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.'"

62 of 762 comments (clear)

  1. ! surprising by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:! surprising by Zcar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or to California. Really. Expecting something to come out of the California government to make sense?

    2. Re:! surprising by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The thing is, Jeep (and others, like GEM) are appealing to CARB for a waiver, and will probably get one. It was an oversight, not something deliberate.

      --
      Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
    3. Re:! surprising by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...my Jeep has air conditioning: the TD2-50 A/C system

      (using it is pretty easy, too: take off the top and both doors, then go 50mph).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:! surprising by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or government in general...

      Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people? That being said, why do some people think it's a great idea vote people into office who will tax us to come up with these half-witted "solutions" that don't even make any noticeable difference?

    5. Re:! surprising by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the evil idiots in government are better than the evil idiots who run scary corporations! *ignore the fact that they are the same people*

    6. Re:! surprising by thepooh81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I used to live in Phoenix, Arizona. There's no feasible amount of tint or blocking the sunlight that's going to stop those poor bastards that lack AC from rolling the windows down in the summer. Keeping the windows might have hot air blowing in your face but it's stopping the air in your car from turning into an oven.

      It can honestly get up to 150 degrees in a car with the windows rolled up very fast (15 minutes). I would see stories all the time about people that were new to the area leaving their dogs (or lord forbid their kids) in the car only to come out to find their loved one needing to go to the emergency room or dead.

      Granted this is about CA but there are plenty of areas that get really hot in CA as well (some even more-so)

    7. Re:! surprising by cabjf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least there's a benefit for shareholders in the scary corporation scenario.

    8. Re:! surprising by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like someone once said: If a person wishes to rule, that person should in no way be given any power.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:! surprising by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A sheriff isn't beholden to enforce federal law. He's a local official; he also is the highest law enforcement official in his domain. He very well could get you in trouble, but it depends on his judgment.

    10. Re:! surprising by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. This proves that government would be the solution if we had absolutely superhuman, omniscient lawmakers. When that happens, I'll gladly support them. Until then, the less power they have, the better.

    11. Re:! surprising by UltraAyla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, because roads, schools, and police aren't beneficial at all. grow up.

    12. Re:! surprising by Khyber · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When seconds count, the police are always minutes away.

      Last time I got burglarized, there were PRINTS ALL OVER THE PLACE that were too large to have come from anybody that lived in my house. The cops didn't bother to even lift them to see if they belonged to a known fucking criminal.

      As far as I can see, police have no benefit unless it's a drastic situation. They rarely follow traffic laws that they're supposed to be enforcing, and they selectively enforce those, as well. There are the few good officers out there, and they actually try to do a damned fine job, but the majority are just useless.

      And don't even try to report a CRIME IN PROGRESS (Ponzi Scheme) and have the evidence to go with it, even despite the fact that at least one court ruled that said company was an illegal pyramid scheme (nevermind the fact that unsolicited sales in parking lots is prohibited in CA, some of the same people sucked in got fines in court for it.) They simply do not want to hear about it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:! surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see your burglary and raise you an armed robbery.

      I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. Within 15 seconds of the asshole leaving, I called 911 and was immediately connected to a 911 operator. Within 90 seconds there was a police officer on the scene. Within 3 minutes the place was swarming with cops. Within 6 minutes the asshole was sitting in the back of a car in handcuffs. Did I mention this was in the middle of a snowstorm. With 10 inches already on the ground?

      Having said that I have been harassed by the police on multiple occasions because I looked like someone who might have drugs on them.

      People are people, and they will always act like people, even if we give them special titles like Police Officer. Just don't confuse people being people with THE GUBBERMINT IS INCOMPETENT, because only people can be incompetent.

    14. Re:! surprising by Z34107 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes, because roads, schools, and police aren't beneficial at all. grow up.

      Hmmmm? Why is "OMG ROADS" the grown-up response to "Government in general does a lot of terrible, wasteful things?"

      At the Federal level, very little goes to roads, schools, and police. At the local level (at least where I live) those are the first things cut because cutting them scares up support for new taxes.

      So, yes, roads, schools, and police are beneficial. Nobody said that they weren't, and that doesn't explain how anything coming out of California makes a lick of sense.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    15. Re:! surprising by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      What about market failures. The insurance industry is always rife with them, for instance flood insurance, or, as you point out, health insurance. The FDIC (another insurance system) is even heralded by conservatives as the most successful government run program in existence.

      The USPS can take any random sheet of paper across the country to a specific person for less than the price of a coke, with door-to-door service.

      The federal government also does well busting up trusts.

      But you're clearly right, free-markets* always** exist*** and work****

      * Enjoy your cheap tainted meat!

      ** Microsoft is clearly on it's last legs.

      *** Recall the horrors of the "company store"? WalMart would love to pay it's employees in WalMart script.

      **** Remember when a poorly regulated free market destroyed the US economy? It was last year. See also, 1987.

      Government control is bad, unregulated markets are bad. I don't understand how anyone can believe that free-markets are always the answer any more than people believe government is always the answer. At least the religious right has a history of dogmatically believing in things that evidence has disproved. Why so many libertarian FSM-touting people persist on this board, I'll never understand. Pure capitalism imploded before pure communism did. The countries that are currently doing well have a mixture of capitalism and socialism, a little heavier on the socialism than the US. But obviously, we must push to one extreme!

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    16. Re:! surprising by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      omfg the man is totally out to get you dude.

      Heres a hint: If you were robbed and the total loss was $50, I'm going to be fucking pissed if they spend $15k investigating it using my tax dollars rather than doing more important things.

      How do you know the prints were bigger? Seems to me like they'd have to look all over the house and dust for them for you to know they were bigger. Of course, the reality of it is they were probably a friends, and the cops really only need to check specific places, where the criminals come in.

      They don't dust your piano for prints when they check the glass on the broken window glass and find them there.

      I too have been a victim, while I thought the cop and detectives that investigated were being very lax, after talking with them about what they were doing it became clear real quick that they had a good 20 years EACH more experience than I, and knew where to not waste time doing stupid shit. They caught the guy during one of the times it happened to me, with my help, people are far more likely to talk to a neighbor than a cop, its amazing how much YOU CAN HELP YOURSELF. The other instance resulted in a leather jacket and ~$30 taken from my unlocked car. It would have been a complete waste of time AND money to investigate it, however they are aware of it so if a string of break-ins occur they can work with the pattern.

      You can report police who violate traffic laws, of course you'll probably end up reporting an officer that was going to a crime and didn't have his sirens on so he/she didn't alert the person he was coming or a hundred other reasons that you know nothing about since you obviously aren't a cop.

      Cops don't investigate ponzi schemes, its not their arena, try the FBI or your SBI instead, those are the people who handle that sort of thing. Again however, I'd rather have them going after real criminal organizations rather than some ponzi scheme taking advantage of idiots like yourself. Truth be told, it probably wasn't a ponzi scheme, judging by the way you are using the word I'm betting you actually don't know what it means.

      People who whine like yourself are the kind of people that make the rest of the world think people from California are complete morons who expect someone else to take care of them, sadly, I do think someone else needs to take care of you, at least until you get out of high school.

      As the GP said, grow the hell up, the man isn't out to get you.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  2. You mean ... by bryanp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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
    1. Re:You mean ... by Stile+65 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Passengers can also use cell phones, you know. Some people carpool. Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    2. Re:You mean ... by El+Gigante+de+Justic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, instead of meaning people will stop using their phone, they'll probably just fumble around with it more instead to restart their calls.

          Or they'll resort to texting which (supposedly) doesn't require as strong of a signal as voice calls.

    3. Re:You mean ... by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.

      Every car radio I have ever seen had an EXTERNAL antanna.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:You mean ... by Spectre · · Score: 4, Informative

      Never owned an Oldsmobile then? Many of them have the FM antenna embedded in the windshield glass.

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    5. Re:You mean ... by Duradin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or they'll just plug into an external cell antenna.

    6. Re:You mean ... by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not a problem. The glass will be scattered in you lap, permitting excellent reception again.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    7. Re:You mean ... by KillerBob · · Score: 5, Informative

      GPS, AM, FM are on different frequencies. You must live a sheltered life and not have had the opportunity to see many antennas and compare them.

      Actually, I worked in military communications, and have *built* AM/FM transmitters and antennas, as well as cellular networks. I can tell you from experience that while they work on different frequencies, it's entirely possible to connect an appropriate antenna to a wiring harness to bring the signal inside what's effectively a Faraday cage.

      Many many passengers talk on cell phones to get directions. Some even answer the driver's cell phone. You must live a sheltered exist with few friends who would do that for you.

      I turn my cell phone off when I'm driving, actually. Probably has something to do with that military background, and that desire to have all of my focus on driving when I get behind the wheel. *shrugs*

      There is a general trend away from purpose built GPS navigators and toward GPS applications on smart phones. You must live a sheltered life with little contact with the technical world.

      See above. And you must have lived a very sheltered life to have not come in contact with cars that have in-dash navigation systems....

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    8. Re:You mean ... by dhanson865 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. It blocks mostly in the non visible wavelengths. You won't have any trouble seeing through the car windows.

      Solar radiation, or solar energy, is made up of three components: ultraviolet radiation, visible light and near-infrared radiation. Near-infrared radiation makes up 53 percent of the solar spectrum, visible light 44 percent, and ultraviolet 3 percent.

      So if you block 80% of the infrared and you are blocking 60% of the total energy you are only blocking something like 20% of the visible light.

    9. Re:You mean ... by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OR they'll roll down the window to make the call, heating up the car in the process, then run the AC on full blast to level it out afterwards.

    10. Re:You mean ... by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed

      Basically:

      The ideal warm-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and transmits mid/far-IR.
      The ideal cold-weather windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, transmits near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.
      The ideal general-purpose windshield: reflects UV (and anything higher), transmits visible, reflects near-IR, and reflects mid/far-IR.

      UV: Generally bad. Not much heat (and needed for vitamin D synthesis) but causes skin cancer and ages many (if not most) materials.
      Visible: What you can see. Obviously, you want as much of this as you can.
      Near-IR: A significant amount of solar energy that you can't see but will still heat up your car significantly.
      Mid/far-IR: Heat radiating from surfaces on Earth (i.e., the inside of your car losing heat)

      --
      Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
    11. Re:You mean ... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Funny

      OR they'll roll down the window to make the call, heating up the car in the process, then run the AC on full blast to level it out afterwards.

      Then turn on the blender to make margaritas because they're still hot and now thirsty.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  3. Who owns the patents? by danking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My question is, who owns the rights to this technology they are going to enforce everyone to have?

    1. Re:Who owns the patents? by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Low-E glass was introduced in 1979. I.e., any patents that may have been around for it at the time no longer exist.

      There probably are "newer, better" types of Low-E glass that are still patented, but Low-E glass in general is not.

      --
      Mr. Wizard... why is this place called the Cave of Hopelessness?
  4. Did they specify WHERE the glass has to be? by Spectre · · Score: 5, Funny

    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"
  5. CARB, necessary evil by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.'"
    1. Re:CARB, necessary evil by hol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But should be up to the customer.

      If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.

      Same with a 50 mpg car. Who cares how it gets there, as long as it meets all emission regulations and safety standards. When people who know nothing about automobile technology mandate what needs to be used, they'll be no better off than the software industry - beholden to marketing, lobbying and politics, and ... never mind

      --
      - - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
    2. Re:CARB, necessary evil by mustafap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    3. Re:CARB, necessary evil by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. It should be up to society

      No. It should be up to the customer. The alternative breeds what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing.

    4. Re:CARB, necessary evil by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.

      Economically speaking, a high tax on gasoline is the best way of increasing fuel efficiency. But like we've seen time and time again, the technically best solution is confounded by social issues. Fuel economy standards are the next best thing. Consider:

      • High gasoline prices hurt poor people. It's not their fault they can only afford a 1985 Fiesta. Yes, you can use rebates to somewhat soften the blow, but the proposed schemes are very complicated, and you can only draw the line so finely.
      • People are more price-conscious at the pump than at the dealership. People in general are terrible at estimating things like depreciation and amortization, which means they don't account for the cost of gasoline when choosing a vehicle. It's cognitively easier to accept a slightly higher across-the-board increase on the price of new cars than it is to accept high prices at the pump, even if they're financially equivalent
      • As a lemma from the previous point, politically, people rage at high gasoline prices, but calmly accept higher vehicle prices. Why? Vehicle prices are higher to start with, so the cost of better fuel economy gets lost in the noise. Second, people only go vehicle-hunting once every few years, and they expect the price to be higher anyway due to inflation. It's difficult to cognitively separate out the price increase from inflation and from better fuel economy standards. Because people compare the prices of new cards against each other and not against previous intervals, it's easier to stuff costs in new cars.
      • Because the cost of better fuel economy standards only affects new cars at first, the burden is shifted toward the people most able to afford it: those rich enough to be buying new cars in the first place.

      Better CAFE-style standards than nothing at all.

    5. Re:CARB, necessary evil by lennier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing."

      Why? A political catchphrase is not an argument, nor is it a description of an actually-existing thing. It's just a shout with no verbal content.

      Think about this: real nannies exist for a reason. Real states also exist for a reason. There are certain situations where people collectively come to the decision that they don't *want* to tolerate certain types of destructive behaviour, because they cost us all. Any healthy group does this, because normal healthy humans are social creatures. We *like* to modify our behaviour so that it doesn't have stupid outcomes for the group. We call this "learning to socialise". The only people who think that a human must be an absolutely self-sufficient, take-nothing, give-nothing, hardcore screw-my-neighbour loner, are psychologically damaged individuals who haven't learned how to live with others.

      It's one thing that such a syndrome exists. It's another that this psychological dysfunction has become a hugely powerful political movement. We don't need to bow down to this false idea of the heroic egotist fighting the mass of zombie sheeple trying to crush his freedom. Instead, look at each case on its merits and realise that collective problems do exist, society is not a bad thing, and that centralised responses sometimes are the right response and sometimes aren't.

      So instead of just throwing a content-free slogan around, how about arguing why in *this* specific case, *this* kind of regulation is the wrong response to a serious societal problem?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  6. Hmm I wonder ... by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny
    I think that I smell a market for some bendy bit of wire that sits on the outside of the car and funnels the radio waves to the inside compartment . I might call it ...

    [places pinky finger to mouth]

    An .. Aerial !!!!

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  7. I've developed a new type of air conditioning by Tobor+the+Eighth+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, according to the computer, it's better to use A/C with windows up.

      This was too quick and easy for TV, so they decided to stage a seven hour marathon, race-til-you're-empty duel, with Jamie driving an SUV with A/C on and Adam driving an SUV with windows down. Though, once the safety inspector intervened, it was no longer a seven-hour marathon, it was a bit slower (45mph instead of 55mph), and a lot shorter (only 5 gallons each).

      Jamie's A/C car ran out of gas first -- Adam's windows down SUV ran for another 30 laps -- completely contradicting the computer mpg estimate. Computer estimate based on air flow into the engine, so it would appear that it is unable to properly model the difference between A/C and windows down.

      However, often the mythbusters' methodology is shaky, and from this short synopsis (I haven't seen that episode) this was one of those cases.

      At 45 mph you will indeed get better mileage with the windows down (on most cars, YMMV). That's the first methodology fault. The faster you go, the more pronounced the drag. Under 40 you're better with the windows down, over 50 you're better off with them up. Nobody drives 45 on the interstate -- in fact, that's the minimum speed on most highways.

      The second is, you have two different drivers with two different driving styles. The one who is able to keep closer to a steady speed is going to get the best mileage. If they had set the cruise control to 70mph and done the test, the computer would have matched the results.

  8. Fuel Economy by NinjaPablo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  9. I must be an idiot by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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? ]=-
  10. I guess this article had its intended effect... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I guess this article had its intended effect... by pi_rules · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not sure this really effects Detroit all that much. I think they only sold 6 cars last year.

      Now the "foreign" manufacturers that set up shop south of Michigan? They might actually care.

  11. Re:Welcome to California... by NoYob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    and CA is a prime example of why voter control of taxation and spending is a horrible idea.

    More spending: they vote YES.

    Raise taxes to pay for that spending: the vote NO

    Have a windfall in tax revenues? Got to spend it! Can't save it for future budgetary shortfalls!

    California is the most democratic state in the Union and look what happens. There's a reason why we're set up as a Republic.

    --
    It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
  12. Surprising by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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.
  13. Attention People of California by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
  14. Re:Ahh, that explains that ... by 3dr · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's a good example of tight coupling. Clearly, the antenna and windshield should have been communicating over a well thought out interface. Instead, the implementation of one was entirely dependent on, nay, entrenched in, the implementation details of the other.

  15. Re:If I lived in Cali... by vijayiyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Or any committee by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. Re:Or any committee by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "stupid" banks were being forced to make low-quality loans due to the CRA, which was supposed to prevent something called "redlining"

      No, they weren't. Stop lying.

    2. Re:Or any committee by blueg3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Studies have found that there is no statistical difference in forclosure rate between CRA-regulated banks and unregulated banks. Notably, the investment banks that sell credit-default swaps are not covered by the CRA. Banks were making many subprime loans, including ones with predatory terms (which increases forclosure rate), for profit, not because of the CRA.

    3. Re:Or any committee by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The private sector could easily do something this stupid.

      The private sector is already doing something much more stupid - namely, failing to use this glass for the 99% of car windows for which it makes sense. By comparison, requiring it in the 1% of cases (Jeep windows!) where it's not necessary is a little unfortunate but insignificant.

  17. Did any go to the CARB wbesite... by pdtp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:Ahh, that explains that ... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Funny

    If cars were computers:

    • Big ball of mud: the radio is embedded into the car's unibody shell. You can't remove it without totaling the car. It works when it's not raining.
    • Functional: a standard six-foot antenna is bolted to the roof of every car. It may be over-sized and look ridiculous, but it gets the job done.
    • Object oriented: the radio receiver is in a trailer, which is welded shut. It connects to your stereo over a well-documented interface, but nobody knows how the receiver works. Everyone who has tried to find out has been electrocuted.
    • Generic programming : The car comes with two dozen different antennas, each optimized to receive a particular frequency. They're arranged in a barrel in the trunk, and changing the radio station changes which antenna sticks out of the car. The reception is great.
    • Aspect-oriented: the radio is controlled by an electrode attached to your brain that tries to detect when you want to change the station. It separates the concerns of frequency selections and desired music very nicely.
  19. Re:the thing is.... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..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
  20. And they wonder why their economy is in the toilet by dirkdodgers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. CARB is synonymous to SCO by MoFoQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  22. To elaborate: by weston · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  23. Re:If I lived in Cali... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  24. Calm down, the glass works great! by Something+Witty+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.