Ethanol isn't a scam. I do know first hand though that there was not enough research done before high ethanol content fuels were on the market specifically regarding safety of dispensation equipment. Regulators and conformity assessors were not ready for E85. It is much more corrosive then gasoline, hence the jab the submitter made at the Lexus recall.
As far as cost-I see no reason to give any more subsidies to corn producers if they are primarily dumping it into Ethanol production. I'm from MN so my bias should be the other direction given my state's large corn production. Ethanol production from corn isn't much more sustainable then digging up oil, considering the large volume of chemicals used and petroleum burned during a normal corn season.
E85 is better than gasoline, but by far is a good solution for global warming. There are a lot of better alternatives such as nuclear, wind and hydro(yeah we have lots of dams, but there is plenty of room for more). Only reason nuclear isn't used more is backlash from citizenry's misplaced fear, nuclear nonproliferation and nobody wants the spent fuel in their backyard despite the massive amount of federal funding they would receive, large number of jobs it would create and relative stability of spent fuel as far as hazardous materials storage goes.
An argument could be made that from a physical perspective only, recordable DVD media is not dramatically different from recordable CD media.
The player technology, specifically with reference to encryption, interfaces and lasers, obviously would qualify for patent protection as they were novel inventions when they were invented.
Recordable media however, not quite so easy.
On another note, my personal belief is that when manufacturers create shell organizations to jointly patent their technology, it creates an insurmountable barrier to entry for competing manufacturers who weren't a party to the initial technology development. As both supporting and countering evidence, we had BluRay and HDDVD. The lack of quickly industry standardization led to two competing formats(bad) but also no collusion between manufacturers to prevent new manufacturers from entering(also bad, because it's really a monopoly).
Obviously, neither is perfect and something has got to change.
I'm not anti-law and I called my DUI a farce because nobody in the criminal justice system from police, to DA's to judges want to hear evidence that exculpates the suspect. My plea arrangement was for 8 hours community service, alcohol awareness classes and an $1100 fine. If I went to trial, I could have faced 90 days in jail.
I call it a farce because the entire system is designed to force you into plea deals with fines and community service so you can avoid the possibility of disproportionately large jail sentences. Even my lawyer recommended the plea deal because he said the lack of calibration on the breathalyzer would be ignored at trial and I would go to jail.
If the system really were about justice and protecting the public, they would use real jail sentences against the repeat offenders. When I was in court, I saw a 4th time offender being sentenced for like 90 days in jail. If they really thought 90 days in jail was "justice" for myself, a first time offender, they wouldn't offer 8 hours community service instead and give the 4th time offender 90 days in jail. I guess more succinctly, if 90 days in jail is "justice" for a 4th time offender, why is it also justice for a 1st time offender? By my calculations, the state of Washington makes something like $800,000 a week in DUI fines alone and another $50 per month from each offender with a case pending completion of a sentence. The average DUI offender spends about 8 months finishing their sentence(usually alcohol classes or probation), so that's another $400 per offender approximately.
DUI's are big business.
ps. Canada won't let me in until 2015 for vacation because of my DUI.
Take your statement to it's logical conclusion-habitual DUI offenders drive without licenses and insurance. Scary, but true.
In most states, second DUI's have mandatory minimum sentences. In Washington, a self proclaimed "strict DUI" state, I observed a person being sentenced for their 6th DUI for only 180 days in jail. Of course, a person like that may have their license revoked permanently, but it apparently doesn't stop them.
I'd had 3 beers in 2 hours. I blew a.086 on a breathalyzer that hadn't been calibrated in 2 years, so it's hard to say if I was over the limit or not.
In any case, my point was kind of that the state refuses to take into account the subjective nature of it's evidence, even when it's self-contradicting.
The majority of alcohol related automobile fatalities are caused by two types of drivers-inexperienced young drivers who drink far more than they should and repeat offenders.
The GP was correct. Even habitual offenders rarely cause multiple accidents with fatalities, but they do cause accidents quite frequently.
I know better than to drive after more than 3 drinks. You don't know drunk drivers either. I met a lot of them in my DUI classes. A lot of them blew +.15% which is beyond the realm of reasonableness. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY thinks they're sober at.15% but they drive anyway.
You want to be pissed at drunk drivers? Start with the people who drink for 6 hours at the bar and drive home killing 2 people. Start with the people who get so drunk they pop a tire from hitting a curb on the way home and drive 3 miles on the rims without even knowing it.
Vilifying the people who try to make responsible decisions doesn't do anyone any favors. Get off your high horse.
Roadside tests are just for the police to get probable cause for an arrest. Most testing procedures include a breath test at the station, a 20 minute wait and another breath test. If you blow.07 the first time and.09 the second time, you get a DUI even though your BAC was below the legal limit while you were driving. The laws in most states say driving within 2 hours of having over.08% BAC constitutes DUI.
Yeah no shit. I took the field sobriety test and the patrolmen lied. He wrote on the form for the one leg stand that I both 1) had my hands in my pockets because it was so cold and 2) used my arms to balance myself. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
For the horizontal gaze test, I stared at the stupid light for about 45 seconds at which point I took my eyes off the light and looked at him and asked "Are we done yet?." This was obviously not the right thing for me to do, but the standard for that test specifies a maximum of 20 seconds duration. Anything longer and you're reaching for a conclusion that isn't apparent-i.e. if you don't know in 20 seconds, the result is negative.
I walked a perfectly straight line, even the patrolmen agreed. However, I did not pivot on the correct foot as shown(in a dark parking lot).
In a civil action, I lost my license for 90 days as the state failed to see any insufficiencies in this evidence.
Have you stopped to consider for a moment that I was probably under the legal limit? I drank 1 beer in 1 hour and another 2 beers in 1 hour. That's 3 drinks in 2 hours, more than what I should have had. But given your medical training, does.086 sound reasonable for that limited number of drinks for a 180 pound male? Everyone I've talked to suggests not.
I didn't feel the slightest bit impaired when I was pulled over and was quite confident I would pass the PBT. Contrast that with the multiple repeat DUI offenders I met in my alcohol awareness class.
Not sure about other states, but in Washington if you get a DUI you have to go to a victims panel where victims of DUI crashes get the opportunity to speak. It's very sad as any traffic fatality is tragic.
You can take your self righteousness and shove it up your ass. You don't know me.
Several states such as Washington state will let you get a blood test, but the breathalyzer at the station is still legally required and you have to pay for the blood test out of your own pocket.
In all 50 states, refusal to take a breathalyzer at the police station will result in a 1 year(minimum) suspension of your drivers license.
In all 50 states, you can refuse to take a roadside breathalyzer as they're inadmissable in a court of law. If you have had even 1 drink, always ask to go to the station for a real breathalyzer. The PBT's, or portable breath testers, are wildly inaccurate and only give the police probable cause to arrest. It will not work in your favor to take it.
Actually, research I read when I got my DUI in 2007 seemed to indicate the release of alcohol vapors into the air by the lungs can vary widely between persons, by as much as 20%.
This has nothing to do with body size, type or metabolic rates that I'm aware of, but more research is obviously needed for the scientific community to reach a consensus. The sampling process is fundamentally flawed but the courts have routinely rejected any evidence to the contrary.
I don't know about 49 of the states, but in Washington state, if you want something more accurate than a breathalyzer, you have to demand the police take you to the hospital to have blood drawn at your own expense. They are required by law to comply, but 99% of DUI suspects know nothing of their rights.
If I got pulled over again that same night, I would have driven home without a DUI and even if they did manage to get me to perform parking lot special olympics(also called the field sobriety test), I would have asked for a lawyer. Like most first time offenders, I took a plea deal to avoid significant jail time and paid the ridiculous fine and took alcohol awareness classes. The whole thing was a farce, intended to make money.
I blew.086% and easily could have challenged the results in court, given the breathalyzer had a sticker on it that said it hadn't been calibrated in 2 years.
Looks like the answer is no. It's a black box that doesn't report internal errors except when it can't ultimately decide on an answer.
The source code is useful only for showing the machines can be unreliable in certain circumstances, but unless he has substantiating evidence to show it gave an incorrect result he is unlikely to prevail.
Example: Guy blows.09 after drinking 2 beers. He might have a case that the machine was wrong. Example 2: Guy drinks 8 beers and blows.18. Machine might be wrong, but even if it was off by a bit due to rounding averages, he's still guilty as sin.
Sucks, but that's just the way the law looks at it.
Someone mentioned earlier that the weighting of samples under repeat tests give weight to the first blow, which is a big red flag. The initial blow is probably the sample most likely to be contaminated by liquid from the mouth which will skew the reading dramatically, leading to higher BAC's than actuality. If someone blew a.12 and then a.07 on the same machine, he could be found guilty but it's possible the second sample is more accurate.
Something I haven't seen really, and would like to see in handhelds is a strain gauge under the buttons to measure downward button pressure.
I can imagine dozens of ways to use that force intuitively in games, from throwing objects in sports games to modulating throttle, brake and steering control in car racing games.
The CPU market wouldn't look anything like it does now if it weren't for Intel strangling the OEM market to prevent AMD market share increases.
When the Athlon was first debuted, it stomped Intel's current Pentium offerings. The supply was there and at a very competitive price, but I believe Intel forced OEM's to stop or restrict sales of AMD based computers. With a truly free market, AMD marketshare should have grown rapidly at that point but didn't.
Hasn't stopped everyone under the sun from using Intel's embedded products in mission critical uses.
Regardless, there are several very large expenses for Intel. R&D - The tooling for research is extremely expensive and has a high initial investment costs as well as maintenance costs.
Manufacturing is also very expensive, but assuming the volume is up, the cost per CPU is relatively low. Lack of demand for Intel chips could drive the company into a very big hole due to fixed operating costs in their manufacturing divisions. This is partially offset by passing some production to TSMC, where the consequences of a lack of demand is passed onto the supplier. I would expect to see more than just the Atom production go to TSMC in the next year.
Like anything, the cost of CPU's is only reasonable because the global demand is there.
This fine against Intel is only possible because Intel has a physical presence in the EU. If they distributed products to the EU region through resellers only, they would be beyond the EC's jurisdiction to fine.
$1.5B is a lot of money, even to Intel. That could affect merit raises, promotions, cause layoffs or a cutback in vendor contracts which all have a big impact on the local economies where Intel is based.
Actually, mere visual observation of the inner workings of an ATM for a brief period makes a normal person no less able to commit theft than any other person.
The same is true of a bank vault door. Just because I can see how the locking mechanism works doesn't mean I'm suddenly now able to break a series of 3" hardened steel pins holding it in place. There are numerous safeguards preventing tampering, for both ATM's and for bank vaults. There are standardized testing procedures and standards for the ability for a moderately skilled lock picker with tools to gain access and for the most part, they are very effective.
Extrapolate that policy to it's finality. A company can decide at any time to change their policy and any use they don't agree with, pornographic or not, becomes a felony.
Watch out/.ers, it's a felony to browese at work now.
Slashdot Mirror
Ethanol isn't a scam. I do know first hand though that there was not enough research done before high ethanol content fuels were on the market specifically regarding safety of dispensation equipment. Regulators and conformity assessors were not ready for E85. It is much more corrosive then gasoline, hence the jab the submitter made at the Lexus recall.
As far as cost-I see no reason to give any more subsidies to corn producers if they are primarily dumping it into Ethanol production. I'm from MN so my bias should be the other direction given my state's large corn production. Ethanol production from corn isn't much more sustainable then digging up oil, considering the large volume of chemicals used and petroleum burned during a normal corn season.
E85 is better than gasoline, but by far is a good solution for global warming. There are a lot of better alternatives such as nuclear, wind and hydro(yeah we have lots of dams, but there is plenty of room for more). Only reason nuclear isn't used more is backlash from citizenry's misplaced fear, nuclear nonproliferation and nobody wants the spent fuel in their backyard despite the massive amount of federal funding they would receive, large number of jobs it would create and relative stability of spent fuel as far as hazardous materials storage goes.
Refined corn sugars(LFCS, HFCS) were only ever cheaper because of tariffs on cane sugar, FYI.
An argument could be made that from a physical perspective only, recordable DVD media is not dramatically different from recordable CD media.
The player technology, specifically with reference to encryption, interfaces and lasers, obviously would qualify for patent protection as they were novel inventions when they were invented.
Recordable media however, not quite so easy.
On another note, my personal belief is that when manufacturers create shell organizations to jointly patent their technology, it creates an insurmountable barrier to entry for competing manufacturers who weren't a party to the initial technology development. As both supporting and countering evidence, we had BluRay and HDDVD. The lack of quickly industry standardization led to two competing formats(bad) but also no collusion between manufacturers to prevent new manufacturers from entering(also bad, because it's really a monopoly).
Obviously, neither is perfect and something has got to change.
I'm not anti-law and I called my DUI a farce because nobody in the criminal justice system from police, to DA's to judges want to hear evidence that exculpates the suspect. My plea arrangement was for 8 hours community service, alcohol awareness classes and an $1100 fine. If I went to trial, I could have faced 90 days in jail.
I call it a farce because the entire system is designed to force you into plea deals with fines and community service so you can avoid the possibility of disproportionately large jail sentences. Even my lawyer recommended the plea deal because he said the lack of calibration on the breathalyzer would be ignored at trial and I would go to jail.
If the system really were about justice and protecting the public, they would use real jail sentences against the repeat offenders. When I was in court, I saw a 4th time offender being sentenced for like 90 days in jail. If they really thought 90 days in jail was "justice" for myself, a first time offender, they wouldn't offer 8 hours community service instead and give the 4th time offender 90 days in jail. I guess more succinctly, if 90 days in jail is "justice" for a 4th time offender, why is it also justice for a 1st time offender? By my calculations, the state of Washington makes something like $800,000 a week in DUI fines alone and another $50 per month from each offender with a case pending completion of a sentence. The average DUI offender spends about 8 months finishing their sentence(usually alcohol classes or probation), so that's another $400 per offender approximately.
DUI's are big business.
ps. Canada won't let me in until 2015 for vacation because of my DUI.
Close but not quite.
Take your statement to it's logical conclusion-habitual DUI offenders drive without licenses and insurance. Scary, but true.
In most states, second DUI's have mandatory minimum sentences. In Washington, a self proclaimed "strict DUI" state, I observed a person being sentenced for their 6th DUI for only 180 days in jail. Of course, a person like that may have their license revoked permanently, but it apparently doesn't stop them.
I'd had 3 beers in 2 hours. I blew a .086 on a breathalyzer that hadn't been calibrated in 2 years, so it's hard to say if I was over the limit or not.
In any case, my point was kind of that the state refuses to take into account the subjective nature of it's evidence, even when it's self-contradicting.
The majority of alcohol related automobile fatalities are caused by two types of drivers-inexperienced young drivers who drink far more than they should and repeat offenders.
The GP was correct. Even habitual offenders rarely cause multiple accidents with fatalities, but they do cause accidents quite frequently.
No, you obviously don't know me at all.
I know better than to drive after more than 3 drinks. You don't know drunk drivers either. I met a lot of them in my DUI classes. A lot of them blew +.15% which is beyond the realm of reasonableness. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY thinks they're sober at .15% but they drive anyway.
You want to be pissed at drunk drivers? Start with the people who drink for 6 hours at the bar and drive home killing 2 people. Start with the people who get so drunk they pop a tire from hitting a curb on the way home and drive 3 miles on the rims without even knowing it.
Vilifying the people who try to make responsible decisions doesn't do anyone any favors. Get off your high horse.
Roadside tests are just for the police to get probable cause for an arrest. Most testing procedures include a breath test at the station, a 20 minute wait and another breath test. If you blow .07 the first time and .09 the second time, you get a DUI even though your BAC was below the legal limit while you were driving. The laws in most states say driving within 2 hours of having over .08% BAC constitutes DUI.
Depends on your point of view I suppose. Is losing your license for a year worth it to avoid a DUI?
I guess if you live in a strict state and think you're over 0.15% BAC then it might make sense, seeing as you might lose it for a year anyway.
Yeah no shit. I took the field sobriety test and the patrolmen lied. He wrote on the form for the one leg stand that I both 1) had my hands in my pockets because it was so cold and 2) used my arms to balance myself. Doesn't make a bit of sense to me.
For the horizontal gaze test, I stared at the stupid light for about 45 seconds at which point I took my eyes off the light and looked at him and asked "Are we done yet?." This was obviously not the right thing for me to do, but the standard for that test specifies a maximum of 20 seconds duration. Anything longer and you're reaching for a conclusion that isn't apparent-i.e. if you don't know in 20 seconds, the result is negative.
I walked a perfectly straight line, even the patrolmen agreed. However, I did not pivot on the correct foot as shown(in a dark parking lot).
In a civil action, I lost my license for 90 days as the state failed to see any insufficiencies in this evidence.
Have you stopped to consider for a moment that I was probably under the legal limit? I drank 1 beer in 1 hour and another 2 beers in 1 hour. That's 3 drinks in 2 hours, more than what I should have had. But given your medical training, does .086 sound reasonable for that limited number of drinks for a 180 pound male? Everyone I've talked to suggests not.
I didn't feel the slightest bit impaired when I was pulled over and was quite confident I would pass the PBT. Contrast that with the multiple repeat DUI offenders I met in my alcohol awareness class.
Not sure about other states, but in Washington if you get a DUI you have to go to a victims panel where victims of DUI crashes get the opportunity to speak. It's very sad as any traffic fatality is tragic.
You can take your self righteousness and shove it up your ass. You don't know me.
Several states such as Washington state will let you get a blood test, but the breathalyzer at the station is still legally required and you have to pay for the blood test out of your own pocket.
In all 50 states, refusal to take a breathalyzer at the police station will result in a 1 year(minimum) suspension of your drivers license.
In all 50 states, you can refuse to take a roadside breathalyzer as they're inadmissable in a court of law. If you have had even 1 drink, always ask to go to the station for a real breathalyzer. The PBT's, or portable breath testers, are wildly inaccurate and only give the police probable cause to arrest. It will not work in your favor to take it.
Actually, research I read when I got my DUI in 2007 seemed to indicate the release of alcohol vapors into the air by the lungs can vary widely between persons, by as much as 20%.
This has nothing to do with body size, type or metabolic rates that I'm aware of, but more research is obviously needed for the scientific community to reach a consensus. The sampling process is fundamentally flawed but the courts have routinely rejected any evidence to the contrary.
I don't know about 49 of the states, but in Washington state, if you want something more accurate than a breathalyzer, you have to demand the police take you to the hospital to have blood drawn at your own expense. They are required by law to comply, but 99% of DUI suspects know nothing of their rights.
If I got pulled over again that same night, I would have driven home without a DUI and even if they did manage to get me to perform parking lot special olympics(also called the field sobriety test), I would have asked for a lawyer. Like most first time offenders, I took a plea deal to avoid significant jail time and paid the ridiculous fine and took alcohol awareness classes. The whole thing was a farce, intended to make money.
I blew .086% and easily could have challenged the results in court, given the breathalyzer had a sticker on it that said it hadn't been calibrated in 2 years.
Looks like the answer is no. It's a black box that doesn't report internal errors except when it can't ultimately decide on an answer.
The source code is useful only for showing the machines can be unreliable in certain circumstances, but unless he has substantiating evidence to show it gave an incorrect result he is unlikely to prevail.
Example: Guy blows .09 after drinking 2 beers. He might have a case that the machine was wrong. Example 2: Guy drinks 8 beers and blows .18. Machine might be wrong, but even if it was off by a bit due to rounding averages, he's still guilty as sin.
Sucks, but that's just the way the law looks at it.
Someone mentioned earlier that the weighting of samples under repeat tests give weight to the first blow, which is a big red flag. The initial blow is probably the sample most likely to be contaminated by liquid from the mouth which will skew the reading dramatically, leading to higher BAC's than actuality. If someone blew a .12 and then a .07 on the same machine, he could be found guilty but it's possible the second sample is more accurate.
Minnesotans still pays more per person and I'd bet we get a lot more from our money than you do.
I don't applaud the effort.
Let's tax loan officers instead because their industry causes great financial harm to the country.
Don't agree? Maybe that's because neither of these makes a lot of sense.
Something I haven't seen really, and would like to see in handhelds is a strain gauge under the buttons to measure downward button pressure.
I can imagine dozens of ways to use that force intuitively in games, from throwing objects in sports games to modulating throttle, brake and steering control in car racing games.
God crushing you nonbelievers with rain of sulfur and fire would settle the matter nicely.
I'm not holding my breath though.
The time period I'm talking about when the Athlon was first released, way before the X2 or 64 bit Athlons were dreamed of.
The CPU market wouldn't look anything like it does now if it weren't for Intel strangling the OEM market to prevent AMD market share increases.
When the Athlon was first debuted, it stomped Intel's current Pentium offerings. The supply was there and at a very competitive price, but I believe Intel forced OEM's to stop or restrict sales of AMD based computers. With a truly free market, AMD marketshare should have grown rapidly at that point but didn't.
Hasn't stopped everyone under the sun from using Intel's embedded products in mission critical uses.
Regardless, there are several very large expenses for Intel. R&D - The tooling for research is extremely expensive and has a high initial investment costs as well as maintenance costs.
Manufacturing is also very expensive, but assuming the volume is up, the cost per CPU is relatively low. Lack of demand for Intel chips could drive the company into a very big hole due to fixed operating costs in their manufacturing divisions. This is partially offset by passing some production to TSMC, where the consequences of a lack of demand is passed onto the supplier. I would expect to see more than just the Atom production go to TSMC in the next year.
Like anything, the cost of CPU's is only reasonable because the global demand is there.
This fine against Intel is only possible because Intel has a physical presence in the EU. If they distributed products to the EU region through resellers only, they would be beyond the EC's jurisdiction to fine.
$1.5B is a lot of money, even to Intel. That could affect merit raises, promotions, cause layoffs or a cutback in vendor contracts which all have a big impact on the local economies where Intel is based.
Actually, mere visual observation of the inner workings of an ATM for a brief period makes a normal person no less able to commit theft than any other person.
The same is true of a bank vault door. Just because I can see how the locking mechanism works doesn't mean I'm suddenly now able to break a series of 3" hardened steel pins holding it in place. There are numerous safeguards preventing tampering, for both ATM's and for bank vaults. There are standardized testing procedures and standards for the ability for a moderately skilled lock picker with tools to gain access and for the most part, they are very effective.
Extrapolate that policy to it's finality. A company can decide at any time to change their policy and any use they don't agree with, pornographic or not, becomes a felony.
Watch out /.ers, it's a felony to browese at work now.