Being a scientist means doing original scientific research i.e. something that nobody has done before, otherwise it is called history.
This seems like an absurd view of science. None of the definitions i got from google say anything about originality directly. Perhaps you would care to furnish us with the one from your dictionary just so we can have the same true understanding that you have.
In the meantime I don't think I even understand how to measure originality. How am I to know what has been known in the past? If information is lost to the scientific community (eg. the burning of the library at Alexandria) is a subsequent study of that subject not science? What if I am stranded on a desert island, and I use the scientific method to work out how to grow/prepare food and work out which plants are poisonous. It seems like something very akin to science and I wouldn't call it history. Perhaps you are thinking of the value of science. If sufficient study on a subject has already been conducted then further scientific study has no value. Many of the definitions linked refer to something like this. The difference is that science is a noun not a verb. One is not producing science if ones results are already known. the definitions speak of producing solutions to problems for example. One cannot produce solutions to problems that are already solved. The scientific method is the method by which one builds science, not all applications of the method produce science, but any application that produces useful results has produced science. Another example might be if you do some scientific study that has never been done before, but you refuse to give me your results. I might do the same research to solve my problem, which is that you wont tell me your results. I might then achieve the same results as you and therefore solve my problem. The knowledge i would gain from this fits every definition of science on that list (except the band and album titles).
Discussions of originality aside, the quotes you responded to also stand, you dont have to study to do science, even by your own definition, and there are not only uneducated people doing reasearch by the scientific method, there are even some that are thereby producing original science as aresult.
I was looking for info on this too. In fact it was the only reason I read this thread. I think it is fair to judge vandalism on a case by case basis. Currently the discussion above is mostly saying either "it doesn't count as vandalism because it is wikipedia/internet/eraseable" or "We need to protect wikipedia from this sort of thing using [measures]".
I guess no one bothered to answer this because it was obvious. It only a sentence though: Then they would be blocking every human being without a credit card and everyone who has a card but doesn't want to give it to wikipedia.
The headline says extremist, the sub heading says al qaeda. Does this apply to all extremists? There are a lot of US extremists both in the christian and political spheres. Somehow I don't get the feeling youtube is going to be asked to take down any of those. No one on slashdot needs examples right? I am willing to participate in a genuine debate about hatespeech legislation and how it should apply to the internet, but if this is more of the blatant racism against muslims that pervades the western media at the moment then I have only one response: NO.
Yes games are getting easier, and have been for some time. This is only true for console releases however and pc releases that came out on both. Hard new games are dwarf fortress, men of war (try playing the US campaign or red tide on the hardest setting. Oh and by the way in the original russian red tide is actually called 'black coat'), all roguelikes, total war series (the battles are still easy but the campaigns on the hardest setting are pretty stiff in empire), civilisation still has very hard settings... in fact, like I said before console games are easy. Perhaps this is because of the well known facts that console players have no attention span or wish to challenge themselves, and it is near impossible to be good at most games without a mouse. There are exceptions of course, for example realism racing sims for console are often pretty hard. Still, when I was a lad completing a game was a fantasy like enlightenment that one strove for but never really expected to attain.
I mentioned this below and then noticed your request. It is not recent it is future (2011 beta) but Path of Exile looks like an interesting alternative to D3
It seems like the skill runes idea was lifted straight from their competitor Path of Exile. Correct me if this is something they announced months ago. It is a good idea though, expanding the sphere of possible builds is always worthwhile.
I have been thinking along similar lines to TaoPhoenix, but with one extra insight. In a real life interaction a limited domain will not cut it. But in a game it will. A computer game is a limited domain all of its own. In addition to this, the entirety of the game world is represented in a machine readable format, it is represented in the game engine. Real language was used in many early games but was then abandoned when linear scripted gameplay became popular. I can't help feeling if real language had been retained as a feature of games in the way that graphics was, that we would have seen similar exponential progress. The scripted option based conversation especially in RPG's rarely perform better than a basic chatbot in practice, they only give the illusion of being better because there are no jarring mistakes in the logic. But in terms of gameplay having an NPC totally misunderstand you (Why do you think that you are looking for a quest, how do you feel about that) hardly seems worse than many situations that currently occur. An example would be annoying characters (ja ja binks and his analogues in games) where the player may be thinking "I want to kill you you gimpy little freak, and I have a massive axe in my hands" and the conversation options read like: "can i see what you have for sale? / tell me about the area / have you heard any good rumours". I think anyone making any kind of RPG in the future should seriously consider porting a chatbot into their code and then integrating it with the game code in such a way that it knows what is happening in its area of the game world. The depth of gameplay gained would be phenomenal, and if successful, the subsequent budget for real language bots would go through the roof as every big game studio would want to buy/build something similar.
Saddam did none of what you have described i your first paragraph.
This is not entirely true. I have to stress that the post you are replying to is absurdly wrong in almost every possible way and you deserve many mod points for pointing that out. Having said that, at least the ephasis on 'none' is wrong, if not the word itself. Saddam may have been responsible for the 1993 attempt on bush senior, as DougF said. Such a pity really.
Actually if you looked more carefully at the post I was replying to you would have seen that it was already titled 'Playing Devils Advocate' I was looking for a way of denoting that I was arguing against the devils advocate. I chose to take the phrase literally as mean 'one who advocates on behalf of the devil' rather than it's catholic meaning, as I didn't want to call myself God's Advocate or Advocatus Dei as the cleric arguing for the saint's claim was called. That would make me sound like a pretentious wanker.
The real issue is that the war was illegal, injustified (unless lies are currently a justification for anything), and in direct violation of international law.
When you grow up, you will find that when it comes to a last resort like war there is no such thing as legal or illegal.
Being patronising does not make you right. When I grow up I will find that the Iraq war was not a last resort, there were plenty of options open to the US and UK governments and they chose war for political reasons. Perhaps it was a last resort to keep George Bush's popularity ratings up, but not for any kind of solution to problems in Iraq. As far as legality goes, I would like to direct your attention to the concept of international law especially The Laws of War and The Geneva Conventions. If you would like to know more about international law concerning war the articles' links reference much reading material that will help you.
Not to knock you, but can you cite the water plant destruction for me? I've heard of this else place but I've never seen it documented (first I heard of it was.... 2007?) So some sort of citation would be nice. Just curious. Thanks!
This was the first thing I found when I googled it, My actual source originally (I referred to this below) was from a book of collected journalists work, called "Tell me no Lies" By John Pilger
Visiting Iraq in the wake of war [1991] UN Under Secretary-General reported that the effects of the bombing of infrastructure were 'near apocalyptic'. Twenty-eight hospitals had been hit, along with major water and sewage facilities, all eight of Iraq's hydropower dams and grain storage silos and irrigation systems.
Date in square braces added by me for clarification
You say that pointing out the bad things that happen in war is wrong because in war they are inevitable, well they are not. The real issue is that the war was illegal, injustified (unless lies are currently a justification for anything), and in direct violation of international law. Even enemy soldiers getting killed is a tragedy and worth speaking up about, let alone pregnant women on their way to hospital, and for the record labour is quite often an emergency, especially where poverty and bad hygiene are involved. Ask a doctor if you doubt this.
I have a joke for you: A man breaks into a house and starts raping a woman living there. Her husband interferes. In the ensuing struggle the husband and wife are both killed. In court the rapists lawyer says: "Rape is a messy business, that's the reality. People get killed sometimes." So the judge lets him off the murder charges.
Also, the idea that you should silence the critics of war in order to have a rational debate about atrocities committed is absurd, I hope you realise this.
Now that the silliness is out of the way, can we talk about REALity?
And that is not including the deaths from the draconian sanctions that the US forced over the last couple of decades and the corresponding systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure like water, power and sewage systems. Estimates for these reach over a million, a staggering proportion of which were children.
Don't you feel sad that your sole joy in life is causing pointless arguments with strangers? Maybe if you got a dos emulator you might find some small joy in playing an old game. Or you might just be bitter because you have an emotional imbalance. Oh well, at least the rest of us can enjoy simple pleasures.
It seems strange to hear something that happened in my life time referred to as historical. I remember when julius ceasar and socrates first built the prototype of the TNT2 graphics card
This is actually very good news for those among us who favour copyright reform. Sure individual cases like this aren't going to cause much change by themselves, but when there is a national security and a 'limitless powers to the CIA' argument for softening copyright law, suddenly there are a whole lot of influential people on our side who were against us before.
I heard that some people still believed the Vietnam war propaganda, I just never heard anyone say it before. I could write pages here about how wrong you are but I have the feeling it is going to have to be simple. So here is a very very very simple explanation of why Vietnam was a fuckup, in the form of a very very very simple timeline.
Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to US president Truman asking for help in their colonial independance war.
Knowingly receiving stolen property makes you accessory after the fact.
On the other hand receiving evidence of a crime and publicising it does not. What wikileaks did was the international equivalent of finding a blood covered knife in their mailbox and handing it over to the police. In the debate about these documents people seem to forget that they are about international war crimes. In fact they are actually a blow by blow account of a major instance of what the Nuremberg court called the worst war crime: unwarranted aggression. Not to mention a host of smaller ones like targeting civilians, torture, illegal detention...
I propose that people in rural areas drive the most efficient possible ICE car for their purposes, until something better is available. Most of the energy savings from reducing car use would have to be gained in metropolitan areas. There are a lot of cars in metropolitan areas so this should yield significant savings.
The key car-vs-train comparison is that of a Tesla roadster to a Japanese electric train.
This sounds fair, just promise me two things:
firstly the cost of the Tesla roadster must be factored in, sure it is fine to talk about how much you spend on electricity but the car costs over 100k which is prohibitive for most commuters.
Secondly, you seem to be using very well researched, long term, realistic statistics for trains. Please don't make the common mistake of accepting the manufacturer's claimed figures for the electric car. Nothing less than comprehensive actual use road statistics from a reliable source and a large sample set will be paid the least bit of attention. Actually this may be difficult as the sample set may not exist. I guess we can be lenient about sample size given the circumstances but only if the methodology is excellent.
Most studies of this kind of thing are done by the companies trying to promote electric cars like GM and Tesla. Finding one without such bias is rather difficult. I have however looked long and hard in the past and can vouch for this citation which also comes with a spreadsheet with calculations comparing two comparable cars.
The phrase "private cars are no longer a viable solution to our transport needs" was not intended to mean we should scrap all cars tomorrow. I was suggesting that we plan for a future without them, which as you point out will take generations and require changes to all sorts of ideas especially things like urban panning, again as you already pointed out.
At the beginning I guess:
Evidence, the links you provided have plenty, thank you for saving me answering this part.
The fact is that public transport at least, consumes more energy per mile than cars.
Actually if you read that table again, you will see that cars are the worst on the list, with the exception of light rail. I could not find the light rail figures in the data linked (no I didn't read all of it so if someone could point me to the relevant table I would appreciate it) so I can only presume the examples cited are among the worst run and designed public transport systems in the world. Apart from this the car is the worst, followed by buses.
the incredibly cheap costs of highway construction
What evidence do you have to back up this? Highways are massively expensive especially in city centres. Highways cost around $1 million per lane mile in the most simple circumstances and as commuter tansit around a large already built up city they are astronomical, not to mention the upkeep and repair costs of highway are much higher than rail. some figures if you have as much trouble accessing that link as I am at the moment you can view screenshots of it here
In addition these figures are for mass transit in the USA, an unashamed car culture. As your own link notes:
Don't Europe and Asia do better?
Much better. This Australian Study cites figures saying that Western Europeans use only 76% of U.S. BTUs/pm in their private transport, and only 38% in their transit -- 2.5 times more efficient. Rich Asians do even better at transit -- they are almost 4 times as efficient in terms of energy/passenger-mile.
So it is possible to do it 4 times better than those figure that the car is already at the second to last place on.
Finally
Finally, repeat after me, there is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is an energy collection, storage, and distribution problem.
Well I hate to break it to you, but collection, storage and distribution problems result in there being less energy available for use than we want and need, this is the definition of a shortage
If this is all true, why did GM misrepresent the car?
Also because they know that electric cars and hybrids can't yet compete in fuel economy or greenhouse emissions (well to wheel) with small light ICE driven cars. The whole electric car industry is lying in the same way. In New Zealand Toyota was successfully sued under the false advertising laws for their gas mileage claims. The bottom line is that private cars are no longer a viable solution to our transport needs due to energy shortages and the companies that manufacture private cars can not admit this as it means going out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said you got to STUDY to be a scientist?
Being a scientist means doing original scientific research i.e. something that nobody has done before, otherwise it is called history.
This seems like an absurd view of science. None of the definitions i got from google say anything about originality directly. Perhaps you would care to furnish us with the one from your dictionary just so we can have the same true understanding that you have.
In the meantime I don't think I even understand how to measure originality. How am I to know what has been known in the past? If information is lost to the scientific community (eg. the burning of the library at Alexandria) is a subsequent study of that subject not science? What if I am stranded on a desert island, and I use the scientific method to work out how to grow/prepare food and work out which plants are poisonous. It seems like something very akin to science and I wouldn't call it history. Perhaps you are thinking of the value of science. If sufficient study on a subject has already been conducted then further scientific study has no value. Many of the definitions linked refer to something like this. The difference is that science is a noun not a verb. One is not producing science if ones results are already known. the definitions speak of producing solutions to problems for example. One cannot produce solutions to problems that are already solved. The scientific method is the method by which one builds science, not all applications of the method produce science, but any application that produces useful results has produced science. Another example might be if you do some scientific study that has never been done before, but you refuse to give me your results. I might do the same research to solve my problem, which is that you wont tell me your results. I might then achieve the same results as you and therefore solve my problem. The knowledge i would gain from this fits every definition of science on that list (except the band and album titles).
Discussions of originality aside, the quotes you responded to also stand, you dont have to study to do science, even by your own definition, and there are not only uneducated people doing reasearch by the scientific method, there are even some that are thereby producing original science as aresult.
I was looking for info on this too. In fact it was the only reason I read this thread. I think it is fair to judge vandalism on a case by case basis. Currently the discussion above is mostly saying either "it doesn't count as vandalism because it is wikipedia/internet/eraseable" or "We need to protect wikipedia from this sort of thing using [measures]".
What is this sort of thing?
I guess no one bothered to answer this because it was obvious. It only a sentence though: Then they would be blocking every human being without a credit card and everyone who has a card but doesn't want to give it to wikipedia.
The headline says extremist, the sub heading says al qaeda. Does this apply to all extremists? There are a lot of US extremists both in the christian and political spheres. Somehow I don't get the feeling youtube is going to be asked to take down any of those. No one on slashdot needs examples right? I am willing to participate in a genuine debate about hatespeech legislation and how it should apply to the internet, but if this is more of the blatant racism against muslims that pervades the western media at the moment then I have only one response: NO.
Yes games are getting easier, and have been for some time. This is only true for console releases however and pc releases that came out on both. Hard new games are dwarf fortress, men of war (try playing the US campaign or red tide on the hardest setting. Oh and by the way in the original russian red tide is actually called 'black coat'), all roguelikes, total war series (the battles are still easy but the campaigns on the hardest setting are pretty stiff in empire), civilisation still has very hard settings... in fact, like I said before console games are easy. Perhaps this is because of the well known facts that console players have no attention span or wish to challenge themselves, and it is near impossible to be good at most games without a mouse. There are exceptions of course, for example realism racing sims for console are often pretty hard. Still, when I was a lad completing a game was a fantasy like enlightenment that one strove for but never really expected to attain.
I mentioned this below and then noticed your request. It is not recent it is future (2011 beta) but Path of Exile looks like an interesting alternative to D3
It seems like the skill runes idea was lifted straight from their competitor Path of Exile. Correct me if this is something they announced months ago. It is a good idea though, expanding the sphere of possible builds is always worthwhile.
I have been thinking along similar lines to TaoPhoenix, but with one extra insight. In a real life interaction a limited domain will not cut it. But in a game it will. A computer game is a limited domain all of its own. In addition to this, the entirety of the game world is represented in a machine readable format, it is represented in the game engine. Real language was used in many early games but was then abandoned when linear scripted gameplay became popular. I can't help feeling if real language had been retained as a feature of games in the way that graphics was, that we would have seen similar exponential progress. The scripted option based conversation especially in RPG's rarely perform better than a basic chatbot in practice, they only give the illusion of being better because there are no jarring mistakes in the logic. But in terms of gameplay having an NPC totally misunderstand you (Why do you think that you are looking for a quest, how do you feel about that) hardly seems worse than many situations that currently occur. An example would be annoying characters (ja ja binks and his analogues in games) where the player may be thinking "I want to kill you you gimpy little freak, and I have a massive axe in my hands" and the conversation options read like: "can i see what you have for sale? / tell me about the area / have you heard any good rumours". I think anyone making any kind of RPG in the future should seriously consider porting a chatbot into their code and then integrating it with the game code in such a way that it knows what is happening in its area of the game world. The depth of gameplay gained would be phenomenal, and if successful, the subsequent budget for real language bots would go through the roof as every big game studio would want to buy/build something similar.
Saddam did none of what you have described i your first paragraph.
This is not entirely true. I have to stress that the post you are replying to is absurdly wrong in almost every possible way and you deserve many mod points for pointing that out. Having said that, at least the ephasis on 'none' is wrong, if not the word itself. Saddam may have been responsible for the 1993 attempt on bush senior, as DougF said. Such a pity really.
Actually if you looked more carefully at the post I was replying to you would have seen that it was already titled 'Playing Devils Advocate' I was looking for a way of denoting that I was arguing against the devils advocate. I chose to take the phrase literally as mean 'one who advocates on behalf of the devil' rather than it's catholic meaning, as I didn't want to call myself God's Advocate or Advocatus Dei as the cleric arguing for the saint's claim was called. That would make me sound like a pretentious wanker.
The real issue is that the war was illegal, injustified (unless lies are currently a justification for anything), and in direct violation of international law.
When you grow up, you will find that when it comes to a last resort like war there is no such thing as legal or illegal.
Being patronising does not make you right. When I grow up I will find that the Iraq war was not a last resort, there were plenty of options open to the US and UK governments and they chose war for political reasons. Perhaps it was a last resort to keep George Bush's popularity ratings up, but not for any kind of solution to problems in Iraq. As far as legality goes, I would like to direct your attention to the concept of international law especially The Laws of War and The Geneva Conventions. If you would like to know more about international law concerning war the articles' links reference much reading material that will help you.
Not to knock you, but can you cite the water plant destruction for me? I've heard of this else place but I've never seen it documented (first I heard of it was.... 2007?) So some sort of citation would be nice. Just curious. Thanks!
This was the first thing I found when I googled it, My actual source originally (I referred to this below) was from a book of collected journalists work, called "Tell me no Lies" By John Pilger
Visiting Iraq in the wake of war [1991] UN Under Secretary-General reported that the effects of the bombing of infrastructure were 'near apocalyptic'. Twenty-eight hospitals had been hit, along with major water and sewage facilities, all eight of Iraq's hydropower dams and grain storage silos and irrigation systems.
Date in square braces added by me for clarification
You say that pointing out the bad things that happen in war is wrong because in war they are inevitable, well they are not. The real issue is that the war was illegal, injustified (unless lies are currently a justification for anything), and in direct violation of international law. Even enemy soldiers getting killed is a tragedy and worth speaking up about, let alone pregnant women on their way to hospital, and for the record labour is quite often an emergency, especially where poverty and bad hygiene are involved. Ask a doctor if you doubt this.
I have a joke for you: A man breaks into a house and starts raping a woman living there. Her husband interferes. In the ensuing struggle the husband and wife are both killed. In court the rapists lawyer says: "Rape is a messy business, that's the reality. People get killed sometimes." So the judge lets him off the murder charges.
Also, the idea that you should silence the critics of war in order to have a rational debate about atrocities committed is absurd, I hope you realise this.
Now that the silliness is out of the way, can we talk about REALity?
And that is not including the deaths from the draconian sanctions that the US forced over the last couple of decades and the corresponding systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure like water, power and sewage systems. Estimates for these reach over a million, a staggering proportion of which were children.
Don't you feel sad that your sole joy in life is causing pointless arguments with strangers? Maybe if you got a dos emulator you might find some small joy in playing an old game. Or you might just be bitter because you have an emotional imbalance. Oh well, at least the rest of us can enjoy simple pleasures.
It seems strange to hear something that happened in my life time referred to as historical. I remember when julius ceasar and socrates first built the prototype of the TNT2 graphics card
This is actually very good news for those among us who favour copyright reform. Sure individual cases like this aren't going to cause much change by themselves, but when there is a national security and a 'limitless powers to the CIA' argument for softening copyright law, suddenly there are a whole lot of influential people on our side who were against us before.
I heard that some people still believed the Vietnam war propaganda, I just never heard anyone say it before. I could write pages here about how wrong you are but I have the feeling it is going to have to be simple. So here is a very very very simple explanation of why Vietnam was a fuckup, in the form of a very very very simple timeline.
Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to US president Truman asking for help in their colonial independance war.
Diplomacy and foreign policy
US drops 6.7 million tons of explosives on Vietnam and its neighbours (its neighbours for god sake? Why?)
US realises that bombs are no match for a civilian population that will never give up, and pulls out.
Knowingly receiving stolen property makes you accessory after the fact.
On the other hand receiving evidence of a crime and publicising it does not. What wikileaks did was the international equivalent of finding a blood covered knife in their mailbox and handing it over to the police. In the debate about these documents people seem to forget that they are about international war crimes. In fact they are actually a blow by blow account of a major instance of what the Nuremberg court called the worst war crime: unwarranted aggression. Not to mention a host of smaller ones like targeting civilians, torture, illegal detention...
New technologies have warned that people are in danger of being unable to discern reality from fiction because of Pope Benedict XVI
I propose that people in rural areas drive the most efficient possible ICE car for their purposes, until something better is available. Most of the energy savings from reducing car use would have to be gained in metropolitan areas. There are a lot of cars in metropolitan areas so this should yield significant savings.
The key car-vs-train comparison is that of a Tesla roadster to a Japanese electric train.
This sounds fair, just promise me two things:
firstly the cost of the Tesla roadster must be factored in, sure it is fine to talk about how much you spend on electricity but the car costs over 100k which is prohibitive for most commuters.
Secondly, you seem to be using very well researched, long term, realistic statistics for trains. Please don't make the common mistake of accepting the manufacturer's claimed figures for the electric car. Nothing less than comprehensive actual use road statistics from a reliable source and a large sample set will be paid the least bit of attention. Actually this may be difficult as the sample set may not exist. I guess we can be lenient about sample size given the circumstances but only if the methodology is excellent.
Most studies of this kind of thing are done by the companies trying to promote electric cars like GM and Tesla. Finding one without such bias is rather difficult. I have however looked long and hard in the past and can vouch for this citation which also comes with a spreadsheet with calculations comparing two comparable cars. The phrase "private cars are no longer a viable solution to our transport needs" was not intended to mean we should scrap all cars tomorrow. I was suggesting that we plan for a future without them, which as you point out will take generations and require changes to all sorts of ideas especially things like urban panning, again as you already pointed out.
At the beginning I guess: Evidence, the links you provided have plenty, thank you for saving me answering this part.
The fact is that public transport at least, consumes more energy per mile than cars.
Actually if you read that table again, you will see that cars are the worst on the list, with the exception of light rail. I could not find the light rail figures in the data linked (no I didn't read all of it so if someone could point me to the relevant table I would appreciate it) so I can only presume the examples cited are among the worst run and designed public transport systems in the world. Apart from this the car is the worst, followed by buses.
the incredibly cheap costs of highway construction
What evidence do you have to back up this? Highways are massively expensive especially in city centres. Highways cost around $1 million per lane mile in the most simple circumstances and as commuter tansit around a large already built up city they are astronomical, not to mention the upkeep and repair costs of highway are much higher than rail. some figures if you have as much trouble accessing that link as I am at the moment you can view screenshots of it here
In addition these figures are for mass transit in the USA, an unashamed car culture. As your own link notes:
Don't Europe and Asia do better? Much better. This Australian Study cites figures saying that Western Europeans use only 76% of U.S. BTUs/pm in their private transport, and only 38% in their transit -- 2.5 times more efficient. Rich Asians do even better at transit -- they are almost 4 times as efficient in terms of energy/passenger-mile.
So it is possible to do it 4 times better than those figure that the car is already at the second to last place on.
Finally
Finally, repeat after me, there is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is an energy collection, storage, and distribution problem.
Well I hate to break it to you, but collection, storage and distribution problems result in there being less energy available for use than we want and need, this is the definition of a shortage
Also because they know that electric cars and hybrids can't yet compete in fuel economy or greenhouse emissions (well to wheel) with small light ICE driven cars. The whole electric car industry is lying in the same way. In New Zealand Toyota was successfully sued under the false advertising laws for their gas mileage claims. The bottom line is that private cars are no longer a viable solution to our transport needs due to energy shortages and the companies that manufacture private cars can not admit this as it means going out of business.