And you need to unlock car to do this exactly why?
If you're a legitimate tow truck driver, you try to open the car because you're too lazy to get the dollies off the truck and there's a small additional risk if you don't strap them on securely. If you're an illicit driver, then if you can you partner to unlock the car and get it in neutral, you don't even need to get out of the truck to hook it up, just set the wheels on the wheel lift and go - no need to help him lift the car and set the dollies.
Most cars now have active (chipped) keys that will not let you start or sometimes even turn the key unless it sees the signal from the key. Those keys may also be necessary to put the car in neutral for towing.
Most cars have a manual method of switching to neutral. This is necessary because it simply doesn't make sense to cause thousands of dollars of damage to a car while towing simply because of an electrical problem.
Even if you can't get the car in neutral, it only takes a few seconds to jack up the car and put dollies under the wheels.
They should replace it with a nice free, open source solution like MySQL Enterprise Edition to get paid support. Then they'll never have to pay Oracle another penny (Or pence or whatever they call it in the UK)
Huh? I think you don't understand how flight numbers work. MH means Malaysian Airlines, genius. Airlines regularly retire flight numbers associated with crashes. http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
But they don't retire them in advance of crashes, so there were likely hundreds or thousands of successful flight MH370's prior to the missing flight.
Oh, yeah, airplanes lose flaperons all the time, no big deal, flight controls are hardly a critical part of the airplane, the mechanics just glue on a new one with duct tape and the plane's good to go again.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for confirming.
No, it's just the incompetent Slashdot editors and their tenuous grasp of English once again.
PS nobody will ever re-use a flight number like MH 370 ever again. I wonder what a marketing firm would tell you would be the negative value of that brand.
No one will use it again, but it was used for hundreds, maybe thousands of times previously.
If they said "Wing fragment confirmed from MH370" all of the pedants here would be asking *which* MH370.
Well duh, if it's called the "MH370 Fragment", and MH370 is missing, it's obvious--then this is not news.
Title should read: found aircraft fragment believe to be from missing MH370 airline.
But now it's been confirmed to have been from the missing MH370 flight and since there were likely hundreds MH370 flights (that presumably did not lose wing fragments), it's not incorrect to say to say "MH370 Fragment Is From Missing Flight".
You're saying that a fragment from flight MH370 is from the missing flight MH370? That's amazing.
Flight numbers are reused, so perhaps it was from a different MH370 flight that lost a wing fragment yet was not missing. Stuff like that probably happens all the time.
I didn't realize that anyone signed up for Prime for their streaming video, their catalog is subpar to Netflix, I just treat it as a value-add to their Prime shipping.
If Prime Instant Video were free then a poor service might be justifiable, although even then it couldn't be considered an asset if it's poor. But Amazon actually increased the cost of Prime membership when they added Prime Instant Video so in no way can it be considered free.
Prime Instant Video was announced in Feb, 2011, but they didn't increase the cost of Prime membership until March 2014.
When they announced the price increase, one analyst said: he was surprised that no additional services were announced as part of the price hike, but noted that Prime’s “value to consumers has risen greatly over the past nine years, as the price has been held flat.
I'm not renewing my Prime membership either this year, but curiously my reasons are completely different to yours. In my case I won't renew because:
The selection of films and TV shows on Prime is quite dreadful. I'm a SciFi fan, and I estimate that less than 10% of the non-retro SciFi content that I wish to watch is provided on Prime. (I'm in UK.)
Content available on Prime has no permanence. You might have added a Prime film to your Watchlist and looked forward to a happy weekend's viewing, only to find that it's been removed from Prime before you had the chance. In other words, Amazon is using Prime to play bait and switch games. That's intolerable.
So no, after 1 year it's bye bye Prime. It's a very poor video service.
I didn't realize that anyone signed up for Prime for their streaming video, their catalog is subpar to Netflix, I just treat it as a value-add to their Prime shipping. Video quality seems fine, no worse than Netflix streaming.
Don't blame Amazon (or Netflix) for the non-permanence of streaming titles or lack of content - both services would love to have a full movie catalog with titles that are available forever, but the studios don't want that. It'd be nice if movies had the same compulsory licensing as music does on terrestrial radio.
The trick though is to realize that numbers still work, and hitting "0" often works to get you to a human the fastest.
Alas, not so much anymore -- companies know that users know that 0 gets them the operator, so now many of them either have 0 start over, or do nothing so as not to waste precious human time dealing with humans.
It sounds like they're really just talking about transcribing voicemails, but by saying that Siri will "answer calls", it made me wonder if there might be a future in Siri (or something like it) replacing phone tree systems with something a little more intelligent. For example, could you have a system that didn't just look for certain keywords, but ask the caller what kind of issue they're calling about, and then route the call appropriately. In some cases, Siri might route it to a live phone operator, in others she might automatically transcribe the caller's statements and route it to the right person's email, or attach it to the correct trouble-ticket. Maybe if the system were smart enough, it could even prioritize incoming calls, or interrupt current phone calls, (e.g. "Excuse me Mr. Nine-Times, but there is an urgent phone call from one of your most important clients. Can you take the phone call right now?")
I hadn't really thought about that before, but it seems like a market that could really use a better solution. Phone trees suck.
I know that nothing has truly been invented until Apple invents it, but such intelligent IVR"s have been around for years with varying levels of success. The reason the simple "Press N for X" phone trees continue to be popular is because they are easy to implement in the phone system, easy to maintain using a simple GUI, and easy for companies (even small companies) to understand.
The other side effect of narrowing roads is that it increases safety for everyone (cars, cyclists and pedestrians) since drivers naturally go slower on narrow roads
If slowing traffic is the only way in which narrowing roads increases safety, then I propose that we take it to the limit get rid of them entirely. Once traffic is not moving at all, no one will ever be injured again!
Do you always take everything to the most extreme, absurd conclusion? If someone recommends reducing calorie intake to lose weight, do you advocate eliminating calorie intake completely, which will result in death and even greater weight loss through decomposition of the body?
In any case, slowing traffic is just one way that narrowed lanes increase safety. Another is in reducing road crossing times by pedestrians, which reduces their exposure to cars. Another is in making drivers "feel" less comfortable and making them concentrate on their driving rather than just speeding along without needing to pay much attention at all to staying in their lane (or looking out for other road users). Transportation planners have spent the past few decades making streets exceptionally safe for cars, at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. But as cities get more crowded and it becomes more difficult to accommodate cars when city streets have no room to expand, planners are realizing that streets need to accommodate *all* users, not just cars.
That would be an anomoly where they were providing "shovel ready jobs" to improve the economy. Did you forget that? Anyhow, I should have mentioned that anyhow - a lot of the money comes back in the form of federal tax dollars from the general fund though that is usually used for inter-state roads. You can tell those roads by the sign, they are black and white inside of a seal type of display (for lack of a better word). State roads are, most generally, paid for with gas taxes. Toll roads are *supposed* to be paid for exclusively with taxes in most states though some will have started with a trust and will pay out of that and the toll money.
Is this an anomaly too:
About 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States have been paid through user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments. The rest of the costs of these highways are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, designated property taxes, and other taxes. The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of the contributions by the states. However, any local government contributions are overwhelmingly from sources besides user fees
Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).
And the local roads, where cyclists are more likely to be sharing roads with cars tend to be the same roads that are largely funded through local tax revenue -- so as a cyclist I'm paying for the roads through my property and other local taxes, while the driver coming in from another county wants me off "his" road, even though he contributes very little to the costs of the road.
No but you were suggesting he change his car when, really, keeping his car (meaning a new one needn't be manufactured) would potentially be better for the environment, their income, and overall more efficient as a new car needn't be manufactured.
I am a huge fan of keeping cars, safely, on the road for as long as possible.
If his car is safe and serviceable, selling it doesn't mean taking it off the road - it will be sold on the used market, likely enabling some other driver with an even older car to upgrade to something more modern (and more fuel efficient and cleaner).
And note that I only suggested that because he expressed concern that cyclists were making him slow down and waste precious resources - so rather than force the cyclists to buy a car (and use even more of the precious resources he's worried about), he could purchase a car that doesn't waste so many resources when he's stuck behind a cyclist.
When I retired I got more heavily into collecting cars and it is a shame to see some of them being put to rest when they really needed a trivial, few hundred dollar, repair and then some regular maintaining of said vehicle.
Does that few hundred include labor, or are you counting your "free" labor? My broken transmission might need only a 50 cent retaining ring, but that doesn't make me feel any better when it takes $1500 of seal kits and labor to get to that retaining ring.
We seem to forget the order (generic we) of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I am not so good at the first one, personally. Then there is the added factor that the EV batteries can not be recycled and are considered hazardous waste by the EPA.
EV batteries are more recyclable than you realize:
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-ec... Lithium-ion batteries now are somewhere between 70 and 100 percent recyclable, depending on the particular chemistry of the batteries. There are about half a dozen in use and more are being developed. The bits that can't be recycled are mostly consumed as fuel in the furnaces that are used to melt down the metals, which include cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese and, someday, lithium.
Then there is the mining and processing the various ingredients...
Mining and processing the various ingredients of fossil fuels that power vehicles (in many areas, even electric vehicles are still powered by fossil fuels) also has an environmental toll -- which the cyclist is not contributing to. (the 20 lbs of steel and 2 lbs of rubber in his bike are negligible compared to the tons of steel and plastic in a car).
I think we need to examine the cost but, in the end, I think it will be worth it simply to move off of carbon based fuel.
Which is exactly what the cyclist on the road is doing (which is what started this thread)-- using no carbon fuel for transportation.
As an aside, I am debating... I have finally decided that I take enough trips into town - just into town - that I can justify owning an EV. However, I have a dilemma. I do not know if I want a Tesla or if I want the i8 from BMW. I am a "preferred buyer" with BMW so I can make a deposit and go up near the top of the list but it is still in testing.... It is a conundrum.
It's a conundrum that few in this world can contemplate, not many people can afford a $100+K car. Though a bicycle is much more affordable.
His car is bought, paid for, and mined. There is no way a new car's efficiency - no matter how good - can recoup the ecological costs of mining new material.
I'm not suggesting that he scrap his car or drive it off a cliff - he can sell it to someone that doesn't drive on roads with so many cyclists in the middle of the lane that it has a significant effect on his gas mileage.
this guy's got an answer for everything. and it's always more bikes.
Not just bikes, but also better transit, and better planning that doesn't encourage sprawling suburbs that require huge highways to handle the huge numbers of mostly single passenger cars driving to population centers.
In the United States any road with a route number (and many are but do not have signs - states try to push the costs to the towns over time) is either a federal or state road and, as such, is not paid for out of the general fund but is paid for by taxes on gasoline and on-road diesel. The answer is not more bikes. The answer is fewer stupid people.
From 2008 to 2010, Congress authorized the transfer of $35 billion from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to keep the trust fund solvent.[7]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in January 2012 that the fund's Highway Account will become insolvent during 2013, and the Mass Transit Account insolvent in 2014. CBO said that although vehicles will travel more miles in the future (therefore consuming more taxable fuel), rising fuel efficiency standards and congressional refusal to increase the fuel tax or tie it to the rate of inflation means that the fund receives less money. CBO's insolvency projection assumed that Congress will not increase transportation spending beyond inflation-adjusted 2012 levels.[7]
The Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in late July or early August 2015 as of late June 2015 without an increase in gas taxes.[8] The gas tax has not been raised for such a long time, an increase is dubious.
Slashdot Mirror
And you need to unlock car to do this exactly why?
If you're a legitimate tow truck driver, you try to open the car because you're too lazy to get the dollies off the truck and there's a small additional risk if you don't strap them on securely. If you're an illicit driver, then if you can you partner to unlock the car and get it in neutral, you don't even need to get out of the truck to hook it up, just set the wheels on the wheel lift and go - no need to help him lift the car and set the dollies.
Most cars now have active (chipped) keys that will not let you start or sometimes even turn the key unless it sees the signal from the key. Those keys may also be necessary to put the car in neutral for towing.
Most cars have a manual method of switching to neutral. This is necessary because it simply doesn't make sense to cause thousands of dollars of damage to a car while towing simply because of an electrical problem.
Even if you can't get the car in neutral, it only takes a few seconds to jack up the car and put dollies under the wheels.
You do realize that Oracle owns MySQL, right?
They should run it on Sun hardware to stay even farther away from Oracle.
They should replace it with a nice free, open source solution like MySQL Enterprise Edition to get paid support. Then they'll never have to pay Oracle another penny (Or pence or whatever they call it in the UK)
Flight numbers are reused
Not infamous, doomed flight numbers, or not at least until many years have passed.
http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesia...
Yet the fact remains that there were hundreds or even thousands of MH370 flights prior to the one that was lost.
PS nobody will ever re-use a flight number like MH 370 ever again.
Lightning never strikes twice....
That's exactly why I carry a bomb on board the plane with me - I mean what are the chances that there will be *two* bombs on the same flight!?
Huh? I think you don't understand how flight numbers work. MH means Malaysian Airlines, genius. Airlines regularly retire flight numbers associated with crashes. http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
But they don't retire them in advance of crashes, so there were likely hundreds or thousands of successful flight MH370's prior to the missing flight.
Oh, yeah, airplanes lose flaperons all the time, no big deal, flight controls are hardly a critical part of the airplane, the mechanics just glue on a new one with duct tape and the plane's good to go again.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for confirming.
This may qualify as the single most retarded post in the history of the Internet. Congrats.
You must be new to the internet. Welcome!
No, it's just the incompetent Slashdot editors and their tenuous grasp of English once again.
PS nobody will ever re-use a flight number like MH 370 ever again. I wonder what a marketing firm would tell you would be the negative value of that brand.
No one will use it again, but it was used for hundreds, maybe thousands of times previously.
If they said "Wing fragment confirmed from MH370" all of the pedants here would be asking *which* MH370.
"MH370 Fragment Is From Missing Flight"
Well duh, if it's called the "MH370 Fragment", and MH370 is missing, it's obvious--then this is not news.
Title should read: found aircraft fragment believe to be from missing MH370 airline.
But now it's been confirmed to have been from the missing MH370 flight and since there were likely hundreds MH370 flights (that presumably did not lose wing fragments), it's not incorrect to say to say "MH370 Fragment Is From Missing Flight".
You're saying that a fragment from flight MH370 is from the missing flight MH370? That's amazing.
Flight numbers are reused, so perhaps it was from a different MH370 flight that lost a wing fragment yet was not missing. Stuff like that probably happens all the time.
geez 8bit registers
Computers were less sophisticated back in Shakespeare's day.
So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?
2B | ~2B = FF is simple binary arithmetic, if you can't grasp that maybe you shouldn't be a developer.
If Prime Instant Video were free then a poor service might be justifiable, although even then it couldn't be considered an asset if it's poor. But Amazon actually increased the cost of Prime membership when they added Prime Instant Video so in no way can it be considered free.
Prime Instant Video was announced in Feb, 2011, but they didn't increase the cost of Prime membership until March 2014.
When they announced the price increase, one analyst said: he was surprised that no additional services were announced as part of the price hike, but noted that Prime’s “value to consumers has risen greatly over the past nine years, as the price has been held flat.
I'm not renewing my Prime membership either this year, but curiously my reasons are completely different to yours. In my case I won't renew because:
So no, after 1 year it's bye bye Prime. It's a very poor video service.
I didn't realize that anyone signed up for Prime for their streaming video, their catalog is subpar to Netflix, I just treat it as a value-add to their Prime shipping. Video quality seems fine, no worse than Netflix streaming.
Don't blame Amazon (or Netflix) for the non-permanence of streaming titles or lack of content - both services would love to have a full movie catalog with titles that are available forever, but the studios don't want that. It'd be nice if movies had the same compulsory licensing as music does on terrestrial radio.
The trick though is to realize that numbers still work, and hitting "0" often works to get you to a human the fastest.
Alas, not so much anymore -- companies know that users know that 0 gets them the operator, so now many of them either have 0 start over, or do nothing so as not to waste precious human time dealing with humans.
It sounds like they're really just talking about transcribing voicemails, but by saying that Siri will "answer calls", it made me wonder if there might be a future in Siri (or something like it) replacing phone tree systems with something a little more intelligent. For example, could you have a system that didn't just look for certain keywords, but ask the caller what kind of issue they're calling about, and then route the call appropriately. In some cases, Siri might route it to a live phone operator, in others she might automatically transcribe the caller's statements and route it to the right person's email, or attach it to the correct trouble-ticket. Maybe if the system were smart enough, it could even prioritize incoming calls, or interrupt current phone calls, (e.g. "Excuse me Mr. Nine-Times, but there is an urgent phone call from one of your most important clients. Can you take the phone call right now?")
I hadn't really thought about that before, but it seems like a market that could really use a better solution. Phone trees suck.
I know that nothing has truly been invented until Apple invents it, but such intelligent IVR"s have been around for years with varying levels of success. The reason the simple "Press N for X" phone trees continue to be popular is because they are easy to implement in the phone system, easy to maintain using a simple GUI, and easy for companies (even small companies) to understand.
The other side effect of narrowing roads is that it increases safety for everyone (cars, cyclists and pedestrians) since drivers naturally go slower on narrow roads
If slowing traffic is the only way in which narrowing roads increases safety, then I propose that we take it to the limit get rid of them entirely. Once traffic is not moving at all, no one will ever be injured again!
Do you always take everything to the most extreme, absurd conclusion? If someone recommends reducing calorie intake to lose weight, do you advocate eliminating calorie intake completely, which will result in death and even greater weight loss through decomposition of the body?
In any case, slowing traffic is just one way that narrowed lanes increase safety. Another is in reducing road crossing times by pedestrians, which reduces their exposure to cars. Another is in making drivers "feel" less comfortable and making them concentrate on their driving rather than just speeding along without needing to pay much attention at all to staying in their lane (or looking out for other road users). Transportation planners have spent the past few decades making streets exceptionally safe for cars, at the expense of pedestrians and cyclists. But as cities get more crowded and it becomes more difficult to accommodate cars when city streets have no room to expand, planners are realizing that streets need to accommodate *all* users, not just cars.
Here's a story with a picture of the robot back when he was in good health, as well as a picture of the now deceased robot:
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com...
That would be an anomoly where they were providing "shovel ready jobs" to improve the economy. Did you forget that? Anyhow, I should have mentioned that anyhow - a lot of the money comes back in the form of federal tax dollars from the general fund though that is usually used for inter-state roads. You can tell those roads by the sign, they are black and white inside of a seal type of display (for lack of a better word). State roads are, most generally, paid for with gas taxes. Toll roads are *supposed* to be paid for exclusively with taxes in most states though some will have started with a trust and will pay out of that and the toll money.
Is this an anomaly too:
About 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States have been paid through user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments.
The rest of the costs of these highways are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, designated property taxes, and other taxes. The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of the contributions by the states. However, any local government contributions are overwhelmingly from sources besides user fees
And this:
http://taxfoundation.org/artic...
Nationwide in 2011, highway user fees and user taxes made up just 50.4 percent of state and local expenses on roads. State and local governments spent $153.0 billion on highway, road, and street expenses but raised only $77.1 billion in user fees and user taxes ($12.7 billion in tolls and user fees, $41.2 billion in fuel taxes, and $23.2 billion in vehicle license taxes).[3] The rest was funded by $30 billion in general state and local revenues and $46 billion in federal aid (approximately $28 billion derived from the federal gasoline tax and $18 billion from general federal revenues or deficit financed).
And the local roads, where cyclists are more likely to be sharing roads with cars tend to be the same roads that are largely funded through local tax revenue -- so as a cyclist I'm paying for the roads through my property and other local taxes, while the driver coming in from another county wants me off "his" road, even though he contributes very little to the costs of the road.
No but you were suggesting he change his car when, really, keeping his car (meaning a new one needn't be manufactured) would potentially be better for the environment, their income, and overall more efficient as a new car needn't be manufactured.
I am a huge fan of keeping cars, safely, on the road for as long as possible.
If his car is safe and serviceable, selling it doesn't mean taking it off the road - it will be sold on the used market, likely enabling some other driver with an even older car to upgrade to something more modern (and more fuel efficient and cleaner).
And note that I only suggested that because he expressed concern that cyclists were making him slow down and waste precious resources - so rather than force the cyclists to buy a car (and use even more of the precious resources he's worried about), he could purchase a car that doesn't waste so many resources when he's stuck behind a cyclist.
When I retired I got more heavily into collecting cars and it is a shame to see some of them being put to rest when they really needed a trivial, few hundred dollar, repair and then some regular maintaining of said vehicle.
Does that few hundred include labor, or are you counting your "free" labor? My broken transmission might need only a 50 cent retaining ring, but that doesn't make me feel any better when it takes $1500 of seal kits and labor to get to that retaining ring.
We seem to forget the order (generic we) of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. I am not so good at the first one, personally. Then there is the added factor that the EV batteries can not be recycled and are considered hazardous waste by the EPA.
EV batteries are more recyclable than you realize:
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-ec...
Lithium-ion batteries now are somewhere between 70 and 100 percent recyclable, depending on the particular chemistry of the batteries. There are about half a dozen in use and more are being developed. The bits that can't be recycled are mostly consumed as fuel in the furnaces that are used to melt down the metals, which include cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese and, someday, lithium.
Then there is the mining and processing the various ingredients...
Mining and processing the various ingredients of fossil fuels that power vehicles (in many areas, even electric vehicles are still powered by fossil fuels) also has an environmental toll -- which the cyclist is not contributing to. (the 20 lbs of steel and 2 lbs of rubber in his bike are negligible compared to the tons of steel and plastic in a car).
I think we need to examine the cost but, in the end, I think it will be worth it simply to move off of carbon based fuel.
Which is exactly what the cyclist on the road is doing (which is what started this thread)-- using no carbon fuel for transportation.
As an aside, I am debating... I have finally decided that I take enough trips into town - just into town - that I can justify owning an EV. However, I have a dilemma. I do not know if I want a Tesla or if I want the i8 from BMW. I am a "preferred buyer" with BMW so I can make a deposit and go up near the top of the list but it is still in testing.... It is a conundrum.
It's a conundrum that few in this world can contemplate, not many people can afford a $100+K car. Though a bicycle is much more affordable.
His car is bought, paid for, and mined. There is no way a new car's efficiency - no matter how good - can recoup the ecological costs of mining new material.
I'm not suggesting that he scrap his car or drive it off a cliff - he can sell it to someone that doesn't drive on roads with so many cyclists in the middle of the lane that it has a significant effect on his gas mileage.
this guy's got an answer for everything. and it's always more bikes.
Not just bikes, but also better transit, and better planning that doesn't encourage sprawling suburbs that require huge highways to handle the huge numbers of mostly single passenger cars driving to population centers.
In the United States any road with a route number (and many are but do not have signs - states try to push the costs to the towns over time) is either a federal or state road and, as such, is not paid for out of the general fund but is paid for by taxes on gasoline and on-road diesel. The answer is not more bikes. The answer is fewer stupid people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From 2008 to 2010, Congress authorized the transfer of $35 billion from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to keep the trust fund solvent.[7]
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in January 2012 that the fund's Highway Account will become insolvent during 2013, and the Mass Transit Account insolvent in 2014. CBO said that although vehicles will travel more miles in the future (therefore consuming more taxable fuel), rising fuel efficiency standards and congressional refusal to increase the fuel tax or tie it to the rate of inflation means that the fund receives less money. CBO's insolvency projection assumed that Congress will not increase transportation spending beyond inflation-adjusted 2012 levels.[7]
The Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in late July or early August 2015 as of late June 2015 without an increase in gas taxes.[8] The gas tax has not been raised for such a long time, an increase is dubious.