Slashdot Mirror
China Car-Tracking Scheme Could Allow Higher Fuel Prices For Gas-Guzzling Cars (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, traditionally a test-bed for nationwide infrastructure and technology schemes, 200,000 vehicles have been experimentally hooked into a real-time traffic-monitoring system based on RFID and roadside monitoring stations. China's state-owned Aerospace Science and Industry Corp (CASC) claims that such intense monitoring will be necessary for the driverless cars of the future, and to foil license-plate forgeries. On Monday the general manager of Chinese auto manufacturer Great Wall Motor suggested that a monitoring scheme of such scope could also be used to introduce a wide range of usage-based levies, and to easily ensure that less efficient cars could be charged more for fuel at gas stations.
why not use the car's odometer and charge them more at license renewal time?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
They already pay more for gas. They use more of it.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Wouldn't this just end up punishing the poor more than people with big cars? People who do not have a lot of money might not be able to get the most efficient/clean cars, and those who can afford more efficient cars would just pay the fees and keep their nice big car anyway.
For those that aren't aware: the license plate can cost more than the car itself; hence the forgeries.
Life is not for the lazy.
Because driving a gas-guzzler (usually older as the only thing poor folk can afford) isn't punishment enough. It's like winning the lottery: you beat the stratospheric odds and you end up having to pay ridiculously high tax rates on the winnings even for a state-based game. I'm far from a libertarian, but that has always struck me as total bullshit^.
And yes, I'm also terrified of this coming to the US (Oregon is seriously considering real-time monitored mileage-based taxation).
^ - Back when they were first considering the national lotteries, David Brinkley observed: "The mob used to have something similar called the Numbers game. But the odds were better, and you didn't have to pay any taxes on the winnings."
I hope so. This is good for the planet.
Perhaps it should be noted that the Chinese are not actually doing it, or even planning to do so. The proposal to charge inefficient cars more did not come from the government. It came from the boss of a manufacturer of small cars. Basically, he is proposing that his competitors should be taxed more. Chance of this actually being implemented: ~0%.
Well you'll be delighted to note that there is no constitutionally protected right to possess vehicles in the good US of A. So even if the federal government implements such a system (and it makes sense since the wear and tear of roads is not the same wether you drive a small car, a suv, a double decker or a heavy camion) you can't go crying to the autoequivalent of the NRA lol.
I used to be joking when I accused the left of wanting a totalitarian state. I wish I were still joking.
Are those who touted China centrally-planned economy as a great model still doing so this year? I've lost track, but I doubt their point was ever about the economy, but instead just looking for more centralized control. Those redneck racists in flyover country just keep making the wrong choices, don't you know.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
...there is no constitutionally protected right to possess vehicles in the good US of A.
Yes, there is. It's implied. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits the government's power to restrict rights that citizens already have by default. The bill of rights, which include the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms (for example) was originally controversial because it was argued, is it really necessary to explicitly state that the government can't infringe on those rights when it has already been implied elsewhere in the document that the government has no authority to exercise authority in ways not already granted to it (when it comes to restricting rights that citizens have by default)? Also notice that the language used doesn't grant any rights to the people, but confirms that, no, we really mean it, the government has no power to infringe on a right that is inherently possessed by the citizens.
Over the long haul, as one of the first IPO investors in China back in the 90s, I've learned a few things.
One is that you need to verify and then not trust. Keep verifying.
I predict license plate fraud will be endemic in wealthy fuel stops and in remote regions.
Is this a good idea? Possibly, but it needs to be closely monitored, as up to 50 percent of the Chinese supply chain has fraudulent materials, and people will politely pretend to do something and then not do it.
A better method would be to disincentive parking and give prime spots for parking to hybrid and plug-in electric cars with cars towed and sold at auction for violations. And prime parking for bike users.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well you'll be delighted to note that there is no constitutionally protected right to possess vehicles in the good US of A.
Nonsense. I classify my vehicle as a weapon, and the second amendment means that I get to possess it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
When you're joking you know you're doing it. When you don't know, you're delusional.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I used to be joking when I accused the left of wanting a totalitarian state. I wish I were still joking.
You ARE joking, whether intentional or not. The totalitarian candidate is the one leading the primaries on the Republican side. That's not "the left". "The left" wants the second place Democrat candidate, who is not a totalitarian. The people on the center-right want to see the status quo continue by voting for Clinton or one of the other Republican candidates.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Exactly. If they wanted to, they could raise the price of gasoline to the point where the externalized costs (i.e. pollution) are taken into account. The result would be a system which charges people in proportion to their consumption & environmental harm without the need for Big Brother. I suspect they want to track all cars anyway and are fishing for reasons to justify it.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
The way you drive that might be valid, but in other cases how much legal weight does your (or my) classification generally hold?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Increasing tax on fuel will have a similar effect.
This idea is stupid - it's a technological solution looking for a problem. What if I buy an efficient car and tweak the engine to make it faster and less efficient. Does it still count as an efficient car?
Tax vehicles by weight if you have to - the heavier they are, the less efficient they tend ot be.
And tax the fuel. The more fuel you use, the more you pay.
And this does not involve any fancy tech.
Leftest never want totalitarianism,, but they always end up getting it anyhow.
The key flaw in socialism remains excessive concentration of power. The end.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Bullshit. Private ownership of property is a constitutional right. See the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Vehicles are private property in exactly the same way as clothing, electronics, furniture, and everything else.
What isn't a right is driving an automobile on public roads -- but you have the right to drive it on your own private property all you want, license or not.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yes but the second amendment is total bullshit, it's to keep slaves from escaping. The first is bullshit as well, its only purpose is to enable hate speech. I think you were raised in an earlier age in which Go Go America bullshit was fed to you and you uncritically believed it. You need to get back to university, Grandpa, and get a modern education.
You are scary.
Really, really scary.
Because it's fools like you that enable authoritarianism to exist.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "HATE SPEECH"!!! IF WHAT SOMEONE SAYS HURTS YOUR PRECIOUS FEELINGS, TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. GET OVER IT
Any right is implicitly constitutionally protected, but there is no restriction for non-rights. So we are still left with the question of what is a right or not. Do I have a right to a free pony?
Yes, but it will be an ID pony. You will be required to have it with you at all times.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's ironic how the red states tend to be the most socialist ones.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
that's the key flaw in every human system of government.
I think some people confuse "hate speech" with "incitement to violence". Realistically though, the difference between the two can be a fine line in various situations. Personally, if somebody wants to say "I hate X", then that's their business (though I may choose not to associate with said person). However, when that becomes "we should kill/hurt/main all them bloody X", then that's a problem. It's also similarly a problem when there's collusion to restrict the rights of certain demographics.
It's a crime to beat somebody. How about to say (especially from a position of power) that somebody "deserves" a beating? How about driving somebody to suicide? There's a lot of gray area in the law.
On the other side, claiming something is discrimination/hate-speech/etc is sometimes used as a sword to drive a particular agenda, when people deliberately muddy the waters between "group X is doing bad thing Y" versus stating "group X is bad" (see: persecution complex). Certain groups use such tactics to muzzle important conversation or opinions that contrast with their own.
If the BBC is to be believed, the closest thing to a moderate running in this election is Trump. Clinton is more left wing than almost all dems in the last century, sanders even further. If you disagree with this, please forward your complaints the the BBC.
They are not all the same. Lower % of GDP spent by the government == better.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The key flaw in socialism remains excessive concentration of power. The end.
you mean like capitalism?
Maybe that was the theory at the start, but it's certainly not the practice, and has almost nothing to do with how the courts have interpreted it. That's because the powers granted to the government are so broad and vague, they can cover almost anything. For example, Article I section 8 gives the government the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It also says it can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers." So the government can pass any law which is "necessary and proper" for promoting the "general welfare" of the country. I'm having trouble thinking of anything that couldn't be justified under that.
By the way, that "necessary and proper" bit is often referred to as the "elastic clause", specifically because it's so vague and can so easily be stretched to permit almost anything.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
It is not a question of left or right, but rather of the extremes. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were totalitarian in their own way.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
No you dimwit. Show me any one corporation that controls 50%+ of GDP. Until you do you are full of shit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I appreciate the calm and considered response. Wealth is power, and while none of these companies own a nation, they are bigger than nations.
The way I read the Bill of Rights, both of those things are protected. I see the first as a 4th and 9th Amendment issue and the second as a 1st and 9th Amendment issue, if I'm correctly interpreting the second one.
No, I don't look very favorably on the mainstream on either the D and R side. One of my patented off-topic rants backed up by my personal guarantee that at least one reactionary or feminist will get triggered by the word cisgendered follows. Bonus points if that person is in the Apache attack copter demographic, but I haven't seen any representation of that demographic here yet. Read on, all the way to the end, because I am going to come around to a position on the matter you'd find favorable.
Now if you're asking whether the Bill of Rights compels me to pay for what I can only presume you're using a loaded term to describe--contraception for (some) cisgendered hunnies (who are capable of growing a child in their bodies because there are a lot of people who get to be in the cisgendered hunny crowd that can't)--it sure as fuck doesn't. Additionally, refusing to pay for a health service you can't afford DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN that I am "controlling" your body. My genitals were forcibly torn apart, and a body part I needed was amputated at birth. I think assigned males in the USA have way better experience with the desire of others to control their bodies than any fucking cisgendered hunny.
When you're in a very small demographic that is absolutely universally hated by the religious (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and feminists) and have medical needs that are very different from the average person's medical needs, you tend to gravitate towards libertarianism. I'm not the only transgendered person who's come to that conclusion.
It's the only way to be fair to everybody. I pay for my medical needs. Your cisgendered hunnies pay for their medical needs or get you to. Either way, I don't care. Everybody was happy that way. Now we have Religious Objection!
The only reason I support single payer healthcare (only!) is because if I have to be inconvenienced by Religious Objection! and travel over 150 miles to get access to medical care, and if some kind of "get everybody health care" scheme has to be in place, I'd like for it to be fucking sane. I'm not even asking for a single payer system to pick up what I spend on gas getting over to the big city or reimburse me for lost wages since I have to take a half day off work every time I go. I like road trips every now and then.
Now, I do not necessarily want to pay for health care services for (some) cisgendered hunnies any more than feminists want to pay for my health care services. But I have a question to pose to anybody who wants to insist that (especially but not only) contraception should not be a covered health service: what would you rather pay for? Here's your choice. You're either going to pay for a woman to receive the pill at a cost (assuming here it's similar to one of my meds since it's nearly the same thing) of $30 per month, OR you're going to pay for that woman to have an unwanted pregnancy that will reduce her capacity to earn wages and pay to clothe, house, and feed her unwanted child for 18 years, keeping in mind that once a woman has one unwanted pregnancy, she tends to go for top score and have several others. The choice is yours.
Like I said, seeing as how socialized medicine is here to stay, as much as I am spiteful towards the cisgendered hunnies for all the worship they get for their animal functions (that not even all of them are capable of), I personally choose to pay $30 per month. Abstinence doesn't work, and on top of that, shit happens. (Yes, occasionally when a cisgendered hunny screams Rape! there actually was a violent assault involved.) I encourage every cisgendered hunny who is unsure about her fertility to take the pill. Those of us who can't make babies outnumber the cisgendered hunnies who
I know it's recessing, and has been for quite a while, to the point of actually waning, but the USA has been known for a long time for its obsession with big cars, with the idea that small cars are inherently shitty. While marginal, this meme seems to be still alive, despite every fact against it.
There's nothing like $HOME
I'm telling you, as a long time Green sympathizer, that the idea of "fuck this, let's force the issue at gunpoint" is something that comes to my mind every so often, and I think it's the same with most people of my political leaning, but we don't indulge in it, because authoritarianism is not our thing. So, we indeed dream of taking your big pickup off the road, but in practice we aim to make it more and more inconvenient for you to use it, while making credible alternatives more convenient to use. It's complicated, it's challenging, it's not immediately rewarding, but it's the only democratic way to do it.
There's nothing like $HOME
Socialist governments quickly turn into authoritarian, totalitarian states. The State sees the need for more of itself in order provide more social services. They will drive out productive members who eventually tire of being stolen from, leaving them with a smaller tax base, which they will squeeze even harder. The recipients of social services will demand that more be done to squeeze people, and that there be a need to regulate people's behavior in order to ensure the services can continue.
Regulating how you live your life will be justified by the fact that you can receive social services.
"No, you can't eat that because you'll make yourself less healthy and therefore a burden on the health care system."
"No, you can't have any means of self defense, because we already have the police to do that."
"No, you can't sell booze or run a casino because the State has a monopoly on that."
"No, you can't opt out of our lifestyle data collection because we're providing public insurance."
"No, you can't opt out of any of these services we offer, because the whole system will fall apart if people do that, and also because we wouldn't have the high ground to tell you how to behave."
It's a road to hell that's paved with good intentions.
Don't less efficient cars already pay more for fuel because... ya know... they use more fuel?
His big pickup carries solar cells to construction sites, you insensitive clod!
I'm not on a crusade to correct the BBC, but I'm happy to correct you. Here is where the presidential candidates stand, if you'd like to compare that with the parties in the UK then the UK parties are here.
Clinton looks pretty super-left-wing, doesn't she? Note that Obama is to the left of Clinton, but more authoritarian, or at least he was in 2012 when he was trying to get re-elected. When he was trying to get elected in 2008 he was far left of where he is now.
Hillary Clinton is a conservative, she's just not as conservative as the Republicans. Bernie Sanders is probably forcing her to campaign to the left on various issues, but her record speaks for itself. Like virtually all politicians in this country (with the notable exception of Sanders, and a few others), she is conservative.
The reason why Trump might be viewed as a moderate is because nearly everything he says can be contradicted by something he said at some earlier point. He doesn't stand for anything except himself, he just says things that he think will keep him in the spotlight. He was a Clinton donor for years before running against Obama and asking for his birth certificate, and now he's appealing to racists and other conservatives who are unhappy with the establishment. The things that he is saying are not moderate, but where he actually stands once the cameras are off is anyone's guess.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That's all fine and dandy, but so far it doesn't apply when put up against the Constitution. If Bernie Sanders got elected we would not all of a sudden become a socialist country, and any laws that get enacted still need to satisfy the Constitutional requirements.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Uhh, ok. Or, my post was a joke and maybe you should take some time off and relax.
You're no NYCL.
No shit. In fact, I'm not a lawyer at all.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The days when we were protected by the Constitution passed decades ago. The SCOTUS members vote their political preference, and then justify that preference afterwards. The current SCOTUS is very close to accepting much of the above, and with one more leftwing member I wouldn't expect any resistance.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
They were totalitarian in the same way. Their economic system differed, but that wasn't an important difference on balance. The danger is in giving power to a central authority, not specifically in an economic system. However, some economic systems can only work with a strong central authority, and are inherently dangerous because of that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.