Just because someone lives in an "urban" area does not mean they do city driving. I grew-up in an "urban" zone that was surrounded by farms and cows. It was labeled urban because it met the Census Bureau's minimum population density but it certainly wasn't a city.
And now I live in an "urban" zone again. I don't do any city driving (EPA City == frequent stop-and-go with short trips of less than 5 miles). I hop on the interstate or highway and drive almost non-stop (EPA's highway cycle). So do most Americans. The average commute far exceeds the 5 miles of the EPA's city test.
Your comment makes little sense. How could one person force 11 other people to vote his way? And what "send a message" are you talking about? A message about what?
Plus I'm not sure why you say it "failed" in this instance? Just because you don't like Apple and think they should lose their patent cases? That's no a valid reason..... in fact you gave no reasons at all. Just vague opinion that the decision was wrong, because you say it's wrong. How Christian of you.
A jury system is a "check" on the power of the government to enforce unjust laws. Basically weakens the ability of the government to just toss people into jail without opposition. (Unless they call it "indefinite detainment" under the NDAA.)
You must be new here: This is a U.S. based website. My comment "There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg " refers to the U.S. market..... as does the original article.
>>>city driving, but that's where most people do most of their day-to-day driving.
Citation please. I don't go anywhere near a city for my commute, and neither do most people I know. In fact the average American drives almost 20 miles a day on an interstate or highway
>>>"non-renewable energy resource." Engineers..... GO!
Easy. We convert everybody's cars to using 100% renewable ethanol and biodiesel. There would be a rampant shortage of corn and soybeans and sugar to supply these fuels, which would drive gas prices over $10/gallon and food 5 times more expensive.
Congratulations on your solution. Hope you don't get your head chopped-off in the 2020 revolution. (Though you probably will.)
So even though Corporate Average Fuel Economy will go from 27 to 54, and therefore brand-new car consumption will be HALF current year models, you think the population will grow from 320 to 640 million and negate all the gains by 2025. Nonsense.
It would be more accurate to say: Thirteen automakers realized the government wanted to mandate 10% of all cars be hydrogen fuel cells, so they proposed a raised CAFE limit as a compromise. The government agreed. The corporations will now spend the next 15 years trying to lower the CAFE standard, just as they spent 15 years lobbying CARB to eliminate the 10% ZEV requirement (and eventually won). Learn to think how the typical corporate manager thinks.
>>>Use electrons. Use hydrogen.
A car that burns energy is still polluting, regardless of its energy source.
>>> A civic hatchback with an 80hp 4banger. It was cheap, useful,
And would be illegal to be sold, because it wouldn't pass even the minimum LEV-2 standards. Those old cars got high MPG by generating lots of Nitric Oxides (which generate ozone/smog). They can't legally be sold anymore. That's why today the most efficient pure gasoline car is rated at 48 (old style score). It's has lower MPG because it's been tuned to be cleaner.
I fail to see the advantage of some future 70mpg car if I'm burning-up $200 a month recharging it with electricity.
All you've done is switch the country from pollution by gasoline to pollution by coal or natural gas. Plus you're not saving energy. It's still the same consumption level. I would be more impressed with a non-plugin car that actually squeezes 70 miles out of each gallon (like my insight or a Lupo TDI).
>>>You're arguing that it's legal to drive 80 in a 70.
Strawman argument. Not what I said. There are tons of places where it's legal (or at least unenforced) to drive +5 or 10 over the limit, and the cops won't ticket you.
>>> there will be so many more cars on the road than there are now
Not really. The Unied States' natural growth rate is essentially 0%. There will be a few more cars, but not enough to eliminate the benefits of raising CAFE from 27 to 54 (basically halving fuel consumption). Nice FUD.
>>>some alternatve fuel, one that doesnt just move the pollution and I will be happier.
Like what? According to greenercars.org an EV car is no cleaner than your average Prius (and less clean than my SULEV Insight or an 80mpg Lupo). Maybe hydrogen? Problem there is they are really electric-powered too (the electric makes the hydrogen).
My insight's only 2000 pounds and gets very close to 90mpg (89.something). The 3000 pound Civic I testdrove using the same techniques scored over 60 mpg. That was the CVT version; the stick shift is probably better yet. (Actual EPA ratings are 65 and 47 respectively.)
There are tons of places where it's legal (or at least unenforced) where you can drive 80. I recently drove all the way across the country and I was doing 80 in every state that had 70 or 75mph limits (about half of them).
Yeah I don't see how they will do it. There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg on the highway. And since this is an average it means they have to sell several 75-80mpg cars to offset the low 35-40mpg SUVs. Not even my two-seat Insight scored that high (current rating is 64).
I bet like the CARB requirement for 10% ZEVs (electric cars) by the year 2010, this new 54mpg standard will eventually be eliminated or modified. (The ZEV requirement was changed to gasoline SULEVs that have 150,000 mile catalytic converters. So still no electric cars.)
On the other hand maybe we'll see more cars imported from Europe. They used to have a car that scored 80mpg on the highway. They still have versions that get 65mpg.
Bill Nye is in a position to get laws passed that favor his viewpoint (force children to abandon god, allah, yahweh, Reincarnation, etc). He's not a tyrant himself but he's friends with those who are tyrants in the CA Legislature and Congress. As for why I'm "tired" of being bossed around?
Mainly because I'm tired of people telling what to do. "Don't smoke weed". Really? Who the hell am I hurting if I'm just sitting here watching Star Trek? If I am DUI then sure: Arrest me and throw me in jail with the alcohol drunks, but not when I'm just sitting at home not hurting anybody.
And what's the deal with forcing me to buy hospital insurance. At least with car insurance I can opt out (don't drive a car; walk. Or use a horse. Or take the train). So what's next? Congress mandates we all must drive hybrid cars? We all must install solar panels on our roofs? We all must buy CFLs or LED bulbs? Being forced to buy something you don't want to buy.
That my friend is the opposite of liberty. It's tyranny.
I see the EXACT same response from Democrats/liberals when I argue a 3-month-or-older human fetus should have the same right to life as a newborn/infant since they share similar traits. The left responds: "He's attacking our beliefs! Quick mod him down to - 1" The left-and-right are more alike in their kneejerk reactions than different.
Disagree Mr. AC. I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on. Even my old college professor believes in god, but that doesn't stop him from publishing peer-reviewed articles about superstrings and quarks and the inflationary period (the very basis of creation). Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs. (insert crickets chirping in the silence)
I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them. I am sick of tyrants bossing me around as if I was one of my ancestors. - Furthermore: Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor. Many scientists over the years have believed in God or a god, even as they were unravelling the mystery of evolution and cosmology.
(1) How do we stop the money? (2) And why should we bother? Spam is no more offensive than the spam I hear on the radio or TV.
I'm more worried about the war on nude photos. Did you her about the gay UK politician whose career was destroyed? They accused him of having nude children on his computer. They couldn't find anything but one image that "looked like" a teen but was later proved to be a 22 year old. (Guilty until proved innocent.) Then they tried to go after him for having gay images on his computer but of course that's not a crime.
The end result was the guy was fired from his job, received hate speech scrwled on his house, and now he's hiding. All because of the UK war on nude photos. (A war that also exists in Australia unfortunately.) Possession of an image, even if it's an actual murder scene, should not be a crime.
My TV's not high-def so that would be pointless. I just watch youtube, hulu, and netflix in standard def and they all work fine at 300 kbit/s. Furthermore we are discussing what people "need" to survive in the modern age..... they might need to download and watch the Cardassians or whatever. But they don't need HD to do it. (I would argue a higher priority would be to help the 6 billion humans that are living on less than $10 a week in tents of slums, rather than broadband for the already-rich Americans)
A company gets shutdown, but the demand for email advertising is still there, so other companies move-in to fill the need of customers. (Same thing happened with megaupload..... shutting it down didn't stop file sharing. It just showed the U.S. government is a lackey/hitman for the Hollywood megacorps. AKA fascist.)
>>>So they are far left and far right at the same time?
Both Fascism and Socialism have the same thing in common: A central authoritarian government. They also work very closely with corporations to set taxes, laws, and general policies (Mussolini said the proper term for fascism should really be "corporatism"). They are not on opposite sides of the spectrum..... they are right next to one another. Socialism is left and fascism is far left (but not as far left as communism).
On the right side is the small government philosophies like conservative (right), libertarian (far right) and anarchist (extreme right). NOTE: I'm describing the American system setup. I won't even attempt to understand Europe's 50 different parties.
>>>it was you guys who waded into Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much demanded the world follow along with you... I believe Bush famously said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists".
I detect a logical flaw with this sentence. We the People never said that.... it was Jackass Bush who said that. I've been opposed to the idea of war since Day 1 (9/11/2001). In fact I'm generally opposed to any war. The only war that is justified in my mind is one of self-defence (the enemy is either on your land, or about to invade your land).
>>>if you want to start disentangling yourselves from your allies, well, you might not find yourself with much support later.
That's okay. We need European goods & entertainment (i.e. open trade). We don't need European warfare..... you can keep it over there. Frankly we never should have involved ourselves in World War 1 which was a european war and should have remained a european war without the U.S. troops. You guys started the decimation of an entire lost generation; you can finish it. Alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because someone lives in an "urban" area does not mean they do city driving. I grew-up in an "urban" zone that was surrounded by farms and cows. It was labeled urban because it met the Census Bureau's minimum population density but it certainly wasn't a city.
And now I live in an "urban" zone again. I don't do any city driving (EPA City == frequent stop-and-go with short trips of less than 5 miles). I hop on the interstate or highway and drive almost non-stop (EPA's highway cycle). So do most Americans. The average commute far exceeds the 5 miles of the EPA's city test.
Your comment makes little sense. How could one person force 11 other people to vote his way? And what "send a message" are you talking about? A message about what?
Plus I'm not sure why you say it "failed" in this instance? Just because you don't like Apple and think they should lose their patent cases? That's no a valid reason..... in fact you gave no reasons at all. Just vague opinion that the decision was wrong, because you say it's wrong. How Christian of you.
A jury system is a "check" on the power of the government to enforce unjust laws. Basically weakens the ability of the government to just toss people into jail without opposition. (Unless they call it "indefinite detainment" under the NDAA.)
You must be new here:
This is a U.S. based website. My comment "There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg " refers to the U.S. market..... as does the original article.
>>>city driving, but that's where most people do most of their day-to-day driving.
Citation please. I don't go anywhere near a city for my commute, and neither do most people I know. In fact the average American drives almost 20 miles a day on an interstate or highway
>>>"non-renewable energy resource." Engineers..... GO!
Easy. We convert everybody's cars to using 100% renewable ethanol and biodiesel. There would be a rampant shortage of corn and soybeans and sugar to supply these fuels, which would drive gas prices over $10/gallon and food 5 times more expensive.
Congratulations on your solution. Hope you don't get your head chopped-off in the 2020 revolution. (Though you probably will.)
So even though Corporate Average Fuel Economy will go from 27 to 54, and therefore brand-new car consumption will be HALF current year models, you think the population will grow from 320 to 640 million and negate all the gains by 2025. Nonsense.
It would be more accurate to say:
Thirteen automakers realized the government wanted to mandate 10% of all cars be hydrogen fuel cells, so they proposed a raised CAFE limit as a compromise. The government agreed. The corporations will now spend the next 15 years trying to lower the CAFE standard, just as they spent 15 years lobbying CARB to eliminate the 10% ZEV requirement (and eventually won). Learn to think how the typical corporate manager thinks.
>>>Use electrons. Use hydrogen.
A car that burns energy is still polluting, regardless of its energy source.
>>> A civic hatchback with an 80hp 4banger. It was cheap, useful,
And would be illegal to be sold, because it wouldn't pass even the minimum LEV-2 standards. Those old cars got high MPG by generating lots of Nitric Oxides (which generate ozone/smog). They can't legally be sold anymore. That's why today the most efficient pure gasoline car is rated at 48 (old style score). It's has lower MPG because it's been tuned to be cleaner.
I fail to see the advantage of some future 70mpg car if I'm burning-up $200 a month recharging it with electricity.
All you've done is switch the country from pollution by gasoline to pollution by coal or natural gas. Plus you're not saving energy. It's still the same consumption level. I would be more impressed with a non-plugin car that actually squeezes 70 miles out of each gallon (like my insight or a Lupo TDI).
>>>You're arguing that it's legal to drive 80 in a 70.
Strawman argument. Not what I said. There are tons of places where it's legal (or at least unenforced) to drive +5 or 10 over the limit, and the cops won't ticket you.
>>> there will be so many more cars on the road than there are now
Not really. The Unied States' natural growth rate is essentially 0%. There will be a few more cars, but not enough to eliminate the benefits of raising CAFE from 27 to 54 (basically halving fuel consumption). Nice FUD.
>>>some alternatve fuel, one that doesnt just move the pollution and I will be happier.
Like what?
According to greenercars.org an EV car is no cleaner than your average Prius (and less clean than my SULEV Insight or an 80mpg Lupo). Maybe hydrogen? Problem there is they are really electric-powered too (the electric makes the hydrogen).
My insight's only 2000 pounds and gets very close to 90mpg (89.something). The 3000 pound Civic I testdrove using the same techniques scored over 60 mpg. That was the CVT version; the stick shift is probably better yet.
(Actual EPA ratings are 65 and 47 respectively.)
There are tons of places where it's legal (or at least unenforced) where you can drive 80. I recently drove all the way across the country and I was doing 80 in every state that had 70 or 75mph limits (about half of them).
Yeah I don't see how they will do it. There's not a single car for sale that gets 54mpg on the highway. And since this is an average it means they have to sell several 75-80mpg cars to offset the low 35-40mpg SUVs. Not even my two-seat Insight scored that high (current rating is 64).
I bet like the CARB requirement for 10% ZEVs (electric cars) by the year 2010, this new 54mpg standard will eventually be eliminated or modified. (The ZEV requirement was changed to gasoline SULEVs that have 150,000 mile catalytic converters. So still no electric cars.)
On the other hand maybe we'll see more cars imported from Europe. They used to have a car that scored 80mpg on the highway. They still have versions that get 65mpg.
Bill Nye is in a position to get laws passed that favor his viewpoint (force children to abandon god, allah, yahweh, Reincarnation, etc). He's not a tyrant himself but he's friends with those who are tyrants in the CA Legislature and Congress. As for why I'm "tired" of being bossed around?
Mainly because I'm tired of people telling what to do. "Don't smoke weed". Really? Who the hell am I hurting if I'm just sitting here watching Star Trek? If I am DUI then sure: Arrest me and throw me in jail with the alcohol drunks, but not when I'm just sitting at home not hurting anybody.
And what's the deal with forcing me to buy hospital insurance. At least with car insurance I can opt out (don't drive a car; walk. Or use a horse. Or take the train). So what's next? Congress mandates we all must drive hybrid cars? We all must install solar panels on our roofs? We all must buy CFLs or LED bulbs? Being forced to buy something you don't want to buy.
That my friend is the opposite of liberty. It's tyranny.
I see the EXACT same response from Democrats/liberals when I argue a 3-month-or-older human fetus should have the same right to life as a newborn/infant since they share similar traits. The left responds: "He's attacking our beliefs! Quick mod him down to - 1" The left-and-right are more alike in their kneejerk reactions than different.
Disagree Mr. AC. I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on. Even my old college professor believes in god, but that doesn't stop him from publishing peer-reviewed articles about superstrings and quarks and the inflationary period (the very basis of creation). Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs. (insert crickets chirping in the silence)
I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them. I am sick of tyrants bossing me around as if I was one of my ancestors. - Furthermore: Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor. Many scientists over the years have believed in God or a god, even as they were unravelling the mystery of evolution and cosmology.
(1) How do we stop the money? (2) And why should we bother? Spam is no more offensive than the spam I hear on the radio or TV.
I'm more worried about the war on nude photos. Did you her about the gay UK politician whose career was destroyed? They accused him of having nude children on his computer. They couldn't find anything but one image that "looked like" a teen but was later proved to be a 22 year old. (Guilty until proved innocent.) Then they tried to go after him for having gay images on his computer but of course that's not a crime.
The end result was the guy was fired from his job, received hate speech scrwled on his house, and now he's hiding. All because of the UK war on nude photos. (A war that also exists in Australia unfortunately.) Possession of an image, even if it's an actual murder scene, should not be a crime.
>>>Netflix HD. Yes, the HD is required.
My TV's not high-def so that would be pointless. I just watch youtube, hulu, and netflix in standard def and they all work fine at 300 kbit/s. Furthermore we are discussing what people "need" to survive in the modern age..... they might need to download and watch the Cardassians or whatever. But they don't need HD to do it. (I would argue a higher priority would be to help the 6 billion humans that are living on less than $10 a week in tents of slums, rather than broadband for the already-rich Americans)
A company gets shutdown, but the demand for email advertising is still there, so other companies move-in to fill the need of customers. (Same thing happened with megaupload..... shutting it down didn't stop file sharing. It just showed the U.S. government is a lackey/hitman for the Hollywood megacorps. AKA fascist.)
>>>So they are far left and far right at the same time?
Both Fascism and Socialism have the same thing in common: A central authoritarian government. They also work very closely with corporations to set taxes, laws, and general policies (Mussolini said the proper term for fascism should really be "corporatism"). They are not on opposite sides of the spectrum..... they are right next to one another. Socialism is left and fascism is far left (but not as far left as communism).
On the right side is the small government philosophies like conservative (right), libertarian (far right) and anarchist (extreme right). NOTE: I'm describing the American system setup. I won't even attempt to understand Europe's 50 different parties.
>>>it was you guys who waded into Iraq and Afghanistan and pretty much demanded the world follow along with you ... I believe Bush famously said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists".
I detect a logical flaw with this sentence. We the People never said that.... it was Jackass Bush who said that. I've been opposed to the idea of war since Day 1 (9/11/2001). In fact I'm generally opposed to any war. The only war that is justified in my mind is one of self-defence (the enemy is either on your land, or about to invade your land).
>>>if you want to start disentangling yourselves from your allies, well, you might not find yourself with much support later.
That's okay. We need European goods & entertainment (i.e. open trade). We don't need European warfare..... you can keep it over there. Frankly we never should have involved ourselves in World War 1 which was a european war and should have remained a european war without the U.S. troops. You guys started the decimation of an entire lost generation; you can finish it. Alone.