If we assume a constant rate of emissions per gallon of fuel burned, we can show mathematically that emissions will be reduced if we cut the number of large vehicles in half (X is number of vehicles)..25(1/15)X +.75(1/30)X = total emissions. If you keep X constant, you will see that as we alter the.25 and the.75 (keeping the sum equal to 1-- these are the percentage cars in ech class, SUVs and sedans respectively) that total emissions goes down as the.75 gets closer to 1.
Using the formula I've shown here, a 5% switch from SUVs (at 15 mpg) to compacts (at 30 mpg), nets a 4% decrease in emissions. Cutting the number of SUVs in half results in a 10% decrease in emissions. A good deal, if you ask me. Cut them out entirely and emissions go down 20%.
I am not forgetting that there are lots of large vehicles needed... it's not like I've proposed to tear up existing freeways without a second thought.
Most of the large vehicles I see are single occupant and do not appear to be engaged in hauling anything other than the hindquarters of a blonde on a cell phone. Of course there are many legitimate uses for large vehicles... but private ownership is almost always overkill unless one is occupationally likely to be hauling large loads frequently. Don't forget that there are many hatchback/station wagon models of much more efficient vehicles that are often a viable alternative to vehicles like the Suburban or the Ford Explorer monstrosities.
Unfortunately I don't have the resources/information at the ready to estimate what the real ratio of cars to large vehicles is, and how many of the large vehicles can realistically be replaced with smaller vehicles. The main thing we need to work on is having an overall decrease in the number of vehicles by doing things like carpooling. Every time someone gives me a ride, instead of both of us driving emissions go down by 50%. That's my point.
One can only hope you're right that we'll run out of oil before destroying the environment... in the meantime I can still enjoy the health and mental health benefits of a non-automotive lifestyle. To me, it is a distinctly personal decision, not done so much (at this point) out of a self-righteous need to save the world, but simply done to save myself.
But oddly enough, the more fuel efficient cars become, the more people seem to be buying bigger, bulkier cars that are not fuel-efficient-- even newer midsized sedans really aren't that much more fuel efficient today than they were several years ago. I would probably have less complaint if more people drove cars like the ones discussed in this thread. I think this is a great trend. But every morning as I wait for the bus I watch traffic... and in my neighborhood it would seem that at least 25% of the traffic are vehicles like pickups, SUVs, jeeps, other large, inefficient vehicles, about 80% of which are carrying a single occupant.
My "cut your driving" solution will do plenty of good. If people actually cut their driving by doing things like car sharing, car pooling, biking, careful trip planning, etc. But they seem reluctant to do much of this because every day that passes makes non-car solutions actually less convenient. So the trade-off is increasing convenience from car usage for less and less convenience from other methods.
Thank you for the benefit of the doubt! I certainly believe what I'm saying because I, and many of my friends have lived significant portions, if not all, of our adult lives without the benefit of a privately owned automobile.
American dependency on cars is not the problem-- the roads are a wonderful tool and an important piece of our infrastructure. The problem is that it's a vicious cycle. The more you set things up to be car-friendly, the more they tend to be friendly to anything but cars. And the more everyone spends making sure they have their own private vehicle, the less likely we are to explore other options.
Oddly, for how much you say people don't want to drive, they still are driving. If they truly worked on alternatives, there would be no bumper to bumper traffic. For my part, I'm glad my city has a decent bus system (and is working on a light rail system). This means that even if it's crowded I can usually sit down and read a book, instead of worrying that some impatient yoyo on a cell phone is going to rear-end me or whatever.
At the same time as I want to encourage others to look at alternatives, I'm suggesting them because of experiences I've had myself. I own a car right now. I found that as soon as I got it I used it consistently for trips that would have been inconvenient, but still possible, on the bus or by bike, or even by walking. Maybe everyone else is better than I am at this, I don't know. More power to them if they are able to own cars and still manage to make ecologically sound choices in the face of overwhelming convenience.
Is it just me or are you being overly defensive? I don't really think it makes sense to spend one or two hours stuck in a little car just to live out in the country... but that's just my opinion. That's a big chunk of your day. Every day. Just to get into a city filled with all those darn idiots. Yeah, you get the whole weekend in a very nice setting, so maybe it's a good deal. Especially if you lean to the antisocial, as you seem to.
Why should I come live there? I already live out my rhetoric in one of the US' larger metro areas-- one that leads the nation in car ownership per capita at that. If you are going to call my gentle urgings "rhetoric", I'd say the real problem is not where you live, but your unwillingness to take alternatives seriously by passing the buck to a mindset of "this is the way it is where I live". What? You have no control over where you live? You have no ability to at least be thoughtful in your car ownership and usage habits? Sounds like the sort of excuse-laden rhetoric SUV drivers usually rely on to justify their over-sized vehicles.
You know what stinks? This joke is the only post in the whole discussion that actually tries to get serious about what it means to be "alternative fuel"-- oddly by suggesting one of the oldest fuels known to humankind.
You want low emissions and breathable air? Stop driving so damn much in the first plce. In fact, stop driving altogether if you can-- at the very least share cars more often... that the original questioner here is looking to buy a SECOND vehicle is a big red flag that someone has lifestyle issues that aren't going to be solved by simply saving a few miles per gallon.
Most of the driving done by Americans is done in the name of personal convenience: to save a few minutes of having to sit next to your fellow human being on the bus or train or to prevent you from having to walk or bike a few feet.
As I see it, the environmental, social, and psychic impacts of car culture go way beyond just the emissions questions. Personally I'm finding that the less time I spend in cars, the more time I have to read (on the bus), the more time I spend seeing neighbors (on the bus or while riding my bike). Not only that, I feel healthier than I have in a few years, since getting some exercise is no longer optional.
I don't know what Mr. Anthony's suggestions would be, but here's mine: take a look at the shelves full of books written by women, with female protagonists who have little or nothing in common with the women in books like "Stranger in a Strange Land" or Anthony's "Apprentice Adept" series.
Stuff I've read that I would recommend: "Green Rider" by Kristen Britain (isbn=0886778581)-- pure fantasy, a little simple. The whole Skolian empire series by Catherine Asaro, starting with "Primary Inversion" (isbn=0812550234)-- extremely cool sci-fi by a woman with some serious physics-fu. I'd also recommend Raymond Feist's co-authored work with Janny Wurts, starting with "Daughter of the Empire" (isbn=055327211X)-- awesome work that goes well with the rest of Feist's series on the Rift War. Really, I don't think it's that hard to find positive, non-soft-core fantasy/sci-fi out there. Indeed, Piers Anthony himself has written some.
As to cover art: ever notice the strong similarities between the shirtless Conan the Barbarian and the average computer geek? I didn't think so.:)
"News" may carry in your mind a connotation of objectivity, but "news" denotes simply "reports of recents events" -- nothing more, nothing less. Objectivity may be desirable, but is not requisite for something to be "news". Now, a bias might so warp a report such that it is no longer truthful, but that's much easier said than done.
IRSSI was backdoored. Great. Now what the heck is IRSSI? The reason you didn't hear about it is because hardly anyone is knowingly using IRSSI. Lots of people are knowingly using WinXP and WMPlayer. We would have heard about a similar bug in Linux, KDE, Gnome, XMMS, or FreeAmp.
Slashdot has never really made any claims to objectivity, so why are you bashing them for this. Heck, no actual employee of Slashdot wrote this article, wrote this writeup, or had any other involvement other than front-paging a submission.
And in the real word, what babelfish does would be illegal. It is illegal for you to take the latest King novel and translate it into Tagalog and publish it.
Ah, but the internet is part of this "real world" you speak of. Your analogy is flawed, that's all. Babelfish is the equivalent of me buying a King novel, hiring someone fluent in my language and English, and asking them to read the book to me (translating from the written English into my spoken language of choice). Even if I tape-record or transcribe that, I am not violating the law until I distribute the material. And even then, one might be able to do so dependent on a court ruling based on the Fair Use exceptions written into the copyright laws.
Without the low cost of entry, there would be no consoles. The public want to buy consoles for $300, so a legal safe harbour can be created by protecting the console maker's right to get a royalty on the games.
So what you're saying is that instead of pricing the console appropriately, we should just jack up the price of games so that game makers can pay their license fees to the console maker? What difference does it make? In this case, only Microsoft are so bad at this market that they are losing their shirt on the consoles themselves. Traditionally cost to produce consoles have not run so far over shelf price as Xbox has.
Personally I like the idea that when I buy a piece of hardware, anyone who wants can write software to run on that hardware. MAME has other problems (especially since many popular vintage games are still actively sold by legal rights holders), but they have every right (imho) to sell or offer for free game software that runs on Xbox.
Yep, this is exactly it. As soon as they implemented those "features" I stopped going there... albeit as a non-subscriber. But what kept me from subscribing is that except for a good AP wire/breaking news section they had just lost two of their good columnists: Paglia, Keillor. The people they replaced both of those two with were not remotely in the same league.
But to your point, when I no longer feel like taking advantage of the free service, it is certain that I'm not going to have a chance to get over my subscription-phobia. Scaring off leeching non-subscribers by making the basic content hard to get to is a good way to make sure they don't become subscribers.
Thank [insert deity, deities, or lack thereof] that you can now use the Number of the Beast for all your buying and selling needs.:)
I can see the Supreme Court refusing to hear this appeal. Here is an interesting article about "In God We Trust"-- including a bit about the first case to oppose the motto (oddly finding this same circuit ruling in a much different direction).
In addition to having a single card for online use (great idea, btw). NEVER use a debit card for an online transaction or in any other store you don't trust.
While you will likely be made whole by Visa/MasterCard, a debit card is a direct link to your checking account. This means that your actual money will be fraudulently taken from your account, and it could take you a while to get it back (as in, "how the hell do I pay my rent now?!"). Much different than a credit account, where the worst that can happen is you'll have to refuse to pay and have a blight on your credit report.
While I disagree that Philip K. Dick's books are crappy and that the resulting movies were the "best", there is an interesting article on this topic on SFGate today.
I'm impressed. You've just argued that introducing popular legislation is a form of sneaky, underhanded politicking. What's really impressive is that you argued this absurd point effectively enough to get modded up. Have you ever considered a career in politics?
You're not half as impressed as I am. You just managed to say the same thing a different AC said without any apparent sense that you were being completely redundant.
But since this raises an important issue I will respond: I think there are many examples of laws which were introduced primarily as election stratagems or to curry favor with special interest groups, rather than because there was an honest need for such legislation. I suppose my examples, things like COPA, DOMA, USA-PATRIOT, might seem like needed laws to you. To me they come across as stuff that was introduced so that litmus tests could be created (e.g., respectively, "my opponent supports online child porn", "my opponent panders to homosexuals", and "my opponent thinks terrorism is fine"). But what did those bills really accomplish? One was struck down by the Supreme Court (COPA), one is fairly inert (DOMA), and one intends to solve a problem that didn't exist (USA-PATRIOT). This bill seems likely to fail (to me), either on the Floor or in the Courts.
And yes, I've considered a career in politics. But I'm far too blunt and far too liberal. I'd last four days before I'd offended about 95% of everyone and alienated the rest. I have no interest in saying what folks want to hear to make them like me. Case in point: my attitude towards this bill. I think it stinks. The American consumer has no one to blame but himself for the power auto manufacturers have over their lives, and now their cars. Maybe if Americans were less dependent on cars this would seem like a less important issue. It sure doesn't bother me a whole lot for some reason. Now if I had to take my Adidas into a special shop to get new laces put in...;)
Proposed alternatives to the current "music distribution channels": we could learn to play an instrument... or go watch bands/orchestras/choirs do live performances (careful here, though, ClearChannel is also a major concert promoter)... or just listen to the world around us-- it's full of the most amazing sounds.
I wonder when Senator Paul Wellstone will stop playing at being a common-people's liberal. I don't buy a word of it. This particular issue is an obvious case of a senator using his current seat in office to generate press releases that amount to little more than free campaign advertising (he's up against Republican Norm Coleman, a GWB anointee, this November). Since recent Census information indicates that Minnesota is one of the most car-happy states (i.e. higher car ownership per capita), this sort of press plays right into the theme of small business and "the people". The StarTribune is extremely pro-Wellstone, DFL/Democrat partisan-- so of course they're willing to print such a slanted article.
That said, if you want full information about your car, buy your car from a manufacturer who will give it to you (or your mechanic at least). There is no reason for government laws to mandate the release of this information into the public domain. If you really care about it, vote with your pocketbook. Most Americans don't seem to think like this though. Oddly, a sense of personal responsibility is usually only applied to others in American discourse. Whenever someone asks us what we're doing, we spout nonsense like "I shouldn't have to... it should already be like that.... why should I clean up someone else's mess... blah blah blah".
To recap: this is a campaign stunt. Consumers hold the power here, but they have to take some responsibility for how they use it (personally, I'd wish they'd not buy cars at all and take the bus or bike). There is no legitimate reason for government to make a law forcing this information into the public domain. You don't have a right to a car, nor to information about cars. If you don't like it, shop somewhere else... or don't shop at all.
Given that so many cell phone users talk openly on the bus or in cafes or forget to turn the damn things off during movies, plays, in art museums, or in other places where phone calls really aren't appropriate, I doubt these yokels have any sensitivity about privacy at all. So will a market appear? I think only at the very high-end.
The original poster was an obvious troll with his/her attempts to paint the ideologues of free software as Nazis. That the post also contained to the current German government and somehow attempts to elide that government with all past governments does not negate this. As to Godwin's law, you are correct. I was remembering the following (from the Jargon File):
Godwin's Law prov.
[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
*sigh* What an obvious troll. Thankfully, Godwin's Law now shuts this debate down pretty quick, and since you mentioned the Nazis first, you automatically lose.
Having used eBay for over two years, having purchased many things over eBay, having sold many things over eBay, having never found a serious need for an alternate auction site, I am not sure I understand what is wrong with eBay at the present time that was not always wrong with eBay. I've never gotten results that consist of "wholesale lists" and "cheap toys from China" with any of my searches. I have seen plenty of auctions for stuff labeled as RARE when the stuff can be got at retail in any large city-- I even got burned on that once-- but that's a caveat emptor thing.
Yes, anything that becomes popular will become somewhat diluted and the gamers will figure a way to take advantage where possible. But I have frequently gone looking for very rare items on eBay and found them (mostly music, video, books, computer stuff). And yes, it's easy to get lost in the crowd, but this isn't necessarily a problem with just mass sellers, it's a problem with lots of people using the system.
If common sense queries for your items are causing your single listing to be lost in a list of hundreds of other listings, then consider ways to ameliorate that, I suppose-- I don't see any, but such is life. The problem is partly due to users not knowing how to write good queries that find them what they want efficiently. And if your items were truly rare, then they wouldn't get lost in the shuffle. I agree it would be nice for *you* if there were less sellers so your items were more visible, but for buyers it's excellent, since it means more supply which should result in lower prices.
Sounds like a lot of whining to me. Your items are just as competitive now as they were before. Health insurance doesn't prevent your items from showing up in a listing. Your ability to create a good listing is the only important factor, and how that is related to your having health-care is not yet demonstrated.
The selling process at eBay is incredibly simple-- even if you only want to sell one item once in your life. So is buying. Their job is to facilitate auctions and they will make their money whether you are a large seller or a small seller. What they've done here, with health-care, is the same thing they are already doing, finding a seller (insurance company) and facilitating a transaction with a buyer (eBay sellers). Probably the restrictions being implemented have more to do with the insurance company naturally wanting to restrict the pool of insurees than with eBay trying to discriminate against smaller sellers.
An insurance company is not going to let eBay simply sell policies to all comers, this is not how group sales of health care works. They might as well simply offer discounted coverage to anyone under the sun. With this sort of group policy the insurance company runs the risk of having to cover people at a much lower premium than they'd like. What their actuaries have found, though, is that the very act of belonging to a group (like employees of a company) lowers that risk-- as well as the fact that having such a large constituency is a major bargaining chip between the company and the insurer.
What eBay is doing here is not making life worse for any sellers, but perhaps making life better for independent, full-time sellers. Many larger sellers are affiliated with existing companies and don't need this. But for those sellers who work fulltime at running eBay auctions this is a godsend, since it means being able to resist the temptation to get a day job with benefits. If you are only a part-time seller, and you enjoy it, this is your encouragement to get even better at eBay selling and cast off your day-job chains.
Slashdot Mirror
Using the formula I've shown here, a 5% switch from SUVs (at 15 mpg) to compacts (at 30 mpg), nets a 4% decrease in emissions. Cutting the number of SUVs in half results in a 10% decrease in emissions. A good deal, if you ask me. Cut them out entirely and emissions go down 20%.
I am not forgetting that there are lots of large vehicles needed... it's not like I've proposed to tear up existing freeways without a second thought. Most of the large vehicles I see are single occupant and do not appear to be engaged in hauling anything other than the hindquarters of a blonde on a cell phone. Of course there are many legitimate uses for large vehicles... but private ownership is almost always overkill unless one is occupationally likely to be hauling large loads frequently. Don't forget that there are many hatchback/station wagon models of much more efficient vehicles that are often a viable alternative to vehicles like the Suburban or the Ford Explorer monstrosities.
Unfortunately I don't have the resources/information at the ready to estimate what the real ratio of cars to large vehicles is, and how many of the large vehicles can realistically be replaced with smaller vehicles. The main thing we need to work on is having an overall decrease in the number of vehicles by doing things like carpooling. Every time someone gives me a ride, instead of both of us driving emissions go down by 50%. That's my point.
One can only hope you're right that we'll run out of oil before destroying the environment... in the meantime I can still enjoy the health and mental health benefits of a non-automotive lifestyle. To me, it is a distinctly personal decision, not done so much (at this point) out of a self-righteous need to save the world, but simply done to save myself.
My "cut your driving" solution will do plenty of good. If people actually cut their driving by doing things like car sharing, car pooling, biking, careful trip planning, etc. But they seem reluctant to do much of this because every day that passes makes non-car solutions actually less convenient. So the trade-off is increasing convenience from car usage for less and less convenience from other methods.
American dependency on cars is not the problem-- the roads are a wonderful tool and an important piece of our infrastructure. The problem is that it's a vicious cycle. The more you set things up to be car-friendly, the more they tend to be friendly to anything but cars. And the more everyone spends making sure they have their own private vehicle, the less likely we are to explore other options.
Oddly, for how much you say people don't want to drive, they still are driving. If they truly worked on alternatives, there would be no bumper to bumper traffic. For my part, I'm glad my city has a decent bus system (and is working on a light rail system). This means that even if it's crowded I can usually sit down and read a book, instead of worrying that some impatient yoyo on a cell phone is going to rear-end me or whatever.
At the same time as I want to encourage others to look at alternatives, I'm suggesting them because of experiences I've had myself. I own a car right now. I found that as soon as I got it I used it consistently for trips that would have been inconvenient, but still possible, on the bus or by bike, or even by walking. Maybe everyone else is better than I am at this, I don't know. More power to them if they are able to own cars and still manage to make ecologically sound choices in the face of overwhelming convenience.
Is it just me or are you being overly defensive? I don't really think it makes sense to spend one or two hours stuck in a little car just to live out in the country... but that's just my opinion. That's a big chunk of your day. Every day. Just to get into a city filled with all those darn idiots. Yeah, you get the whole weekend in a very nice setting, so maybe it's a good deal. Especially if you lean to the antisocial, as you seem to.
Why should I come live there? I already live out my rhetoric in one of the US' larger metro areas-- one that leads the nation in car ownership per capita at that. If you are going to call my gentle urgings "rhetoric", I'd say the real problem is not where you live, but your unwillingness to take alternatives seriously by passing the buck to a mindset of "this is the way it is where I live". What? You have no control over where you live? You have no ability to at least be thoughtful in your car ownership and usage habits? Sounds like the sort of excuse-laden rhetoric SUV drivers usually rely on to justify their over-sized vehicles.
You want low emissions and breathable air? Stop driving so damn much in the first plce. In fact, stop driving altogether if you can-- at the very least share cars more often... that the original questioner here is looking to buy a SECOND vehicle is a big red flag that someone has lifestyle issues that aren't going to be solved by simply saving a few miles per gallon.
Most of the driving done by Americans is done in the name of personal convenience: to save a few minutes of having to sit next to your fellow human being on the bus or train or to prevent you from having to walk or bike a few feet.
As I see it, the environmental, social, and psychic impacts of car culture go way beyond just the emissions questions. Personally I'm finding that the less time I spend in cars, the more time I have to read (on the bus), the more time I spend seeing neighbors (on the bus or while riding my bike). Not only that, I feel healthier than I have in a few years, since getting some exercise is no longer optional.
Stuff I've read that I would recommend: "Green Rider" by Kristen Britain (isbn=0886778581)-- pure fantasy, a little simple. The whole Skolian empire series by Catherine Asaro, starting with "Primary Inversion" (isbn=0812550234)-- extremely cool sci-fi by a woman with some serious physics-fu. I'd also recommend Raymond Feist's co-authored work with Janny Wurts, starting with "Daughter of the Empire" (isbn=055327211X)-- awesome work that goes well with the rest of Feist's series on the Rift War. Really, I don't think it's that hard to find positive, non-soft-core fantasy/sci-fi out there. Indeed, Piers Anthony himself has written some.
As to cover art: ever notice the strong similarities between the shirtless Conan the Barbarian and the average computer geek? I didn't think so. :)
And which damn good reason is that?
Question is, why does Jerky make it so easy for us?
"News" may carry in your mind a connotation of objectivity, but "news" denotes simply "reports of recents events" -- nothing more, nothing less. Objectivity may be desirable, but is not requisite for something to be "news". Now, a bias might so warp a report such that it is no longer truthful, but that's much easier said than done.
Slashdot has never really made any claims to objectivity, so why are you bashing them for this. Heck, no actual employee of Slashdot wrote this article, wrote this writeup, or had any other involvement other than front-paging a submission.
Ah, but the internet is part of this "real world" you speak of. Your analogy is flawed, that's all. Babelfish is the equivalent of me buying a King novel, hiring someone fluent in my language and English, and asking them to read the book to me (translating from the written English into my spoken language of choice). Even if I tape-record or transcribe that, I am not violating the law until I distribute the material. And even then, one might be able to do so dependent on a court ruling based on the Fair Use exceptions written into the copyright laws.
So what you're saying is that instead of pricing the console appropriately, we should just jack up the price of games so that game makers can pay their license fees to the console maker? What difference does it make? In this case, only Microsoft are so bad at this market that they are losing their shirt on the consoles themselves. Traditionally cost to produce consoles have not run so far over shelf price as Xbox has.
Personally I like the idea that when I buy a piece of hardware, anyone who wants can write software to run on that hardware. MAME has other problems (especially since many popular vintage games are still actively sold by legal rights holders), but they have every right (imho) to sell or offer for free game software that runs on Xbox.
But to your point, when I no longer feel like taking advantage of the free service, it is certain that I'm not going to have a chance to get over my subscription-phobia. Scaring off leeching non-subscribers by making the basic content hard to get to is a good way to make sure they don't become subscribers.
Thank [insert deity, deities, or lack thereof] that you can now use the Number of the Beast for all your buying and selling needs. :)
I can see the Supreme Court refusing to hear this appeal. Here is an interesting article about "In God We Trust"-- including a bit about the first case to oppose the motto (oddly finding this same circuit ruling in a much different direction).
While you will likely be made whole by Visa/MasterCard, a debit card is a direct link to your checking account. This means that your actual money will be fraudulently taken from your account, and it could take you a while to get it back (as in, "how the hell do I pay my rent now?!"). Much different than a credit account, where the worst that can happen is you'll have to refuse to pay and have a blight on your credit report.
While I disagree that Philip K. Dick's books are crappy and that the resulting movies were the "best", there is an interesting article on this topic on SFGate today.
You're not half as impressed as I am. You just managed to say the same thing a different AC said without any apparent sense that you were being completely redundant.
But since this raises an important issue I will respond: I think there are many examples of laws which were introduced primarily as election stratagems or to curry favor with special interest groups, rather than because there was an honest need for such legislation. I suppose my examples, things like COPA, DOMA, USA-PATRIOT, might seem like needed laws to you. To me they come across as stuff that was introduced so that litmus tests could be created (e.g., respectively, "my opponent supports online child porn", "my opponent panders to homosexuals", and "my opponent thinks terrorism is fine"). But what did those bills really accomplish? One was struck down by the Supreme Court (COPA), one is fairly inert (DOMA), and one intends to solve a problem that didn't exist (USA-PATRIOT). This bill seems likely to fail (to me), either on the Floor or in the Courts.
And yes, I've considered a career in politics. But I'm far too blunt and far too liberal. I'd last four days before I'd offended about 95% of everyone and alienated the rest. I have no interest in saying what folks want to hear to make them like me. Case in point: my attitude towards this bill. I think it stinks. The American consumer has no one to blame but himself for the power auto manufacturers have over their lives, and now their cars. Maybe if Americans were less dependent on cars this would seem like a less important issue. It sure doesn't bother me a whole lot for some reason. Now if I had to take my Adidas into a special shop to get new laces put in... ;)
Proposed alternatives to the current "music distribution channels": we could learn to play an instrument... or go watch bands/orchestras/choirs do live performances (careful here, though, ClearChannel is also a major concert promoter)... or just listen to the world around us-- it's full of the most amazing sounds.
That said, if you want full information about your car, buy your car from a manufacturer who will give it to you (or your mechanic at least). There is no reason for government laws to mandate the release of this information into the public domain. If you really care about it, vote with your pocketbook. Most Americans don't seem to think like this though. Oddly, a sense of personal responsibility is usually only applied to others in American discourse. Whenever someone asks us what we're doing, we spout nonsense like "I shouldn't have to ... it should already be like that .... why should I clean up someone else's mess ... blah blah blah".
To recap: this is a campaign stunt. Consumers hold the power here, but they have to take some responsibility for how they use it (personally, I'd wish they'd not buy cars at all and take the bus or bike). There is no legitimate reason for government to make a law forcing this information into the public domain. You don't have a right to a car, nor to information about cars. If you don't like it, shop somewhere else... or don't shop at all.
Given that so many cell phone users talk openly on the bus or in cafes or forget to turn the damn things off during movies, plays, in art museums, or in other places where phone calls really aren't appropriate, I doubt these yokels have any sensitivity about privacy at all. So will a market appear? I think only at the very high-end.
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
*sigh* What an obvious troll. Thankfully, Godwin's Law now shuts this debate down pretty quick, and since you mentioned the Nazis first, you automatically lose.
Yes, anything that becomes popular will become somewhat diluted and the gamers will figure a way to take advantage where possible. But I have frequently gone looking for very rare items on eBay and found them (mostly music, video, books, computer stuff). And yes, it's easy to get lost in the crowd, but this isn't necessarily a problem with just mass sellers, it's a problem with lots of people using the system.
If common sense queries for your items are causing your single listing to be lost in a list of hundreds of other listings, then consider ways to ameliorate that, I suppose-- I don't see any, but such is life. The problem is partly due to users not knowing how to write good queries that find them what they want efficiently. And if your items were truly rare, then they wouldn't get lost in the shuffle. I agree it would be nice for *you* if there were less sellers so your items were more visible, but for buyers it's excellent, since it means more supply which should result in lower prices.
The selling process at eBay is incredibly simple-- even if you only want to sell one item once in your life. So is buying. Their job is to facilitate auctions and they will make their money whether you are a large seller or a small seller. What they've done here, with health-care, is the same thing they are already doing, finding a seller (insurance company) and facilitating a transaction with a buyer (eBay sellers). Probably the restrictions being implemented have more to do with the insurance company naturally wanting to restrict the pool of insurees than with eBay trying to discriminate against smaller sellers.
An insurance company is not going to let eBay simply sell policies to all comers, this is not how group sales of health care works. They might as well simply offer discounted coverage to anyone under the sun. With this sort of group policy the insurance company runs the risk of having to cover people at a much lower premium than they'd like. What their actuaries have found, though, is that the very act of belonging to a group (like employees of a company) lowers that risk-- as well as the fact that having such a large constituency is a major bargaining chip between the company and the insurer.
What eBay is doing here is not making life worse for any sellers, but perhaps making life better for independent, full-time sellers. Many larger sellers are affiliated with existing companies and don't need this. But for those sellers who work fulltime at running eBay auctions this is a godsend, since it means being able to resist the temptation to get a day job with benefits. If you are only a part-time seller, and you enjoy it, this is your encouragement to get even better at eBay selling and cast off your day-job chains.