"The problem with doctors' "appointments" is you can only estimate how long a particular patient will take."
So is there any reason that the doctor or his/her staff can't be bothered to tell their waiting patients? Because if they don't I assume they are clueless and/or inconsiderate.
"And there's nobody stopping you from being your own physician."
Really? Didn't know I could write my own prescriptions. Oh, I can't? Well then, kind of difficult isn't it?
"You'll quickly find out you can't get through medical training on memory."
Obviously. Or your typical doctor might actually be better at their job:)
Medicine is essentially troubleshooting. You have your symptoms and you have your flowchart. When in doubt, you treat the most likely cause. Which really really sucks if you do have something unusual or out of the ordinary because most doctors, even specialists, are totally incapable of leaving the flowchart.
For my medical conditions I need two types of doctors. A GP that will offer me suggestions about medications but ultimately presribe me whatever I want (assuming it's safe). Because I know more than they do about my medical problems-no knock on them, but I have more time for me. A specialist who really understands (a neurologist who is a migraine specialist vs a neurologist, for instance). Someone who actually knows more than I do.
These types of doctors are not common. Which wouldn't be a problem if most doctors would accept their roles and limitations. They are consultants. Nothing more.
"i would add one to this: the concept of need. Lateness on the part of a patient is more inconsiderate than lateness on the part of a doctor."
I disagree. If you expect me to be on time to appointments then I expect to be seen on time. This does not count being shown into an exam room to wait even longer.
"A doctor who has made you wait will make sure that you get the care that you need, and if YOU'RE ever the one who's in need of the extra time, you'll be glad that they'll disrupt the schedule for it."
Well, you got it partly correct. Sure they will fit you in. Now getting the care you need is another matter altogether....
I don't have a problem if a doctor is late due to an emergency. But I expect to be told about it ASAP by the staff. Same if the doctor is running more than a few minutes late. I have been to offices that were typically an hour behind within an hour of opening and others that were rarely behind. I have had other doctors reshedule my appointment by mail because they had to leave town suddenly-pushing my appointment back another month (and people think Canadian medicine sucks?!?)
In summary, a lot of doctors are inconsiderate. And the doctor's time is NOT more valuable than my own.
"Your average Louisiana citizen will be able to talk your ear off about how corrupt their state and municipal government is, but will still prefer either of those two over the federal government because they consider it their own."
Pretty typical response. Similar to the "all congresscritters are crooks except mine" sentiment. The ability of people to rationalize is amazing. Of course, the the local politicians are the ones most likely to screw you over...
"My bank has, and I believe most banks have an overdraft limit, beyond which the WILL reject the debit/check amount. Some banks don't have overdraft protection at all and just reject the debit/check as NSF."
True. But they may still charge a fee for the honor, especially if it wasn't declined:)
"Overdraft is an option; don't enable it for any debit card linked account."
Well, if it is an option, it seems to one of those virtually impossible to decline. I never asked for that option nor was I given a choice for any bank or credit union account. But I guess I will check.
Now, IIRC, my ATM cards were different, as is using my debit card as an ATM card.
"All the banks I deal with allow the debit card functionality to be disabled, while leaving the ATM functionality intact."
Well, then it is no longer a debit card, is it? If I could be certain I could use such a card everywhere I use a debit card, I certainly would do that. Guess I'll ask...
"The first forecast that put the likelihood of the eye of the hurricane passing within 65 nautical miles of New Orleans above 50% was issued by NOAA at10 PM CDT Sunday."
And well before that time, President Bush had signed disaster declarations for the area. FEMA stated it was ready to go. So what's your point again?
Anyone who was reasonably prudent expected the Hurricane to hit N.O. well before Sunday and cause significant damage. Probably not the current level with certainty but that is never going to happen with significant advanced warning. There was ample warning and expectation that something bad was going to happen.
Leadership failed at ALL levels. Mobilization of significant resources is not quick or easy. But if you are signing disaster declarations for the area before the storm hits, you had better be mobilizing resources. You can always tell people to go home.
The people responsible for making these hard decisions failed. At some point they should be fired. Some will have to be voted out. Because I have no confidence that these people are qualified to rebuild the region. And I don't want these people in charge of billions of dollars funds and levels of responsibility that they can't handle.
So exactly why would small arms fire stop airdrops from military aircraft such as helicopters? I know helicopters are somewhat fragile but if they can't handle a disaster area with small arms fire I suspect they shouldn't be used in war zones...
The mayor certainly isn't blameless in this. Pretty sad to see diesel buses sitting in water-not very bright. The people who stayed aren't blameless. The police response is pathetic-their new motto should be "When the going gets tough, we can run with the best of them". Leadership is bad at all levels. Some seem to be doing well-the relief agencies, some police officers, the military on the ground, etc. But overall I suspect this will be a case study of how never, ever to respond to a human disaster.
"Natural disasters happen everywhere. Earthquakes, for example."
True. But only a moron builds on a fault. Or in the immediate danger area of a volcano. Or in a flood plain. Or really needs a study to figure out what will happen if it lets loose:)
It is pretty obvious what would happen if a Cat5 hurricane struck New Orleans directly. Total disaster. Not much point in studying it.
Some risks can't be avoided (EQ's, storms in general). But building a city below sea level is just plain stupid. As is funding to rebuild it.
Sure help the people, provide disaster aid but don't make it so the problem repeats itself.
"There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression."
Okay, try this thought experiment. Reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels NOW. Imagine the effect on economy. Now is this extreme? Sure. But you asked for some evidence:) But if you assume that humans are the cause of global warming that is what is required to stop it.
"Scrapping the energy inefficient technologies of today and building new power plants and factories is probably the best thing that could happen to the US economy."
And how is this going to reduce carbon emissions how? Building those shiny new plants and factories will release a lot of carbon. Not to mention recycling the old ones....
"As comparison with other Western nations alone shows, the US could easily cut its CO2 emissions in half without any decrease in its standard of living; quite to the contrary: a serious program to do that would increase the standard of living and create jobs."
Really? While you might define returning to horses as the dominant form of transportation to be no change in standard of living, I think most would disagree with you. That is what would be required for a 50% cut. The only countries who find it easy to reduce carbon emissions are ones stuck in depressions with extremely outdated technology. Even western European countries will find it hard to reduce carbon emissions.
Reducing emissions while retaining the same standard of life isn't easy. If it was, it would be done. If the economics were clear, it wouldn't require a treaty. There aren't good easy answers to difficult problems as you believe.
"Sure, a Taser, on the rare occasion, can kill someone, but its a much more efficient alternative to a gun."
Then by definition it isn't "non-lethal", now is it? These weapons are often sold to the public on the premise that they are totally harmless, which isn't true. I just want truth in advertising-"not as lethal", "virtually non-lethal", etc. But then, the makers wouldn't sell as many, would they:) There is a definite place for these weapons-I just don't wan't them misrepresented.
"Rubber bullets are pretty much guarenteed lethal in an eye-strike situation, very dangerous when striking the head or throat at any angle and particularly dangerous if children are present."
And because they are not as effective as regular old bullets, tend to be fired at said parts of the body by troops. Part of the problem with "nonlethal" weapons is that they often aren't. It is better to say that they are much less lethal. But that doesn't sound so good....
"Hostage situations would be as easy as hosing down a whole group of people with the lightning gun..."
Oh, yeah, that's a great idea from the inventors. Not. Because a lot of "nonlethal" weapons tend to be lethal. Hope nobody has a heart condition or some medical condition aggravated by the weapon. Oops.
This ranks as only slightly brighter than Russians gassing a theater to end a hostage situation and not bothering to tell the medics what they were facing.... For some reason people react poorly when you kill people trying to save them...
"Obsession with safety is a warning sing of our civilization's deep crisis."
I think it would be more accurate to say "unreasonable". Virtually eliminating traffic fatalities (computer comtrol) isn't unreasonable. Probably almost impossible to implement, yes, but that is different.
Even better would be our collective inablility to accurately determine risk. You know, which is more dangerous, nuclear power vs coal power, flying vs driving and then trying to eliminate risk from things that are inherently safe. That really distorts things. I don't know if that can be solved in a satisfactory way. Education only helps to a degree...
"*Typical* lifespan of a *German built* engine is 500,000 miles without major repair or overhaul.."
Maybe if you mean diesel, possibly gas. And only if it is from a high end manufacturer (think Mercedes). German built gas VW engines need overhauls long before then. Half that would be excellent. Some don't even last that long....
It is difficult to build a long lasting engine for an AFFORDABLE car that will maintain proper emissions for 500K miles. Those 70's Mercedes weren't cheap. And frankly, it is a waste of money and resources-the typical lifespan of a car is about 12 years or so-people like new things. Why build an engine that will outlast the rest of the car? People who keep vehicles for 30 years are in a very small minority. There are some nice older cars, but in general, they burn more gas, produce more emmissions and aren't as safe.
"The reason that some BMW's and VW's have problems is that they are NOT MADE IN GERMANY WITH GERMAN PARTS!!"
Wrong. VW's (and Audi's) are notorious for electrical problems. They always were. I have owned VW's made in Germany with German parts-and guess what, they had electrical problems. They always were. It's just that they have a lot more electronics now:)
I like VW's. But frankly I don't think their engineers know how to build an electrical system. Or at least a reliable one in the same sense as the Japanese. It has very little to do with who builds the car and only a some with the parts-after all, every manufacturer uses the cheapest parts they can that will serve the design requirements. I like their mechanical engineering-not their electrical desigin.
To summarize, German cars are fun to drive, but I pity you if yours develops and electrical demon....
I think people are a bit confused about your ranting and raving about newer cars when it seems you are just really pissed about dishonest mechanics.
Here's the deal, old cars are easy to work on because they tend to be simple (in some respects-I would rather diagnose fuel injection than work on a carb). They also tend to pollute more, be less safe to passengers and others, and use more gas than new cars. New cars have many more electronics because of this-things that are not terribly difficult to diagnose if you know what you are doing. In general, newer cars are far more reliable, safer, fuel efficient, environmentally friendly than cars of the past.
In general (exceptions always apply), comparable modern vehicles are superior in every way. Now, they may not be superior for YOUR purposes or because of your lack of knowledge. And remember, for a proper comparision always compare similar vehicles (an old high end german vehicle with a new econobox is not a similar comparison).
Finally, replacing a throwout bearing on most vehicles would cost hundreds of dollars at a REPUTABLE mechanic. Even for a FWD VW (such as a jetta or golf). They would charge the book time even though it takes less-for them (anyone who describes dropping a transmission as quick and easy is unusual, and I have done that multiple times-and I don't consider it quick and easy). That isn't taking advantage of anyone-that is being fair. Of course a reputable shop would suggest changing the clutch and not claim the transmission is broken....
"if I have to spend 5 minutes going through a ride check once in a blue moon... so be it."
versus this
"What I would not stand for is the police pulling me over searching my car without just cause."
is essentially the same in reality. Gee, we smell alcohol, please get out of your vehicle. You swerved a little close to the line there, field sobriety test time and/or we should check for drugs. If police WANT to pull you over and search your car, they can determine a probable/just cause.
I don't like checkpoints because the are a WASTE OF TIME AND MANPOWER. Ever read the stats on them? And compare them to the number of officers you saw at them? In simple terms, they find fewer DUI's (but plenty of other violations) than if those same officers had been on the road near establishments where people go and drink. Like airport security, it only stops the morons and is mainly for show.
"Battery production and disposal has a big impact on the environment, as well as all the other production and disposal of the extra features of the car."
Huh? In the US batteries are recycled. You simply take them down to anyone who sells them and they take them. You pay a core charge when you buy a car battery if you don't have one to recycle. All batteries sent to wreckers are recycled. That is a non issue. Any fuel savings will far outway any impact of additional batteries in the system.
And what are these extra features you speak of? A hybrid isn't any different when shredded-other than it may have a higher amount of plastics than some vehicles. But that is becoming an issue with all vehicles.
Personally, I see no reason to spend more money on a hybrid IF a non-hybrid vehicle has the same specs-unless of course a government will give me an offsetting tax break. If the fuel use and emissions are similar then the hybrid has no additional positive environmental impact. IF a hybrid has better fuel economy and emissions, then go for it. Hybrids don't in and of themselves help the environment.
"Those batteries take a lot of materials, energy, and pollution to make (probably enough to offset the fuel savings already), and you still need to worry about disposing of them!"
No, and no to both points. Sure, they take raw materials to produce but basic lead-acid batteries essentially use byproducts of industry. And they are easy to recycle (and are heavily recycled). The energy costs are insignificant compared to the energy burned from gasoline. Repeat after me: the primary energy expenditure in a vehicles lifecycle involves driving it. In simple terms, gas/diesel/whatever.
"Many environmentalists fail to factor in production into their calculations."
There are a few reasons for this. First, it isn't the easiest thing to do. Second, the impact to produce a vehicle is small compared to cost of running it over its lifetime according to all of the studies I have read. So, if you have the choice of an efficient used vehicle and a new slightly more efficient vehicle the used one probably is better. Otherwise it is not much of a factor.
As for your other points. Steel is one of the most heavily recycled materials (almost all of it is recycled at some point). Cars are one of the most heavily recycled consumer products (95% or so are recycled in the US, and essentially all the ferrous material is recovered). Aluminum is recovered as well as copper. Batteries are almost totally recycled. Plastic is essentially a byproduct of refining tens of millions of barrels of oil a day.... In summary, if all products were recycled as well as cars, we would be in a lot better shape....
Clean depends upon your definition. There is no truly clean energy production. It all creates waste products-you just have to prioritize which ones matter the most (not easy).
And we can dispose of nuclear waste. That article is OLD. Frankly, putting it in a hole in the ground with engineered barriers on the edge of the main US nuclear weapon test site isn't that bad of an idea. We could do better, but we just haven't had the political will to do it.
"....a couple of scratches or fingerprints and they start becoming unreadable."
Well, aside from telling the kids not to scratch the disks (or don't buy new ones if they do), you do realize that the disks can be CLEANED? Unless your kids are handling the disks after painting that should solve the problem.
It takes some serious scratches to harm a DVD. If your kids treated the tapes like the DVDs they wouldn't last either....
Slashdot Mirror
"ATM machines print out all of their transactions on an internal paper roll as they are being used."
That's called a receipt. Which you generally get (if the machine isn't out of paper or jammed).
Don't recall any ATM's that kept a paper copy....
"The problem with doctors' "appointments" is you can only estimate how long a particular patient will take."
:)
So is there any reason that the doctor or his/her staff can't be bothered to tell their waiting patients? Because if they don't I assume they are clueless and/or inconsiderate.
"And there's nobody stopping you from being your own physician."
Really? Didn't know I could write my own prescriptions. Oh, I can't? Well then, kind of difficult isn't it?
"You'll quickly find out you can't get through medical training on memory."
Obviously. Or your typical doctor might actually be better at their job
Medicine is essentially troubleshooting. You have your symptoms and you have your flowchart. When in doubt, you treat the most likely cause. Which really really sucks if you do have something unusual or out of the ordinary because most doctors, even specialists, are totally incapable of leaving the flowchart.
For my medical conditions I need two types of doctors. A GP that will offer me suggestions about medications but ultimately presribe me whatever I want (assuming it's safe). Because I know more than they do about my medical problems-no knock on them, but I have more time for me. A specialist who really understands (a neurologist who is a migraine specialist vs a neurologist, for instance). Someone who actually knows more than I do.
These types of doctors are not common. Which wouldn't be a problem if most doctors would accept their roles and limitations. They are consultants. Nothing more.
Problem is that a hell of a lot of doctors that are running late at 7:30am don't have rounds. Got another lame excuse?
"i would add one to this: the concept of need. Lateness on the part of a patient is more inconsiderate than lateness on the part of a doctor."
I disagree. If you expect me to be on time to appointments then I expect to be seen on time. This does not count being shown into an exam room to wait even longer.
"A doctor who has made you wait will make sure that you get the care that you need, and if YOU'RE ever the one who's in need of the extra time, you'll be glad that they'll disrupt the schedule for it."
Well, you got it partly correct. Sure they will fit you in. Now getting the care you need is another matter altogether....
I don't have a problem if a doctor is late due to an emergency. But I expect to be told about it ASAP by the staff. Same if the doctor is running more than a few minutes late. I have been to offices that were typically an hour behind within an hour of opening and others that were rarely behind. I have had other doctors reshedule my appointment by mail because they had to leave town suddenly-pushing my appointment back another month (and people think Canadian medicine sucks?!?)
In summary, a lot of doctors are inconsiderate. And the doctor's time is NOT more valuable than my own.
"Your average Louisiana citizen will be able to talk your ear off about how corrupt their state and municipal government is, but will still prefer either of those two over the federal government because they consider it their own."
Pretty typical response. Similar to the "all congresscritters are crooks except mine" sentiment. The ability of people to rationalize is amazing. Of course, the the local politicians are the ones most likely to screw you over...
"My bank has, and I believe most banks have an overdraft limit, beyond which the WILL reject the debit/check amount. Some banks don't have overdraft protection at all and just reject the debit/check as NSF."
:)
True. But they may still charge a fee for the honor, especially if it wasn't declined
"Overdraft is an option; don't enable it for any debit card linked account."
Well, if it is an option, it seems to one of those virtually impossible to decline. I never asked for that option nor was I given a choice for any bank or credit union account. But I guess I will check.
Now, IIRC, my ATM cards were different, as is using my debit card as an ATM card.
"All the banks I deal with allow the debit card functionality to be disabled, while leaving the ATM functionality intact."
Well, then it is no longer a debit card, is it? If I could be certain I could use such a card everywhere I use a debit card, I certainly would do that. Guess I'll ask...
"The first forecast that put the likelihood of the eye of the hurricane passing within 65 nautical miles of New Orleans above 50% was issued by NOAA at10 PM CDT Sunday."
And well before that time, President Bush had signed disaster declarations for the area. FEMA stated it was ready to go. So what's your point again?
Anyone who was reasonably prudent expected the Hurricane to hit N.O. well before Sunday and cause significant damage. Probably not the current level with certainty but that is never going to happen with significant advanced warning. There was ample warning and expectation that something bad was going to happen.
Leadership failed at ALL levels. Mobilization of significant resources is not quick or easy. But if you are signing disaster declarations for the area before the storm hits, you had better be mobilizing resources. You can always tell people to go home.
The people responsible for making these hard decisions failed. At some point they should be fired. Some will have to be voted out. Because I have no confidence that these people are qualified to rebuild the region. And I don't want these people in charge of billions of dollars funds and levels of responsibility that they can't handle.
"They did try airdrops and were shot at."
So exactly why would small arms fire stop airdrops from military aircraft such as helicopters? I know helicopters are somewhat fragile but if they can't handle a disaster area with small arms fire I suspect they shouldn't be used in war zones...
The mayor certainly isn't blameless in this. Pretty sad to see diesel buses sitting in water-not very bright. The people who stayed aren't blameless. The police response is pathetic-their new motto should be "When the going gets tough, we can run with the best of them". Leadership is bad at all levels. Some seem to be doing well-the relief agencies, some police officers, the military on the ground, etc. But overall I suspect this will be a case study of how never, ever to respond to a human disaster.
"Natural disasters happen everywhere. Earthquakes, for example."
:)
True. But only a moron builds on a fault. Or in the immediate danger area of a volcano. Or in a flood plain. Or really needs a study to figure out what will happen if it lets loose
It is pretty obvious what would happen if a Cat5 hurricane struck New Orleans directly. Total disaster. Not much point in studying it.
Some risks can't be avoided (EQ's, storms in general). But building a city below sea level is just plain stupid. As is funding to rebuild it.
Sure help the people, provide disaster aid but don't make it so the problem repeats itself.
"There is not an iota of evidence that reducing carbon emissions would lead to a depression."
:) But if you assume that humans are the cause of global warming that is what is required to stop it.
Okay, try this thought experiment. Reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels NOW. Imagine the effect on economy. Now is this extreme? Sure. But you asked for some evidence
"Scrapping the energy inefficient technologies of today and building new power plants and factories is probably the best thing that could happen to the US economy."
And how is this going to reduce carbon emissions how? Building those shiny new plants and factories will release a lot of carbon. Not to mention recycling the old ones....
"As comparison with other Western nations alone shows, the US could easily cut its CO2 emissions in half without any decrease in its standard of living; quite to the contrary: a serious program to do that would increase the standard of living and create jobs."
Really? While you might define returning to horses as the dominant form of transportation to be no change in standard of living, I think most would disagree with you. That is what would be required for a 50% cut. The only countries who find it easy to reduce carbon emissions are ones stuck in depressions with extremely outdated technology. Even western European countries will find it hard to reduce carbon emissions.
Reducing emissions while retaining the same standard of life isn't easy. If it was, it would be done. If the economics were clear, it wouldn't require a treaty. There aren't good easy answers to difficult problems as you believe.
"Sure, a Taser, on the rare occasion, can kill someone, but its a much more efficient alternative to a gun."
:) There is a definite place for these weapons-I just don't wan't them misrepresented.
Then by definition it isn't "non-lethal", now is it? These weapons are often sold to the public on the premise that they are totally harmless, which isn't true. I just want truth in advertising-"not as lethal", "virtually non-lethal", etc. But then, the makers wouldn't sell as many, would they
"Rubber bullets are pretty much guarenteed lethal in an eye-strike situation, very dangerous when striking the head or throat at any angle and particularly dangerous if children are present."
And because they are not as effective as regular old bullets, tend to be fired at said parts of the body by troops. Part of the problem with "nonlethal" weapons is that they often aren't. It is better to say that they are much less lethal. But that doesn't sound so good....
"Hostage situations would be as easy as hosing down a whole group of people with the lightning gun..."
Oh, yeah, that's a great idea from the inventors. Not. Because a lot of "nonlethal" weapons tend to be lethal. Hope nobody has a heart condition or some medical condition aggravated by the weapon. Oops.
This ranks as only slightly brighter than Russians gassing a theater to end a hostage situation and not bothering to tell the medics what they were facing.... For some reason people react poorly when you kill people trying to save them...
"Obsession with safety is a warning sing of our civilization's deep crisis."
I think it would be more accurate to say "unreasonable". Virtually eliminating traffic fatalities (computer comtrol) isn't unreasonable. Probably almost impossible to implement, yes, but that is different.
Even better would be our collective inablility to accurately determine risk. You know, which is more dangerous, nuclear power vs coal power, flying vs driving and then trying to eliminate risk from things that are inherently safe. That really distorts things. I don't know if that can be solved in a satisfactory way. Education only helps to a degree...
"*Typical* lifespan of a *German built* engine is 500,000 miles without major repair or overhaul.."
Maybe if you mean diesel, possibly gas. And only if it is from a high end manufacturer (think Mercedes). German built gas VW engines need overhauls long before then. Half that would be excellent. Some don't even last that long....
It is difficult to build a long lasting engine for an AFFORDABLE car that will maintain proper emissions for 500K miles. Those 70's Mercedes weren't cheap. And frankly, it is a waste of money and resources-the typical lifespan of a car is about 12 years or so-people like new things. Why build an engine that will outlast the rest of the car? People who keep vehicles for 30 years are in a very small minority. There are some nice older cars, but in general, they burn more gas, produce more emmissions and aren't as safe.
"The reason that some BMW's and VW's have problems is that they are NOT MADE IN GERMANY WITH GERMAN PARTS!!"
:)
Wrong. VW's (and Audi's) are notorious for electrical problems. They always were. I have owned VW's made in Germany with German parts-and guess what, they had electrical problems. They always were. It's just that they have a lot more electronics now
I like VW's. But frankly I don't think their engineers know how to build an electrical system. Or at least a reliable one in the same sense as the Japanese. It has very little to do with who builds the car and only a some with the parts-after all, every manufacturer uses the cheapest parts they can that will serve the design requirements. I like their mechanical engineering-not their electrical desigin.
To summarize, German cars are fun to drive, but I pity you if yours develops and electrical demon....
I think people are a bit confused about your ranting and raving about newer cars when it seems you are just really pissed about dishonest mechanics.
Here's the deal, old cars are easy to work on because they tend to be simple (in some respects-I would rather diagnose fuel injection than work on a carb). They also tend to pollute more, be less safe to passengers and others, and use more gas than new cars. New cars have many more electronics because of this-things that are not terribly difficult to diagnose if you know what you are doing. In general, newer cars are far more reliable, safer, fuel efficient, environmentally friendly than cars of the past.
In general (exceptions always apply), comparable modern vehicles are superior in every way. Now, they may not be superior for YOUR purposes or because of your lack of knowledge. And remember, for a proper comparision always compare similar vehicles (an old high end german vehicle with a new econobox is not a similar comparison).
Finally, replacing a throwout bearing on most vehicles would cost hundreds of dollars at a REPUTABLE mechanic. Even for a FWD VW (such as a jetta or golf). They would charge the book time even though it takes less-for them (anyone who describes dropping a transmission as quick and easy is unusual, and I have done that multiple times-and I don't consider it quick and easy). That isn't taking advantage of anyone-that is being fair. Of course a reputable shop would suggest changing the clutch and not claim the transmission is broken....
You know, this
... so be it."
"if I have to spend 5 minutes going through a ride check once in a blue moon
versus this
"What I would not stand for is the police pulling me over searching my car without just cause."
is essentially the same in reality. Gee, we smell alcohol, please get out of your vehicle. You swerved a little close to the line there, field sobriety test time and/or we should check for drugs. If police WANT to pull you over and search your car, they can determine a probable/just cause.
I don't like checkpoints because the are a WASTE OF TIME AND MANPOWER. Ever read the stats on them? And compare them to the number of officers you saw at them? In simple terms, they find fewer DUI's (but plenty of other violations) than if those same officers had been on the road near establishments where people go and drink. Like airport security, it only stops the morons and is mainly for show.
"Battery production and disposal has a big impact on the environment, as well as all the other production and disposal of the extra features of the car."
Huh? In the US batteries are recycled. You simply take them down to anyone who sells them and they take them. You pay a core charge when you buy a car battery if you don't have one to recycle. All batteries sent to wreckers are recycled. That is a non issue. Any fuel savings will far outway any impact of additional batteries in the system.
And what are these extra features you speak of? A hybrid isn't any different when shredded-other than it may have a higher amount of plastics than some vehicles. But that is becoming an issue with all vehicles.
Personally, I see no reason to spend more money on a hybrid IF a non-hybrid vehicle has the same specs-unless of course a government will give me an offsetting tax break. If the fuel use and emissions are similar then the hybrid has no additional positive environmental impact. IF a hybrid has better fuel economy and emissions, then go for it. Hybrids don't in and of themselves help the environment.
"Those batteries take a lot of materials, energy, and pollution to make (probably enough to offset the fuel savings already), and you still need to worry about disposing of them!"
No, and no to both points. Sure, they take raw materials to produce but basic lead-acid batteries essentially use byproducts of industry. And they are easy to recycle (and are heavily recycled). The energy costs are insignificant compared to the energy burned from gasoline. Repeat after me: the primary energy expenditure in a vehicles lifecycle involves driving it. In simple terms, gas/diesel/whatever.
"I dunno, for the closest comparable engines, that looks mighty similar."
Sure, if you consider a difference of approximently 20 to 25% similar... I would consider that significant.
"Many environmentalists fail to factor in production into their calculations."
There are a few reasons for this. First, it isn't the easiest thing to do. Second, the impact to produce a vehicle is small compared to cost of running it over its lifetime according to all of the studies I have read. So, if you have the choice of an efficient used vehicle and a new slightly more efficient vehicle the used one probably is better. Otherwise it is not much of a factor.
As for your other points. Steel is one of the most heavily recycled materials (almost all of it is recycled at some point). Cars are one of the most heavily recycled consumer products (95% or so are recycled in the US, and essentially all the ferrous material is recovered). Aluminum is recovered as well as copper. Batteries are almost totally recycled. Plastic is essentially a byproduct of refining tens of millions of barrels of oil a day.... In summary, if all products were recycled as well as cars, we would be in a lot better shape....
Clean depends upon your definition. There is no truly clean energy production. It all creates waste products-you just have to prioritize which ones matter the most (not easy).
And we can dispose of nuclear waste. That article is OLD. Frankly, putting it in a hole in the ground with engineered barriers on the edge of the main US nuclear weapon test site isn't that bad of an idea. We could do better, but we just haven't had the political will to do it.
"....a couple of scratches or fingerprints and they start becoming unreadable."
Well, aside from telling the kids not to scratch the disks (or don't buy new ones if they do), you do realize that the disks can be CLEANED? Unless your kids are handling the disks after painting that should solve the problem.
It takes some serious scratches to harm a DVD. If your kids treated the tapes like the DVDs they wouldn't last either....