You're missing the point here. I'd imagine you wouldn't want to drive that car over the Macinac bridge, so don't buy one. They're launching it as an urban vehicle for now.
The problem you face has nothing to do with any car manufacturer, but rather the fact that the Macinac bridge was never designed taking wind into consideration. If I remember correctly, a SUV hopped the rail and fell into the ice just a few years ago.
Regarding possible highway collisions. Yes, you would be in very deep shit if you were driving an "air-car," and got rear-ended by a Lincoln Navigator XL. (on a lighter note, which vehicle would you rather be in if you had a blow-out?) Looking at the big picture, if EVERY car on the road was a air-car, I'm sure our accidents would be much safer.
I would disagree with this. Compressing air is a very simple task, and CAN be done many different ways. You're forgetting that electric "pumps" will be eliminated. This results in a sincere savings of energy. As "refueling stations" become more self-sufficient, and require less maintenance than complex pumps, even more energy can be saved.
I think you're failing to look at the whole picture in terms of the fuel it self, as well. Just think, the entire crude pumping process is eliminated, as well as the transportation, refining, and delivery processes. They are all sincerely reduced, if not virtually GONE because of this fuel.
If you don't see any net savings here, then I wish you well in your oil stocks.
True, I see your point, however it depends upon a very big "if."
By this logic, if Bush wins, my vote was used wisely? I suppose the only point I'm trying to make is that I know my beliefs aren't of the mainstream. Be that as it may, is it more wise to vote for the mainstream candidate whose ticket most closely resembles your beliefs, or run the risk of placing a candidate much FURTHER from my beliefs for the sake of supporting a minority voice I'm more in agreement with? I understand the ethics involved, but I'm more concerned with the immediate policies at hand
I'm mixed on the electoral college issue, and see you're one-sided, so I'll share my views.
If Germany had an electoral college, we would never have seen the likes of Hitler. Our Founding Fathers knew that people as a whole are largely un-educated. A lack of knowledge can leave a nation suceptible to the election of a radical candidate who has an EMOTIONAL swing, which can bring about change in a nation much faster than we are prepared to handle.
What the electoral college does for us, is ensure that educated Americans choose candidates. This ensures a slower acceptance of change, which although some may see as bad, can also be good when you take into consideration the Nazi movement in Germany. Today, most Germans are ashamed of what their nation did. They changed too rapidly.
The electoral college has gone against the popular choice before...
Not to play on words, but the entire point of the electoral college is to stop the presidency from becoming a popularity contest, as opposed to an informed election process.
I agree, it can be frustrating, but it serves an important component in our society. Our Founding Fathers had seen the changes that can radically sweep the likes of Europe, and this fear later materialized in Germany. The question is, with sometimes less than HALF of our population voting, it shows we could still be severely in danger of a popular-alternative candidate winning the election. Fortunately, the electoral college wouldn't let that happen.
I really find this entire thread of rediculous pretense. Katz posts the article based on two technical areas spoken by the candidates. If anyone is voting because Bush knows what an MP3 is, or because Al "Invented the Internet" it is rediculous.
What is important is that people research the issues that are important to them. For me, the candidate's economic plans, taxes, schools, and social security are important to me. Anyone who thinks anyone who runs for office is going to have any sort of CLUE about technical issues needs to get real. Their stance is to be reflected in their economic plan.
Lastly, some may need to get real. Obviously, either Gore or Bush will be the president, and we're stuck with the electoral college, so your vote DOES mean less than most presume. Is it worth voting for the lesser of two evils if you support a third-party candidate? Personally, I think Brown of the Libertarian party is more in line with my political vision, but he doesn't stand a prayer. In lieu of this, I'll likely vote for Bush, to ensure he makes office. The question is, am I helping to stifle the Libertarian voice by making it seem more insignificant than it already is?
True, but for now, clock-per-clock, the Pentium3 is faster than the Pentium4.
One question to bring to mind, how many chips has Intel cancelled/delayed/recalled over the last two years? When it comes to R&D, it appears that AMD has had the better focus, and Intel repeatedly misses the boat. I, for one, am not happy with some of the released specs about the P4 (new form factor, slot, etc.)
Bah, you're getting off topic. As you argue against the philosophy going to college, you admit that you will go back.
The thread said: "...many young men are skipping formal college to pursue high paying IT jobs."
You, obviously, are planning to do both because apparently you place value on a college education.
I personally would not be where I'm at had it not been for my college education. I own my own consulting and training firm. Without the ability to communicate with customers and students, I would be nowhere fast. Without a great understanding of accounting principles, I wouldn't be able to control my books. Without my understanding in psychology, I wouldn't be as insightful when dealing with employees and students. You get the point.
Yes, some people can skip the college, and do just fine. If you're interested in management, and understanding business, I sincerely believe 4 years of college places you LEAPS ahead of taking the road of "hard knocks" and learning it on your own.
Lastly, yes, I could have read all those on my own, but lets get real. Once in a career, you seldom can catch up to what you have to do, let alone learn to count beans, the human psyche, etc.
Joshua
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstood my post. I was referring to the crude pumped specifically for automobile-gasoline purposes. Joshua
You're missing the point here. I'd imagine you wouldn't want to drive that car over the Macinac bridge, so don't buy one. They're launching it as an urban vehicle for now.
The problem you face has nothing to do with any car manufacturer, but rather the fact that the Macinac bridge was never designed taking wind into consideration. If I remember correctly, a SUV hopped the rail and fell into the ice just a few years ago.
Regarding possible highway collisions. Yes, you would be in very deep shit if you were driving an "air-car," and got rear-ended by a Lincoln Navigator XL. (on a lighter note, which vehicle would you rather be in if you had a blow-out?) Looking at the big picture, if EVERY car on the road was a air-car, I'm sure our accidents would be much safer.
JoshuaI would disagree with this. Compressing air is a very simple task, and CAN be done many different ways. You're forgetting that electric "pumps" will be eliminated. This results in a sincere savings of energy. As "refueling stations" become more self-sufficient, and require less maintenance than complex pumps, even more energy can be saved.
I think you're failing to look at the whole picture in terms of the fuel it self, as well. Just think, the entire crude pumping process is eliminated, as well as the transportation, refining, and delivery processes. They are all sincerely reduced, if not virtually GONE because of this fuel.
If you don't see any net savings here, then I wish you well in your oil stocks.
JoshuaTrue, I see your point, however it depends upon a very big "if."
By this logic, if Bush wins, my vote was used wisely? I suppose the only point I'm trying to make is that I know my beliefs aren't of the mainstream. Be that as it may, is it more wise to vote for the mainstream candidate whose ticket most closely resembles your beliefs, or run the risk of placing a candidate much FURTHER from my beliefs for the sake of supporting a minority voice I'm more in agreement with? I understand the ethics involved, but I'm more concerned with the immediate policies at hand
JoshuaI'm mixed on the electoral college issue, and see you're one-sided, so I'll share my views.
If Germany had an electoral college, we would never have seen the likes of Hitler. Our Founding Fathers knew that people as a whole are largely un-educated. A lack of knowledge can leave a nation suceptible to the election of a radical candidate who has an EMOTIONAL swing, which can bring about change in a nation much faster than we are prepared to handle.
What the electoral college does for us, is ensure that educated Americans choose candidates. This ensures a slower acceptance of change, which although some may see as bad, can also be good when you take into consideration the Nazi movement in Germany. Today, most Germans are ashamed of what their nation did. They changed too rapidly.
Not to play on words, but the entire point of the electoral college is to stop the presidency from becoming a popularity contest, as opposed to an informed election process.
I agree, it can be frustrating, but it serves an important component in our society. Our Founding Fathers had seen the changes that can radically sweep the likes of Europe, and this fear later materialized in Germany. The question is, with sometimes less than HALF of our population voting, it shows we could still be severely in danger of a popular-alternative candidate winning the election. Fortunately, the electoral college wouldn't let that happen.
JoshuaI really find this entire thread of rediculous pretense. Katz posts the article based on two technical areas spoken by the candidates. If anyone is voting because Bush knows what an MP3 is, or because Al "Invented the Internet" it is rediculous.
What is important is that people research the issues that are important to them. For me, the candidate's economic plans, taxes, schools, and social security are important to me. Anyone who thinks anyone who runs for office is going to have any sort of CLUE about technical issues needs to get real. Their stance is to be reflected in their economic plan.
Lastly, some may need to get real. Obviously, either Gore or Bush will be the president, and we're stuck with the electoral college, so your vote DOES mean less than most presume. Is it worth voting for the lesser of two evils if you support a third-party candidate? Personally, I think Brown of the Libertarian party is more in line with my political vision, but he doesn't stand a prayer. In lieu of this, I'll likely vote for Bush, to ensure he makes office. The question is, am I helping to stifle the Libertarian voice by making it seem more insignificant than it already is?
JoshuaTrue, but for now, clock-per-clock, the Pentium3 is faster than the Pentium4.
One question to bring to mind, how many chips has Intel cancelled/delayed/recalled over the last two years? When it comes to R&D, it appears that AMD has had the better focus, and Intel repeatedly misses the boat. I, for one, am not happy with some of the released specs about the P4 (new form factor, slot, etc.)
Joshua
So, does that mean that you *almost* have a dick?
Bah, you're getting off topic. As you argue against the philosophy going to college, you admit that you will go back. The thread said: "...many young men are skipping formal college to pursue high paying IT jobs." You, obviously, are planning to do both because apparently you place value on a college education. I personally would not be where I'm at had it not been for my college education. I own my own consulting and training firm. Without the ability to communicate with customers and students, I would be nowhere fast. Without a great understanding of accounting principles, I wouldn't be able to control my books. Without my understanding in psychology, I wouldn't be as insightful when dealing with employees and students. You get the point. Yes, some people can skip the college, and do just fine. If you're interested in management, and understanding business, I sincerely believe 4 years of college places you LEAPS ahead of taking the road of "hard knocks" and learning it on your own. Lastly, yes, I could have read all those on my own, but lets get real. Once in a career, you seldom can catch up to what you have to do, let alone learn to count beans, the human psyche, etc. Joshua