And of course lets not forget exemptions for 'special' people, you know, those with urgent high level government work, like being rich and driving their uber-toys.. Of course it will create a nice little black market in bypass systems... Of course they say it would have an on-off switch (for a compulsory system? unique), and I am sure that wont be logged and/or reported..
Lets for a moment ignore the fact that speed is not THE cause of most road fatalities (that honor falls to drunk driving, exhaustion, and distracted driving in about that order).
I wonder when they will mandate riders licenses for road use of pushbikes, along with warrants for safety, road taxes, and license plates so that red lights cameras can work on them..
I would suggest only America has African Americans. However Africa has one hell of a lot more Africans. And southern France and Spain have quite a few also..
You do realise that almost certainly deep down his decision is based on racism, that asians are someone 'lower' than him, and all those damn gooks are the same, right?
After all, other than that, why not buy chinese? its not him supporting america, since by his own admission he happily buys english...
You should mostly care because of the amount of effort being made to push such politicized BS down your throat, mostly in the aim of growing government control over you. Its not a new thing, we even have a word for it, Totalitarianism.
The '98% drop' BS has been widely and strongly show to be utter BS, basically written an a sensationalist opinion piece by a 'researcher' who wanted a bit of attention, using a highly selected location which was statistically irrelevant and measures a short time after a couple of natural disasters had slammed the local ecosystem.
Most people with a bit of critical thinking made it about 10% of the way through before seeing this and turning off. The media however grabbed and ran with what is pure sensationalism.
Now we have the second wave, people trying to use this false 'fact' to grab their own little bit of media frenzy attention.
Why does this happen? Its simple really, it suits the powers-that-be that there are 'scary things' for them to protect us from. They always love a good 'do something or there will be a disaster!' story.. because it gives them the ability to grab a bit more power, which they never let go.
You are wrong, socialist is not the opposite of capitalist, not by far.
communism is the (closest) opposite of capitalism at least in their pure forms: Communism is there the state takes control of most things, and then distributed work and rewards as it seems best to run an economy - ie: a full state run economy. Capitalism is where the government releases control of most things to private enterprise, and private capital/equity becomes the controlling factor running the economy.
Socialism is a VERY different beast, Socialism is a system where the state takes capital from people who are judged to have too advantaged, and given by those who are judged to be disadvantaged. Socialism is by definition unstable, as the resources it takes from do not last.... It is the social equivalent of everything people are turning away from these days - consumptive behavior.
The primary issue with socialism (other than massive corruption every time it has been tried) is that it specifically moves equity from people who have demonstrated an ability to grow it, to those how have demonstrated an ability to lose it (on average).
Venezuelas problem is not primarily caused by that however, it seems to be mostly corruption, however such redistribution also appears to be a factor.
You have never been to any of those countries, have you.
If you had been, and met their people, you would understand that they are very VERY far from socialist countries. But no, you prefer to be ignorant of facts in support of your cause, I suspect.
Fascist is not the opposite of Communist, and yet you seem to think it is. Both are totalitarian regimes, arguable of a socialist structure (yes, the NAZIs held many socialist concepts strongly, including eradication of 'oppressors')
Classical Liberals/Libertarians are probably the closest to the opposite, although the terms have been stolen these days by socialists, most likely trying to play wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.
> I will hike or ride my mountain bike anywhere I damned well please and I don't give a rat's ass what some Prius-driving douche bag thinks about me doing it.
You know quite a lot of humanity considers mountain bike riding douche bags to be sharing their bag with prius driving douche bags.. Just pointing out reality.
I wonder if you are so ready to 'rock and roll' with the pickup driving shotgun toting types who dislike you both equally?
ROTFL, you REALLY think thats how it works? You think there is an FDA goon standing watching food every moment from the field to your table? Gee, I wonder why people havnt started dropping like flies just yet..
Oh, thats right, because thats not even close to how it works, is it.
Firstly, 0 WOULD be safer than any other speed, and slower speeds are by definition 'safer', as such things are ALWAYS a tradeoff, however that does not mean we should lower speeds to 0, for obvious reasons.
However, more importantly in a real world - by the time you remove accidents caused by fatigue, distraction, alcohol/drugs, mechanical fault, and ignoring other fixed road laws (like giveways) you actually end up with VERY FEW ACCIDENTS WHERE SPEED WAS THE CAUSE.
What they do today to make speed important is report it as a 'contributing factor' in accidents. Of course it is, they can do that because by definition most accdents wont happen if the vehicles are not moving. They very often report speed 'as a factor' even when both vehicles are moving below the posted speed limit. Why? Because speed fines are a HUGE source of revenue, while other factors are almost zero revenue. Speed is therefore made the #1 priority.
This unfortunately has removed any wish to post speed limits which would suit modern cars. French A roads actually have pretty sensible limits (130 km/h for many situations), however could easily be faster, and general roads have been lowered from 90 to 80 km/h. Have cars got less safe suddenly?
It is interesting that road fatalities drop VERY little from changes in posted speeds. Most of the long term drops are due to increased vehicle safety features. Why? Because speed CAUSES very few accidents. This is clearly seen when posted limits are moved up and down - accident rates do not change in proportion.
So, cars have god significantly safer in many ways, both in their ability to avoid an accident and their ability to protect you in an accident.. And they dropped the speed limit in many areas?
Just perhaps that is one of the reasons people see the cameras as revenue generating systems, and are attacking them?
I have driven a lot in France, and outside the large cities, people are generally pretty good drivers. The speed cameras however are often rather obviously positioned to make money, not reduce danger. (3/4 down a long straight downhill section, with a passing lane after a long piece of no-passing road, etc..)
At first they tended to be quite clear, well sign posted, and in dangerous locations - that lasted about long enough for people to accept them, and then it changes..
A woman in a woman's monastery wrote manuscripts? Who would have thought..
"The researchers said this challenged long-held beliefs that women had played little role in the European Middle Ages in producing literary and written texts which came largely from religious institutions,"
So the long help belief was that women's monasteries, which they obviously knew existed, just sat there twiddling their thumbs? I suspect people are projecting their modern biases pretty damn hard there. Back then life was hard, and it is pretty solid common sense that gender was much LESS of an issue, as survival was a little higher up the priority list.
There would seem to be a lot of navel-gazing going on here, and very little common sense being applied, on both sides given that a few flecks on a single jawbone would hardly be statistically significant either.
Doesn't stop them applying the spin cycle to it though it seems. "Researcher Christina Warinner said this finding from the 11th century was unprecedented in showing more women were literate, educated and encouraged to read at that time."
All that from flecks in a single jawbone. Impressive(ly spun)
Fast is just a little bit of an understatement, dont you think?
These days we are putting over 30 billion transistors on a chip (and for memory we are layering chips up to 64 times...)
Meat is very VERY slow though, nerve impulses travel at around 450 km/h, so in chip signals move at around 2 million times the speed. However by the time you factor in neuron firing times (WAY slower) you find cross-conduction speed through the brain is closer to 10 m/s making the same allowances through a chip, we find current transistors are closer to 30 million times faster than meat.
That is also ignoring the scale - a 30 billion transistor chip is a LOT smaller than a brain. So, it is pretty safe to say that we could build an electronic brain using todays tech IF WE KNEW HOW. and it would probably be a lot faster.
HOWEVER, heat an issue. a 30 billion T chip is how running at such speeds, and as you scale it up, the heat becomes even more of a problem.
Of course none of that matters. We dont know HOW to build one - but it is unlikely that hardware is currently the issue.
BUT, what we are seeing now is not AI, it is machine learning, which is simple brute force statistical optimisation. There has been very little progress in actual AI. There may be in the future, but ML is not it.
That depends very much on where the charging station is - many are on private property, and if asked to leave they must.
So yes, a representative of the property owner would need to ask them to leave before towing them. Of course, if a sign was put up warning them that non-tesla vehicles will immediately be towed at owners expense, then no such warning would be required.
Actually I think you dont have a clue how taxes work.
What the grantparent said is true. Both teslas and charging stations are subsidized by taxes. As of course are a lot of other things, however it does not make it untrue.
Add to that the fact that I bet your grandpa didnt insist on buying a fancy apartment the day he could scrape together a minimum off-plan deposit.
Before your grandpa was later-middle age I also bet: He didnt buy a new car every 3 years 'because that helps the economy' He didnt drink $5 cafe coffee. He didnt have a $1000 phone, and a pile of other 'toys' to make him feel better about himself. He didnt go on overseas holidays. He didnt buy things on credit.
In other words: he had personal responsiblilty and restraint, and worked towards the future.
Now, BOTH sides actually matter. The middle class is being financially raped by a combination of low interest rates and high real inflation which is lied about. At the same time they have bought in totally to rampant consumerism.
Yep, huge government subsidies is the reason. All in the name of greenwashing of course. After all, they are the 3rd largest exporter of natural gas in the world - or perhaps they think that is being used to make magical pixie rainbows?
It is about restricting the rights of private citizens, and forcing them to use commercial transport instead of what they already have. A great boost for Taxi services.
Isnt it wonderful when the 'socialists' boost corporate welfare through regulatory capture in the name of the people and environment.. score one for the workers!
I bet the goods delivery parks, taxi stands, and private commercial carparks are not being removed...
Those middle class who bother to own a car, and paid for the roads truly are suckers.
What continuously astounds me is people who dont understand that true UBI is actually a right wing/liberal concept.
Most people forget that UBI involves the REMOVAL of almost all other state payouts. No pension, no unemployment, no housing, no sickness/disability benefit, no parental benefit, etc, etc. State medical care is a gray area..
That is the reason UBI can function, because it removes a huge amount of corruption, bureaucracy, fraud, and inefficiency from the system and replaces it with something almost trivial to administer and deliver. It removes the punishments for trying to succeed.
Politically, Socialists generally HATE UBI (at least those who understand it) as they believe the state is the best at decising how everything is distributed, and UBI is exactly the opposite of that.
Unfortunately it ALSO removes the states ability to reward and punish based on cash payouts to voters. That is why it is never actually tried, and probably never will be, at least by a state - since it lowers their control.
That would perhaps be because there has never been a UBI program, and this is not one?
Or to you not understand what Universal means, and cannot read: 'which means there will be an unconditional cash transfer to 250 randomly selected people among those already receiving benefits'
This is just 'giving more to those already receiving government money' - ie: those least likely to use it well (note I am not commenting on their need, just their likely motivation/ability to work).
Why is it not a TRULY random selection of 250 people? Because the people designing it want it to fail. They cannot accept the possibility that they will lose control of the state dependent level of society where they can basically buy votes in return for welfare.
1. The existing grid cannot support a full conversion to electric cars, in fact estimates are that it will start to fail at less than 25%.
2. Home solar for charging? Pull the other one. Unless you drive your electric vehicle very short distances occasionally there is no easy you will have that kind of capacity (and that's ignoring the fact that most EVs are charging at night, when solar is... Less that efficient shall we say?)
Yes there are plenty of people who hate on EVs for silly reasons, but I suggest sticking to reality yourself..
Slashdot Mirror
And of course lets not forget exemptions for 'special' people, you know, those with urgent high level government work, like being rich and driving their uber-toys..
Of course it will create a nice little black market in bypass systems...
Of course they say it would have an on-off switch (for a compulsory system? unique), and I am sure that wont be logged and/or reported..
Lets for a moment ignore the fact that speed is not THE cause of most road fatalities (that honor falls to drunk driving, exhaustion, and distracted driving in about that order).
I wonder when they will mandate riders licenses for road use of pushbikes, along with warrants for safety, road taxes, and license plates so that red lights cameras can work on them..
Sigh.
I would suggest only America has African Americans.
However Africa has one hell of a lot more Africans.
And southern France and Spain have quite a few also..
You do realise that almost certainly deep down his decision is based on racism, that asians are someone 'lower' than him, and all those damn gooks are the same, right?
After all, other than that, why not buy chinese? its not him supporting america, since by his own admission he happily buys english...
You should mostly care because of the amount of effort being made to push such politicized BS down your throat, mostly in the aim of growing government control over you.
Its not a new thing, we even have a word for it, Totalitarianism.
The '98% drop' BS has been widely and strongly show to be utter BS, basically written an a sensationalist opinion piece by a 'researcher' who wanted a bit of attention, using a highly selected location which was statistically irrelevant and measures a short time after a couple of natural disasters had slammed the local ecosystem.
Most people with a bit of critical thinking made it about 10% of the way through before seeing this and turning off.
The media however grabbed and ran with what is pure sensationalism.
Now we have the second wave, people trying to use this false 'fact' to grab their own little bit of media frenzy attention.
Why does this happen? Its simple really, it suits the powers-that-be that there are 'scary things' for them to protect us from. They always love a good 'do something or there will be a disaster!' story.. because it gives them the ability to grab a bit more power, which they never let go.
You are wrong, socialist is not the opposite of capitalist, not by far.
communism is the (closest) opposite of capitalism
at least in their pure forms:
Communism is there the state takes control of most things, and then distributed work and rewards as it seems best to run an economy - ie: a full state run economy.
Capitalism is where the government releases control of most things to private enterprise, and private capital/equity becomes the controlling factor running the economy.
Socialism is a VERY different beast, Socialism is a system where the state takes capital from people who are judged to have too advantaged, and given by those who are judged to be disadvantaged. Socialism is by definition unstable, as the resources it takes from do not last.... It is the social equivalent of everything people are turning away from these days - consumptive behavior.
The primary issue with socialism (other than massive corruption every time it has been tried) is that it specifically moves equity from people who have demonstrated an ability to grow it, to those how have demonstrated an ability to lose it (on average).
Venezuelas problem is not primarily caused by that however, it seems to be mostly corruption, however such redistribution also appears to be a factor.
You have never been to any of those countries, have you.
If you had been, and met their people, you would understand that they are very VERY far from socialist countries.
But no, you prefer to be ignorant of facts in support of your cause, I suspect.
Fascist is not the opposite of Communist, and yet you seem to think it is.
Both are totalitarian regimes, arguable of a socialist structure (yes, the NAZIs held many socialist concepts strongly, including eradication of 'oppressors')
Classical Liberals/Libertarians are probably the closest to the opposite, although the terms have been stolen these days by socialists, most likely trying to play wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.
News for the masses, Stuff that clicks.
Sad, really.
I get the distinct feel that that 90% of the readers 15 years ago were smarter than 100% of the editors now.
> I will hike or ride my mountain bike anywhere I damned well please and I don't give a rat's ass what some Prius-driving douche bag thinks about me doing it.
You know quite a lot of humanity considers mountain bike riding douche bags to be sharing their bag with prius driving douche bags..
Just pointing out reality.
I wonder if you are so ready to 'rock and roll' with the pickup driving shotgun toting types who dislike you both equally?
Quite.
These people haven't overflown Australia have they..
ROTFL, you REALLY think thats how it works? You think there is an FDA goon standing watching food every moment from the field to your table?
Gee, I wonder why people havnt started dropping like flies just yet..
Oh, thats right, because thats not even close to how it works, is it.
Moron.
You are being foolish for two reason.
Firstly, 0 WOULD be safer than any other speed, and slower speeds are by definition 'safer', as such things are ALWAYS a tradeoff, however that does not mean we should lower speeds to 0, for obvious reasons.
However, more importantly in a real world - by the time you remove accidents caused by fatigue, distraction, alcohol/drugs, mechanical fault, and ignoring other fixed road laws (like giveways) you actually end up with VERY FEW ACCIDENTS WHERE SPEED WAS THE CAUSE.
What they do today to make speed important is report it as a 'contributing factor' in accidents. Of course it is, they can do that because by definition most accdents wont happen if the vehicles are not moving.
They very often report speed 'as a factor' even when both vehicles are moving below the posted speed limit.
Why? Because speed fines are a HUGE source of revenue, while other factors are almost zero revenue. Speed is therefore made the #1 priority.
This unfortunately has removed any wish to post speed limits which would suit modern cars. French A roads actually have pretty sensible limits (130 km/h for many situations), however could easily be faster, and general roads have been lowered from 90 to 80 km/h. Have cars got less safe suddenly?
It is interesting that road fatalities drop VERY little from changes in posted speeds. Most of the long term drops are due to increased vehicle safety features.
Why? Because speed CAUSES very few accidents. This is clearly seen when posted limits are moved up and down - accident rates do not change in proportion.
So, cars have god significantly safer in many ways, both in their ability to avoid an accident and their ability to protect you in an accident..
And they dropped the speed limit in many areas?
Just perhaps that is one of the reasons people see the cameras as revenue generating systems, and are attacking them?
I have driven a lot in France, and outside the large cities, people are generally pretty good drivers.
The speed cameras however are often rather obviously positioned to make money, not reduce danger.
(3/4 down a long straight downhill section, with a passing lane after a long piece of no-passing road, etc..)
At first they tended to be quite clear, well sign posted, and in dangerous locations - that lasted about long enough for people to accept them, and then it changes..
What a surprise.
Are those different from the kind of cowards who rob someone of the wrong colour walking in the neighborhood?
Just wondering.
A woman in a woman's monastery wrote manuscripts? Who would have thought..
"The researchers said this challenged long-held beliefs that women had played little role in the European Middle Ages in producing literary and written texts which came largely from religious institutions,"
So the long help belief was that women's monasteries, which they obviously knew existed, just sat there twiddling their thumbs? I suspect people are projecting their modern biases pretty damn hard there. Back then life was hard, and it is pretty solid common sense that gender was much LESS of an issue, as survival was a little higher up the priority list.
There would seem to be a lot of navel-gazing going on here, and very little common sense being applied, on both sides given that a few flecks on a single jawbone would hardly be statistically significant either.
Doesn't stop them applying the spin cycle to it though it seems.
"Researcher Christina Warinner said this finding from the 11th century was unprecedented in showing more women were literate, educated and encouraged to read at that time."
All that from flecks in a single jawbone. Impressive(ly spun)
Fast is just a little bit of an understatement, dont you think?
These days we are putting over 30 billion transistors on a chip (and for memory we are layering chips up to 64 times...)
Meat is very VERY slow though, nerve impulses travel at around 450 km/h, so in chip signals move at around 2 million times the speed.
However by the time you factor in neuron firing times (WAY slower) you find cross-conduction speed through the brain is closer to 10 m/s
making the same allowances through a chip, we find current transistors are closer to 30 million times faster than meat.
That is also ignoring the scale - a 30 billion transistor chip is a LOT smaller than a brain.
So, it is pretty safe to say that we could build an electronic brain using todays tech IF WE KNEW HOW.
and it would probably be a lot faster.
HOWEVER, heat an issue.
a 30 billion T chip is how running at such speeds, and as you scale it up, the heat becomes even more of a problem.
Of course none of that matters. We dont know HOW to build one - but it is unlikely that hardware is currently the issue.
BUT, what we are seeing now is not AI, it is machine learning, which is simple brute force statistical optimisation.
There has been very little progress in actual AI. There may be in the future, but ML is not it.
That depends very much on where the charging station is - many are on private property, and if asked to leave they must.
So yes, a representative of the property owner would need to ask them to leave before towing them.
Of course, if a sign was put up warning them that non-tesla vehicles will immediately be towed at owners expense, then no such warning would be required.
Actually I think you dont have a clue how taxes work.
What the grantparent said is true. Both teslas and charging stations are subsidized by taxes.
As of course are a lot of other things, however it does not make it untrue.
Add to that the fact that I bet your grandpa didnt insist on buying a fancy apartment the day he could scrape together a minimum off-plan deposit.
Before your grandpa was later-middle age I also bet:
He didnt buy a new car every 3 years 'because that helps the economy'
He didnt drink $5 cafe coffee.
He didnt have a $1000 phone, and a pile of other 'toys' to make him feel better about himself.
He didnt go on overseas holidays.
He didnt buy things on credit.
In other words: he had personal responsiblilty and restraint, and worked towards the future.
Now, BOTH sides actually matter. The middle class is being financially raped by a combination of low interest rates and high real inflation which is lied about.
At the same time they have bought in totally to rampant consumerism.
Its a double edged sword.
Yep, huge government subsidies is the reason.
All in the name of greenwashing of course.
After all, they are the 3rd largest exporter of natural gas in the world - or perhaps they think that is being used to make magical pixie rainbows?
Oooo look at AC, all talking tough and shit, even at christmas. I'm scayered.
See what I did there? :)
Exactly.
It is about restricting the rights of private citizens, and forcing them to use commercial transport instead of what they already have.
A great boost for Taxi services.
Isnt it wonderful when the 'socialists' boost corporate welfare through regulatory capture in the name of the people and environment.. score one for the workers!
I bet the goods delivery parks, taxi stands, and private commercial carparks are not being removed...
Those middle class who bother to own a car, and paid for the roads truly are suckers.
What continuously astounds me is people who dont understand that true UBI is actually a right wing/liberal concept.
Most people forget that UBI involves the REMOVAL of almost all other state payouts.
No pension, no unemployment, no housing, no sickness/disability benefit, no parental benefit, etc, etc.
State medical care is a gray area..
That is the reason UBI can function, because it removes a huge amount of corruption, bureaucracy, fraud, and inefficiency from the system and replaces it with something almost trivial to administer and deliver.
It removes the punishments for trying to succeed.
Politically, Socialists generally HATE UBI (at least those who understand it) as they believe the state is the best at decising how everything is distributed, and UBI is exactly the opposite of that.
Unfortunately it ALSO removes the states ability to reward and punish based on cash payouts to voters.
That is why it is never actually tried, and probably never will be, at least by a state - since it lowers their control.
That would perhaps be because there has never been a UBI program, and this is not one?
Or to you not understand what Universal means, and cannot read: 'which means there will be an unconditional cash transfer to 250 randomly selected people among those already receiving benefits'
This is just 'giving more to those already receiving government money' - ie: those least likely to use it well (note I am not commenting on their need, just their likely motivation/ability to work).
Why is it not a TRULY random selection of 250 people? Because the people designing it want it to fail. They cannot accept the possibility that they will lose control of the state dependent level of society where they can basically buy votes in return for welfare.
Simple, really.
Just a couple of reality checks for you..
1. The existing grid cannot support a full conversion to electric cars, in fact estimates are that it will start to fail at less than 25%.
2. Home solar for charging? Pull the other one. Unless you drive your electric vehicle very short distances occasionally there is no easy you will have that kind of capacity (and that's ignoring the fact that most EVs are charging at night, when solar is... Less that efficient shall we say?)
Yes there are plenty of people who hate on EVs for silly reasons, but I suggest sticking to reality yourself..