FYI, my turbocharged KA-T 240sx, with absolutely no emissions gear other than the catalyst --- was less than 50% of all thresholds of levels for emissions testing. (My friend had a sniffer and we were testing for some other issue, but he pointed that out).
But, despite the fact that my car satisfied all the INTENDED purposes of CARB/smog laws, the fact that I didn't have all that silly smog technology on the car would still have had me fail a 'smog check'. Not because my car emits beyond limits, but simply because my car did not have all the song and dance that CARB wanted it to have.
Had CARB, instead of making stupid emissions rules that don't really mean shit, pushed to completely ban combustion engines in cars in the 80s --- the induced market would have us all rolling in clean electric vehicles sourcing power from renewable resources
Um, I don't think so, unless they helped push nuclear power plants to pick up the slack in power. Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
I felt that the change in the production of energy was implicit, but since you pointed it out, I appreciate the extra effort at making the point clearer.
In another post on this same topic I had mentioned a federally orchestrated shove of current archaic energy industries into renewable resource use. As I had said, Exxon Mobil could just as easily profit from selling us electricity as they could from pumping and refining fuels, but they are resistant to make the change on their own: the point being that if, as a nation, we forced them to change, they would have no choice but to do so, and would still be in a highly profitable business. That, of course, regards our current system of capitalist energy production.
Now if you ask me personally, I think it is safe to assume that energy is just as essential to our way of life in 2009 as food, health, water, and shelter. From that I believe energy should not be in the market of profit/market/forced-scarcity whatsoever, and that municipalities produced and mediated by local governments should provide our energy. As a people we rely on that energy, as a people we require a clean future -- as a people we would (if our representatives are not corrupted by old money) produce energy from clean renewable resources with the methods that have already been extensively researched and successful. The only barrier to a move to 100% clean renewable energy is the ignorance of the sheeple to the current state of technology and their high susceptibility to believe money-driven propaganda.
Now a better question: What do you think could be done that would ACTUALLY impact carbon emissions? If carbon emissions is, metaphorically, a Serial Killer on the loose, dealing with car paint jobs is like removing a pube from his anus.
FYI, the air of the planet is the air of the planet... CA emissions spread to your state.... Your state's emissions spread to CA and the rest of the planet as well...
That said, and I am a Cali resident, I agree with your main point. We seem to have a pretty stupid approach to dealing with real problems by focusing on things that do *relatively* nothing at all.
An example of what I'm saying is the C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) which leads all the CA emissions policies, etc. Had CARB, instead of making stupid emissions rules that don't really mean shit, pushed to completely ban combustion engines in cars in the 80s --- the induced market would have us all rolling in clean electric vehicles sourcing power from renewable resources.... But instead they got focused on stupid distractions, just like this stupid 'ban black paint' idea.
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most. You'd get more efficiency by cutting out weight.
My other post about not even getting caught up in these stupid ineffective distractions that will not have any noteworthy impact on carbon emissions..... that said, I agree with the weight cut. If california just put all our fat american asses on a diet, our 'load' would weigh less and that 5hp would not even matter... Plus we'd be maintaining less of our own biomass (which produces C02 from every cell in our fat ass bodies).
Lol. We have real answers now, the only barrier is the economic influence of the established archaic energy industries. Maybe our government should force them to move to clean energy. Hell, I'm sure Exxon would make money from selling us electricity just as easily as pumping and refining fuel for our cars--- they just might need a serious nationally-orchestrated shove from our government to convince them to make that change.
And who are the retarded people that think this shit up!?!?
If we want to effectively reduce carbon emissions, banning black cars is hardly the way to have any significant impact. It will have an impact on freedoms and such, but relatively NOTHING on the actual emissions as compared to the HUGE volume that will still be emitted with or without the black cars.
Part of the problem with coming up with solutions for human activity carbon emissions is that people are so easily distracted by some interesting idea, and forget to account for the realistic effectiveness of such action. I am reminded of the focus on 180 million in bonuses from AIG, distracting people from 200 BILLION in bailout cash that was handed over. That's 3 orders of magnitude difference. Had anyone with any sense of 'effective-focused' analysis looked at that, the 180M is a fart in the wind compared to the 200B bucket that we decided to fill.
The same relates to banning black cars.... lmfao... Off the top of my head: How about replacing combustion engines all together by focusing money on renewable energy sources and promoting electric vehicles for the future and possible conversions for current vehicles. I'm sure that would have an impact of at least 3 orders of magnitude greater than banning black cars....
Here's another dumb idea: We should ban respiration for any individual coming up with and promoting these stupid distractions. I'm not gonna hold my breath, lol.
Ahhhh... I see.... so a smaller reg # means a bigger penis.
I would have assumed the correlation not to be inversely proportional. But, apparently based on my reg # on slashdot, I have no idea about penis size. lol
Really? Because based on your ID# it would suggest that you haven't seen this before. Restricting access to certain material is not the same as discriminating against someone based on their religion or sexuality.
What the hell are you talking about? I've been using the internet since 1995 and have been on so many sites that I cannot even remember how many.
And on your point: Fascist idealism = Fascist idealism. If you try, you will understand. If you try not to, you won't.
In some sense of irony, I nearly always identify the proofs of Godwin's law in long discussions, but I failed to notice my own reference to Nazi Germany as I had posted it.
lmfao.
And on topic to your point, I would assume the law still applies, but holds less comical/defined 'purpose' in a context where the discussion is already about fascist ideals in Germany.
Lets also ban paintball, and movies and books with violence and/or guns. Lets also ban guns in general. Lets ban bad words. Lets ban Islam. Lets ban anything that isn't Christian. Lets ban homosexuals and Jews.
Touche'. I guess the douchebaggery on the '6-days' began sooner than I had thought!
At least, from what it appears, the interpretation was not widely regurgitated and accepted as the current attempt at bullshittery has become.... And now about those fossils, lol....
What is the meaning of words if we do not intend to understand them in the long-standing definition to which the word has been used?
Re-interpretations of the bible, and other religious texts, is obviously an attempt to validate information that has been proven false. Go back 1000 years, before there was any argument against the '6 days', and I'm sure you won't find a single theotard interpreting the words to mean otherwise.
The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.
Very true. The fundamental aspect of Science is the Scientific Method. As of this writing, there is no current religion that stands up to the Scientific Method. There simply isn't enough empirical/factual evidence to support those crazy theories.
This bill is a shame, not only on the religious that promote it, but the integrity of their perspective as to the value/quality higher education.
If what you say is true, what is the purpose of the amendment system which requires a large portion of the representatives' votes to pass?
If times change, and culture/opinion, I think a system that checks for 2/3 vote to ensure majority support would be much more constitutionally aligned than the ability for lawyers and politicians to manipulate and reinterpret the constitution for the promotion of special interests.
Not that I'm recruitin for the New American Revolution... but I did have to bring it up since you seem kinda ripe for the idea...
It worked once... right?
I think the major flaw was that the constitution, though quite explicit, did not actually self-define to be explicit, and thus has allowed for such enormous expansion and 'interpretation'.
And why should they? It's the MAFIAA doing all this hard and expensive work. You think running a nationwide/worldwide mob is cheap?
/sarcasm on
I love it when lawyers litigate to find purpose and pay in life. Yay for lawyers! Yay for america's fucked up legal system that allows such litigious bullshittery!
When I trip on a curb for my own careless action, I could think 'damn, I should watch my step', but being a well trained American, it is kinda hard to resist the temptation to blame and sue the city. How could any respectable lawyer *NOT* protect my dear ankles from the foolish engineering of the city! Oh dear, the toils of life truly demand lawyers to intervene and rape profit!/sarcasm off
Someone burn this shit down, I'm ready to build a better world.
My generation is afflicted entitlement mentalities and an aversion to actually doing anything to better themselves. It's sad.
QFMFT!
What we are experiencing is what happens when spoiled kids grow up to be spoiled adults.
I hope, for the OPs sake, that they are not hiring these narcissistic fools and bringing a little learning with a quick stroke of reality called 'DENIED'.
Some advice to help remedy the situation: Tell them WHY you did not hire them.
When we have energy in surplus, at the (general) expense of no one, the world may move much more easily to peaceful respect and cooperation.
I'm looking forward to renewable energy sources blazing the path to peace, but what I keep hearing from people in the field of nuclear physics is that Fusion will be realized by the mid 2020s.
If we can only hold off on the nuclear weapons until then, maybe we stand a chance to exist in a time when we spend our efforts of work (money/tax-dollars) to help each other instead of kick each others ass as best as we can afford.
What, o mighty one, dost thou consider a 'real job'?
I'm a scientist, but I do not belittle the arts that capture our emotions, moments, and paychecks. While penicillin served to protect us, great writers and artist served to inspire. Both are great accomplishments.
There is a big difference between our national interest in benefit from investments in foreign/domestic persons, and the import of foreign persons that other countries had invested in.
My main point is not so much to somehow lock foreign-nationals that the US has paid to educate within our borders; but rather to argue that tax dollars should be spent to educate the citizens who have paid them. I am perpetually aggravated by the exclusion of US Citizens from *publicly funded* universities, while non-citizens occupy seats.
I think the most 'competition friendly' medium for the internet to exist in would be one where no individual interest can control access either directly (comcast) or indirectly (sony); this is the basic idea of net neutrality. (examples explained below)
There are at least two ways that the internet can be involved in competition. One being the user-purchased access to the internet. The other being competition between those companies that do business on the interent which may or may not be accessible (depending on the level of neutrality from the prior).
Looking at these two concepts, to permit limitation/control in the first case (removing net neutrality) can directly impede the fair competition in the second case (internet business). Alternatively, the competition between businesses that operate on the internet does not directly impede competition between internet providers (first concept).
I think it is quite canonical that preserving the foundation of neutral bias would serve to be more beneficial to competition in business overall. I will concede that, say, Sony might find greater benefit from product sales by doing business with Comcast to limit user access to alternative products; but that actually equates to anti-competition, as facilitated by agreements between the two companies.
Slashdot Mirror
you watch too much tv.
FYI, my turbocharged KA-T 240sx, with absolutely no emissions gear other than the catalyst --- was less than 50% of all thresholds of levels for emissions testing. (My friend had a sniffer and we were testing for some other issue, but he pointed that out).
But, despite the fact that my car satisfied all the INTENDED purposes of CARB/smog laws, the fact that I didn't have all that silly smog technology on the car would still have had me fail a 'smog check'. Not because my car emits beyond limits, but simply because my car did not have all the song and dance that CARB wanted it to have.
Booshit.
Um, I don't think so, unless they helped push nuclear power plants to pick up the slack in power. Let's face it, if you're driving an electric car, you're really just exporting your smog to the power plant that handles your section of the grid. If it's a coal burner, well...
I felt that the change in the production of energy was implicit, but since you pointed it out, I appreciate the extra effort at making the point clearer.
In another post on this same topic I had mentioned a federally orchestrated shove of current archaic energy industries into renewable resource use. As I had said, Exxon Mobil could just as easily profit from selling us electricity as they could from pumping and refining fuels, but they are resistant to make the change on their own: the point being that if, as a nation, we forced them to change, they would have no choice but to do so, and would still be in a highly profitable business. That, of course, regards our current system of capitalist energy production.
Now if you ask me personally, I think it is safe to assume that energy is just as essential to our way of life in 2009 as food, health, water, and shelter. From that I believe energy should not be in the market of profit/market/forced-scarcity whatsoever, and that municipalities produced and mediated by local governments should provide our energy. As a people we rely on that energy, as a people we require a clean future -- as a people we would (if our representatives are not corrupted by old money) produce energy from clean renewable resources with the methods that have already been extensively researched and successful. The only barrier to a move to 100% clean renewable energy is the ignorance of the sheeple to the current state of technology and their high susceptibility to believe money-driven propaganda.
How does that red herring taste?
Now a better question: What do you think could be done that would ACTUALLY impact carbon emissions? If carbon emissions is, metaphorically, a Serial Killer on the loose, dealing with car paint jobs is like removing a pube from his anus.
FYI, the air of the planet is the air of the planet... CA emissions spread to your state.... Your state's emissions spread to CA and the rest of the planet as well...
That said, and I am a Cali resident, I agree with your main point. We seem to have a pretty stupid approach to dealing with real problems by focusing on things that do *relatively* nothing at all.
An example of what I'm saying is the C.A.R.B. (California Air Resource Board) which leads all the CA emissions policies, etc. Had CARB, instead of making stupid emissions rules that don't really mean shit, pushed to completely ban combustion engines in cars in the 80s --- the induced market would have us all rolling in clean electric vehicles sourcing power from renewable resources.... But instead they got focused on stupid distractions, just like this stupid 'ban black paint' idea.
A/C compressers in cars don't use much power, though. Maybe 5hp, at most. You'd get more efficiency by cutting out weight.
My other post about not even getting caught up in these stupid ineffective distractions that will not have any noteworthy impact on carbon emissions..... that said, I agree with the weight cut. If california just put all our fat american asses on a diet, our 'load' would weigh less and that 5hp would not even matter... Plus we'd be maintaining less of our own biomass (which produces C02 from every cell in our fat ass bodies).
Lol. We have real answers now, the only barrier is the economic influence of the established archaic energy industries. Maybe our government should force them to move to clean energy. Hell, I'm sure Exxon would make money from selling us electricity just as easily as pumping and refining fuel for our cars--- they just might need a serious nationally-orchestrated shove from our government to convince them to make that change.
I agree.
And who are the retarded people that think this shit up!?!?
If we want to effectively reduce carbon emissions, banning black cars is hardly the way to have any significant impact. It will have an impact on freedoms and such, but relatively NOTHING on the actual emissions as compared to the HUGE volume that will still be emitted with or without the black cars.
Part of the problem with coming up with solutions for human activity carbon emissions is that people are so easily distracted by some interesting idea, and forget to account for the realistic effectiveness of such action. I am reminded of the focus on 180 million in bonuses from AIG, distracting people from 200 BILLION in bailout cash that was handed over. That's 3 orders of magnitude difference. Had anyone with any sense of 'effective-focused' analysis looked at that, the 180M is a fart in the wind compared to the 200B bucket that we decided to fill.
The same relates to banning black cars.... lmfao... Off the top of my head: How about replacing combustion engines all together by focusing money on renewable energy sources and promoting electric vehicles for the future and possible conversions for current vehicles. I'm sure that would have an impact of at least 3 orders of magnitude greater than banning black cars....
Here's another dumb idea: We should ban respiration for any individual coming up with and promoting these stupid distractions. I'm not gonna hold my breath, lol.
Ahhhh... I see.... so a smaller reg # means a bigger penis.
I would have assumed the correlation not to be inversely proportional. But, apparently based on my reg # on slashdot, I have no idea about penis size. lol
thanks for the heads up.
Really? Because based on your ID# it would suggest that you haven't seen this before. Restricting access to certain material is not the same as discriminating against someone based on their religion or sexuality.
What the hell are you talking about? I've been using the internet since 1995 and have been on so many sites that I cannot even remember how many.
And on your point: Fascist idealism = Fascist idealism. If you try, you will understand. If you try not to, you won't.
In some sense of irony, I nearly always identify the proofs of Godwin's law in long discussions, but I failed to notice my own reference to Nazi Germany as I had posted it.
lmfao.
And on topic to your point, I would assume the law still applies, but holds less comical/defined 'purpose' in a context where the discussion is already about fascist ideals in Germany.
Lets also ban paintball, and movies and books with violence and/or guns. Lets also ban guns in general. Lets ban bad words. Lets ban Islam. Lets ban anything that isn't Christian. Lets ban homosexuals and Jews.
Oh wait... I've seen this before....
Touche'. I guess the douchebaggery on the '6-days' began sooner than I had thought!
At least, from what it appears, the interpretation was not widely regurgitated and accepted as the current attempt at bullshittery has become. ... And now about those fossils, lol....
What is the meaning of words if we do not intend to understand them in the long-standing definition to which the word has been used?
Re-interpretations of the bible, and other religious texts, is obviously an attempt to validate information that has been proven false. Go back 1000 years, before there was any argument against the '6 days', and I'm sure you won't find a single theotard interpreting the words to mean otherwise.
The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.
Very true. The fundamental aspect of Science is the Scientific Method. As of this writing, there is no current religion that stands up to the Scientific Method. There simply isn't enough empirical/factual evidence to support those crazy theories.
This bill is a shame, not only on the religious that promote it, but the integrity of their perspective as to the value/quality higher education.
If what you say is true, what is the purpose of the amendment system which requires a large portion of the representatives' votes to pass?
If times change, and culture/opinion, I think a system that checks for 2/3 vote to ensure majority support would be much more constitutionally aligned than the ability for lawyers and politicians to manipulate and reinterpret the constitution for the promotion of special interests.
Just a thought....
Not that I'm recruitin for the New American Revolution... but I did have to bring it up since you seem kinda ripe for the idea...
It worked once... right?
I think the major flaw was that the constitution, though quite explicit, did not actually self-define to be explicit, and thus has allowed for such enormous expansion and 'interpretation'.
And why should they? It's the MAFIAA doing all this hard and expensive work. You think running a nationwide/worldwide mob is cheap?
/sarcasm on
I love it when lawyers litigate to find purpose and pay in life. Yay for lawyers! Yay for america's fucked up legal system that allows such litigious bullshittery!
When I trip on a curb for my own careless action, I could think 'damn, I should watch my step', but being a well trained American, it is kinda hard to resist the temptation to blame and sue the city. How could any respectable lawyer *NOT* protect my dear ankles from the foolish engineering of the city! Oh dear, the toils of life truly demand lawyers to intervene and rape profit! /sarcasm off
Someone burn this shit down, I'm ready to build a better world.
whats the name of your business so we can sue you for false advertising before you change your TOS.
My generation is afflicted entitlement mentalities and an aversion to actually doing anything to better themselves. It's sad.
QFMFT!
What we are experiencing is what happens when spoiled kids grow up to be spoiled adults.
I hope, for the OPs sake, that they are not hiring these narcissistic fools and bringing a little learning with a quick stroke of reality called 'DENIED'.
Some advice to help remedy the situation: Tell them WHY you did not hire them.
Probably not illegal in Rwanda, lol.
think bigger than 'oil' and you might get my original point.
When we have energy in surplus, at the (general) expense of no one, the world may move much more easily to peaceful respect and cooperation.
I'm looking forward to renewable energy sources blazing the path to peace, but what I keep hearing from people in the field of nuclear physics is that Fusion will be realized by the mid 2020s.
If we can only hold off on the nuclear weapons until then, maybe we stand a chance to exist in a time when we spend our efforts of work (money/tax-dollars) to help each other instead of kick each others ass as best as we can afford.
What, o mighty one, dost thou consider a 'real job'?
I'm a scientist, but I do not belittle the arts that capture our emotions, moments, and paychecks. While penicillin served to protect us, great writers and artist served to inspire. Both are great accomplishments.
There is a big difference between our national interest in benefit from investments in foreign/domestic persons, and the import of foreign persons that other countries had invested in.
My main point is not so much to somehow lock foreign-nationals that the US has paid to educate within our borders; but rather to argue that tax dollars should be spent to educate the citizens who have paid them. I am perpetually aggravated by the exclusion of US Citizens from *publicly funded* universities, while non-citizens occupy seats.
I think the most 'competition friendly' medium for the internet to exist in would be one where no individual interest can control access either directly (comcast) or indirectly (sony); this is the basic idea of net neutrality. (examples explained below)
There are at least two ways that the internet can be involved in competition. One being the user-purchased access to the internet. The other being competition between those companies that do business on the interent which may or may not be accessible (depending on the level of neutrality from the prior).
Looking at these two concepts, to permit limitation/control in the first case (removing net neutrality) can directly impede the fair competition in the second case (internet business). Alternatively, the competition between businesses that operate on the internet does not directly impede competition between internet providers (first concept).
I think it is quite canonical that preserving the foundation of neutral bias would serve to be more beneficial to competition in business overall. I will concede that, say, Sony might find greater benefit from product sales by doing business with Comcast to limit user access to alternative products; but that actually equates to anti-competition, as facilitated by agreements between the two companies.