No, I think most don't realize they are a) in the so-called fast lane, b) don't realize that they are only supposed to be there to pass, c) don't realize that you can break (b) if you don't go fast enough (including over the speed limit) and c) don't realize or utilize their rear view mirrors.
Nuclear energy is the most ecologically viable option in existence. The problems with not being able to build shiny, reliable new ones is a governmental and societal problem, not a nuclear one.
Or do you think pumping radioactive coal ash in the air is more ecologically viable?
Anti-life suffers from the same problems. Let's say I want 3 children. If the first one is born with some disability that costs more time, energy, and resources than I can afford for the next two children I wanted, you've now prevented the birth of two healthy children so that one disabled one can live. One child that I do not want.
Who now is anti-life? I could spin it as pro-prevent-healthy-babies-from-ever-being-born.
No, it's very easy, and humans are terrible at it--but as usual every driver thinks they are "better than average".
Programming a car to not run into anything is easy.
I don't think by joyride he means the teenager type of joyride. He means cruising and enjoying driving. You know, obeying the law and all. Classic car drivers are one of the most responsible groups, which is why classic car insurance is considerably cheaper.
Not likely in your lifetime, probably not your kids either. There will only be immediate benefits for us. I'm all for less cars on the road due to improved efficiency, and the cars that are automated on the road are going to be much, much safer. So, you can enjoy driving your classic with less fear of some teen in an air cushioned behemoth killing you and your car.
In a bizarre collision of the two, a school I used to go to had some students that wanted to protest some gun control measure or something. They were to wear empty holsters and shirts with guns on them or something.
So, the school responded to their declared intent by saying they could only protest in the designated "Free Speech Zone", couldn't wear holsters, nor could they wear any shirts that were "threatening", (iow, "Had guns pictured on them").
Law suit comes, sees, conquers.
Ignoring the gun control part for the moment... what the hell? Free Speech Zone... at a school? What perversion of culture is this crap?
I find it not a surprise. Because NPR..50 ant-materiel rifles, especially bolt-action ones are available in even some of the most restrictive states. Yet there doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Really, there's not much of a problem with "assault weapons" other than sensationalism. Income disparity + handguns are by far the problem if you want to be rational about it.
I can agree. Gun Free Zones were declared unconstitutional the first time around. Then Congress was like, "But our students are scared of guns, and they might work in a different state at some point, therefore commerce clause!" It seems to have worked really well. I mean, you've never heard of any massacres in Gun Free Zones, have you?
Those unmitigated muscle cars were rated for power on engine dynos with race pipes, no alternator, no drivetrain, etc. There will little standards to horsepower ratings in the 70s. Now, it is still engine power (as opposed to actual power at the wheels), but they are required to be measured with all accessories and emissions equipment.
Plus, brake specific fuel consumption has skyrocketed since then. A 1970s 5.7L engine gets a whopping 200-250 hp, where today's get 400-500.
When I worked at a dyno shop, we were accused of all sorts of mischief when a customers 1960s or 1970s "muscle" car came in and made all of 190 hp. "Your dyno is broken!" Well, the 80s may have produced anemic american cars but the Japanese and Euro cars actually managed, in the late 80s to produce quick vehicles. They also had been using EFI for decades. The Americans produced ridiculously ineffecient, carb'd (until the late effing 90s) pieces of shit until, well, they went bankrupt. Of course then, nobody nuked American manufacturing plants requiring them to build new infrastructure.
Yeah! Those dumb engineers.... Compare them to the political and environmental tards that are forcing old and obsolete nuclear power plants to keep running despite not being originally designed to run as long as they are.
I can't say much for 3rd world countries or areas near fault lines, but nuclear power is needed, desperately. Lower deaths per KW/h, by far. Cleaner by far. The only thing stopping it is this stupid stigma.
I've always thought that environmentalism is really just selfishness of the human species. The Earth doesn't feel or give two shits about how we treat it. It will keep on trucking until the sun explodes. So, by trying to save the environment, you really mean you want to save the environment for humans to keep living on. Possibly packing as many people on it as possible.
I say find another suitable planet and a way to get there and pillage the place.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but now they will know your driving habits and where you go each and every day. Still want to hand them this info?
Eh?
Just because someone is a hypocrit, doesn't mean their argument is invalid. It just means you shouldn't trust them.
That's understood, but some laws require that you move over if cars are behind you, regardless of how fast you are going.
No, I think most don't realize they are a) in the so-called fast lane, b) don't realize that they are only supposed to be there to pass, c) don't realize that you can break (b) if you don't go fast enough (including over the speed limit) and c) don't realize or utilize their rear view mirrors.
Lots of states have laws that state you can't hold up traffic behind you in the left lane, no matter what speed you are going at.
We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. ...in America.
Nuclear energy is the most ecologically viable option in existence. The problems with not being able to build shiny, reliable new ones is a governmental and societal problem, not a nuclear one.
Or do you think pumping radioactive coal ash in the air is more ecologically viable?
Anti-life suffers from the same problems. Let's say I want 3 children. If the first one is born with some disability that costs more time, energy, and resources than I can afford for the next two children I wanted, you've now prevented the birth of two healthy children so that one disabled one can live. One child that I do not want. Who now is anti-life? I could spin it as pro-prevent-healthy-babies-from-ever-being-born.
I have to admit, the trolling possibilities are tempting...
No, it's very easy, and humans are terrible at it--but as usual every driver thinks they are "better than average". Programming a car to not run into anything is easy.
I don't think by joyride he means the teenager type of joyride. He means cruising and enjoying driving. You know, obeying the law and all. Classic car drivers are one of the most responsible groups, which is why classic car insurance is considerably cheaper.
Not likely in your lifetime, probably not your kids either. There will only be immediate benefits for us. I'm all for less cars on the road due to improved efficiency, and the cars that are automated on the road are going to be much, much safer. So, you can enjoy driving your classic with less fear of some teen in an air cushioned behemoth killing you and your car.
Seriously, 'automated cars' are just taxis you can own. That's it. If taxis were going to change the world, they already would have.
Taxi's without the taxi driver, which costs money.
In a bizarre collision of the two, a school I used to go to had some students that wanted to protest some gun control measure or something. They were to wear empty holsters and shirts with guns on them or something.
So, the school responded to their declared intent by saying they could only protest in the designated "Free Speech Zone", couldn't wear holsters, nor could they wear any shirts that were "threatening", (iow, "Had guns pictured on them").
Law suit comes, sees, conquers.
Ignoring the gun control part for the moment... what the hell? Free Speech Zone... at a school? What perversion of culture is this crap?
Where they there to see it trapped? Then how do they know!?
I find it not a surprise. Because NPR. .50 ant-materiel rifles, especially bolt-action ones are available in even some of the most restrictive states. Yet there doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Really, there's not much of a problem with "assault weapons" other than sensationalism. Income disparity + handguns are by far the problem if you want to be rational about it.
Right. Because this wasn't possible (or not done before) with hunting rifles?
That's cute and all, but GM crops are the future. You can't feed 70 bazillion people on normal crops.
I can agree. Gun Free Zones were declared unconstitutional the first time around. Then Congress was like, "But our students are scared of guns, and they might work in a different state at some point, therefore commerce clause!" It seems to have worked really well. I mean, you've never heard of any massacres in Gun Free Zones, have you?
Besides the fact that it's a complete waste of taxpayer money and time that could be spent on real issues?
Those unmitigated muscle cars were rated for power on engine dynos with race pipes, no alternator, no drivetrain, etc. There will little standards to horsepower ratings in the 70s. Now, it is still engine power (as opposed to actual power at the wheels), but they are required to be measured with all accessories and emissions equipment.
Plus, brake specific fuel consumption has skyrocketed since then. A 1970s 5.7L engine gets a whopping 200-250 hp, where today's get 400-500.
When I worked at a dyno shop, we were accused of all sorts of mischief when a customers 1960s or 1970s "muscle" car came in and made all of 190 hp. "Your dyno is broken!" Well, the 80s may have produced anemic american cars but the Japanese and Euro cars actually managed, in the late 80s to produce quick vehicles. They also had been using EFI for decades. The Americans produced ridiculously ineffecient, carb'd (until the late effing 90s) pieces of shit until, well, they went bankrupt. Of course then, nobody nuked American manufacturing plants requiring them to build new infrastructure.
Yeah! Those dumb engineers.... Compare them to the political and environmental tards that are forcing old and obsolete nuclear power plants to keep running despite not being originally designed to run as long as they are. I can't say much for 3rd world countries or areas near fault lines, but nuclear power is needed, desperately. Lower deaths per KW/h, by far. Cleaner by far. The only thing stopping it is this stupid stigma.
I've always thought that environmentalism is really just selfishness of the human species. The Earth doesn't feel or give two shits about how we treat it. It will keep on trucking until the sun explodes. So, by trying to save the environment, you really mean you want to save the environment for humans to keep living on. Possibly packing as many people on it as possible. I say find another suitable planet and a way to get there and pillage the place.
You mean like using the VIN which is in plain view?