They also spend it now. Yyou can honestly say there is no specific advert that "did it" for you - but that doesn't mean the Billions they have spent ("Cars" are the 2nd biggest advertising catagory after "Government") convincing you and your peers have had no effect. In fact if you had the cultural imagination to think objectively about transport you would notice that Cars Suck even more. (setting aside ecology, social malfeasance, and health issues: cars cost consumers an arm and a leg and are often slower and more fragile than public transport - always slower and more fragile than pedestrian cycling transport for the shortest most common trips that people take - ie going to the corner store)
Cars cannot use P2P technology because the principle of driving a private automobile is exlusion and luxury. If you start sharing (P2P) then you get the bus or a train - you start getting intelligence - the economy would collapse if we started not requiring a 2 tonne cage to move a 150lb load.
Survival? That would require intelligence. We can't even realise collectively that private automobiles are inefficient toys less capable than the bicycles of 100 years ago! How would putting a collection of individuals into inhospitable places using up earth resources help human survival?
Why? What is the point in going into space? Imaginative Sci-fi is one thing, living in a motorhome drinking high tech recycled piss so you can look at rocks is another.
So you are saying that "Boeing and Lockheed Martin" the world's biggest military contractors (or maybe blackwater/halliburton overtook them?) make this project "civilian"???
In the US 2+2=5 and Bush is a centrist who defends the constitution with his signing statements and appeals to pre-emptive war without congressional authority.
Just because you guys down there are out of control doesn't mean we should use your dysfunctional double-speak to describe our political system.
All of our parties are not left. The Reform Party isn't Left at all. The NDP claims to be. And the Liberals are centrists who campaign on the left but govern from the right - though that is debatable depending on your persuasion.
In Canada all of the parties know enough about public opinion to not completely bad mouth medicare. Our Reform Party (now in power despite parliament at the Queen's behest) wants to kill it but they are smart enough to know that they use language than hides that reality (making it more "competitive" shorten waiting lists, Public private partnership etc.). The Liberals are pretty ambivalent and don't have the courage to do the lefty things you need to do to make medicare survive (decentralised public community health care - aka Cuba). And the NDP never gets any real say in the matter (not since they got it started)
If you still don't agree with my examples take the issues of Net Neutrality, copyright expansions etc. That is something that slashdot readers can understand the political landscape of. The NDP is in favour of net freedoms but they are a small voice. There are Liberals and a few Reforms who also want to save teh Internets. But for the most part the Reform Party is backing this big-business power grab and trying to institute new copyright expansions ala DMCA. The Liberals are not standing up against it (overall) because too many fall into the beholden to big business (right wing) camp. Understood?
No, the Liberal Party may campaign on the Left but when they get into power they are very much a lot of Right wingers. They are the "natural governing party" so the power mongers (who are on the right, the one exceptions being unions, but a very big union usually means centrists have sold out the left values to get it that big)
For example, the only real lefty thing from the Liberals recently was to expand maternity leave to 12 months. This is a real progressive policy. However, it's about babies and the "deserving poor" and they made zero effort on the daycare front. Thus, their most left achievement was only made real because it is a fairly centrist (appealing to the right) issue. They promise all sorts of more lefty things like daycares but that doesn't amount to much.
Now that the Reform Party (so called conservatives) is in power the mass media is on their side. They paint the Liberals as lefty. One could argue that in the recent election the Liberals and Dion was more left than predecessors. But that may have been talk. He was willing to form an NDP coalition recently and he did campaign on carbon taxes so I do think he was more left than normal for the Liberals. But again, that's campaigning not governing. The Liberals cut many social programs and use the spurious logic of government being a free-market business quite often. Also, they mostly cuddle up to the USA. The Bush regime was an exceptional because he is so extreme but other than that.
The terms come to be meaningless in the current media environment where any sense of history is never going back more than 15 years. People could define the Liberals as "Left" but only in the context of Bush being a centrist and - well, if you believe that then you can make up any labels you want.
It's not rocket science to configure the bandwidth limits in just about any BT client. If I can seed things fast enough on my tiny little home ADSL connection with only 30kb up (and not overload things because I set the bandwidth caps below my maximum) I don't see why a much faster fancier network would fail.
Well, you could easily turn off DHT function (not all clients have that ability anyway). Then you could maybe have an IP whitelist similar to the functionality of the azureus plugin that blacklists certain RIAA/MPAA peers. And then you could even define certain ports only - those ports could be encrypted tunnels or something?
I wouldn't know how to do all that stuff myself (well, turning off DHT is simple) but it seems that all these kinds of features could be tweaked if someone really was serious about it.
How is it BS? Do you think the creators of the plugin were making money from it? Sure they are using flowery conceptualist language and that is funny... but they aren't being deceptive, just descriptive. If it was a business model and they used this as an excuse I could agree with your BS call. But as it stands "ready-made and social sculpture of contemporary internet user culture" is a pretty bang on description.
More to the point, where can I get this plugin now? I assume it was GPL so will live forever and can be forked if need be?
I'd say respect works pretty well in prison. However, the guards don't always honour those rules because they feel they are above the common laws of respect. What prisons have you been to? The ones I've been to are full of a bunch of frustrated people whose time is being wasted by a vengeful nanny state. Prisons are full of arbitrary rules to make the prisoners feel they are not worthy of respect. Most of them hold up to this onslaught admirably. There certainly are a few "psychopathic" individuals who can be totally unreasonable but they are few and far between. The other inmates are just as responsible for keeping these crazies in order as the guards. And there are just about as many crazies among the guards anyway.
Umm... because Iran isn't a nuclear missile state? So they would be destroying civilian infrastructure and research facilities and breaking international law and provoking all sorts of confrontation (not everyone buys the US propaganda line that says Iran can't have the nuclear power abilities that all states are entitled too)
anyway we all know the US is the rogue state. here we are inventing new types of warfare just to intimidate other countries.
Actually there is something to lose: time and perspective. Of course we should be open to all avenues... But we need to look at the fundamentals. Why don't solar, wind, hydro work? The same reason gas doesn't work and every other fuel. We demand to waste power. We don't need that much. Solar can supply us, in fact it is what does supply us ultimately. But we are relying on concentrated time (fossil fuels) because burnt right now. We don't need cars which are 85% wasteful in function if they had a 100% efficient engine. Cars move steep and status image. They don't move people very well. If we can't figure out solar (the basic system) how can we magically understand these derivatives of solar? We can't as long as we are so blind that we keep designing to Greenwash the private automobile.
Terrible movie. Greenwashing the auto industry. Why do you think Hollywood made this movie? The fuel isn't the problem. It's the paving our landscape for 2 tonne behemoths that barely carry an average load of one person each. We need to ride the world's most efficient machine: the bicycle.
Electric cars are the same as hydrogen cars. Why switch from the cleaner gasoline engines we already have to new, needs decades of realworld development electric cars?
We need to stop driving cars. Then we will have all the fuel we need for all the real technologies and fun we want. Cars aren't helpful, they burden us and make us fat and dumb.
Where do you get that number? Because energy efficiency is a cost of production we have actually come up with a very efficient gasoline engine. The fuel is nearly perfect - highly concentrated - not much pollution to get it. Hybrid cars which recapture some of the waste energy of the automobile (breaking) are an improvement. I don't see how new tech fuel cells which are still very clunky and untried in the real world could be more efficient. Perhaps you aren't looking at the whole chain of the car use. Newer cars burn more coal to produce than old ones.
Anyway, the point is now that we should give up on a useful technology (fuel cells, fossil fuels, nuclear, etc) but we should use it appropriately. IE, not to replace our walking legs. Not to make disposable items. Not to "free trade" around the globe a bunch of what is better locally anyway.
The best type of cars are 100% efficient and they are called NoMoreCars!
There is such a thing as free energy: The sun. It is the source of all but trivial margins (cosmic,geothermal) of our energy we come in contact with.
Fossil fuels are concentrated free energy from the sun stored up over time. It takes millions of year to make it, concentrating a lot all together. We are essentially burning time.
Production of energy is a social problem. We have effective perpetual motion as a species if we use our brains. Stop wasting energy on cars. Start using it for where we need it. We have lots of every kind of fuel but we need to detach the "flush it all down the toilet for fun" loops.
It's disappointing that geeks (who should know better) get caught up in the Green Car Myths. But then one can't defy your entire culture. Our very cities are built around cars devoting up to half the land area to pavement. But it's nice to talk about this here on slashdot because I can throw out these obscure truths and people can figure out, if they RTFL, that its real.
What is the differance between using fossil fuels and hydrogen - if any?
The tailpipe. The ultimate PR of the automobile. Let's make cars not seem to pollute then that will solve everything?
There is no source of hydrogen fuel. We use fossil fuels to get it! Hydrogen is common but not in the unbound state (thus you have the energy release that makes it a fuel). And, on top of that, the change of energy states (chemical to chemical to electricity to storage to transport) is always going to make it less efficient. Unless we invent machines that defy entropy and thermodynamics. We're not going to have an engine that works cleaner, just seemingly so.
plus all the fancy new metals to make the new cars require insane amounts of coal burning, using an old car that belches fumes is often better because of this (In overall).
there are no green cars. Just greenwashed.
Sure hydrogen and solar could be nice. But it isn't going to power inefficient cars. If we rode bikes and trains, we could do it, but the fundamental problems of cars are cars and the fuel isn't really as signifigant as the 3000lb machine moving a 150lb load.
Sci-fi is nice but you should read Miriam Webster 'The Age of the Bicycle' for that real sci-fi of possibilities that are real and therefore the story is more interesting.
Waste Vegetable Oil is a nice way to power cars, but only until it starts being big business. Scale does matter. Cars can't work as a widespread system. They were and are intended as luxury items. We cannot afford them any longer - simple. And the luxury becomes meaningless when everyone uses it anyway.
no, it's not like that. nuclear isn't cost effective. It requires more money to make it than it produces. If one equates money to fossil fuel - as is the basis of much of our economy - it isn't fuel efficient. Nuclear requires massive public subsidy.
People forget that there are MANY good reasons against nuclear because the grassroots activism movement thwarted the industry so effectively in the early 80s that after that people forgot to talk about it because it was assumed to be dumb and now we have a generation raised on hollywood movies who don't know where 3 mile island is.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned freegeek. It's not an overnight magic bullett type of thing. But here in Vancouver it has sprung up from nothing in 2 years and is growing fast, self-sufficient, recycling a lot of computers. Something like this is a great way to get the ball rolling and get the school administrators who far too often know little but Windoze propaganda to understand the issue. Then later they can make their budget allocations and bulk purchases a lot more wisely and the huge amount of money going into technology in schools can be useful instead of just more corporate welfare. Freegeek has the infrastructure and many volunteers, classes, do do this sort of thing quite impressively (though obviously not on a scale to replace proper regional governments)
Slashdot Mirror
They also spend it now. Yyou can honestly say there is no specific advert that "did it" for you - but that doesn't mean the Billions they have spent ("Cars" are the 2nd biggest advertising catagory after "Government") convincing you and your peers have had no effect. In fact if you had the cultural imagination to think objectively about transport you would notice that Cars Suck even more. (setting aside ecology, social malfeasance, and health issues: cars cost consumers an arm and a leg and are often slower and more fragile than public transport - always slower and more fragile than pedestrian cycling transport for the shortest most common trips that people take - ie going to the corner store)
Cars cannot use P2P technology because the principle of driving a private automobile is exlusion and luxury. If you start sharing (P2P) then you get the bus or a train - you start getting intelligence - the economy would collapse if we started not requiring a 2 tonne cage to move a 150lb load.
Our colonial thinking is a threat to our survival. Sci-fi is interesting not because it is about space but because it is about earth.
Survival? That would require intelligence. We can't even realise collectively that private automobiles are inefficient toys less capable than the bicycles of 100 years ago! How would putting a collection of individuals into inhospitable places using up earth resources help human survival?
Why? What is the point in going into space? Imaginative Sci-fi is one thing, living in a motorhome drinking high tech recycled piss so you can look at rocks is another.
So you are saying that "Boeing and Lockheed Martin" the world's biggest military contractors (or maybe blackwater/halliburton overtook them?) make this project "civilian"???
You watch too much TV.
In the US 2+2=5 and Bush is a centrist who defends the constitution with his signing statements and appeals to pre-emptive war without congressional authority.
Just because you guys down there are out of control doesn't mean we should use your dysfunctional double-speak to describe our political system.
All of our parties are not left. The Reform Party isn't Left at all. The NDP claims to be. And the Liberals are centrists who campaign on the left but govern from the right - though that is debatable depending on your persuasion.
In Canada all of the parties know enough about public opinion to not completely bad mouth medicare. Our Reform Party (now in power despite parliament at the Queen's behest) wants to kill it but they are smart enough to know that they use language than hides that reality (making it more "competitive" shorten waiting lists, Public private partnership etc.). The Liberals are pretty ambivalent and don't have the courage to do the lefty things you need to do to make medicare survive (decentralised public community health care - aka Cuba). And the NDP never gets any real say in the matter (not since they got it started)
If you still don't agree with my examples take the issues of Net Neutrality, copyright expansions etc. That is something that slashdot readers can understand the political landscape of. The NDP is in favour of net freedoms but they are a small voice. There are Liberals and a few Reforms who also want to save teh Internets. But for the most part the Reform Party is backing this big-business power grab and trying to institute new copyright expansions ala DMCA. The Liberals are not standing up against it (overall) because too many fall into the beholden to big business (right wing) camp. Understood?
No, the Liberal Party may campaign on the Left but when they get into power they are very much a lot of Right wingers. They are the "natural governing party" so the power mongers (who are on the right, the one exceptions being unions, but a very big union usually means centrists have sold out the left values to get it that big)
For example, the only real lefty thing from the Liberals recently was to expand maternity leave to 12 months. This is a real progressive policy. However, it's about babies and the "deserving poor" and they made zero effort on the daycare front. Thus, their most left achievement was only made real because it is a fairly centrist (appealing to the right) issue. They promise all sorts of more lefty things like daycares but that doesn't amount to much.
Now that the Reform Party (so called conservatives) is in power the mass media is on their side. They paint the Liberals as lefty. One could argue that in the recent election the Liberals and Dion was more left than predecessors. But that may have been talk. He was willing to form an NDP coalition recently and he did campaign on carbon taxes so I do think he was more left than normal for the Liberals. But again, that's campaigning not governing. The Liberals cut many social programs and use the spurious logic of government being a free-market business quite often. Also, they mostly cuddle up to the USA. The Bush regime was an exceptional because he is so extreme but other than that.
The terms come to be meaningless in the current media environment where any sense of history is never going back more than 15 years. People could define the Liberals as "Left" but only in the context of Bush being a centrist and - well, if you believe that then you can make up any labels you want.
It's not rocket science to configure the bandwidth limits in just about any BT client. If I can seed things fast enough on my tiny little home ADSL connection with only 30kb up (and not overload things because I set the bandwidth caps below my maximum) I don't see why a much faster fancier network would fail.
Well, you could easily turn off DHT function (not all clients have that ability anyway). Then you could maybe have an IP whitelist similar to the functionality of the azureus plugin that blacklists certain RIAA/MPAA peers. And then you could even define certain ports only - those ports could be encrypted tunnels or something? I wouldn't know how to do all that stuff myself (well, turning off DHT is simple) but it seems that all these kinds of features could be tweaked if someone really was serious about it.
ya, that's a pretty standard BT client feature.
How is it BS? Do you think the creators of the plugin were making money from it? Sure they are using flowery conceptualist language and that is funny... but they aren't being deceptive, just descriptive. If it was a business model and they used this as an excuse I could agree with your BS call. But as it stands "ready-made and social sculpture of contemporary internet user culture" is a pretty bang on description.
More to the point, where can I get this plugin now? I assume it was GPL so will live forever and can be forked if need be?
I'd say respect works pretty well in prison. However, the guards don't always honour those rules because they feel they are above the common laws of respect. What prisons have you been to? The ones I've been to are full of a bunch of frustrated people whose time is being wasted by a vengeful nanny state. Prisons are full of arbitrary rules to make the prisoners feel they are not worthy of respect. Most of them hold up to this onslaught admirably. There certainly are a few "psychopathic" individuals who can be totally unreasonable but they are few and far between. The other inmates are just as responsible for keeping these crazies in order as the guards. And there are just about as many crazies among the guards anyway.
Umm... because Iran isn't a nuclear missile state? So they would be destroying civilian infrastructure and research facilities and breaking international law and provoking all sorts of confrontation (not everyone buys the US propaganda line that says Iran can't have the nuclear power abilities that all states are entitled too)
anyway we all know the US is the rogue state. here we are inventing new types of warfare just to intimidate other countries.
"Green" Cars just enables more driving. The Jevons paradox. Bike to be!
I meant to say cars move STEEL, and are status symbols more than useful tools.
Actually there is something to lose: time and perspective. Of course we should be open to all avenues... But we need to look at the fundamentals. Why don't solar, wind, hydro work? The same reason gas doesn't work and every other fuel. We demand to waste power. We don't need that much. Solar can supply us, in fact it is what does supply us ultimately. But we are relying on concentrated time (fossil fuels) because burnt right now. We don't need cars which are 85% wasteful in function if they had a 100% efficient engine. Cars move steep and status image. They don't move people very well. If we can't figure out solar (the basic system) how can we magically understand these derivatives of solar? We can't as long as we are so blind that we keep designing to Greenwash the private automobile.
Terrible movie. Greenwashing the auto industry. Why do you think Hollywood made this movie? The fuel isn't the problem. It's the paving our landscape for 2 tonne behemoths that barely carry an average load of one person each. We need to ride the world's most efficient machine: the bicycle.
Electric cars are the same as hydrogen cars. Why switch from the cleaner gasoline engines we already have to new, needs decades of realworld development electric cars?
We need to stop driving cars. Then we will have all the fuel we need for all the real technologies and fun we want. Cars aren't helpful, they burden us and make us fat and dumb.
Where do you get that number? Because energy efficiency is a cost of production we have actually come up with a very efficient gasoline engine. The fuel is nearly perfect - highly concentrated - not much pollution to get it. Hybrid cars which recapture some of the waste energy of the automobile (breaking) are an improvement. I don't see how new tech fuel cells which are still very clunky and untried in the real world could be more efficient. Perhaps you aren't looking at the whole chain of the car use. Newer cars burn more coal to produce than old ones.
Anyway, the point is now that we should give up on a useful technology (fuel cells, fossil fuels, nuclear, etc) but we should use it appropriately. IE, not to replace our walking legs. Not to make disposable items. Not to "free trade" around the globe a bunch of what is better locally anyway.
The best type of cars are 100% efficient and they are called NoMoreCars!
There is such a thing as free energy: The sun. It is the source of all but trivial margins (cosmic,geothermal) of our energy we come in contact with.
Fossil fuels are concentrated free energy from the sun stored up over time. It takes millions of year to make it, concentrating a lot all together. We are essentially burning time.
Production of energy is a social problem. We have effective perpetual motion as a species if we use our brains. Stop wasting energy on cars. Start using it for where we need it. We have lots of every kind of fuel but we need to detach the "flush it all down the toilet for fun" loops.
dirty from cradle to grave
It's disappointing that geeks (who should know better) get caught up in the Green Car Myths. But then one can't defy your entire culture. Our very cities are built around cars devoting up to half the land area to pavement. But it's nice to talk about this here on slashdot because I can throw out these obscure truths and people can figure out, if they RTFL, that its real.
What is the differance between using fossil fuels and hydrogen - if any?
The tailpipe. The ultimate PR of the automobile. Let's make cars not seem to pollute then that will solve everything?
There is no source of hydrogen fuel. We use fossil fuels to get it! Hydrogen is common but not in the unbound state (thus you have the energy release that makes it a fuel). And, on top of that, the change of energy states (chemical to chemical to electricity to storage to transport) is always going to make it less efficient. Unless we invent machines that defy entropy and thermodynamics. We're not going to have an engine that works cleaner, just seemingly so.
plus all the fancy new metals to make the new cars require insane amounts of coal burning, using an old car that belches fumes is often better because of this (In overall).
there are no green cars. Just greenwashed.
Sure hydrogen and solar could be nice. But it isn't going to power inefficient cars. If we rode bikes and trains, we could do it, but the fundamental problems of cars are cars and the fuel isn't really as signifigant as the 3000lb machine moving a 150lb load.
Sci-fi is nice but you should read Miriam Webster 'The Age of the Bicycle' for that real sci-fi of possibilities that are real and therefore the story is more interesting.
Waste Vegetable Oil is a nice way to power cars, but only until it starts being big business. Scale does matter. Cars can't work as a widespread system. They were and are intended as luxury items. We cannot afford them any longer - simple. And the luxury becomes meaningless when everyone uses it anyway.
no, it's not like that. nuclear isn't cost effective. It requires more money to make it than it produces. If one equates money to fossil fuel - as is the basis of much of our economy - it isn't fuel efficient. Nuclear requires massive public subsidy.
People forget that there are MANY good reasons against nuclear because the grassroots activism movement thwarted the industry so effectively in the early 80s that after that people forgot to talk about it because it was assumed to be dumb and now we have a generation raised on hollywood movies who don't know where 3 mile island is.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned freegeek. It's not an overnight magic bullett type of thing. But here in Vancouver it has sprung up from nothing in 2 years and is growing fast, self-sufficient, recycling a lot of computers. Something like this is a great way to get the ball rolling and get the school administrators who far too often know little but Windoze propaganda to understand the issue. Then later they can make their budget allocations and bulk purchases a lot more wisely and the huge amount of money going into technology in schools can be useful instead of just more corporate welfare. Freegeek has the infrastructure and many volunteers, classes, do do this sort of thing quite impressively (though obviously not on a scale to replace proper regional governments)