You can not debate a subject when the asserting side refuses to provide the details.
Imagine if I accused you of doing something bad, possibly illegal. You can't defend yourself because you don't know exactly what it is you are to have done.
Imagine going to court and being told the prosecutor is requesting you be tossed in jail for 4 years. Why? Well he doesn't want to disclose that part. Not even the details of the alleged crime, you aren't even told what crime it was.
Would that be openminded?
Microsoft has made a broad claim and is refusing to provide the details. The assertion that if they had something they would produce them is a tenable one.
Personally I think MS' refusal to state them is multifacted but one of them being they want us to start looking so we can be held accountable. It'd be an admission of guilt.
A debate requires two sides, and information to debate. MS has made an assertion, OSS advocates have made a counter-assertion. Microsoft clams up.
For most users, yes that is among the worst, though not the worst.
Worse than reinstall: Having your private records emailed to others
Especially if your private records are government espionage records. Say your machine had a document you were preparing for your superiors detailing activities of some of your undercover intelligence operatives in foreign countries. Say the computer infection sent that information out. Worst case under this scenario: death of your agents, and death of your fellow citizens as they get slaughtered due to your government not knowing the details of an impending attack. Indeed, in this worse-case scenario the fatal STD is the minor incident since potentially thousands or even millions could be killed as a result of your machine getting sick.
What if your personal files were mailed out and the information in them led to the death of yourself or another? Say you had incriminating information that if others found out they may get violent over? What if that was emailed out.
I've seen this scenario on a less-than-fatal happen. I've seen people's Windows PCs get infected and their personal financial records emailed out to everyone in their address book.
What if your Windows Mobile device gets a virus on it locking your phone - preventing you from placing that call to 911? You or others (or both) could die from not having emergency medical arrive in time, if at all.
Most STDs are not fatal, even if untreated. Most Windows machine infections are not fatal, even if treated. But to say that they can not be is to not look at the potential or to consider the extent of which computers are integrated into our lives.
1) What's with the "poisoning"? There is no speak of poisoning of testosterone, merely people with "low" vs. "high". 2) Internet trolls by (current) definition do not see the faces so this doesn't apply.
Actually there is half-truth to what you say, The production and sale of diesel is limited, but indirectly. You see, diesel is nasty on the environment. It's filthy with emissions the EPA has said are too much. Thus the technology required to bring the diesels in line with the EPA is more than most automakers are willing to go with. Now, there is work being done on essentially a consumable scrubbing agent, but there is much legal contention over that as well because a tank of the stuff will only run you about 15,000 miles and the EPA has a requirement that emission related stuff work for 100000 miles.
But again, even that system is expensive.
And no biodiesel doesn't change the matter. Better on some emissions, worse on others. Mainly the ones the EPA is currently obsessed with.
As far as diesel blowing "hybrids out of the water", you must pay attention to what is being hybridized. I've seen diesel-electric hybrids that are simply awesome in terms of fuel economy. Of course, there were many other issues.
is a spamnet that doesn't try to sell you anything. Instead it tells the reader there is a big fine and possible court appearances coming down the pike if their computer is found to be infected. Maybe even make them think their system is infected. Basic text, no HTML. No attachments. Give them instructions on how to get their system clean, how to "practice safe emailing", etc..
Just make it all sound like it was written by a lawyer, and that they may face stiff penalties if they do no comply in a short time.
Solution? No. But hey if it helps...after all it is only text.
The Hummer's change is 1-2MPG. Only the Saturn Vue (on the list in TFA) has as small a change. Look at what is changing the most. It's Hybrids followed by "economy" cars. This is true for both raw numbers as well as percentage change. So yes while all vehicles are affected, the hybrids take the biggest hit by far. This may point back to the fact that hybrids are a "gimmick" in that reduction of mass is where true performance lies.
Lower mass vehicles will get better economy (halving the weight doubles the MPG), and if done by reducing weight of components not size of vehicle are safer for occupants, pedestrians, and occupants of other vehicles. They handle far better, require smaller engines and fewer parts. If you really want to reduce fuel consumption you should be pushing for much lighter vehicles. It isn't so much a matter of driving it in a way to get what you are told you can get, but simple laws of physics. Take a sedan, halve it's weight through design for light weight, and anybody driving it will get about double the economy of the same vehicle prior to the diet.
To put it another way, Hybrids are hacks. The real solution is to cut the bloat and fat from vehicles. There is no reason anything smaller than a mid-sized SUV should weigh more than 850 kilos.
As much as it may suprise you, most people do not idle most of the time. Most people do not sit in bumper to bumper traffic. If you do, you should look at a full-on electric. That way you don't use any gasoline on your trip. Especially if you drive less than 100-200 miles per day.
IMO if you are driving primarily in bumper to bumper traffic, and use your car almost or even exclusively under traffic conditions, you should be driving a full-electric instead of patting yourself on the back for the half-measure of the hybrid. An electric will even work in conditions where a bicycle will not (like slick, cold roads).
And yes, if you know how to drive well you will get better mileage than EPA on any vehicle. The EPA doesn't test actual mileage.
There is a difference between tapping and surveilling foreign agents, and US Citizens. Since none of us here have the exact details, let us examine what is said.
Bush claims they are/were tapping communicatiuons from/to suspected foreign agents outside of the country.
Now let us examine this assertion without regard to who the President is. Does the executive branch have the power to perform surveillance on foreign agents that have the intention of causing harm to the United States or it's interests? If you say yes consider the next question: Does the presence of a US citizen in the mix nullify that power?
If you say yes then consider that you have provided a loophole that is exploited by most insurgent movements. Very few insurgent movements, whether of terrorist or actual invasion natures, operate without assistance from inside the target country. If you ar emonitoring the communications of a foreign agent plotting to cause damage to the US and in the course of doing so you find that he or she is communicating with a US citizen, should you then have to stop doing so? Or is it reasonable to continue your surveillance of the foreign aganet even if it includes communication with one or more of your citizens?
Specifically this speaks to "secure... against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures". In the above scenario is the wiretapping unreasonable? If you examine the history behind the colonists insistence of this protection, you will find something interesting. This restriction is not against a central authority, but specifically a response to agents of the central authority acting on their own. You see, it wasn't the King himself issuing search and seizure orders, but the locals doing it for political reasons. Remember that communications between the King in Engalnd and his agents in the Colonies took months to get around. Even for the first US Presidents such orders would take days to weeks, or even a few months.
The framers of the constitution were aware of both central power abuse and local agent abuse. The 4th is an attempt to limit both, but primarily local agents usurping the power of their position. That isn't to say the President or King is not subject to these limitations, but to put context onto it that you missed.
Indeed our instant communication abilities exacerbates the problem by allowing subordinates to place the blame for their actions on higher command structures. This makes it worse by focusing "the watchers'" attention on the central authority, allowing the instigators or the breaches to remain and go unpunished. This causes the underlying source of the problem - local agents - in place and even strengthened.
If the surveillance was done between citizens and done w/o warrant, then there is a problem. But it is not unreasonable to surveil foreign agents and still listen to their conversations even if the other end is in the US to a US cituzen. if you then monitor that ciizen specifically w/o a warrant you also run into problems.
The executive has the power to monitor foreign agents and act against them - it is one of the core purposes of the government.
The greatest enemy of the capitalism these days are the... capitalists...
Wrong. Any time you have someone claiming you have to buy their product or service because it is the law (true or not), that's statism, not capitalism. Anytime someone argues that buying their product/service should be mandated by law, that's statism. A Capitalist wants the government to not interfere with her business transactions. Buying and/or selling does not a capitalist make.
Along with a great many of other patterns people are "rediscovering" these days. Unfortunately today as then, if not more so today, people (i.e. politicians) only want to take part of the set of patterns, which often leads to more trouble than they previously had. Many of our problems with traffic, and the resulting mess of pollution, frustration, and sheer time waste that occurs as a result could have been avoided by following the patterns C.A. had regarding density and building size when combined with mixed "zones".
Instead we got saddled with "urban planning" bozos who spend our money telling us what we want and then making or passing laws that mandate what "we want". Wal-Mart didn't kill the corner store, zoning laws did.
I've seen better fuel economy by not driving the speed limit. The speed limit is set based on nearby conditions not what will get you the best fuel economy. It's not possible use them to do that. In many cars picking up 5MPH allows you to drop a gear and run at lower RPM thus using less fuel.
Re: fast accelerations I've seen a slight increase in testing fast starts versus slow starts.
Re; lift kits and accessories Again outside of weight this won't affect anything significantly - except on hybrids. Roll your windows up and you'll get better results. Shed twenty pounds of fat and you'll get better fuel economy improvement than racks and lift kits. Lift kits only add some weight and have no impact on aerodynamics (unless you are talking about turning a sports car into a massive 4WD monster). The aerodynamics of the underside of a car is pretty much set - it sucks.
If you want intelligent drivers you must get people to actually think and experiment. Repeating age-old platitudes that are not true or not effective won't do it.
Go ahead, try some experiments, keep records, learn what really affects your economy.
Rule #1 avoid slowing down.
Learn how to safely take corners at speed. Slowing from 30 to 5-10 to turn a corner kills mileage. Most cars can take most corners at 2-3 times what people do take them at. Watch ahead to see what is going on, learn to anticipate your speed change requirements.
Drive thrus? Shut the car off. If you idle for about 6 seconds you just consumed as much fuel as it takes to start modern (last decade and a half) engines. Yup, 6 seconds.
There are few blanket statements on improving mileage. Chief among them is "move less mass". A heavy but aerodynamic car can and will get less economy than a lightweight brick shaped one. Aerodynamics has little effect until you get to freeway speeds.
city driving...bumper to bumper...A regular car will typically get well under 10 mph in such situations; a hybrid will get around 60.
Dude. bumper to bumper at 60MPH your hybrid won't get any better fuel economy than a non-hybrid in bumper to bumper at 60 mph.
Personally if you drive in bumper to bumper all the time dump the hybrid and go full-electric or go human-powered. Quit posing. Hell in stop and go bumper to bumper I can get to work or get home on my bicycle or skates long before a hybrid in traffic.
The real problem is that zoning laws force us to live so far from work, and that those same laws allow/force us into high density areas where traffic will increase.
You know, the ones that don't drive 20 over the speed limit
I wish we could get people to realize that speed is not necessarily a degradation of fuel economy. A vehicle that can cruise at a higher speed but due to gearing run at a lower RPM will get (all things equal) will get better fuel economy. An Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) at a given RPM will put out a given power amount. If due to gearing you can travel faster for the RPM you will get better fuel economy (all else equal)....tires properly filled...
Again a common comment that is no longer very accurate, if it ever was. Tires "properly" inflated make a difference of less than 3%. If it rains you can see a drop in fuel economy of over 10%. This is mainly true for underpowered vehicles. Indeed, over-inflating the tire puts less surface patch down so you have a slightly lower rolling resistance which translates to slightly lower fuel consumption. Over or under inflation has a less than 3% difference. The temperature of the air makes as much difference. Driving a manual instead of an automatic makes a more significant difference.
In fact, I've been conduction tests on the two ends of the accelerate spectrum: zip to speed versus crawl or amble up to speed. I've found a slight though statistically insignificant improvement by rapidly accelerating to speed. Yes, I know that is contrary to what we are told but so be it. In my case I go from say 0-60 quickly and go from first to top gear in a single shift. I suspect the minimization of RPM changes (i.e. one shift versus a few) has a significant impact.
In the end it is not much different than rockets. In theory if you had enough fuel you can slowly rise to orbit. But it is far more efficient to do it quickly. Which is what put me on the tests I've been doing. The difference is one of magnitude and scale but the principle is similar enough.
Yes, teaching people better habits is a nice thing to do, but getting them to actually drop their old bad habits is an entirely different story.
Which is precisely what "modern" driver instruction should include copious amounts of training in such methods as well as accident avoidance. Instead Driver's Ed is about "following the rules" err I mean passing a written test that says you memorized a few laws and performed basic driving skills.
Driving style is a major factor, second only to weight of the vehicle in determining economy. My Corvette routinely pulls mid-twenties in town (while putting down ~400HP), and mid-thirties on our mountain area freeways. My Suburban running E85 (when I drive it) gets within 1MPG of it's rated gasoline performance (despite how much some people want to proclaim red herrings about energy content and such). There are times when putting a bigger engine can in fact lower fuel consumption.
Also, manual transmissions save 1-3MPG over automatics.
Too much global warming disasterbation has caused the "easy" changes to be overlooked. Perfect is the enemy of better.
Now specifically on dropping old habits.. not as hard as you'd think. Gimme two weeks of day-to-day driving and I can improve your driving economy - without much relapse. Having an MPG indicator (average and current) makes a huge difference. Driving habits are not that hard to break. They seem to be one of the easier ones.
Yeah you, you people who walk away from your set during a commercial. They know you do that. That is why COMMERCIALS ARE SO DAMNED LOUD THESE DAYS. They want you to hear their dribble while you let the dog out, take a wiz, fix a snack or get a drink.
And to all you posters who say "well it is funded by commercials" I say "not if I pay for it". If someone else is paying for it, I shouldn't as well. That is called double-dipping or double billing and is illegal in most industries. I pay to watch my show(s), I did not pay to watch commercials.
Kinda like XM. When it came out people all over were saying it'll never work because people won't pay to listen to the radio. Mostly true. But we will, and do, pay to listen to the radio without commercials. I pay for Showtime to watch shows without commercial interruption. Just as commercials have bastardized our "news" they've bastardized most services.
If oyu are talking about a large school district with thousands of hundreds of thousands of students... I say you need to split it up. The bigger the scope the mor ebloat and waste you have. Yes, it's an application of the UNIX philosophy.
This is most especially true for local issues. What offends my neighbor may not offend me. Why should he get a law to criminalize conduct he finds offensive? At all?
Any kind of speech. At all. In every form. All should be protected in that there should be no laws favoring or opposing any of it preferentially - favor it all. Speech even in pictorial form (one of the oldest forms of written communication fer cryin out loud), prose, whatever. Say what you want. Just realize that others can too.
Decency and mutual respect can only occur when the powers are not favoring one over the other. if some people can say certain things and others can not you have just created friction greater than just letting people handle themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's juries - the people- that award the ridiculous amounts.
You can not debate a subject when the asserting side refuses to provide the details.
Imagine if I accused you of doing something bad, possibly illegal. You can't defend yourself because you don't know exactly what it is you are to have done.
Imagine going to court and being told the prosecutor is requesting you be tossed in jail for 4 years. Why? Well he doesn't want to disclose that part. Not even the details of the alleged crime, you aren't even told what crime it was.
Would that be openminded?
Microsoft has made a broad claim and is refusing to provide the details. The assertion that if they had something they would produce them is a tenable one.
Personally I think MS' refusal to state them is multifacted but one of them being they want us to start looking so we can be held accountable. It'd be an admission of guilt.
A debate requires two sides, and information to debate. MS has made an assertion, OSS advocates have made a counter-assertion. Microsoft clams up.
Now, where are the open minds in this situation?
Actually a lot of politicians I've seen will say they don't think they can win.
For most users, yes that is among the worst, though not the worst.
Worse than reinstall: Having your private records emailed to others
Especially if your private records are government espionage records. Say your machine had a document you were preparing for your superiors detailing activities of some of your undercover intelligence operatives in foreign countries. Say the computer infection sent that information out. Worst case under this scenario: death of your agents, and death of your fellow citizens as they get slaughtered due to your government not knowing the details of an impending attack. Indeed, in this worse-case scenario the fatal STD is the minor incident since potentially thousands or even millions could be killed as a result of your machine getting sick.
What if your personal files were mailed out and the information in them led to the death of yourself or another? Say you had incriminating information that if others found out they may get violent over? What if that was emailed out.
I've seen this scenario on a less-than-fatal happen. I've seen people's Windows PCs get infected and their personal financial records emailed out to everyone in their address book.
What if your Windows Mobile device gets a virus on it locking your phone - preventing you from placing that call to 911? You or others (or both) could die from not having emergency medical arrive in time, if at all.
Most STDs are not fatal, even if untreated. Most Windows machine infections are not fatal, even if treated. But to say that they can not be is to not look at the potential or to consider the extent of which computers are integrated into our lives.
1) What's with the "poisoning"? There is no speak of poisoning of testosterone, merely people with "low" vs. "high".
....
2) Internet trolls by (current) definition do not see the faces so this doesn't apply.
Now building contractors however
Actually the Doc's Time Machine requires 1.21 Gigawatts. So your 1.2 Gigawatt lighting bolt falls short. A lot short
Actually there is half-truth to what you say, The production and sale of diesel is limited, but indirectly. You see, diesel is nasty on the environment. It's filthy with emissions the EPA has said are too much. Thus the technology required to bring the diesels in line with the EPA is more than most automakers are willing to go with. Now, there is work being done on essentially a consumable scrubbing agent, but there is much legal contention over that as well because a tank of the stuff will only run you about 15,000 miles and the EPA has a requirement that emission related stuff work for 100000 miles.
But again, even that system is expensive.
And no biodiesel doesn't change the matter. Better on some emissions, worse on others. Mainly the ones the EPA is currently obsessed with.
As far as diesel blowing "hybrids out of the water", you must pay attention to what is being hybridized. I've seen diesel-electric hybrids that are simply awesome in terms of fuel economy. Of course, there were many other issues.
is a spamnet that doesn't try to sell you anything. Instead it tells the reader there is a big fine and possible court appearances coming down the pike if their computer is found to be infected. Maybe even make them think their system is infected. Basic text, no HTML. No attachments. Give them instructions on how to get their system clean, how to "practice safe emailing", etc..
...after all it is only text.
Just make it all sound like it was written by a lawyer, and that they may face stiff penalties if they do no comply in a short time.
Solution? No. But hey if it helps
And funny thing is, look at the differences.
The Hummer's change is 1-2MPG. Only the Saturn Vue (on the list in TFA) has as small a change. Look at what is changing the most. It's Hybrids followed by "economy" cars. This is true for both raw numbers as well as percentage change. So yes while all vehicles are affected, the hybrids take the biggest hit by far. This may point back to the fact that hybrids are a "gimmick" in that reduction of mass is where true performance lies.
Lower mass vehicles will get better economy (halving the weight doubles the MPG), and if done by reducing weight of components not size of vehicle are safer for occupants, pedestrians, and occupants of other vehicles. They handle far better, require smaller engines and fewer parts. If you really want to reduce fuel consumption you should be pushing for much lighter vehicles. It isn't so much a matter of driving it in a way to get what you are told you can get, but simple laws of physics. Take a sedan, halve it's weight through design for light weight, and anybody driving it will get about double the economy of the same vehicle prior to the diet.
To put it another way, Hybrids are hacks. The real solution is to cut the bloat and fat from vehicles. There is no reason anything smaller than a mid-sized SUV should weigh more than 850 kilos.
As much as it may suprise you, most people do not idle most of the time. Most people do not sit in bumper to bumper traffic. If you do, you should look at a full-on electric. That way you don't use any gasoline on your trip. Especially if you drive less than 100-200 miles per day.
IMO if you are driving primarily in bumper to bumper traffic, and use your car almost or even exclusively under traffic conditions, you should be driving a full-electric instead of patting yourself on the back for the half-measure of the hybrid. An electric will even work in conditions where a bicycle will not (like slick, cold roads).
And yes, if you know how to drive well you will get better mileage than EPA on any vehicle. The EPA doesn't test actual mileage.
Who'd have thunk we would be hearing the phrase "oh another veto" used regarding Bush with being followed by "opportunity lost"?
There is a difference between tapping and surveilling foreign agents, and US Citizens. Since none of us here have the exact details, let us examine what is said.
Bush claims they are/were tapping communicatiuons from/to suspected foreign agents outside of the country.
Now let us examine this assertion without regard to who the President is. Does the executive branch have the power to perform surveillance on foreign agents that have the intention of causing harm to the United States or it's interests?
If you say yes consider the next question:
Does the presence of a US citizen in the mix nullify that power?
If you say yes then consider that you have provided a loophole that is exploited by most insurgent movements. Very few insurgent movements, whether of terrorist or actual invasion natures, operate without assistance from inside the target country. If you ar emonitoring the communications of a foreign agent plotting to cause damage to the US and in the course of doing so you find that he or she is communicating with a US citizen, should you then have to stop doing so? Or is it reasonable to continue your surveillance of the foreign aganet even if it includes communication with one or more of your citizens?
Specifically this speaks to "secure... against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures". In the above scenario is the wiretapping unreasonable? If you examine the history behind the colonists insistence of this protection, you will find something interesting. This restriction is not against a central authority, but specifically a response to agents of the central authority acting on their own. You see, it wasn't the King himself issuing search and seizure orders, but the locals doing it for political reasons. Remember that communications between the King in Engalnd and his agents in the Colonies took months to get around. Even for the first US Presidents such orders would take days to weeks, or even a few months.
The framers of the constitution were aware of both central power abuse and local agent abuse. The 4th is an attempt to limit both, but primarily local agents usurping the power of their position. That isn't to say the President or King is not subject to these limitations, but to put context onto it that you missed.
Indeed our instant communication abilities exacerbates the problem by allowing subordinates to place the blame for their actions on higher command structures. This makes it worse by focusing "the watchers'" attention on the central authority, allowing the instigators or the breaches to remain and go unpunished. This causes the underlying source of the problem - local agents - in place and even strengthened.
If the surveillance was done between citizens and done w/o warrant, then there is a problem. But it is not unreasonable to surveil foreign agents and still listen to their conversations even if the other end is in the US to a US cituzen. if you then monitor that ciizen specifically w/o a warrant you also run into problems.
The executive has the power to monitor foreign agents and act against them - it is one of the core purposes of the government.
The greatest enemy of the capitalism these days are the... capitalists...
Wrong. Any time you have someone claiming you have to buy their product or service because it is the law (true or not), that's statism, not capitalism. Anytime someone argues that buying their product/service should be mandated by law, that's statism. A Capitalist wants the government to not interfere with her business transactions. Buying and/or selling does not a capitalist make.
yet it is a hell people around the world are trying to join. Go figure.
would risk allowing you to deride born again christians or catholics.
I dunno, I've yet to see a born again christian with two belly buttons.
Along with a great many of other patterns people are "rediscovering" these days. Unfortunately today as then, if not more so today, people (i.e. politicians) only want to take part of the set of patterns, which often leads to more trouble than they previously had. Many of our problems with traffic, and the resulting mess of pollution, frustration, and sheer time waste that occurs as a result could have been avoided by following the patterns C.A. had regarding density and building size when combined with mixed "zones".
Instead we got saddled with "urban planning" bozos who spend our money telling us what we want and then making or passing laws that mandate what "we want". Wal-Mart didn't kill the corner store, zoning laws did.
I've seen better fuel economy by not driving the speed limit. The speed limit is set based on nearby conditions not what will get you the best fuel economy. It's not possible use them to do that. In many cars picking up 5MPH allows you to drop a gear and run at lower RPM thus using less fuel.
Re: fast accelerations
I've seen a slight increase in testing fast starts versus slow starts.
Re; lift kits and accessories
Again outside of weight this won't affect anything significantly - except on hybrids. Roll your windows up and you'll get better results. Shed twenty pounds of fat and you'll get better fuel economy improvement than racks and lift kits. Lift kits only add some weight and have no impact on aerodynamics (unless you are talking about turning a sports car into a massive 4WD monster). The aerodynamics of the underside of a car is pretty much set - it sucks.
If you want intelligent drivers you must get people to actually think and experiment. Repeating age-old platitudes that are not true or not effective won't do it.
Go ahead, try some experiments, keep records, learn what really affects your economy.
Rule #1 avoid slowing down.
Learn how to safely take corners at speed. Slowing from 30 to 5-10 to turn a corner kills mileage. Most cars can take most corners at 2-3 times what people do take them at. Watch ahead to see what is going on, learn to anticipate your speed change requirements.
Drive thrus? Shut the car off. If you idle for about 6 seconds you just consumed as much fuel as it takes to start modern (last decade and a half) engines. Yup, 6 seconds.
There are few blanket statements on improving mileage. Chief among them is "move less mass". A heavy but aerodynamic car can and will get less economy than a lightweight brick shaped one. Aerodynamics has little effect until you get to freeway speeds.
city driving...bumper to bumper...A regular car will typically get well under 10 mph in such situations; a hybrid will get around 60.
Dude. bumper to bumper at 60MPH your hybrid won't get any better fuel economy than a non-hybrid in bumper to bumper at 60 mph.
Personally if you drive in bumper to bumper all the time dump the hybrid and go full-electric or go human-powered. Quit posing. Hell in stop and go bumper to bumper I can get to work or get home on my bicycle or skates long before a hybrid in traffic.
The real problem is that zoning laws force us to live so far from work, and that those same laws allow/force us into high density areas where traffic will increase.
You know, the ones that don't drive 20 over the speed limit
...tires properly filled...
I wish we could get people to realize that speed is not necessarily a degradation of fuel economy. A vehicle that can cruise at a higher speed but due to gearing run at a lower RPM will get (all things equal) will get better fuel economy. An Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) at a given RPM will put out a given power amount. If due to gearing you can travel faster for the RPM you will get better fuel economy (all else equal).
Again a common comment that is no longer very accurate, if it ever was. Tires "properly" inflated make a difference of less than 3%. If it rains you can see a drop in fuel economy of over 10%. This is mainly true for underpowered vehicles. Indeed, over-inflating the tire puts less surface patch down so you have a slightly lower rolling resistance which translates to slightly lower fuel consumption. Over or under inflation has a less than 3% difference. The temperature of the air makes as much difference. Driving a manual instead of an automatic makes a more significant difference.
In fact, I've been conduction tests on the two ends of the accelerate spectrum: zip to speed versus crawl or amble up to speed. I've found a slight though statistically insignificant improvement by rapidly accelerating to speed. Yes, I know that is contrary to what we are told but so be it. In my case I go from say 0-60 quickly and go from first to top gear in a single shift. I suspect the minimization of RPM changes (i.e. one shift versus a few) has a significant impact.
In the end it is not much different than rockets. In theory if you had enough fuel you can slowly rise to orbit. But it is far more efficient to do it quickly. Which is what put me on the tests I've been doing. The difference is one of magnitude and scale but the principle is similar enough.
Yes, teaching people better habits is a nice thing to do, but getting them to actually drop their old bad habits is an entirely different story.
.. not as hard as you'd think. Gimme two weeks of day-to-day driving and I can improve your driving economy - without much relapse. Having an MPG indicator (average and current) makes a huge difference. Driving habits are not that hard to break. They seem to be one of the easier ones.
Which is precisely what "modern" driver instruction should include copious amounts of training in such methods as well as accident avoidance. Instead Driver's Ed is about "following the rules" err I mean passing a written test that says you memorized a few laws and performed basic driving skills.
Driving style is a major factor, second only to weight of the vehicle in determining economy. My Corvette routinely pulls mid-twenties in town (while putting down ~400HP), and mid-thirties on our mountain area freeways. My Suburban running E85 (when I drive it) gets within 1MPG of it's rated gasoline performance (despite how much some people want to proclaim red herrings about energy content and such). There are times when putting a bigger engine can in fact lower fuel consumption.
Also, manual transmissions save 1-3MPG over automatics.
Too much global warming disasterbation has caused the "easy" changes to be overlooked. Perfect is the enemy of better.
Now specifically on dropping old habits
Yeah you, you people who walk away from your set during a commercial. They know you do that. That is why COMMERCIALS ARE SO DAMNED LOUD THESE DAYS. They want you to hear their dribble while you let the dog out, take a wiz, fix a snack or get a drink.
And to all you posters who say "well it is funded by commercials" I say "not if I pay for it". If someone else is paying for it, I shouldn't as well. That is called double-dipping or double billing and is illegal in most industries. I pay to watch my show(s), I did not pay to watch commercials.
Kinda like XM. When it came out people all over were saying it'll never work because people won't pay to listen to the radio. Mostly true. But we will, and do, pay to listen to the radio without commercials. I pay for Showtime to watch shows without commercial interruption. Just as commercials have bastardized our "news" they've bastardized most services.
If oyu are talking about a large school district with thousands of hundreds of thousands of students ... I say you need to split it up. The bigger the scope the mor ebloat and waste you have. Yes, it's an application of the UNIX philosophy.
This is most especially true for local issues. What offends my neighbor may not offend me. Why should he get a law to criminalize conduct he finds offensive? At all?
Any kind of speech. At all. In every form. All should be protected in that there should be no laws favoring or opposing any of it preferentially - favor it all. Speech even in pictorial form (one of the oldest forms of written communication fer cryin out loud), prose, whatever. Say what you want. Just realize that others can too.
Decency and mutual respect can only occur when the powers are not favoring one over the other. if some people can say certain things and others can not you have just created friction greater than just letting people handle themselves.
the King of Thailand -- Universally Adored by Thais everywhere!
And now thanks to YouTube - universally adwhored by Thais and non-Thais everywhere.
Given the way things are going here ... maybe.