And, of course, you naturally have the studies which prove this "basic psychology" of yours, right?
I mean, you wouldn't be advocating censorship based solely on your baseless assumptions and anecdotal evidence, would you? Because *that* would be a really *really* bad idea.
In all honesty shooting down his arguments because he does not have a thesis paper available is a poor argument. This argument is one/.'rs use to prove how correct they are and how others are incorrect. It is very flawed. It's much easier to say "Since you have no proof you must be wrong." Why don't you one up him. Why don't you provide three reliable and verifiable studies, accepted by reputable organizations, to prove him wrong? I have a reason - you probably don't have the time/desire to do more then what he did - just type something that is fairly common sense. He may not be 100% correct but he just may be 90% correct - remember life is about degrees
As a person who is an expert in communication studies (yes with actual training and a degree from an accredited college) with relation to how verbal, & non-verbal communications affects people as well as how things like games, tv/movies, news, books modifies a persons behavior I give *my* expert opinion to say these things DO influence people. Now it is a matter of degress. Is playing a violent video game going to make a normal/sane person go on a mass murder spree? No. Will a romantic movie dipicting women as gold diggers, who whine at every turn, influence how people perceive women? Definitely yes - especially if you see a lot of them.
As it turns out movies that are believable, meaning it COULD happen, are a lot more likely to influence people then movies that are not believable. A drama such as Sleepless in Seattle COULD very easily happen so people are more willing to believe their actions are indicative of how people do and SHOULD behave. A movie like Dumb & Dumber is a lot less believable and much less likely to influence people in that mode of behavior.
Again - issues like these are a matter of degrees. The more outrageous an outside influence is the less likely a chance people will believe it and immitate it.
Given all this - movies, games, etc do not cause people to go insane and kill people. They do, however, give insane people ideas...then again, so does the news. Or has nobody ever heard of copy cat murderers? Maybe we should ban everything and anything that is not happy/feel good in nature?
External locus of control. The shooter had it. Why do you think 14 out of 15 victims were female? He was gunning for females, because he was blaming all females for his condition. He blamed them for so much that he thought they collectively deserved to die.
100% clear evidence that he played Doom with the Christie Brinkly hack. So not only is he a murderer but he is a computer hacker. He must also download illegal movies. Hmm what's worse...death penalty or being sued by the MPAA/RIAA?
I played WoW, Counterstrike and CS source, far cry and car cry 2, doom+, Call of duty modern warfare and world at war, tom clancy games, and others.
I watch violent movies and cheered for the terminator in T1, & 2 (well for arnold).
I own a gun and a sword and I know how to use them.
Maybe they should lock me up because I have to be psychotic.
Horse races: Involves brutally pitting horses against one another, some choose to include whipping. The horses get nothing but a fresh feed bag, while the trainers get millions in prize money, and book keepers rake in billions from the gambling. I'm sure there's something bad about golf, but all I could think of is "known to cause heart attacks in managers who should be behind their desks", but that's no loss for the world.
Horse Races: brutally pitting horses against one another? They are racing. The only thing that can be seen as violent is the whipping. Race horses get excellent care and in retirement get to have sex as much as possible. They don't get millions of dollars, though why would they care, but they are the benefit of that money (best health-care, healthiest food, etc)
Golf - Is not known to cause heart attacks. Your typical golfer is older so the age group who play have a higher heart-attack rate. Golfing requires physical work which makes people healthier. Maybe the caddy for "slave labor"
Football - Injury doesn't happen that often.
Book keepers - Getting billions? Pfft, you do realize you have no idea what you are talking about with regards to the numbers. My g/f works in the casino industry in a position that lets her see the numbers and on a good night they make about 12 million coin in...that is not profit, that is just what comes in. They still have to pay 50% gross taxes, expenses, and then standard business tax on the net. A far cry from billions...and book-keepers won't even come close to 12 million a night
A game in which you are encouraged to send blindly loyal soldiers
Actually, the part of chess when you sacrifice a soldier for another is to gain an advantage. You give your opponent a tasty treat only to get him when he is not paying attention. This happens all the time in warfare. Though in warfare you usually provide a way for your bait to escape. (hopefully)
Wouldn't work. 2-3 generations down the road "hey we are short on supplies, let's go take some. We got guns, ships - they have....wooden bows". The tv series always underlined the military has the final say. So all the military needed to do, for the dissenters, was commander all relevant technology (they probably kept things like wrist-watches, and medical equipment like syringes, etc).
What I found silly was the splitting up of the 35,000 people. Considering one doctor, and other trained skills that may not be widely available? I know which group I would want to be with.
Lack of subtlety implies lack of understanding or, worse, wilful ignorance
No it doesn't and I would challenge you to provide three credible research papers which state lack of subtlety implies lack of understanding. Many people fail at subtlety, which is a skill unto itself, and completely understand the situation at hand. Politicians are typically great at subtlety, but there are many politicians who have no idea what they are talking about. On the converse there are many intellectuals who are great at understanding situations but couldn't pass off a silent fart in a subtle manner let alone a complex situation.
2. What probably would've happened after Lee recommended all technology go away is a split between those who still wanted it and those who didn't. The two sides would create a pact to keep separate from each other, the small minority of technology-loving people going to live on a small continent off the west coast of Africa... Said continent, of course, to have been destroyed at some future point in time by natural disaster and essentially all technology along with it. This would solve what would be an obvious dilemma and split in viewpoints of the remaining people while reasonably explaining what would've happened to their technology.
Wouldn't work...2 to 3 generations later they would come and conquer the less technologically equipped family members and then enslave them. Two situations to help explain why it "worked" to go low-tech
1) These people lived inside sardine cans fighting technology which nearly wiped out the entire population. They wanted a break from technology so had a knee-jerk reaction. There are a few who wanted their tech but they were vastly outnumbered.
2) Their gov't was more about dictatorship then anything else. In many of the episodes the military told the elected gov't to sit down and STFU. It is no surprise if they said "give us your technology" when they checked off the ships. They could do it at gunpoint or willingly - it would happen.
Anyhow - it's sci-fi and requires the viewer to enjoy a huge dose of suspension of disbelief. There are tons of things in the movie that are unbelievable (Kara Thrace is an angel?, Baltar/Six are angels?). If you are accepting of those things then people giving up their high-tech should not be that unreasonable.
Take your current price, double it. Prices are relative. I didn't comment on UK prices because I didn't know what they were. What were your prices last summer? What are they now? What do you think they will be?
Yes I enjoy such draconic rules as:
1) You must get car insurance so when you hit me my medical bills and pain and suffering is covered. India does not have this
2) Your car must meet certain safety standards so you can mitigate the damage you do to yourself and your friends/family when you hit something with your car. This saves on insurance costs, keeping the cost to insurance for other people down. India does not have this.
3) Your car needs to meet certain emissions standards. Low gas consumption is not the only concern in emissions. India does not have this.
4) Your car requires you to have a drivers license to drive, annual inspections/emissions. To make sure you have at least some cursory knowledge of the road rules, and to make sure your car's tail-pipe won't fal off in mid drive. India does not have this.
5) Your way of life was dictated to you before you were born (unless you are about 80-90 years old). People in the US/UK/Germany and other countries where cars have been a dime a dozen for many decades are needed because people built their lives around it (not necessarily by choice). India does not have this (for long).
Just because something can be done doesn't make it a good idea. Let's see how India enjoys $4/gallon gas prices - which will happen with an extra 10 mil drivers. Let's see how long it will take them to get the necessary rules/regulations to bring their cars up to snuff and then let's see if those cars make it.
I agree with the sentiment but it is not black and white. Most people in India have lived their entire lives without cars and didn't need it. Their family, work, friends, home were all (for the most part) in relative distances. This car is so cheap they will get it (even if just 1% that's 10 mil more drivers on a 1 billion pop) and eventually need it.
Gas demand will go up, pollution will go up.
This is not some miracle of technology -it is worse then good.
To turn around to countries that have been using cars for years in a major way and say "well give up your car" - rememebr those countries' lifestyles have been based around cars for many years...in the US since the 40's-50's (really before then, but that was an insane boom time). The AVERAGE american commute is 30 minutes by car - not feasible by foot/bike...and 30 minutes by car usually means about 1-1.5 hours by train/bus each direction. Again, it's living standard. If you never had it you didn't build your life around it.
1% of a 1 billion pop country buying this country = a LOT more pollution & much more demand on oil which means higher gas prices.
Not to forget this car doesn't have many standard safety features.
Not to forget India driving rules are a lot less restrictive then other countries
There is also the issue where many people in India got along fine without cars. They didn't "need" it because their life was based on not having it. Now that this vehicle came out things will change and eventually the India population will "need" cars.
'CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini, because this car's importance is immeasurably greater.
This statement fails miserably. Tata Nano should never be in the same sentence as Lamborghini or Ferrari, except in a sentence to say they should never be in the same sentence. One of the Lamorghini's wheels cost more then that car.
With regards to this car and it's price - I wouldn't hail it as a miracle - assuming only 1% of the population buys this car that is 10 million new drivers - eating up gas. Yay demand!!!! Another summer of $4/gallon gas prices!!! Plus the added pollution.
I wonder how many safety standards this car had to break to get passed. Driving rules in India are a lot more lax then driving rules in UK/US & other countries where driving has been established as an every-day necessity.
When going from #.99 to a whole number (version 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) it is a BIG deal actually. Even going from 0.99zzz to 1.0 is a big milestone. The changes are fairly significant and the software has reached a maturity the developer(s) believe warrant that. Now I am speaking in the traditional/ideology sense...I am sure some people put out version 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, n+1, where N>0 but in a traditional sense...version 1 = big milestone. I wouldn't celebrate it as it's birthday. Getting to version 1.0 is like a Jewish boy getting to age 13...big deal, but the kid was still born 13 years before that time.
My name could be on that list and I wouldn't care. Last time comcast came around (to replace my broken cable modem) the guy said I was one of their oldest customers using their very out-of-date system. They had to delete my account and recreate it from scratch. My old account was before they issued usernames/passwords. When they asked me what I wanted my username/password to be I looked at the guy and asked him why do I need it. He said for comcast e-mail. I told him I've survived without comcast e-mail as one of the "oldest customers" (which I call BS btw) and I would pass. When he called their tech-ops they asked for the desired username/password and he explained to them that the custoemr (me) could care less. They created something, asked if I wanted it, and I said no. Whoever is using it...enjoy!
A court ordered subpeona is the only way comcast will release information about that list. What you would need to do is sue comcast for the list stating, in the law suit, users who are on the list should be notified.
I've encountered those sites before - facebook, myspace, etc. They specifically ask me "want us to use your yahoo, gmail, etc to contact your friends". One time I said yes and it brought up a list of all of my friends and then it said "who did you want us to contact". It was a very plain, and clear pop-up. You couldn't miss it and you had to check off names and click submit. Nothing underhanded or sneaky. Now are there sites who will do that - most likely - but the bigger named sites are not currently doing it.
I love the sue happy mentality of our society. A better question "and should Comcast be held responsible..."
Trust me I hate Comcast. My girlfriend laughs at me everytime I talk about comcast. Out of all the companies in the world I have dealt with - comcast is the worst (though a few months ago a comcast manager was so nice to me...no lie, I had a tear come to my eye).
Sometimes accidents happen, rogue employees happen, or some other factor. You get them to fix the problem and move on.
It's actually quite simple. When the comcast person arrives at your house and installs the hardware they will want to install the software. Tell them no and to have them call their dispatch. They don't like to do it because now they have to wait on hold, get the person to manually activate the modem (why the software is not built into the modem is beyond me), and wait for it to start. Basically it means the comcast guy will be at your place for an additional 30 minutes. They will, however, not install it on your request. I have never had to persuade, argue, bribe, or threaten the person - I just said "no thanks I prefer not to have any extra software on my computer".
Getting a light aircraft pilots license generally runs about $5,000 with instructors, required air-time, and instructional materials.
In all honesty, unless this is computer controlled I would not want to see it. I drive on 95 between PA/DE 5 days a week and I see or feel the effects of an accident about 2 times a week. Air traffic? Yea how about a flying car landing in your home.
All they need is an established car manufacturer to buy the patent/concept of the car and there you go. It takes very little retrofitting for an established car company to change production types. In fact there is no real reason a company MUST use that body type, they just need the engine type. 2010 seems a little early for concept car that has no prototype. Once they have a working prototype that is a different story. I am thinking if they can get a major car company to buy it, once they get their 10 mil X prize money, the cars would be produced (assuming no hinderance from the oil companies) in about 2-5 years. So looking at 2012 at best. This is a guess.
WIth regards to the oil companies. Once enough people have hybrids rest assured the oil companies will raise the prices again, you know to about $8 a gallon to keep their quarterly profits up. They will then start selling biodeasal. Remember they have existing oil plants, distribution systems, and gasoline stations. They are in a prime spot to swoop in and control this market. It doesn't matter if production is 25 cents on the gallon..prices will be $8/gallon.
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, you naturally have the studies which prove this "basic psychology" of yours, right? I mean, you wouldn't be advocating censorship based solely on your baseless assumptions and anecdotal evidence, would you? Because *that* would be a really *really* bad idea.
In all honesty shooting down his arguments because he does not have a thesis paper available is a poor argument. This argument is one /.'rs use to prove how correct they are and how others are incorrect. It is very flawed. It's much easier to say "Since you have no proof you must be wrong." Why don't you one up him. Why don't you provide three reliable and verifiable studies, accepted by reputable organizations, to prove him wrong? I have a reason - you probably don't have the time/desire to do more then what he did - just type something that is fairly common sense. He may not be 100% correct but he just may be 90% correct - remember life is about degrees
As a person who is an expert in communication studies (yes with actual training and a degree from an accredited college) with relation to how verbal, & non-verbal communications affects people as well as how things like games, tv/movies, news, books modifies a persons behavior I give *my* expert opinion to say these things DO influence people. Now it is a matter of degress. Is playing a violent video game going to make a normal/sane person go on a mass murder spree? No. Will a romantic movie dipicting women as gold diggers, who whine at every turn, influence how people perceive women? Definitely yes - especially if you see a lot of them.
As it turns out movies that are believable, meaning it COULD happen, are a lot more likely to influence people then movies that are not believable. A drama such as Sleepless in Seattle COULD very easily happen so people are more willing to believe their actions are indicative of how people do and SHOULD behave. A movie like Dumb & Dumber is a lot less believable and much less likely to influence people in that mode of behavior.
Again - issues like these are a matter of degrees. The more outrageous an outside influence is the less likely a chance people will believe it and immitate it.
Given all this - movies, games, etc do not cause people to go insane and kill people. They do, however, give insane people ideas...then again, so does the news. Or has nobody ever heard of copy cat murderers? Maybe we should ban everything and anything that is not happy/feel good in nature?
External locus of control. The shooter had it. Why do you think 14 out of 15 victims were female? He was gunning for females, because he was blaming all females for his condition. He blamed them for so much that he thought they collectively deserved to die.
100% clear evidence that he played Doom with the Christie Brinkly hack. So not only is he a murderer but he is a computer hacker. He must also download illegal movies. Hmm what's worse...death penalty or being sued by the MPAA/RIAA?
I played WoW, Counterstrike and CS source, far cry and car cry 2, doom+, Call of duty modern warfare and world at war, tom clancy games, and others.
I watch violent movies and cheered for the terminator in T1, & 2 (well for arnold).
I own a gun and a sword and I know how to use them.
Maybe they should lock me up because I have to be psychotic.
Horse races: Involves brutally pitting horses against one another, some choose to include whipping. The horses get nothing but a fresh feed bag, while the trainers get millions in prize money, and book keepers rake in billions from the gambling. I'm sure there's something bad about golf, but all I could think of is "known to cause heart attacks in managers who should be behind their desks", but that's no loss for the world.
Horse Races: brutally pitting horses against one another? They are racing. The only thing that can be seen as violent is the whipping. Race horses get excellent care and in retirement get to have sex as much as possible. They don't get millions of dollars, though why would they care, but they are the benefit of that money (best health-care, healthiest food, etc)
Golf - Is not known to cause heart attacks. Your typical golfer is older so the age group who play have a higher heart-attack rate. Golfing requires physical work which makes people healthier. Maybe the caddy for "slave labor"
Football - Injury doesn't happen that often.
Book keepers - Getting billions? Pfft, you do realize you have no idea what you are talking about with regards to the numbers. My g/f works in the casino industry in a position that lets her see the numbers and on a good night they make about 12 million coin in...that is not profit, that is just what comes in. They still have to pay 50% gross taxes, expenses, and then standard business tax on the net. A far cry from billions...and book-keepers won't even come close to 12 million a night
A game in which you are encouraged to send blindly loyal soldiers
Actually, the part of chess when you sacrifice a soldier for another is to gain an advantage. You give your opponent a tasty treat only to get him when he is not paying attention. This happens all the time in warfare. Though in warfare you usually provide a way for your bait to escape. (hopefully)
I am sure we can blame the Crusades on video games also.
Wouldn't work. 2-3 generations down the road "hey we are short on supplies, let's go take some. We got guns, ships - they have....wooden bows". The tv series always underlined the military has the final say. So all the military needed to do, for the dissenters, was commander all relevant technology (they probably kept things like wrist-watches, and medical equipment like syringes, etc).
What I found silly was the splitting up of the 35,000 people. Considering one doctor, and other trained skills that may not be widely available? I know which group I would want to be with.
Lack of subtlety implies lack of understanding or, worse, wilful ignorance
No it doesn't and I would challenge you to provide three credible research papers which state lack of subtlety implies lack of understanding. Many people fail at subtlety, which is a skill unto itself, and completely understand the situation at hand. Politicians are typically great at subtlety, but there are many politicians who have no idea what they are talking about. On the converse there are many intellectuals who are great at understanding situations but couldn't pass off a silent fart in a subtle manner let alone a complex situation.
2. What probably would've happened after Lee recommended all technology go away is a split between those who still wanted it and those who didn't. The two sides would create a pact to keep separate from each other, the small minority of technology-loving people going to live on a small continent off the west coast of Africa... Said continent, of course, to have been destroyed at some future point in time by natural disaster and essentially all technology along with it. This would solve what would be an obvious dilemma and split in viewpoints of the remaining people while reasonably explaining what would've happened to their technology.
Wouldn't work...2 to 3 generations later they would come and conquer the less technologically equipped family members and then enslave them. Two situations to help explain why it "worked" to go low-tech
1) These people lived inside sardine cans fighting technology which nearly wiped out the entire population. They wanted a break from technology so had a knee-jerk reaction. There are a few who wanted their tech but they were vastly outnumbered.
2) Their gov't was more about dictatorship then anything else. In many of the episodes the military told the elected gov't to sit down and STFU. It is no surprise if they said "give us your technology" when they checked off the ships. They could do it at gunpoint or willingly - it would happen.
Anyhow - it's sci-fi and requires the viewer to enjoy a huge dose of suspension of disbelief. There are tons of things in the movie that are unbelievable (Kara Thrace is an angel?, Baltar/Six are angels?). If you are accepting of those things then people giving up their high-tech should not be that unreasonable.
Take your current price, double it. Prices are relative. I didn't comment on UK prices because I didn't know what they were. What were your prices last summer? What are they now? What do you think they will be?
Yes I enjoy such draconic rules as:
1) You must get car insurance so when you hit me my medical bills and pain and suffering is covered. India does not have this
2) Your car must meet certain safety standards so you can mitigate the damage you do to yourself and your friends/family when you hit something with your car. This saves on insurance costs, keeping the cost to insurance for other people down. India does not have this.
3) Your car needs to meet certain emissions standards. Low gas consumption is not the only concern in emissions. India does not have this.
4) Your car requires you to have a drivers license to drive, annual inspections/emissions. To make sure you have at least some cursory knowledge of the road rules, and to make sure your car's tail-pipe won't fal off in mid drive. India does not have this.
5) Your way of life was dictated to you before you were born (unless you are about 80-90 years old). People in the US/UK/Germany and other countries where cars have been a dime a dozen for many decades are needed because people built their lives around it (not necessarily by choice). India does not have this (for long).
Just because something can be done doesn't make it a good idea. Let's see how India enjoys $4/gallon gas prices - which will happen with an extra 10 mil drivers. Let's see how long it will take them to get the necessary rules/regulations to bring their cars up to snuff and then let's see if those cars make it.
I agree with the sentiment but it is not black and white. Most people in India have lived their entire lives without cars and didn't need it. Their family, work, friends, home were all (for the most part) in relative distances. This car is so cheap they will get it (even if just 1% that's 10 mil more drivers on a 1 billion pop) and eventually need it.
Gas demand will go up, pollution will go up.
This is not some miracle of technology -it is worse then good.
To turn around to countries that have been using cars for years in a major way and say "well give up your car" - rememebr those countries' lifestyles have been based around cars for many years...in the US since the 40's-50's (really before then, but that was an insane boom time). The AVERAGE american commute is 30 minutes by car - not feasible by foot/bike...and 30 minutes by car usually means about 1-1.5 hours by train/bus each direction. Again, it's living standard. If you never had it you didn't build your life around it.
1% of a 1 billion pop country buying this country = a LOT more pollution & much more demand on oil which means higher gas prices.
Not to forget this car doesn't have many standard safety features.
Not to forget India driving rules are a lot less restrictive then other countries
There is also the issue where many people in India got along fine without cars. They didn't "need" it because their life was based on not having it. Now that this vehicle came out things will change and eventually the India population will "need" cars.
'CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini, because this car's importance is immeasurably greater.
This statement fails miserably. Tata Nano should never be in the same sentence as Lamborghini or Ferrari, except in a sentence to say they should never be in the same sentence. One of the Lamorghini's wheels cost more then that car.
With regards to this car and it's price - I wouldn't hail it as a miracle - assuming only 1% of the population buys this car that is 10 million new drivers - eating up gas. Yay demand!!!! Another summer of $4/gallon gas prices!!! Plus the added pollution.
I wonder how many safety standards this car had to break to get passed. Driving rules in India are a lot more lax then driving rules in UK/US & other countries where driving has been established as an every-day necessity.
When going from #.99 to a whole number (version 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) it is a BIG deal actually. Even going from 0.99zzz to 1.0 is a big milestone. The changes are fairly significant and the software has reached a maturity the developer(s) believe warrant that. Now I am speaking in the traditional/ideology sense...I am sure some people put out version 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, n+1, where N>0 but in a traditional sense...version 1 = big milestone. I wouldn't celebrate it as it's birthday. Getting to version 1.0 is like a Jewish boy getting to age 13...big deal, but the kid was still born 13 years before that time.
Yea...welll... YOU SUCK! I'm going to play with my hawt 3.0 hax'd iphone.
My name could be on that list and I wouldn't care. Last time comcast came around (to replace my broken cable modem) the guy said I was one of their oldest customers using their very out-of-date system. They had to delete my account and recreate it from scratch. My old account was before they issued usernames/passwords. When they asked me what I wanted my username/password to be I looked at the guy and asked him why do I need it. He said for comcast e-mail. I told him I've survived without comcast e-mail as one of the "oldest customers" (which I call BS btw) and I would pass. When he called their tech-ops they asked for the desired username/password and he explained to them that the custoemr (me) could care less. They created something, asked if I wanted it, and I said no. Whoever is using it...enjoy!
They'll probably remember you as "that weird guy that insisted on using Linux/not using Windows/what-have-you" and accuse you of "hacking".
Considering his subject said "I haxxored Comcast" he admitted to doing it. Don't worry he will get a reduced sentence for coming clean.
A court ordered subpeona is the only way comcast will release information about that list. What you would need to do is sue comcast for the list stating, in the law suit, users who are on the list should be notified.
I've encountered those sites before - facebook, myspace, etc. They specifically ask me "want us to use your yahoo, gmail, etc to contact your friends". One time I said yes and it brought up a list of all of my friends and then it said "who did you want us to contact". It was a very plain, and clear pop-up. You couldn't miss it and you had to check off names and click submit. Nothing underhanded or sneaky. Now are there sites who will do that - most likely - but the bigger named sites are not currently doing it.
and can Comcast be held responsible in any way?
I love the sue happy mentality of our society. A better question "and should Comcast be held responsible..."
Trust me I hate Comcast. My girlfriend laughs at me everytime I talk about comcast. Out of all the companies in the world I have dealt with - comcast is the worst (though a few months ago a comcast manager was so nice to me...no lie, I had a tear come to my eye).
Sometimes accidents happen, rogue employees happen, or some other factor. You get them to fix the problem and move on.
It's actually quite simple. When the comcast person arrives at your house and installs the hardware they will want to install the software. Tell them no and to have them call their dispatch. They don't like to do it because now they have to wait on hold, get the person to manually activate the modem (why the software is not built into the modem is beyond me), and wait for it to start. Basically it means the comcast guy will be at your place for an additional 30 minutes. They will, however, not install it on your request. I have never had to persuade, argue, bribe, or threaten the person - I just said "no thanks I prefer not to have any extra software on my computer".
Let's not make it sound like mission impossible.
Vote for me to be your president and I shall change your life by making your hopes and dreams come true by giving you flying cars in ten years!
Getting a light aircraft pilots license generally runs about $5,000 with instructors, required air-time, and instructional materials.
In all honesty, unless this is computer controlled I would not want to see it. I drive on 95 between PA/DE 5 days a week and I see or feel the effects of an accident about 2 times a week. Air traffic? Yea how about a flying car landing in your home.
All they need is an established car manufacturer to buy the patent/concept of the car and there you go. It takes very little retrofitting for an established car company to change production types. In fact there is no real reason a company MUST use that body type, they just need the engine type. 2010 seems a little early for concept car that has no prototype. Once they have a working prototype that is a different story. I am thinking if they can get a major car company to buy it, once they get their 10 mil X prize money, the cars would be produced (assuming no hinderance from the oil companies) in about 2-5 years. So looking at 2012 at best. This is a guess.
WIth regards to the oil companies. Once enough people have hybrids rest assured the oil companies will raise the prices again, you know to about $8 a gallon to keep their quarterly profits up. They will then start selling biodeasal. Remember they have existing oil plants, distribution systems, and gasoline stations. They are in a prime spot to swoop in and control this market. It doesn't matter if production is 25 cents on the gallon..prices will be $8/gallon.