It's true that MPAA will get some $ out of Netflix, but if you consider the revenue lost from theaters from a boycott, the revenue lost from sales to individuals, how much does Netflix have to purchase to equal that lost revenue? How much preasure from the independent theater owners will be placed on MPAA since it's their bottom line being decimated? How long can MPAA afford to lose theaters when they start folding?
500,000 copies bought by Netflix does not equal a good run in the theaters nor individual sales. Especially since Netflix will be the driver's seat on demanding a discount from MPAA members for such a huge purchase.
The only effective way of informing MPAA or RIAA that your not happy is by your wallet. Stop going to the movies and rent it from Netflixs or buy a used DVD. Encourage others to do the same. Until the Hollywood execs understand they have gone too far, you can expect more crap coming into law.
Same thing with RIAA, stop buying CDs/DVDs new and either buy them via download or via used CD/DVD shops. These clowns are in it for a life and death struggle of their nasty industry. One of us has to be on top, and I rather it not be them.
Funny thing is about: "it isn't safe to discount information that you don't necessarily like either" is the Global Warming mongers do indeed do that when it comes to anything that counters their point of view. About ten or so years ago when the Ozone thinning debate started "heating" up, there was a gentlemen who published his findings in AIAA Aerospace America journal that wasn't CFCs but water vapor. The next issue, he was cruicified because he was going against common wisdom from those doing "funded research" into Ozone thinning. Follow the money trail.
In the 1970's, we were all going to starve to death because of Global Cooling. In the 1980's we were all going to die of skin cancer and go blind because of the Ozone thinning if we didn't die of CO2 poisoning since the Ocean was going to be lifeless in 10 years. In the 1990's we are all going to drown because of Global Warming.
"Ask Burt Rutan how hard CFD and modeling is; SpaceShipOne had some serious stability problems. They just ignored them (even when their flight rules said they'd abort) and went on. If NASA did that, they'd be grounded and have Congressional investigations, but everybody thinks it is great that Scaled Composites did it."
What your ignoring is NASA voids out safety rules as it sees fit. Shall we look into NASA ignoring safety rules on O-Ring Tempatures? How about that nagging engineer who was worried about a hole in the wing? Surely engineers in your perfect government run space transportation system have full rights to stop a launch or landing, in the name of safety, of course? What about those flight safety rules that NASA will exmept missions from, like all ET fuel gages must be working. Last liftoff, NASA exempted that in case the problematic fuel censor reading (that thankfully did not) showed up again.
As for Mr.Melvill's decision to disregard flight rules, allow me to point out he was PIC (Pilot In Command), an owner of Scaled, and General Manager. Since it was his lone ass was at stake, he as PIC, part owner, and GM, had the confidence he could handle the situation. Since he completed the mission, was his decision the correct decision at the time?
"One net result will be the resurgence of government-funded space exploration driven by the needs of pure science to insure a long-term future, as governments more enlightened than the moronic bunch of foaming croporate stoodges in power all over the place will more readily see the long-term benefits of space exploration, especially in the lights of massive climatic damage."
If you think the Federal Government is that pure it will do only pure scientific reason for space exploration, your smoking way too much crack. Congress Critters are the one who decides what gets funding and we all know they are worried about bringing home the federal monies so the voters will keep them in office.
Just look at the ISS as a prime example of good science platform being hijacked into a useless white elephant.
If they think it's government is the answer, they got the wrong question. I know, it pains the liberal left that inhabit/., but if you worked a few days with me, you would clearly see what I am saying is the truth. Government does a few things right, and the rest is Dilbert zone on steroids.
Anything to give me more choices for broadband is a good thing. Question is, what's the ping time going to be? Gotta be able to kill those damn Hibbies.
Don't forget about the orginal O-Rings on the SRB stacks were changed when the manufacturer was in fear of asbestos law suits; stop making it. The replacement O-Ring material brought us the Challenger disaster.
It's a little larger and it's reusable. And it cost many times as much. So? NASA launches about a dozen rockets each year that make SS1 look like a fly, and conducts hundreds of thousands of man-hours of basic research; it's just plain silly to pretend that they're not doing anything.
If NASA only made one Scout (since Scaled only made the one SS1 and White Knight), what would be the cost, in 2004 dollars for that single flight? My point, it's all economics. If NASA wanted to do a SS1, it would have been way the hell over what Scaled paid for the SS1 and White Knight. I highly doubt that Boeing would have done such a contract at Scaled's costs. Having so many Scout I & II missions over the decades, made it cost effective vehicle. Note, I'm not dissing the Scout, it was a truely diamond of a vehicle for NASA.
Well, tough - welcome to the real world. Visit astronautix.com and start browsing through rockets with any measurable number of launches under their belt. 2% failure rate is a great number, like it or not. You can't just divorce yourself from reality: the reality is that rockets, around the world, blow up or otherwise fail - and often. You're strapping people to flimsily built tanks containing materials that really want to explode when they come into contact with each other (and if you don't, like SS1, you don't get to orbit).
If that is so, why is NASA curbing the STS down to 18 (or maybe less) future missions before it gets mothballed? Those vehicles have reached what, less then half their design life of 50 missions? Your stating that it's dangerous (which is is) and the 2% fatality rate is exceptable (which it clearly isn't) is not what NASA is saying, now is it? There is a clear line of acceptable dangers of going into space and then there is the STS. NASA has given every sign that if it wasn't for the ISS support missions, STS would be grounded, forever.
Rockets flights launched by NASA: >1000 orbital flights.
I doubt it's that high and what, less then 15% were manned.
I think you need to present several hundred more cases here. BTW, the engineers making the decision did *not* launch against warnings of the O-rings being too cold, because they didn't have the warnings.
Do you have *ANY* clue of how hard it is to make a reusable TPS? How dare you pretend that it's some sort of easy task. It is a staggeringly difficult problem, and I'm amazed they were able to get it done at all. You oggle when Rutan gets away with simply using a craft made of epoxy because he had no significant reentry stresses, but when people do a real marvel of technology, you act like it's nothing. You should be ashamed.
Oh, personal insult atlast! Should I be ashamed? Comparing a small company like Scaled's $26M vs the multi-billion dollar STS project with a small army of engineers backing it? Guess it would be too much to have the glue tested in actual supersonic flight onboard one of NASA's supersonic aircraft? My bad! Guess you feel I should by happy they did drop test with the Enterpise, at all.
Yeah, that and the blown fairing that made them think that part of the engine had exploded, and the two-near crashes when starting up the engine... oh and the lost guidance system, and a few dozen other things. It's a pathetic record for such a simple task.
And NASA did a much better job. How many flights did it take for them to make a working toilet? Good old Apollo bags! Yeah, there were indeed p
As if. The Germans were lobbing similar payloads as SS1 to similar heights back in the 1940s.
Except they were unmanned of course that had no method of being resuable. Impressive in the 1940s.
It's a (proportionally) easy task, regardless of who is running it. SS1 is no more difficult than a large sounding rocket; NASA launches about 30 sounding rockets every year at a price of 1 million dollars each (typically only 50-100 lbs payload and not man-rated, but you get the picture).
Picture of a reusable spacecraft that can carry three humans up and back down does not equal a scout sounding rocket. So how much was a Mercury cost through the first two sub-orbital flights, adjusted for inflation, in 2004 dollars? I won't even touch the cost of the X-planes that NASA used for their lifting bodies designs.;)
Excuse me? NASA has probably the best safety record of any space agency in the world. The shuttle's 2% failure rate is better than the NASA average, which is better than the world average.
Best safety record of 17 dead? 40% of it's STS fleet wiped out is a great safety record? 2% is unexceptable for something that has such limited use over two decades.
Rutan, on the other hand, nearly wrecked SS1 twice in two consecutive flights - first by launching in high wind conditions so as not to disappoint the crowd below, and next by proclaiming the problem "fixed" and relaunching to the same effect.
I presume you can show docuementation showing Scaled violated it's own safety guidelines?
It fits in with his general track record: innovative and boundary-pushing, but not exactly a 'safety first' guy.
Shall we talk about lauching against warnings of o-rings being too cold? How about the warning that ice damaged to the wing may have void the wing's intergrity? Oh wait, then there is that doosy of a lifting body landing oops that was apart of the Six Million Dollar Man's opening, that was real footage, not Hollywood. Then there was the heat tiles blowing off (Enterpise?), remember that little "oops"? It was then NASA figured out it needed better glue.
The only true accident that has happened to the SS1 was a landing gear failure that caused some skipped heart beats and minor repairs. Compared to 17 avoidable deaths at the hands of NASA, it's almost too trivial to mention.
So if Scaled is so pathetic it's only doing suborbital, why did T/Space get that contract for CEV proposal?
P.S. - Almost all of NASA spacecraft are built by private companies anyways. So, if you have a complaint, it needs to be with the bidding process, not whether private industry or the government is building the craft.
No need to tell me this, my father worked for GE and then TRW till the last massive layoffs after Apollo 17 mission. NASA was there for every step of manufacturing those government vehicles and approved the designs. The buck stopped at NASA's desk.
Because the US government, typically, is inefficient in spending monies vs private/individuals.
The old joke running around CC/KSC in the 1980s was, "NASA employees are like the old rockets, won't work and can't be fired." It was funny then because it had a thread of true in it. Inefficient government dealing with empire building means the loser is the public.:/ I still believe the only reason why Scaled got SS1 into suborbital flight because FAA and not NASA was/is the controlling agency.
As for safety record, Scaled has a long way to go before it reachs NASA's pathetic level. I trust the FAA (add pilot laugher here) far beyond NASA's motivations for seeing private industry enter into space in a safe manner. Every launch of a private spacecraft means NASA is losing it's empire, one flight at a time.
No, AROS can hosted on Linux and BSD. AROS can also run in emulation (on windows and IIRC, OS-X). Last but certainly not least, AROS runs *natively*! Try one of the AROS nightlys or AROS-Max distro since those are "live" CDs for a taste of native speed.
Correct, that $600 TCP/IP stack Bounty is do on Jan 21st and the developer is in "Tidy up mode" prior to him submitting it to the CVS. I was hope for it to be submitted last weekend, but such is life.
Did he show you a AROS nightly snap shot or a AROS-Max distro?
That's AROS. TCP/IP stack should be submitted (Oh I hate going out on a limb, but hopefully the Developer will be on time) to the AROS CVS by Jan 21st.
No, OS4 is closed sourced so you can't say it's what Linux is to Windows. For a better comparison, http://www.aros.org/ is Linux compared to Windows since AROS is open source.
I'm still laughing at the use of the word "Progressive" as if people are not smart enough to realize it's "Liberalism" rebadged to fool people. Come on, give your selves a big old hug and love yourself enough to proudly shout out to the world, "I'm a Liberal!" (Side note to the Europeans who are confused on the use of US political labels, classical conservatives/liberals definitions reversed themselves in the US about a century ago.)
For the 911 tax, who cares? The 911 centers are paid for by local property taxes. If you can setup VOIP, your smart enough to know how to input the required 911 routing information in/etc/. Yes Liberal Tech (or should that be Tax?) Geeks, if you think losing 911 taxes are going to cut into your socialist agenda, your going to be SCREAMING about hydrogren fuel production really cutting into the Federal Revenue streams. What's more important to you, cleaner enviroment, thumbing your nose at Big Oil/OPEC *or* Federal spending on your agenda?
190 miles on a tank of gas in http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040729.html a FCX is far more then I typically drive in several days, let alone a single day. As for high electric bills, I've stated I'm going solar cell to power the water cracker. The only power that I get from the grid will be for the fueling pump and it won't be on for that long of a period of time. High water bill? How many thousands of gallons per month will I be using for one vehicle?
What your missing is the obvious, hydrogen can be produced at your home. Search the net, you can find hydrogen manufacturing (cracking water for hydrogen) and low preasure storage for under $4K. Add in a high preasure pump to fill your vehicle, and you too can screw the government out of tax revenues from not buying gasoline at the pump while thumbing your nose at the Middle East.
For those of us who are in a area that can support alternative power generation, use that to power the hydrogen production equiptment. Personally, I plan to use solar cells to power such equiptment when Honda releases their consumer version of their FCX. Still worried about petrolium used to make hydrogen? Here is one possible option if NASA is correct: http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/2 002.05/20020514-8.html
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that MPAA will get some $ out of Netflix, but if you consider the revenue lost from theaters from a boycott, the revenue lost from sales to individuals, how much does Netflix have to purchase to equal that lost revenue? How much preasure from the independent theater owners will be placed on MPAA since it's their bottom line being decimated? How long can MPAA afford to lose theaters when they start folding?
500,000 copies bought by Netflix does not equal a good run in the theaters nor individual sales. Especially since Netflix will be the driver's seat on demanding a discount from MPAA members for such a huge purchase.
Dammy
The only effective way of informing MPAA or RIAA that your not happy is by your wallet. Stop going to the movies and rent it from Netflixs or buy a used DVD. Encourage others to do the same. Until the Hollywood execs understand they have gone too far, you can expect more crap coming into law.
Same thing with RIAA, stop buying CDs/DVDs new and either buy them via download or via used CD/DVD shops. These clowns are in it for a life and death struggle of their nasty industry. One of us has to be on top, and I rather it not be them.
Dammy
Funny thing is about: "it isn't safe to discount information that you don't necessarily like either" is the Global Warming mongers do indeed do that when it comes to anything that counters their point of view. About ten or so years ago when the Ozone thinning debate started "heating" up, there was a gentlemen who published his findings in AIAA Aerospace America journal that wasn't CFCs but water vapor. The next issue, he was cruicified because he was going against common wisdom from those doing "funded research" into Ozone thinning. Follow the money trail.
In the 1970's, we were all going to starve to death because of Global Cooling.
In the 1980's we were all going to die of skin cancer and go blind because of the Ozone thinning if we didn't die of CO2 poisoning since the Ocean was going to be lifeless in 10 years.
In the 1990's we are all going to drown because of Global Warming.
I can hardly wait for the next episode!
Dammy
According to Honda http://world.honda.com/Tokyo2005/fcx/index02.html their fuel stack operates down to -20C.
Dammy
"Ask Burt Rutan how hard CFD and modeling is; SpaceShipOne had some serious stability problems. They just ignored them (even when their flight rules said they'd abort) and went on. If NASA did that, they'd be grounded and have Congressional investigations, but everybody thinks it is great that Scaled Composites did it."
What your ignoring is NASA voids out safety rules as it sees fit. Shall we look into NASA ignoring safety rules on O-Ring Tempatures? How about that nagging engineer who was worried about a hole in the wing? Surely engineers in your perfect government run space transportation system have full rights to stop a launch or landing, in the name of safety, of course? What about those flight safety rules that NASA will exmept missions from, like all ET fuel gages must be working. Last liftoff, NASA exempted that in case the problematic fuel censor reading (that thankfully did not) showed up again.
As for Mr.Melvill's decision to disregard flight rules, allow me to point out he was PIC (Pilot In Command), an owner of Scaled, and General Manager. Since it was his lone ass was at stake, he as PIC, part owner, and GM, had the confidence he could handle the situation. Since he completed the mission, was his decision the correct decision at the time?
Dammy
"One net result will be the resurgence of government-funded space exploration driven by the needs of pure science to insure a long-term future, as governments more enlightened than the moronic bunch of foaming croporate stoodges in power all over the place will more readily see the long-term benefits of space exploration, especially in the lights of massive climatic damage."
If you think the Federal Government is that pure it will do only pure scientific reason for space exploration, your smoking way too much crack. Congress Critters are the one who decides what gets funding and we all know they are worried about bringing home the federal monies so the voters will keep them in office.
Just look at the ISS as a prime example of good science platform being hijacked into a useless white elephant.
Dammy
Dammy
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
/ 212811.shtml
George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli
Shame that is from Barlow's fraudulent translation. None of the existing copies of that treaty show that at all. See http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/9
BTW, it wasn't George Washington, but John Adams who signed that treaty.
Dammy
And no, I'm no a Christian, I am a Pagan.
If they think it's government is the answer, they got the wrong question. I know, it pains the liberal left that inhabit /., but if you worked a few days with me, you would clearly see what I am saying is the truth. Government does a few things right, and the rest is Dilbert zone on steroids.
Dammy
Anything to give me more choices for broadband is a good thing. Question is, what's the ping time going to be? Gotta be able to kill those damn Hibbies.
Don't forget about the orginal O-Rings on the SRB stacks were changed when the manufacturer was in fear of asbestos law suits; stop making it. The replacement O-Ring material brought us the Challenger disaster.
If IDF thinks D&D are bad, what do they think of MMORPGers?
Dammy
No one touches my Dark Ages of Camelot, no one gets hurt!
It's a little larger and it's reusable. And it cost many times as much. So? NASA launches about a dozen rockets each year that make SS1 look like a fly, and conducts hundreds of thousands of man-hours of basic research; it's just plain silly to pretend that they're not doing anything.
If NASA only made one Scout (since Scaled only made the one SS1 and White Knight), what would be the cost, in 2004 dollars for that single flight? My point, it's all economics. If NASA wanted to do a SS1, it would have been way the hell over what Scaled paid for the SS1 and White Knight. I highly doubt that Boeing would have done such a contract at Scaled's costs. Having so many Scout I & II missions over the decades, made it cost effective vehicle. Note, I'm not dissing the Scout, it was a truely diamond of a vehicle for NASA.
Well, tough - welcome to the real world. Visit astronautix.com and start browsing through rockets with any measurable number of launches under their belt. 2% failure rate is a great number, like it or not. You can't just divorce yourself from reality: the reality is that rockets, around the world, blow up or otherwise fail - and often. You're strapping people to flimsily built tanks containing materials that really want to explode when they come into contact with each other (and if you don't, like SS1, you don't get to orbit).
If that is so, why is NASA curbing the STS down to 18 (or maybe less) future missions before it gets mothballed? Those vehicles have reached what, less then half their design life of 50 missions? Your stating that it's dangerous (which is is) and the 2% fatality rate is exceptable (which it clearly isn't) is not what NASA is saying, now is it? There is a clear line of acceptable dangers of going into space and then there is the STS. NASA has given every sign that if it wasn't for the ISS support missions, STS would be grounded, forever.
Rockets flights launched by NASA: >1000 orbital flights.
I doubt it's that high and what, less then 15% were manned.
I think you need to present several hundred more cases here. BTW, the engineers making the decision did *not* launch against warnings of the O-rings being too cold, because they didn't have the warnings.
That maybe technically true, IF the NASA management team that met with Morton Thiokal team prior to launch were not engineers. Some how, I really doubt that NASA's STS management did not include those with appropriate engineering degrees. See http://www.madisoncourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=4 &SubSectionID=253&ArticleID=22475&TM=54076.17
Do you have *ANY* clue of how hard it is to make a reusable TPS? How dare you pretend that it's some sort of easy task. It is a staggeringly difficult problem, and I'm amazed they were able to get it done at all. You oggle when Rutan gets away with simply using a craft made of epoxy because he had no significant reentry stresses, but when people do a real marvel of technology, you act like it's nothing. You should be ashamed.
Oh, personal insult atlast! Should I be ashamed? Comparing a small company like Scaled's $26M vs the multi-billion dollar STS project with a small army of engineers backing it? Guess it would be too much to have the glue tested in actual supersonic flight onboard one of NASA's supersonic aircraft? My bad! Guess you feel I should by happy they did drop test with the Enterpise, at all.
Yeah, that and the blown fairing that made them think that part of the engine had exploded, and the two-near crashes when starting up the engine... oh and the lost guidance system, and a few dozen other things. It's a pathetic record for such a simple task.
And NASA did a much better job. How many flights did it take for them to make a working toilet? Good old Apollo bags! Yeah, there were indeed p
As if. The Germans were lobbing similar payloads as SS1 to similar heights back in the 1940s.
;)
Except they were unmanned of course that had no method of being resuable. Impressive in the 1940s.
It's a (proportionally) easy task, regardless of who is running it. SS1 is no more difficult than a large sounding rocket; NASA launches about 30 sounding rockets every year at a price of 1 million dollars each (typically only 50-100 lbs payload and not man-rated, but you get the picture).
Picture of a reusable spacecraft that can carry three humans up and back down does not equal a scout sounding rocket. So how much was a Mercury cost through the first two sub-orbital flights, adjusted for inflation, in 2004 dollars? I won't even touch the cost of the X-planes that NASA used for their lifting bodies designs.
Excuse me? NASA has probably the best safety record of any space agency in the world. The shuttle's 2% failure rate is better than the NASA average, which is better than the world average.
Best safety record of 17 dead? 40% of it's STS fleet wiped out is a great safety record? 2% is unexceptable for something that has such limited use over two decades.
Rutan, on the other hand, nearly wrecked SS1 twice in two consecutive flights - first by launching in high wind conditions so as not to disappoint the crowd below, and next by proclaiming the problem "fixed" and relaunching to the same effect.
I presume you can show docuementation showing Scaled violated it's own safety guidelines?
It fits in with his general track record: innovative and boundary-pushing, but not exactly a 'safety first' guy.
Shall we talk about lauching against warnings of o-rings being too cold? How about the warning that ice damaged to the wing may have void the wing's intergrity? Oh wait, then there is that doosy of a lifting body landing oops that was apart of the Six Million Dollar Man's opening, that was real footage, not Hollywood. Then there was the heat tiles blowing off (Enterpise?), remember that little "oops"? It was then NASA figured out it needed better glue.
The only true accident that has happened to the SS1 was a landing gear failure that caused some skipped heart beats and minor repairs. Compared to 17 avoidable deaths at the hands of NASA, it's almost too trivial to mention.
So if Scaled is so pathetic it's only doing suborbital, why did T/Space get that contract for CEV proposal?
P.S. - Almost all of NASA spacecraft are built by private companies anyways. So, if you have a complaint, it needs to be with the bidding process, not whether private industry or the government is building the craft.
No need to tell me this, my father worked for GE and then TRW till the last massive layoffs after Apollo 17 mission. NASA was there for every step of manufacturing those government vehicles and approved the designs. The buck stopped at NASA's desk.
Because the US government, typically, is inefficient in spending monies vs private/individuals.
:/ I still believe the only reason why Scaled got SS1 into suborbital flight because FAA and not NASA was/is the controlling agency.
The old joke running around CC/KSC in the 1980s was, "NASA employees are like the old rockets, won't work and can't be fired." It was funny then because it had a thread of true in it. Inefficient government dealing with empire building means the loser is the public.
As for safety record, Scaled has a long way to go before it reachs NASA's pathetic level. I trust the FAA (add pilot laugher here) far beyond NASA's motivations for seeing private industry enter into space in a safe manner. Every launch of a private spacecraft means NASA is losing it's empire, one flight at a time.
dammy
You mean like http://www.scaled.com/projects/pegasus.html and NASA does have a contract out for something Scaled.com is apart of, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14933 ?
Dammy
BTW, TCP/IP stack was just submitted into the AROS CVS. Should be seeing NIC drivers within a week or so.
Dammy
TeamAROS
No, AROS can hosted on Linux and BSD. AROS can also run in emulation (on windows and IIRC, OS-X). Last but certainly not least, AROS runs *natively*! Try one of the AROS nightlys or AROS-Max distro since those are "live" CDs for a taste of native speed.
Dammy
http://www.thenostromo.com/teamaros/
Correct, that $600 TCP/IP stack Bounty is do on Jan 21st and the developer is in "Tidy up mode" prior to him submitting it to the CVS. I was hope for it to be submitted last weekend, but such is life.
Did he show you a AROS nightly snap shot or a AROS-Max distro?
Dammy
That's why http://www.aros.org/ is developed and natively run on x86.
Dammy
That's AROS. TCP/IP stack should be submitted (Oh I hate going out on a limb, but hopefully the Developer will be on time) to the AROS CVS by Jan 21st.
Dammy
http://www.thenostromo.com/teamaros/
No, OS4 is closed sourced so you can't say it's what Linux is to Windows. For a better comparison, http://www.aros.org/ is Linux compared to Windows since AROS is open source.
Dammy
I'm still laughing at the use of the word "Progressive" as if people are not smart enough to realize it's "Liberalism" rebadged to fool people. Come on, give your selves a big old hug and love yourself enough to proudly shout out to the world, "I'm a Liberal!" (Side note to the Europeans who are confused on the use of US political labels, classical conservatives/liberals definitions reversed themselves in the US about a century ago.)
/etc/. Yes Liberal Tech (or should that be Tax?) Geeks, if you think losing 911 taxes are going to cut into your socialist agenda, your going to be SCREAMING about hydrogren fuel production really cutting into the Federal Revenue streams. What's more important to you, cleaner enviroment, thumbing your nose at Big Oil/OPEC *or* Federal spending on your agenda?
For the 911 tax, who cares? The 911 centers are paid for by local property taxes. If you can setup VOIP, your smart enough to know how to input the required 911 routing information in
Dammy
Honda has their own fuel cell scooter: http://world.honda.com/news/2004/2040824_03.html and is working Plug Power on a Home Energy System http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4041116_b.html using natural gas.
Dammy
190 miles on a tank of gas in http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4040729.html a FCX is far more then I typically drive in several days, let alone a single day. As for high electric bills, I've stated I'm going solar cell to power the water cracker. The only power that I get from the grid will be for the fueling pump and it won't be on for that long of a period of time. High water bill? How many thousands of gallons per month will I be using for one vehicle?
dammy
What your missing is the obvious, hydrogen can be produced at your home. Search the net, you can find hydrogen manufacturing (cracking water for hydrogen) and low preasure storage for under $4K. Add in a high preasure pump to fill your vehicle, and you too can screw the government out of tax revenues from not buying gasoline at the pump while thumbing your nose at the Middle East.
2 002.05/20020514-8.html
For those of us who are in a area that can support alternative power generation, use that to power the hydrogen production equiptment. Personally, I plan to use solar cells to power such equiptment when Honda releases their consumer version of their FCX. Still worried about petrolium used to make hydrogen? Here is one possible option if NASA is correct: http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/