Yeah, there is a difference, though. Those letters are basically just form letters. Microsoft's advocacy subsidiary was trying to make it look like people were actually writing their own letters, in an attempt to make the AGs believe that there was enough support in their constituency for Microsoft that people were willing to take the time to write their own letters in support. Those letters are always rated most highly by the aides who read them, as they indicate that the voter feels strongly enough about the issue to take significant time to express their opinion. This wasn't actually the case, but Microsoft's astroturf groups were attempting to mislead the AGs into believing that it was.
Actually, I've seen this one on Veritas vxfs partitions on a Sun system as well. And yes, it indicates filesystem corruption. We ended up having to recreate and restore the filesystem.
It's not the gov'ts job to interfere." Which is true.
No, it's not. The government has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. In addition, Microsoft, as a corporation, is the creation of the government. Its very existence is due to law, and the power the government has to regulate commercial matters. You can argue that the Sherman act is unconstitutionally vague (and I'll agree with you there), but it isn't possible to argue with a straight face that the government has no right to regulate Microsoft, or to pass and enforce antitrust law.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever.
Sorry to break it to you, but those platforms are mostly targeted at entirely different roles than the x86. They're just a different market. Even if you include MacOS, Microsoft has more than enough market power to qualify as a monopoly. For the millionth time: 100% market share is not necessary to be a monopoly.
They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
Desktop OS's. Web browsers. Office suites. Development tools. Would you like me to go on?
They monopolize a hell of a lot more than one area. And I assume you meant limited, given that it's the OS monopoly that's allowed the others.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86.
Sure, they're free to. They're also free to watch it tank, since no one can compete with Microsoft's MONOPOLY. How many significantly superior products have utterly failed to compete with Microsoft due to the power and cash the OS monopoly has given them? OEM lockins. Infinite cash flow allowing them to keep incrementally improving substandard software that would have been long sincecancelled by any other company. Leaning on the trade press. The fact that no other OS has enough volume to make it profitable to sell applications for it. All of these are barriers to entry erected by Microsoft's MONOPOLY status. No matter how superior an OS, a browser, an office suite is, it will never gain more than niche status on the desktop. And the number of markets dominated or destroyed by Microsoft will only increase. You don't have to be prevented from supplying a product, you have to be prevented from watching your product succeed. Much like the current conditions of the desktop OS market, hmmm?
Finally, the extremely Microsoft-friendly appeals court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly. They have a monopoly. Deal with it.
Excuse me, oh clueless one, but you claim that clauses from the GPL are against capitalism. Links from the GNU website are not the same as clauses from the GPL. The difference between the two should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than the average temperature in northern Greenland.
Either post the clauses and explain how they're anticapitalistic, or retract your bullshit claim.
It's the standard Republican/Libertarian doublethink. "Big governement is bad! More regulation is bad! More laws are bad! Anyone who supports these is bad, and not as smart as I am (because anyone who disagrees with me is obviously stupid), and eeeeeeevil!!! Oh, except in these areas where I, personally, think the government should get involved. Those are OK."
It was certainly "communist" as the word was specificly invented to describe the form of government that came to the Soviet Union in 1917, by those people who formed that government.
So Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in the middle of the 19th century specifically to describe the Russian Revolution in 1917? Do we have our first documented occurence of prophecy here?
Besides the "that wasn't really a socialist/communist/marxist state" argument doesn't hold water. "True" socialism seem a bit like those exotic particals in physics which only exist for a millionth of a second after some massive explosion.
Why not? How does the fact that a real socialist/communist/Marxist state has never existed mean mean that the Soviet Union is an example of a real socialist/communist/Marxist state? You might want to check your logic there.
my claim is that the poor disadvantage themselves. They can get a job, just like a person in a wealthier area can.
Well, since you're pulling a Reagan here, let me refresh your memory on exactly what you said.
most "poor" people DO have the same advantages as "normal" people.
That's pretty hard to misunderstand. You made a straight-up claim that the majority of the poor have all the advantages everyone else does. And if you'll recall, I named a number of advantages the poor commonly lack, which won't be fixed by "just going out and getting a job." This "kick them well they're down" attitude of the dittohead crowd is beginning to annoy me.
Also, you've conveniently managed to forget that our economic system requires that a certain percentage of people remain unemployed, in order to keep labor costs at a reasonable level. Given this, don't you think we have a certain responsibility to those people?
or a free education (which, just to let you know, if effect would make things like a college education Useless)
Why?
they would rather stay poor, and get a free handout.
Ah, the dozens of studies and programs which have shown that giving people a decent education leads directly to them starting a productive career never ever happened. Suuuure.
Programs like welfare will turn the United States into a third-world country eventually.
Oh, bullshit. It's pandering to the multinationals and the drug war that are doing a damn good job of that.
I know what its like to be poor. I also know that people who view life as a wave that washes over them, and do nothing, will become nothing.
And this has exactly what do do with my point? Your claim was that the poor have all the advantages the wealthy do. The point that you attemped so assiduously to avoid was that that claim is a load of shit. Anyone born in poverty has significant disadvantages over someone of the same natural abilities born to wealth. I'm sick of hearing you dittoheads repeatedly spew the lie that they don't, so I pointed out that your claim a crock of shit.
I know the solution...Let's give EVERYONE a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION!!!!
Sounds good to me. You see, I'm not a terminally shortsighted idiot. I realize that every tax dollar that goes to education saves me several on prisons. In addition, it reduces my insurance costs by reducing crime, and increases the number of people who are contributing taxpayers instead of leeches. Finally, it reduces my chances of getting stabbed for my shoes. Basically, I'm intelligent enough to figure out that in the long run, raising taxes to pay for education will save me money.
They don't have the advantage of living in an area with an adequately funded school district.
In most cases, they don't have the advantage of growing up in areas with low crime or low pollution.
They've had to work from an early age, so haven't had the time to get a good degree from a 4 year school.
They've been surrounded by alcoholism, drug use, crime, and despair from an early age.
Suuuure, they've had ALL the advantages. May I suggest you actually get out of your parents' nice suburban home some time and visit a ghetto, or West Virginia, sometime? Maybe talk to some people.
Once again, by opening your mouth, you've managed to remove all doubt.
***As it says... Schumer is one of the worst senators in Congress. He's a hate monger and is one of the major reasons why Bush wants to "change the tone" in DC. Schumer is a Liberal attack dog that hates guns, hates corporations and like most liberals hates in when people prosper.***
Amen to that... dont forget that they also love to punish the american public for being sucessful (ie. tax brackets)
And they also kick dogs, beat their wives, spank their kids, and pencil that stupid guy with the nose on restroom walls! Don't forget that either!
Judge Jackson was a Reagan appointee with a history of opposition to antitrust law. First Microsoft made him look like a fool by honoring the letter of consent decree while raping the spirit, then Bill Gates made Clinton look open and honest with his video testimony, and then they proceeded to introduce false evidence in his courtroom! If Jackson was biased against Microsoft, it's because of Microsoft's actions in his courtroom. And they don't deserve any consideration for THAT.
Wow! What country do you live in that your corporations do that to you! It can't be Canada, as your email implies. It sounds more like Somalia or Indonesia!
There's a hell of a lot wrong with the concept of "corporation" but your list of abuses are not among them
So as long as Nike's sweatshops don't abuse Americans, as long as American oil companies are paying for genocide in East Timor instead of the US, as long as American mining companies are having the president of Chile assassinated rather than the president of the US, as long as American corporations are supporting dictatorships in South and Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and not in the US, they're not actually doing these things?
--
Re:Translation of press release
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 1
"Immoral" might be, say, imprisoning Japanese civilians or castrating persons of low IQ, but certainly not depriving us of fair use rights.
If the law takes away our rights, how is it not immoral? I'd say that a law that takes away rights without one HELL of a justification is pretty much a textbook example of immorality.
Actually, thanks to the ACLU, NO prayer is allowed in schools, student-lead or not.
My, what an unbiased source! That article couldn't POSSIBLY be misinterpreting ANYTHING for the purposes of fundie christian propoganda, could it?
In case you missed it, that article tries to claim that the liberal (*choke* *laugh* *snort*) judicial system in the US is attempting to prepare for a Holocaust of christians.
As a matter of fact, that statement is false. *Organized* prayer at school activities is forbidden. However, students can pray to themselves whenever they want. It's just that christian prayer can't be forced on non-christians by fanatics like you through either administrative or peer pressure.
Oh, and contrary to your narrow-minded belief system, refusal to allow the US to become a christian theocracy does not mean that the ACLU is trying to commit genocide on christians.
I noticed the same thing. Last I grep'ed through the good ole constitution (sorry to you Non-US peoples out there), I don't recall seeing anything about anonymous speech. This whole thing seems out of line, somehow.
The thing is, restricting anonymity will restrict speech. Whistleblowers, people with unpopular opinions, political dissidents, and so on will be much less likely to speak without anonymity. And, in case you've forgotten, *those are the people the First Amendment was written for*. If Congress passes a law restricting the anonymity of anonymous speech, Congress is violating the First Amendment.
In addition, look up the Ninth and Tenth Amendments sometime. Just because it isn't listed doesn't mean it isn't a right we have. The courts have, in fact, consistently ruled that we have a right to anonymous speech.
When are companies going to learn that public opinion can't be litigated? Seems to be a reflection of the American view that if something happens we don't like or personaly agree with: take 'em to court.
Actually, it's called a "slap suit". Sue the bastard into oblivion, so the next guy will just shut up and be a polite little consumer/employee. It's not a matter of greed, or throwing a temper tantrum. It's "well, since this stupid First Amendment is in place, we can't get our Congress to outlaw speech we don't like. So, we'll have to frighten those inconvenient outspoken people into shutting up and never saying anything we don't like."
In this case, they probably know they don't have a real case against them. So as soon as they've got the identities of the John Does, they drop the case. Since the John Does are employees, they then procede to quietly make their lives a living hell until they can come up with some kind of trumped-up excuse to fire them. And you better believe their names will get around to other potential employers.
While I despise them, Microsoft aren't exactly the epitome of evil. The mining companies who got the CIA to assassinate Salvadore Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, are evil. The oil companies funding the death squads in East Timor are evil. The tobacco companies who lied for a century about their product are evil.
As far as I know, Microsoft hasn't managed to murder or torture even one person yet. Face it, when it comes to evil, Microsoft's pretty small beans.
Well, I made a Google search. The Wright brothers flew a powered airplane in December 1903, Dumont flew his in October 1906. Dumont was the first to do powered flight in Europe, but the Wrights still flew before he did.
Depends on how your state does tollroads. In Illinois, for example, they just have booths every 5 or 10 miles where you throw your money in the basket/give it to the guy in the booth. Since you don't get any kind of receipt unless you ask for it, they can't ticket you. If they tried to use EZ-Pass to ticket speeders there'd probably be a million EZ-Pass boxes returned the next day.
The point was that speeding does not cause accidents. Ever. Reckless driving causes accidents. There are times when it is driving recklessly to exceed the speed limit, but there's plenty of conditions under which it's perfectly safe to exceed it. In the US, our highway system was designed to be safe for travel at 75-80 MPH, with cars that couldn't brake or turn nearly as well and which were far more unstable at high speeds. But last I heard, most states still have highway speed limits set at 65 or 70 MPH.
Study after study has shown that speed limits across the US, highway and local, could be raised by 10-15 MPH without causing accidents. Time and again speed limits have been raised without increasing accidents. While I've never exactly held a high opinion of the average American, we're smart enough to determine that speed limits are set at levels that would only be unsafe for a competent driver to exceed if they were driving at night in a thunderstorm. Therefore, so many people drive over the speed limit that in several states it is considered probable cause of illegal activity to be driving the speed limit. That's why speed limits are set as low as they are: if you're driving on the road in Florida, the police have the legal right to pull you over and search you. If everyone's a lawbreaker, anyone can be fined or jailed at any time if they become inconvenient to those in power. And the millions of dollars yearly state and local governments get from traffic enforcement doesn't hurt either.
Your mate died because someone didn't know how to drive, not because they were exceeding the posted speed limit.
Hmmmm... I'd say a mountain goat is probably not the best roofing material for a software developer.
Oh wait, you meant the GPL? Hmmm... I must have missed the secret clause where you transfer your copyright to Richard Stallman. (In your delusional fantasies, probably along with your soul and firstborn child.) Thanks for telling me about it!
And the point of his post was that the auto companies will resist the improvements and push the intermediary solution. GM is pushing the 193 Kg solution, not the 70 Kg solution. GM will continue to push that solution, since it's the cheapest way they can make themselves and the oil companies look concerned for the environment.
Oh, and the article he posted mentioned a number of zero CO2 emissions solutions. These solutions will be ignored by the auto manufacturers just as much as the natural gas ones.
Do you have any idea how utterly moronic you look flaming someone else for stupidity while completely misunderstanding what they wrote?
Well, if you'd actually bothered to read the article like you claim, you would have noticed that it stated that the emissions were "well to wheel." In other words, that's the amount of CO2 created pumping out the oil, transporting it to the refinery, refining it, transporting it to the conusmer, and burning it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there is a difference, though. Those letters are basically just form letters. Microsoft's advocacy subsidiary was trying to make it look like people were actually writing their own letters, in an attempt to make the AGs believe that there was enough support in their constituency for Microsoft that people were willing to take the time to write their own letters in support. Those letters are always rated most highly by the aides who read them, as they indicate that the voter feels strongly enough about the issue to take significant time to express their opinion. This wasn't actually the case, but Microsoft's astroturf groups were attempting to mislead the AGs into believing that it was.
Actually, I've seen this one on Veritas vxfs partitions on a Sun system as well. And yes, it indicates filesystem corruption. We ended up having to recreate and restore the filesystem.
It's not the gov'ts job to interfere." Which is true.
No, it's not. The government has the responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. In addition, Microsoft, as a corporation, is the creation of the government. Its very existence is due to law, and the power the government has to regulate commercial matters. You can argue that the Sherman act is unconstitutionally vague (and I'll agree with you there), but it isn't possible to argue with a straight face that the government has no right to regulate Microsoft, or to pass and enforce antitrust law.
In the findings of fact, it says that MS has a monopoly on desktop-level operating systems for the x86 architecture. So freaking what? They dont have any influence anymore on powerpc. or spark. or whatever.
Sorry to break it to you, but those platforms are mostly targeted at entirely different roles than the x86. They're just a different market. Even if you include MacOS, Microsoft has more than enough market power to qualify as a monopoly. For the millionth time: 100% market share is not necessary to be a monopoly.
They dominate one, limiting aspect of the computing industry.
Desktop OS's. Web browsers. Office suites. Development tools. Would you like me to go on?
They monopolize a hell of a lot more than one area. And I assume you meant limited, given that it's the OS monopoly that's allowed the others.
To be a monopoly, they've got to have such extensive control that other distributors are effectively cut off from supplying a competing product. Well guess what? ANYONE is free to write a desktop os for x86.
Sure, they're free to. They're also free to watch it tank, since no one can compete with Microsoft's MONOPOLY. How many significantly superior products have utterly failed to compete with Microsoft due to the power and cash the OS monopoly has given them? OEM lockins. Infinite cash flow allowing them to keep incrementally improving substandard software that would have been long sincecancelled by any other company. Leaning on the trade press. The fact that no other OS has enough volume to make it profitable to sell applications for it. All of these are barriers to entry erected by Microsoft's MONOPOLY status. No matter how superior an OS, a browser, an office suite is, it will never gain more than niche status on the desktop. And the number of markets dominated or destroyed by Microsoft will only increase. You don't have to be prevented from supplying a product, you have to be prevented from watching your product succeed. Much like the current conditions of the desktop OS market, hmmm?
Finally, the extremely Microsoft-friendly appeals court ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly. They have a monopoly. Deal with it.
Excuse me, oh clueless one, but you claim that clauses from the GPL are against capitalism. Links from the GNU website are not the same as clauses from the GPL. The difference between the two should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than the average temperature in northern Greenland.
Either post the clauses and explain how they're anticapitalistic, or retract your bullshit claim.
Care to quote the clauses from the GPL that are against capitalism? You keep making that claim, and you keep being unable to back it up.
And your quote was not from the GPL.
It's the standard Republican/Libertarian doublethink. "Big governement is bad! More regulation is bad! More laws are bad! Anyone who supports these is bad, and not as smart as I am (because anyone who disagrees with me is obviously stupid), and eeeeeeevil!!! Oh, except in these areas where I, personally, think the government should get involved. Those are OK."
It was certainly "communist" as the word was specificly invented to describe the form of government that came to the Soviet Union in 1917, by those people who formed that government.
So Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in the middle of the 19th century specifically to describe the Russian Revolution in 1917? Do we have our first documented occurence of prophecy here?
Besides the "that wasn't really a socialist/communist/marxist state" argument doesn't hold water. "True" socialism seem a bit like those exotic particals in physics which only exist for a millionth of a second after some massive explosion.
Why not? How does the fact that a real socialist/communist/Marxist state has never existed mean mean that the Soviet Union is an example of a real socialist/communist/Marxist state? You might want to check your logic there.
my claim is that the poor disadvantage themselves. They can get a job, just like a person in a wealthier area can.
Well, since you're pulling a Reagan here, let me refresh your memory on exactly what you said.
most "poor" people DO have the same advantages as "normal" people.
That's pretty hard to misunderstand. You made a straight-up claim that the majority of the poor have all the advantages everyone else does. And if you'll recall, I named a number of advantages the poor commonly lack, which won't be fixed by "just going out and getting a job." This "kick them well they're down" attitude of the dittohead crowd is beginning to annoy me.
Also, you've conveniently managed to forget that our economic system requires that a certain percentage of people remain unemployed, in order to keep labor costs at a reasonable level. Given this, don't you think we have a certain responsibility to those people?
or a free education (which, just to let you know, if effect would make things like a college education Useless)
Why?
they would rather stay poor, and get a free handout.
Ah, the dozens of studies and programs which have shown that giving people a decent education leads directly to them starting a productive career never ever happened. Suuuure.
--
Programs like welfare will turn the United States into a third-world country eventually.
Oh, bullshit. It's pandering to the multinationals and the drug war that are doing a damn good job of that.
I know what its like to be poor. I also know that people who view life as a wave that washes over them, and do nothing, will become nothing.
And this has exactly what do do with my point? Your claim was that the poor have all the advantages the wealthy do. The point that you attemped so assiduously to avoid was that that claim is a load of shit. Anyone born in poverty has significant disadvantages over someone of the same natural abilities born to wealth. I'm sick of hearing you dittoheads repeatedly spew the lie that they don't, so I pointed out that your claim a crock of shit.
I know the solution...Let's give EVERYONE a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION!!!!
Sounds good to me. You see, I'm not a terminally shortsighted idiot. I realize that every tax dollar that goes to education saves me several on prisons. In addition, it reduces my insurance costs by reducing crime, and increases the number of people who are contributing taxpayers instead of leeches. Finally, it reduces my chances of getting stabbed for my shoes. Basically, I'm intelligent enough to figure out that in the long run, raising taxes to pay for education will save me money.
--
Well, let's see, bright boy.
They don't have the advantage of living in an area with an adequately funded school district.
In most cases, they don't have the advantage of growing up in areas with low crime or low pollution.
They've had to work from an early age, so haven't had the time to get a good degree from a 4 year school.
They've been surrounded by alcoholism, drug use, crime, and despair from an early age.
Suuuure, they've had ALL the advantages. May I suggest you actually get out of your parents' nice suburban home some time and visit a ghetto, or West Virginia, sometime? Maybe talk to some people.
Once again, by opening your mouth, you've managed to remove all doubt.
--
***As it says... Schumer is one of the worst senators in Congress. He's a hate monger and is one of the major reasons why Bush wants to "change the tone" in DC. Schumer is a Liberal attack dog that hates guns, hates corporations and like most liberals hates in when people prosper.***
Amen to that... dont forget that they also love to punish the american public for being sucessful (ie. tax brackets)
And they also kick dogs, beat their wives, spank their kids, and pencil that stupid guy with the nose on restroom walls! Don't forget that either!
Damn them lib-ralz!
--
Judge Jackson was a Reagan appointee with a history of opposition to antitrust law. First Microsoft made him look like a fool by honoring the letter of consent decree while raping the spirit, then Bill Gates made Clinton look open and honest with his video testimony, and then they proceeded to introduce false evidence in his courtroom! If Jackson was biased against Microsoft, it's because of Microsoft's actions in his courtroom. And they don't deserve any consideration for THAT.
--
Wow! What country do you live in that your corporations do that to you! It can't be Canada, as your email implies. It sounds more like Somalia or Indonesia!
There's a hell of a lot wrong with the concept of "corporation" but your list of abuses are not among them
So as long as Nike's sweatshops don't abuse Americans, as long as American oil companies are paying for genocide in East Timor instead of the US, as long as American mining companies are having the president of Chile assassinated rather than the president of the US, as long as American corporations are supporting dictatorships in South and Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, and not in the US, they're not actually doing these things?
--
"Immoral" might be, say, imprisoning Japanese civilians or castrating persons of low IQ, but certainly not depriving us of fair use rights.
If the law takes away our rights, how is it not immoral? I'd say that a law that takes away rights without one HELL of a justification is pretty much a textbook example of immorality.
--
Actually, thanks to the ACLU, NO prayer is allowed in schools, student-lead or not.
My, what an unbiased source! That article couldn't POSSIBLY be misinterpreting ANYTHING for the purposes of fundie christian propoganda, could it?
In case you missed it, that article tries to claim that the liberal (*choke* *laugh* *snort*) judicial system in the US is attempting to prepare for a Holocaust of christians.
As a matter of fact, that statement is false. *Organized* prayer at school activities is forbidden. However, students can pray to themselves whenever they want. It's just that christian prayer can't be forced on non-christians by fanatics like you through either administrative or peer pressure.
Oh, and contrary to your narrow-minded belief system, refusal to allow the US to become a christian theocracy does not mean that the ACLU is trying to commit genocide on christians.
--
Because the word used by both Microsoft and kz45 was "innovate". If you didn't do it first, you DIDN'T FUCKING INNOVATE.
--
I noticed the same thing. Last I grep'ed through the good ole constitution (sorry to you Non-US peoples out there), I don't recall seeing anything about anonymous speech. This whole thing seems out of line, somehow.
The thing is, restricting anonymity will restrict speech. Whistleblowers, people with unpopular opinions, political dissidents, and so on will be much less likely to speak without anonymity. And, in case you've forgotten, *those are the people the First Amendment was written for*. If Congress passes a law restricting the anonymity of anonymous speech, Congress is violating the First Amendment.
In addition, look up the Ninth and Tenth Amendments sometime. Just because it isn't listed doesn't mean it isn't a right we have. The courts have, in fact, consistently ruled that we have a right to anonymous speech.
When are companies going to learn that public opinion can't be litigated? Seems to be a reflection of the American view that if something happens we don't like or personaly agree with: take 'em to court.
Actually, it's called a "slap suit". Sue the bastard into oblivion, so the next guy will just shut up and be a polite little consumer/employee. It's not a matter of greed, or throwing a temper tantrum. It's "well, since this stupid First Amendment is in place, we can't get our Congress to outlaw speech we don't like. So, we'll have to frighten those inconvenient outspoken people into shutting up and never saying anything we don't like."
In this case, they probably know they don't have a real case against them. So as soon as they've got the identities of the John Does, they drop the case. Since the John Does are employees, they then procede to quietly make their lives a living hell until they can come up with some kind of trumped-up excuse to fire them. And you better believe their names will get around to other potential employers.
--
While I despise them, Microsoft aren't exactly the epitome of evil. The mining companies who got the CIA to assassinate Salvadore Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, are evil. The oil companies funding the death squads in East Timor are evil. The tobacco companies who lied for a century about their product are evil.
As far as I know, Microsoft hasn't managed to murder or torture even one person yet. Face it, when it comes to evil, Microsoft's pretty small beans.
--
Well, I made a Google search. The Wright brothers flew a powered airplane in December 1903, Dumont flew his in October 1906. Dumont was the first to do powered flight in Europe, but the Wrights still flew before he did.
--
Yup. There is no politician with a better track record than Gore at giving lip service to the environment.
--
Depends on how your state does tollroads. In Illinois, for example, they just have booths every 5 or 10 miles where you throw your money in the basket/give it to the guy in the booth. Since you don't get any kind of receipt unless you ask for it, they can't ticket you. If they tried to use EZ-Pass to ticket speeders there'd probably be a million EZ-Pass boxes returned the next day.
--
The point was that speeding does not cause accidents. Ever. Reckless driving causes accidents. There are times when it is driving recklessly to exceed the speed limit, but there's plenty of conditions under which it's perfectly safe to exceed it. In the US, our highway system was designed to be safe for travel at 75-80 MPH, with cars that couldn't brake or turn nearly as well and which were far more unstable at high speeds. But last I heard, most states still have highway speed limits set at 65 or 70 MPH.
Study after study has shown that speed limits across the US, highway and local, could be raised by 10-15 MPH without causing accidents. Time and again speed limits have been raised without increasing accidents. While I've never exactly held a high opinion of the average American, we're smart enough to determine that speed limits are set at levels that would only be unsafe for a competent driver to exceed if they were driving at night in a thunderstorm. Therefore, so many people drive over the speed limit that in several states it is considered probable cause of illegal activity to be driving the speed limit. That's why speed limits are set as low as they are: if you're driving on the road in Florida, the police have the legal right to pull you over and search you. If everyone's a lawbreaker, anyone can be fined or jailed at any time if they become inconvenient to those in power. And the millions of dollars yearly state and local governments get from traffic enforcement doesn't hurt either.
Your mate died because someone didn't know how to drive, not because they were exceeding the posted speed limit.
--
Hmmmm... I'd say a mountain goat is probably not the best roofing material for a software developer.
Oh wait, you meant the GPL? Hmmm... I must have missed the secret clause where you transfer your copyright to Richard Stallman. (In your delusional fantasies, probably along with your soul and firstborn child.) Thanks for telling me about it!
--
*sigh*
And the point of his post was that the auto companies will resist the improvements and push the intermediary solution. GM is pushing the 193 Kg solution, not the 70 Kg solution. GM will continue to push that solution, since it's the cheapest way they can make themselves and the oil companies look concerned for the environment.
Oh, and the article he posted mentioned a number of zero CO2 emissions solutions. These solutions will be ignored by the auto manufacturers just as much as the natural gas ones.
Do you have any idea how utterly moronic you look flaming someone else for stupidity while completely misunderstanding what they wrote?
--
Well, if you'd actually bothered to read the article like you claim, you would have noticed that it stated that the emissions were "well to wheel." In other words, that's the amount of CO2 created pumping out the oil, transporting it to the refinery, refining it, transporting it to the conusmer, and burning it.
--