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%.
...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.
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
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
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.
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