This is why Libertarians should be kept as far away from policy as possible.
Dude, HE WOULD GO ON THE FREAKING ONE THAT ALLOWED GUNS. How long do you think it takes to blow a hole in the airplane with a big gun, particularly one with exploding bullets? Do you think he cares if the other passengers blow him away in the meantime? THE DUDE IS TRYING TO CRASH THE AIRPLANE.
Here you have a poster who starts out by admitting he didn't read the article or knows anything about the Mr. Gilmore
Yes, clearly I should be criticized when I admit my lack of knowledge.
implies through his argument that all Libertarians are equally nutcases.
I generally base my opinion of Libertarians on the Libertarian Party. While perhaps not as extreme as the person I debated with, they nonetheless hold a lot of views that are along the same philosophical lines (i.e., all policy should be based on negative feedback, without any thought toward prevention).
If you are more clueful than the Libertarian Party, then congratulations. I suggest finding a new label for yourself. I should say that I share a lot of opinions of the Libertarians, but I do NOT call myself a Libertarian for this and a lot of reasons.
In any case, I didn't bring up all Libertarians, you did. I compared Gilmore to the nutcase, and he fits the bill. Even if his only concern is government requiring ID, I have no problem with that necessarily, either.
When they start requiring ID for travel technology that is not harmful to others, then call me. Until then, I live in the real world, not the Libertarian fantasy world.
I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.
Stallman is a kook's kook who severely damages anything he touches. I'm not saying he hasn't also made contributions (obviously), but the last person I would want representing me is Stallman.
Stallman reminds me a lot of Libertarians, not in philosophy but in attitude. He tunnel visions around simplistic philosophical theories while ignoring the bigger picture that the real world doesn't fit his little theories. Instead of working with the real, messy world, he insists that reality change to suit his theory.
Some would call that madness, and I wouldn't disagree.
The site is Slashdotted, but assuming the description is accurate, this guy needs to get a clue. He's the worst sort of Libertarian and the reason that I do NOT ascribe to their philosophy.
You have no "rights" when it comes to using a private service, namely an airline. Airplanes are fragile devices, and if it enhances safety to insist that people identify themselves, then so be it.
This reminds me of an argument I once had with a Libertarian. He insisted that it was his right to fire guns at people -- right until he hit someone. Until then, no one had the right to stop him.
I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore also insisted it was his right to carry automatic weapons onto the plane, as long as he didn't use them.
His right to travel does NOT depend on the technology used to travel. He is welcome to get in his car, on his horse, or on his feet.
Or, dare I say it, do the Libertarian solution: start his own airline without ID checks.
That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.
The biggest problem with the "cause" is that a lot (dare I say "most") of the activists ARE kooks who think that Intellectual Property should be completely thrown out, and they should be able to steal anything they want.
The solution isn't to "dress up the kooks", but for the more reasonable voices to rise up and be heard. Unfortunately, the reasonable voices (such as myself) don't care about the issue to rise up, except perhaps if they start talking about mandating hardware solutions. That's the level that I start to care.
In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations.
What is wrong with you anti-corporation people? Do you just not know what one is? A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE. That's like saying that "no one will have files in the future, only directories will have files". A corporation is just a container for holding assets, with certain legal protections for the owners of the corporation.
Unless you want to be criminally liable if you just happened to own a share of stock in a company that does something criminal, the legal protections are a good -- vital -- idea.
People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.
I've never understood this attitude. It's like saying "All books are just Harlequin Romances. Toss away your books -- You'll like the results".
Some programs are crap. Some programs are excellent. I never get tired of the Egyption specials on TLC. I remember one where they were trying different ways to stand a stone tower up using methods only the Egyptions would have had.
Or Biography is an excellent show. I particularly remember their "Top 100 figures in last millennium" countdown at the end of 1999 (please don't start on the whole "when does the century end" debate).
There is plenty of good stuff on TV, just like there are plenty of good books. You just have to be selective with your time.
They have demos running on the fuel cell equivelent of 6502s, but they are betting that the 8Mhz 68000 will be out soon, and that they can jam 128k of memory in there.
Perhaps, but the computer analogies don't hold up based on past experience. How many "billions of dollars of confidence" went into the EV1?
I don't think making an electric car is all that hard from an engineering standpoint. It's the power source that's hard, and it's not an automotive engineering problem. It's an applied physics and chemistry problem.
Sheesh, man, you are looking through the rose-colored lenses.
Cars nowadays are incredibly longer lasting and more reliable. Yes, parts are more expensive, but you don't have to fix them as often. There's a reason that old cars only had 5 digit odometers.
Of course, the usual comeback was, "but they were simple enough for me to fix them myself". I personally would rather have a car that I don't have to touch for 100-200,000 miles than one of the pieces of crap from the 60s that has to be fixed and tuned constantly.
1949 VW Beetle
This is the dead giveaway. Jesus, man, have you lost your mind? I realize there is a religion around beetles that I will never understand, but you don't get much worse of a car than a beetle. From slow performance to crappy heaters to uncomfortable plastic seats to rust everywhere. The only good thing about it was that it was relatively fuel efficient for the day, and it was simple enough to fix yourself. That's the ONLY reason it was popular -- it was fuel efficient in an age of 10 mpg dinosaurs.
There is a third way - make a more efficient transmission for power from the power plant to the wheels.
Well, that's why engine horsepower is measured at the wheels, not at the motor.
I probably shouldn't have said "efficiency" in my original post, since electric motors are much more efficient from an energy standpoint. I meant "efficient" in terms of "more utility".
The thing is, everyone is talking like an electric car has never been tried before. It's been tried a lot of times. And it has failed a lot of times. It always comes back to the powerplant. You simply don't get even near the same performance as a gasoline car.
So, clearly, we should scrap any attempts to do so and just keep on using internal combustion.
Yes, we should scrap any attempts until we have a decent powerplant. There's only two ways to improve performance: more power, or less car (less weight, less tires, etc). Another poster made a good analogy: The Macintosh versus earlier computers. At this point, we are trying to make a Macintosh run on a 1.1Mhz 6502. It's probably possible to do some kind of GUI, but not anything most people would want to use.
I have no problems with electric cars. I think they would be a great idea. But I care more for having a GOOD car.
Mass produce this and you will have me at least dreaming on getting it.
You seem to think that all-electric cars have never been done before. They have, and they universally suck.
But let's talk about Xerox and the Macintosh. Do you remember the Macintosh's early reputation? SLOW SLOW SLOW. It had a horrible reputation because the technology had not caught up with doing a full-GUI. It took them a decade to shed that slow label.
I'm not against electric cars -- I'm against CARS THAT SUCK.
The abacus had thousands of years of refinement, care to trade in your calculator or computer?
That would be a valid comparison if you were comparing cars to airplanes. The both move you, but one gives you dramatically better and different capabilities.
But we're comparing cars to cars. A gasoline car and an electric car both drive on roads. They both have tires. They both have controls. They both take fuel (just different types). In other words, there are no new capabilities being given to the driver. It's just a different powerplant.
Or to put it another way, if this design is so good, there's no reason you can't drop in a gasoline powerplant to get all the supposed "advantages" of the redesign.
Are cars today better than 20 years ago? Much better.
Are cars today better than 30 years ago? WAY better in almost every possible way.
Are cars today better than 50 years ago?...etc
The only argument you can make is perhaps styling, but that's because we've sacrificed styling for wind drag efficiency. That tends to homogenize the looks of everything.
The interesting part is that GM's engineers are no longer trying to squeeze a fuel cell engine into a traditional car design. Instead, they're building a completely new type of car from the ground up.
This is not "builing a fuel-cell car from the ground up", this is "building an electric car from the ground up". A fuel-cell is just a power source.
I'm not saying that there's no room for innovation in car design, but there's a reason cars are the way they are. If you have to make the car weigh 500 pounds to match the performance of a gasoline vehicle, you are doing something wrong. If you have to use bicycle tires because normal tires create too much friction, you are doing something wrong.
When they can make a no-compromise car that looks like a CAR and not a golf cart, give me a call. I'm not loading my family into a 500 pound death trap.
The fact that they feel the need to reinvent something that has over 100 years of refinement tells me they are doing something wrong.
Here's an idea: How about not doing it until you have a powerplant that at least comes close to matching the efficiency and performance of a gasoline motor?
America has always been behind in technology compared to Japan.
There's a difference between being behind in gadgets and being behind in technology. Japan leads in gadgets and cheap manufacturing; they do not lead at the cutting edge of engineering.
China is 10-20 years away from being a great power... and always will be.
How many CENTURIES has this been predicted? Yes, China has a lot of people -- and always have had. Yes, China has a huge amount of wealth -- and always have had.
I think this has literally been predicted for a thousand freaking years. I'm not an expert on China, but obviously there are deep-rooted cultural attributes keeping them from expanding their influence in the world.
Wake me up next century when we make the same prediction that won't come true.
I would suggest your linux troubles would vanish if you would just spend a little time learning about what you're doing instead of blindly following instructions in HOWTOs and such.
On the other hand, some of us have this thing called A LIFE. I've done more than my share of changing config files, and like the lounge singer said, "the thrill is gone, baby".
I can just see the Linux advocate on his deathbed. He won't be thinking about his wife, or his children, or his family, he'll be lamenting not being able to read JUST ONE MORE installation guide.
Slashdot Mirror
And by the way, I rest my case. :)
Which plane do you think a terrorist would go on?
This is why Libertarians should be kept as far away from policy as possible.
Dude, HE WOULD GO ON THE FREAKING ONE THAT ALLOWED GUNS. How long do you think it takes to blow a hole in the airplane with a big gun, particularly one with exploding bullets? Do you think he cares if the other passengers blow him away in the meantime? THE DUDE IS TRYING TO CRASH THE AIRPLANE.
Here you have a poster who starts out by admitting he didn't read the article or knows anything about the Mr. Gilmore
Yes, clearly I should be criticized when I admit my lack of knowledge.
implies through his argument that all Libertarians are equally nutcases.
I generally base my opinion of Libertarians on the Libertarian Party. While perhaps not as extreme as the person I debated with, they nonetheless hold a lot of views that are along the same philosophical lines (i.e., all policy should be based on negative feedback, without any thought toward prevention).
If you are more clueful than the Libertarian Party, then congratulations. I suggest finding a new label for yourself. I should say that I share a lot of opinions of the Libertarians, but I do NOT call myself a Libertarian for this and a lot of reasons.
In any case, I didn't bring up all Libertarians, you did. I compared Gilmore to the nutcase, and he fits the bill. Even if his only concern is government requiring ID, I have no problem with that necessarily, either.
When they start requiring ID for travel technology that is not harmful to others, then call me. Until then, I live in the real world, not the Libertarian fantasy world.
I suggest that if you haven't- you read Richard Stallman's discussions of the history and purpose of copyright.
Stallman is a kook's kook who severely damages anything he touches. I'm not saying he hasn't also made contributions (obviously), but the last person I would want representing me is Stallman.
Stallman reminds me a lot of Libertarians, not in philosophy but in attitude. He tunnel visions around simplistic philosophical theories while ignoring the bigger picture that the real world doesn't fit his little theories. Instead of working with the real, messy world, he insists that reality change to suit his theory.
Some would call that madness, and I wouldn't disagree.
The site is Slashdotted, but assuming the description is accurate, this guy needs to get a clue. He's the worst sort of Libertarian and the reason that I do NOT ascribe to their philosophy.
You have no "rights" when it comes to using a private service, namely an airline. Airplanes are fragile devices, and if it enhances safety to insist that people identify themselves, then so be it.
This reminds me of an argument I once had with a Libertarian. He insisted that it was his right to fire guns at people -- right until he hit someone. Until then, no one had the right to stop him.
I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore also insisted it was his right to carry automatic weapons onto the plane, as long as he didn't use them.
His right to travel does NOT depend on the technology used to travel. He is welcome to get in his car, on his horse, or on his feet.
Or, dare I say it, do the Libertarian solution: start his own airline without ID checks.
That *hurts* the cause. Why? It lets them give the idea that we're just a bunch of kooks.
The biggest problem with the "cause" is that a lot (dare I say "most") of the activists ARE kooks who think that Intellectual Property should be completely thrown out, and they should be able to steal anything they want.
The solution isn't to "dress up the kooks", but for the more reasonable voices to rise up and be heard. Unfortunately, the reasonable voices (such as myself) don't care about the issue to rise up, except perhaps if they start talking about mandating hardware solutions. That's the level that I start to care.
In the future, the people will own nothing, everything will be rented from the new state, i.e. the corporations.
What is wrong with you anti-corporation people? Do you just not know what one is? A corporation IS OWNED BY PEOPLE. That's like saying that "no one will have files in the future, only directories will have files". A corporation is just a container for holding assets, with certain legal protections for the owners of the corporation.
Unless you want to be criminally liable if you just happened to own a share of stock in a company that does something criminal, the legal protections are a good -- vital -- idea.
People REALLY need to clue in that corporations are not some magic, evil boogeyman.
According to dictionary.com, it means literally "bitter water" rather than frothy water.
I was very pleased to see on the Cox web site that they are working on integrating a PVR into the cable box as well. Woo hoo!
Cox also rocks in that they are going to supply HDTV signals. Double woo hoo! Maybe it'll actually be worth buying an HDTV unit someday.
Toss your TV. You'll like the results.
I've never understood this attitude. It's like saying "All books are just Harlequin Romances. Toss away your books -- You'll like the results".
Some programs are crap. Some programs are excellent. I never get tired of the Egyption specials on TLC. I remember one where they were trying different ways to stand a stone tower up using methods only the Egyptions would have had.
Or Biography is an excellent show. I particularly remember their "Top 100 figures in last millennium" countdown at the end of 1999 (please don't start on the whole "when does the century end" debate).
There is plenty of good stuff on TV, just like there are plenty of good books. You just have to be selective with your time.
They have demos running on the fuel cell equivelent of 6502s, but they are betting that the 8Mhz 68000 will be out soon, and that they can jam 128k of memory in there.
Perhaps, but the computer analogies don't hold up based on past experience. How many "billions of dollars of confidence" went into the EV1?
I don't think making an electric car is all that hard from an engineering standpoint. It's the power source that's hard, and it's not an automotive engineering problem. It's an applied physics and chemistry problem.
Sheesh, man, you are looking through the rose-colored lenses.
Cars nowadays are incredibly longer lasting and more reliable. Yes, parts are more expensive, but you don't have to fix them as often. There's a reason that old cars only had 5 digit odometers.
Of course, the usual comeback was, "but they were simple enough for me to fix them myself". I personally would rather have a car that I don't have to touch for 100-200,000 miles than one of the pieces of crap from the 60s that has to be fixed and tuned constantly.
1949 VW Beetle
This is the dead giveaway. Jesus, man, have you lost your mind? I realize there is a religion around beetles that I will never understand, but you don't get much worse of a car than a beetle. From slow performance to crappy heaters to uncomfortable plastic seats to rust everywhere. The only good thing about it was that it was relatively fuel efficient for the day, and it was simple enough to fix yourself. That's the ONLY reason it was popular -- it was fuel efficient in an age of 10 mpg dinosaurs.
There is a third way - make a more efficient transmission for power from the power plant to the wheels.
Well, that's why engine horsepower is measured at the wheels, not at the motor.
I probably shouldn't have said "efficiency" in my original post, since electric motors are much more efficient from an energy standpoint. I meant "efficient" in terms of "more utility".
The thing is, everyone is talking like an electric car has never been tried before. It's been tried a lot of times. And it has failed a lot of times. It always comes back to the powerplant. You simply don't get even near the same performance as a gasoline car.
So, clearly, we should scrap any attempts to do so and just keep on using internal combustion.
Yes, we should scrap any attempts until we have a decent powerplant. There's only two ways to improve performance: more power, or less car (less weight, less tires, etc). Another poster made a good analogy: The Macintosh versus earlier computers. At this point, we are trying to make a Macintosh run on a 1.1Mhz 6502. It's probably possible to do some kind of GUI, but not anything most people would want to use.
I have no problems with electric cars. I think they would be a great idea. But I care more for having a GOOD car.
Mass produce this and you will have me at least dreaming on getting it.
You seem to think that all-electric cars have never been done before. They have, and they universally suck.
But let's talk about Xerox and the Macintosh. Do you remember the Macintosh's early reputation? SLOW SLOW SLOW. It had a horrible reputation because the technology had not caught up with doing a full-GUI. It took them a decade to shed that slow label.
I'm not against electric cars -- I'm against CARS THAT SUCK.
I'm waiting for my "65 tons of American pride" Canyonero.
The abacus had thousands of years of refinement, care to trade in your calculator or computer?
That would be a valid comparison if you were comparing cars to airplanes. The both move you, but one gives you dramatically better and different capabilities.
But we're comparing cars to cars. A gasoline car and an electric car both drive on roads. They both have tires. They both have controls. They both take fuel (just different types). In other words, there are no new capabilities being given to the driver. It's just a different powerplant.
Or to put it another way, if this design is so good, there's no reason you can't drop in a gasoline powerplant to get all the supposed "advantages" of the redesign.
Are cars today better than 10 years ago? Yes.
Are cars today better than 20 years ago? Much better.
Are cars today better than 30 years ago? WAY better in almost every possible way.
Are cars today better than 50 years ago? ...etc
The only argument you can make is perhaps styling, but that's because we've sacrificed styling for wind drag efficiency. That tends to homogenize the looks of everything.
The interesting part is that GM's engineers are no longer trying to squeeze a fuel cell engine into a traditional car design. Instead, they're building a completely new type of car from the ground up.
This is not "builing a fuel-cell car from the ground up", this is "building an electric car from the ground up". A fuel-cell is just a power source.
I'm not saying that there's no room for innovation in car design, but there's a reason cars are the way they are. If you have to make the car weigh 500 pounds to match the performance of a gasoline vehicle, you are doing something wrong. If you have to use bicycle tires because normal tires create too much friction, you are doing something wrong.
When they can make a no-compromise car that looks like a CAR and not a golf cart, give me a call. I'm not loading my family into a 500 pound death trap.
The fact that they feel the need to reinvent something that has over 100 years of refinement tells me they are doing something wrong.
Here's an idea: How about not doing it until you have a powerplant that at least comes close to matching the efficiency and performance of a gasoline motor?
America has always been behind in technology compared to Japan.
There's a difference between being behind in gadgets and being behind in technology. Japan leads in gadgets and cheap manufacturing; they do not lead at the cutting edge of engineering.
Of course, it would be nice if the chinese government didn't forcibly kill unborn children as well.
China is 10-20 years away from being a great power ... and always will be.
How many CENTURIES has this been predicted? Yes, China has a lot of people -- and always have had. Yes, China has a huge amount of wealth -- and always have had.
I think this has literally been predicted for a thousand freaking years. I'm not an expert on China, but obviously there are deep-rooted cultural attributes keeping them from expanding their influence in the world.
Wake me up next century when we make the same prediction that won't come true.
Let me guess -- you're a 29 year old still living with his parents?
Sorry dude, I didn't mean anything personal. Hey, if it works for you, who are we to judge?
Last week, at age 29, John Sankus Jr. moved out of his parents' house for the first time.
Wait, a warez d00d aged 29 still living at home? NO WAY. This totally shatters my image of them.
I would suggest your linux troubles would vanish if you would just spend a little time learning about what you're doing instead of blindly following instructions in HOWTOs and such.
On the other hand, some of us have this thing called A LIFE. I've done more than my share of changing config files, and like the lounge singer said, "the thrill is gone, baby".
I can just see the Linux advocate on his deathbed. He won't be thinking about his wife, or his children, or his family, he'll be lamenting not being able to read JUST ONE MORE installation guide.