell outa my business!
When I moved to Cali years ago, I had to pay a penalty for my 49 states emission car that always beat CA's standards handily. I live in IL and I can't buy a NE/CA emissions vehicle even though I am willing to pay for it. Which makes less sense?
Illinois is run by the chicago mob, everything you said about CA applies here in spades!
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
They have already invented a solution to this problem that doesn't block radios, cellphones and GPS.
Its called Window Tinting and it seems to work fine in most places on this planet.
I bought my current car in 2007, a particular little convertible that was in high demand (waited months for it actually), you couldn't buy it without california emission standards.
It was a line item on the sticker, but not optional or anything like that, I wasn't exactly car shopping so I didn't notice if other cars had it or not, I just kind of assumed they sold cars to that spec everywhere now to make things easier.
I don't really have a problem with it, its better for the environment and all that and its of almost no notice to me. I realize I could strip a few things off and get a few more HP, but its not worth the effort without more upgrades.
The point to all this is, myself being almost anti-environmental (I just really hate environmentalist twits, not the environment), and I think CA Emissions are a good thing, considering the air quality out there, I wouldn't bitch to much if I were you, the loss of freedom on your car is liable to add a few years to your life.
If you dont like it, which I can understand your point, even if not this particular point, you can vote differently, or leave. Plenty of other places are much more lax in their restrictions and nanny laws. If everyone there wants it that way, its your problem, not theirs.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
*Pssst* your ignorance is showing ...
And when they start making cars with glass that blocks the signal, they'll move it. Of course in reality, your current antenna is between the two layers of glass that make up the window. Its in a sheet of plastic, part of all safety glass, the plastic is glued (laminated?) to both windows and this prevents the glass from flying all over the place when it shatters. All they have to do is only apply the glazing to the inner layer of glass and the problem doesn't exist for your antenna in the window, or just move it to somewhere else like a laydown rooftop antenna or an of several other form fitting/low profile variations.
Not actually an issue.
It stopped working because the law was passed? Thats fucked up! They have a kill switch in it or something? Of course not, your GPS continues to work just fine in your existing car. If you buy a new car with this treatment on the windows, and it will likely have a navigation system built in, or you can buy an antenna then, dealerships will probably have it as an option. The couple hundred dollars the dealer is going to rip you off for it is trivial. It will probably just be part of the 'CA Emissions' package which you are already paying for there anyway.
Not actually an issue.
Seriously? This is to backup your argument? You'd rather have your garage door open sooner than have your car stay a LOT cooler in the sun? Okay okay, allowing for personal preference ...
Roll the window down. Or of course, had you read a little more about this you'd see the problem for all of this has already been contemplated, you could just position the remote near the 'deletion window' which is a portion of the glass which is not treated to allow signals through for this specific purpose.
Not actually an issue.
3/3 complaints listed as valid are not valid. Math is hard, lets go shopping!
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
The poster is indeed wrong that the CRA was the problem, but what you and other left wingers gloss over was the point that Fannie Mae was at fault.
Fannie could write commercial paper to lend based on the implicit guarantee by the US government. So Fannie did exactly that, and really went crazy with it. This money, they used to lend to people with questionable ratings and at interest rates that were, in effect, a subsidy.
Banks, of course, were not "forced" to make the same sorts of loans. They had the choice of either not writing the same junk and lending to the same people as Fannie, or losing the entire mortgage business to the government.
Conservatives did rail on about this for a long time. First off, of course, was the government subsidy of the mortgage business distorting the housing market. But even worse, is that the high returns caused by MBS drowned out investment in other sectors, for decades, so, thanks to the government program, America invested in building houses while other nations built things like manufacturing centers, etc. But of course, those warnings were dismissed and repeatedly by the left using its usual ad-hominem attacks. Opposition to Fannie Mae was mean spirited, racists, etc... Of course, left wing policies have so screwed up minorities in the USA economically that one should argue the left is racist, but I digress...
In any case, the fact of the matter is, if you have a government subsidizing a quasi public institution, you create a bubble for it, screw up investment in the economy at large, and of course, Democrats, undeterred by the total destruction of our housing market, are about to do it to health care.
It's just stupid.
Or is it?
Frankly, I would be willing to bet that the left -deliberately- ignores dangers created to the private sector by the federal programs because if the private sector is destroyed, we can all be socialized. It's like, all you hear from the left is this rhetoric about how free enterprise is evil,
So, in my mind, I would think you lefties would at least be honest revolutionaries and say that yes, your programs will eventually replace the private sector with the public sector and you are in favor of it. It's what you want, why lie about it?
This is my sig.
The private sector is already doing something much more stupid
Stupid for you, not for me. I don't like that kind of glass. If I don't want my car to get hot, I roll the windows down.
This is my sig.
After reading the story all I can find is speculation. Is there any facts present that this actually reduces radio frequencies? And if so what is the frequency range?
I want to know the range because currently inside of my vehicle I pick up a lot of 34.7 ghz and the last thing I want is to have my windows reduce those signals. Buying a good external antenna costs a lot.
So, does anyone know the freq range? Does this news story have any facts present at all to it?
as it's one way to get Maria off that damned phone in the car!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Shouldn't you be DRIVING YOUR CAR instead of worrying about what radio station you can hear or when that meeting is at work?
Reception for things like radios is a EXTERNAL antenna on the car. Same is true if you've properly installed a stand for your mobile phone. As for your remote-control for opening the parking gate, that is so short range I doubt it will be affected (and you can always open the window). Sorry, this alarmist report sounds like nonsense to me.
your tin foil beanies reflect the "bad rays" as good as any of these new fangled glass things. A big plus is all those black helecopters that CA launched wont be able to read your mind!
Do they realize that, if they achieve their goal of turning California back to the way it was when Alta California was a province of Mexico, there will be no one to pay the taxes which fund their paychecks?
Worse: I live in Ohio. It's pretty far from California, but somehow their various strangenesses (or at least their used vehicles) have a tendency to trickle Eastward...
There's only a couple of days out of an average year where I'm inclined to switch on the AC in my car. The rest of the time, the windows and/or sunroof are either open, the car's fresh air ventilation is turned on for quietness (which also bypasses the heater core), or the heat is on.
I don't think such new-fangled glass would ever pay for itself, if it were sold to me.
Much of the year, I'm very grateful for the self-heating nature of the car's black interior. I can head outside on a sunny, -10F afternoon, and *not* instantly freeze my hand to the metal gearshift knob.
Low-E glass very intentionally changes that.
Besides, it doesn't even help in many instances: Common vehicles usually have an air conditioner compressor which runs as much as it can, governed only by under/over pressure switches and the occasionally-implemented wide-open-throttle cutout. So, it's always running at maximum capacity. The frigid breeze which would normally result from this behavior is them tempered by mixing in waste heat from the engine.
It's a lousy system. Better gains would be had by fixing that end of it, first.
Kid-proof tablet..
"I pollute a hell of a lot less with this setup than some Yuppie Schmuck in their SUV who owns a SUV because they may need to use the "Truck abilities" of the SUV, but of course lug around all of that extra mass EVERYWHERE."
-What "truck abilities"? SUVs handle HORRIBLY off-road, have crappy clearance without an expensive lift kit, and even with a lift kit, handle even WORSE due to the increased drag and higher center of gravity, making them more prone to rollovers. Anyone who NEEDS a vehicle with 'truck' abilities will buy a truck, not an SUV. If you need something with 'truck abilities' you will know it.
SUVs are nothing more than glorified shopping carts.
If you:
1) Transport many children, buy a minivan. For larger families, buy a van. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
2) Shop, buy a smaller car, unless you routinely buy sofas or big-screen TVs. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
3) Haul livestock/dirt/wood/maintenance equipment/tools, buy a truck. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
4) Routinely cross off-road terrain (on the order of muddy roads/worksites, and other earthen terrain, not puddles), buy a truck. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
5) Use as your work vehicle (fill it chock full of tools, repair machinery, materials, etc., and not just drive it to your place of business), buy a truck. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
6) Drive to school, buy a small car. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
7) Traverse hazardous terrain (icy/wet/flooded/muddy/rocky/snowy roads), buy a truck. YOU DON'T NEED AN SUV.
There is no legitimate reason that can justify ownership of an SUV. I challenge anyone to find one.
"Sport-Utility Vehicle" is a polite way of telling the world you have a small pecker, lots of money, and no brain.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Sounds like someone with a new expensive glass technique has their hands in the pockets and perhaps down the pants of someone at CARB
Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
Damn - I guess today was the enforced state workers' furlough day, huh?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Jeff Cooper obviously never met Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr. Both overcame evil without bullets.
It may not be easy, and you don't get that satisfying Hollywood-type revenge, but most civilization-level improvements come not from bullets, but from ideas.
It's unfortunate that the Supreme Court doesn't review the factual basis of laws. Many Schedule I substances don't meet the criteria for being in Schedule I.
I can't think of a good way to test for those who can actually not be distracted by a phone
Really? You can't?
Because researchers have put people into driving simulators and had them drive while various distractions occurred then watched for mistakes. Turns out they make a lot more mistakes when talking on the phone than when listening to the radio.
How they stumbled upon this super-sophisticated experimental methodology, I'll never know! They must be geniuses.
shouldn't the net emissions be the goal, rather than mandating specific technologies?
Are you new to this country?
The lobbyist that got this written (or wrote it himself) did not work for society, he worked for a specialty glass corporation. Why would he want rules for the betterment of society when instead he could have rules for the betterment of his patron? And of course, he'll still use the betterment of society as his argument.
For those of us who like having some defense against revenuers, note that this glass will also block radar detectors.
Positive for the toll-booth operators in CA, of course. More fines!
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
This is the same California where a city came hilariously close to banning products containing DHMO. It is entirely plausible. Just imagine they require this glazed glass for all road vehicles. Boom, it's on motorcycle fairings.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sadly this is not funny. The CARB (California air resources board) are the same folks that were responsible for the MTBE fiasco in California which poluted all of our reservoirs in exchange for slightly cleaner air. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to ask what they haven't tested in this new required glass material...
Hopefully it won't outgas fumes that corrode copper wires or anything like that when baked daily under 100+ deg Farenheit parking lots (wait, that was only untested drywall), but you know what I mean ;^)
Even it only blocked GPS and cell phones, I guess law enforcement has to give up their cell-phone ping tracking evidence gathering scheme. Civil righters rejoice?
So this really only effects devices that already don't have external antennas e.g. cell phones, aftermarket GPS devices and Radar Detectors. As soon as an automaker is required to include this, they'll also need to include a repeater for cellphones. Most cars will probably have built in GPS by the time this goes through, so that just leaves radar detectors, which will need external pickups.
For some reason I'm picturing cars with 3-4 different antenna nubs sticking out for cell, gps, fm, am, radar, satellite radio, etc... canceling out any real benefits.
Or alternatively, cheap fractal antennas with passive or active repeaters (although I would imagine active would ruin GPS timing).
Bullshit. The problem with the housing market was the securitization of mortgage debt, and insurance of that debt in a heavily deregulated market
Fannie Mae popularized mortgage backed securities, that's the point you miss. Fannie Mae floated this crap out to the market noting that they were going to use their existing asset base to raise a trillion dollars (at first), and put a bazillion people into houses. They used that money to seed more loans, and then used the loans they seeded to float even more securities. They've been borrowing money to borrow money now for 20 years and the only people that have been really protesting the chicanery was the right wing.
Still, I don't understand why so many lefties protest this. They got what they wanted to. They've been wanting to destroy capitalism and have the government run housing now for a 100 years and now they've succeeded in some good measure. Fannie Mae is now more than ever property of the US government, many banks have exited the mortgage market, commercial banking, which was the engine of American capitalism, is now dead.
And, not only that, you liberals have every chance to destroy private medicine as well and steal that for the government. So, you should be happy. But instead, oh no, you can't even communicate honestly that the sharp reduction in everyone's standard of living is consistent with your liberal puritanical goals of having everyone be equal but poor.
This is my sig.
So what? Car manufacturers can just include a passive repeater. It's not a big deal.
No, I will not work for your startup