Your problem here is that I am not an authoritarian. I'm not inclined to wear funny armbands and tell everybody else what they're supposed to do. I would allow people to turn off their telescreens, or not have one at all if they so desire.
Every bit of meddling comes with unintended consequences. A while back they started enforcing mileage standards, and many died as cars were made lighter and less safe before the technology was available to make them safer. Later they mandated airbags, and many died with broken necks as the bags exploded in their faces.
How about this: Whatever you propose, I propose having a logic bomb in your bank. The second someone slips into poverty because of your policy, all of your funds are withdrawn, your car is repossessed and your home is foreclosed.
We'll also have a loaded gun pointed at your head 24/7. The very second someone dies because of your policy, the trigger gets pulled.
If any of them do actually believe in small government, that belief is usually subordinate to pandering, enforcing religious morality and paying back their campaign contributors.
You're even moreso stupid, ignorant or blindingly loyal.
For example, who do you think pushes most of the copyright legislation to restrict our freedoms for the purpose of enriching and expanding the power of the MAFIAA? Yes, mostly Democrats.
I don't mean I like them, but they are just so far out insane crazy whacked-out liberal that they provide entertainment value, like Wasserman Shultz and Jackson Lee.
But there is a copyright enforcement angle. Republican dinosaur Howard Coble is a MAFIAA butt-buddy, and a cosponsor. I'd also be very suprised if the wholly-owned Democratic MAFIAA subsidiary known as Howard Berman didn't vote for it.
No nobody could actually have problems with the theory or the huge political movement pushing it. They must be purely selfish!
I have problems with them. I've never owned a V8. I've never even considered buying a V8. I was looking to buy a sports car, and was disgusted that Chevy only gave the real sports package with the V8, nothing smaller, on what I was looking at. I went with another manufacuter with an engine less than half the size.
I've driven vehicles with V8s before and even a 14-liter straight 6, but they had to haul heavy stuff, thus the reason for the big diesels. Or maybe you think I should have been pulling a 30 kW diesel generator with a Prius?
Extra weight to meet safety requirements (and not all were met, so it should weigh more, but it got a waiver), and the original very light Rover engine didn't meet US emissions specs, replaced by a much heavier Toyota engine.
You have larger size for a reason, to put more into it. If you put more into it, that means more weight, unless you ship balloons or teddy bears around. More weight means more strength in the vehicle to handle that weight. You achieve more strength by either using more of your same material, adding weight to the car, or by using more exotic materials, which makes the car too expensive to buy.
I'm all for reducing government meddling (like repealing drug laws),
It is normal for people to perceive regulation they personally don't like as meddling, and all other regulation as helpful. The problem is, others see it quite differently than you. Your reasonable regulation is another person's meddling that could cost him his livelihood.
Moving the goalposts, people then claimed it was impossible to make an effective laundry detergent without phosphates. Yet here we sit with clean clothes and clean groundwater.
I tried a suggestion once, put a little sodium triphosphate in my laundry along with the soap. WOW! I haven't seen clothes that clean since I was a kid, and phosphates were allowed. Turns out the alternatives are not quite as good. After regulation we've simply changed our standard for "clean" to something not quite so clean.
Phosphates don't "dirty" groundwater as a pollutant in themselves. They are not toxic, mutagenic or carcinogenic. They are simply a fertilizer, and thus can promote algae growth to the extent that local bodies of water can't handle if they are not filtered or neutralized before being allowed back into the environment.
The only thing stopping progress is big business, big money and entrenched interests.
One of those entrenched interests being government. Politicians can make careers on feel-good demagoguery.
Every car has its optimum speed for conditions. In general, a very aerodynamic gas-powered car will likely get better mileage at 70 mph than at 50 mph, especially if you're using the air conditioning. Now, these aerodynamic bricks we call SUVs, same story, just lower speeds all around.
Around here there is practically no public transportation, and to build it would be impractical (not enough people to support the massive investment). Almost everybody has to drive to work, many of them not all that well off, and many of them not financially capable of buying a new ultra-efficient car.
Basically you propose a regressive tax, taxing the poor far more heavily than the rich in proportion to income. That rich dentist in town can still afford his 10 mpg Hummer H1. The extra several hundred dollars a month in gas is a drop in the bucket for him, but the thousands of people with their financial heads barely above water can't afford the extra couple hundred their cheap old cars will cost them to run.
Aluminum frame, fiberglass body, 1,650 pounds, under $30,000. It also got great gas mileage for a sports car that could do 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.
Wel, that was the first European version, before they redesigned the second generation to meet US federal regulations. Now it's over 2,000 pounds and costs over $40,000, and it's still operating on a federal waiver.
How about this: Lower regulations so manufacturers have a fighting chance at building efficient, affordable cars.
Starting in the 80's American freedoms and liberties started taking a backseat to corporate profits.
Don't forget the War on Drugs and the expansion of the ATF. Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't about corporate profits.
From 80-00 It was a slow decline but from 00-08 it was pretty much a raging plummet
I notice how carefully you selected your beginning and supposed end dates for the plummet. It's still plummeting under Obama. He doesn't get a pass. If you believed his "hope and change" rhetoric during the campaign, you were gullible. If you still believe it you're just an idiot.
I make the mistake too sometimes. I know the concepts, I just rarely have need to use the abbreviations, and don't always bother to look them up.
OTOH, the very idea of superconducting coils in an airplane sounds like quite the flight of fancy. Even if it worked, I wonder about charging them at the airport in any reasonable amount of time. An average 747 carries around 150,000 kg of fuel. Jet A has 42.80 MJ/kg, so we need 6,420,000 MJ to fuel up equivalently.
Since 3,600 MJ = 1 MWh, we need 1,783 MWh to fuel a plane. That's an entire gigawatt power plant running for almost two hours just to fuel one aircraft.
If you wanted the ability to fuel just five aircraft at a time, that's more power output than all but the the three largest dams in the world. To fuel just three at a time you need the world's largest coal or fuel power plants, or a top 10 nuclear plant.
Slashdot Mirror
And some extreme Republicans against it.
When it comes to screwing the people, bipartisanship is always in season.
I'll pull it with a Nissan Leaf. I can keep the generator running and plugged into the Leaf so I'll have enough power.
OTOH, that's not far from reality. Nissan had diesel trucks with large diesel generators on the back to charge the Leafs used for promos.
It worked for FDR. Bush tried it, didn't work.
Your problem here is that I am not an authoritarian. I'm not inclined to wear funny armbands and tell everybody else what they're supposed to do. I would allow people to turn off their telescreens, or not have one at all if they so desire.
Every bit of meddling comes with unintended consequences. A while back they started enforcing mileage standards, and many died as cars were made lighter and less safe before the technology was available to make them safer. Later they mandated airbags, and many died with broken necks as the bags exploded in their faces.
How about this: Whatever you propose, I propose having a logic bomb in your bank. The second someone slips into poverty because of your policy, all of your funds are withdrawn, your car is repossessed and your home is foreclosed.
We'll also have a loaded gun pointed at your head 24/7. The very second someone dies because of your policy, the trigger gets pulled.
Still feel like meddlling?
If any of them do actually believe in small government, that belief is usually subordinate to pandering, enforcing religious morality and paying back their campaign contributors.
You're even moreso stupid, ignorant or blindingly loyal.
For example, who do you think pushes most of the copyright legislation to restrict our freedoms for the purpose of enriching and expanding the power of the MAFIAA? Yes, mostly Democrats.
Anyone who claims tea party affiliation and votes for this is the hypocrite.
There are enough big-government authoritarian Democrats there to pass it too.
I want to know why you would like to make it worse.
I don't mean I like them, but they are just so far out insane crazy whacked-out liberal that they provide entertainment value, like Wasserman Shultz and Jackson Lee.
But there is a copyright enforcement angle. Republican dinosaur Howard Coble is a MAFIAA butt-buddy, and a cosponsor. I'd also be very suprised if the wholly-owned Democratic MAFIAA subsidiary known as Howard Berman didn't vote for it.
No nobody could actually have problems with the theory or the huge political movement pushing it. They must be purely selfish!
I have problems with them. I've never owned a V8. I've never even considered buying a V8. I was looking to buy a sports car, and was disgusted that Chevy only gave the real sports package with the V8, nothing smaller, on what I was looking at. I went with another manufacuter with an engine less than half the size.
I've driven vehicles with V8s before and even a 14-liter straight 6, but they had to haul heavy stuff, thus the reason for the big diesels. Or maybe you think I should have been pulling a 30 kW diesel generator with a Prius?
Lightness allows for a relatively small engine, less fuel used.
Raise it by ten cents or double it, it's still a regressive tax, it WILL hurt the poor more than the rich.
But I take it you're not in the poor category, so why should you care?
Extra weight to meet safety requirements (and not all were met, so it should weigh more, but it got a waiver), and the original very light Rover engine didn't meet US emissions specs, replaced by a much heavier Toyota engine.
You have larger size for a reason, to put more into it. If you put more into it, that means more weight, unless you ship balloons or teddy bears around. More weight means more strength in the vehicle to handle that weight. You achieve more strength by either using more of your same material, adding weight to the car, or by using more exotic materials, which makes the car too expensive to buy.
It is normal for people to perceive regulation they personally don't like as meddling, and all other regulation as helpful. The problem is, others see it quite differently than you. Your reasonable regulation is another person's meddling that could cost him his livelihood.
I tried a suggestion once, put a little sodium triphosphate in my laundry along with the soap. WOW! I haven't seen clothes that clean since I was a kid, and phosphates were allowed. Turns out the alternatives are not quite as good. After regulation we've simply changed our standard for "clean" to something not quite so clean.
Phosphates don't "dirty" groundwater as a pollutant in themselves. They are not toxic, mutagenic or carcinogenic. They are simply a fertilizer, and thus can promote algae growth to the extent that local bodies of water can't handle if they are not filtered or neutralized before being allowed back into the environment.
One of those entrenched interests being government. Politicians can make careers on feel-good demagoguery.
Every car has its optimum speed for conditions. In general, a very aerodynamic gas-powered car will likely get better mileage at 70 mph than at 50 mph, especially if you're using the air conditioning. Now, these aerodynamic bricks we call SUVs, same story, just lower speeds all around.
Around here there is practically no public transportation, and to build it would be impractical (not enough people to support the massive investment). Almost everybody has to drive to work, many of them not all that well off, and many of them not financially capable of buying a new ultra-efficient car.
Basically you propose a regressive tax, taxing the poor far more heavily than the rich in proportion to income. That rich dentist in town can still afford his 10 mpg Hummer H1. The extra several hundred dollars a month in gas is a drop in the bucket for him, but the thousands of people with their financial heads barely above water can't afford the extra couple hundred their cheap old cars will cost them to run.
Aluminum frame, fiberglass body, 1,650 pounds, under $30,000. It also got great gas mileage for a sports car that could do 0-60 in 5.7 seconds.
Wel, that was the first European version, before they redesigned the second generation to meet US federal regulations. Now it's over 2,000 pounds and costs over $40,000, and it's still operating on a federal waiver.
How about this: Lower regulations so manufacturers have a fighting chance at building efficient, affordable cars.
Counselor for people with Tourette syndrome.
The DoD has a $19 billion space budget too.
This includes the GPS system, weather satellites and communications.
I keep hearing about gay rights, but I still don't see any violations.
He warned us about how parties would lead to the current situation in 1796.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address
Don't forget the War on Drugs and the expansion of the ATF. Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't about corporate profits.
I notice how carefully you selected your beginning and supposed end dates for the plummet. It's still plummeting under Obama. He doesn't get a pass. If you believed his "hope and change" rhetoric during the campaign, you were gullible. If you still believe it you're just an idiot.
I make the mistake too sometimes. I know the concepts, I just rarely have need to use the abbreviations, and don't always bother to look them up.
OTOH, the very idea of superconducting coils in an airplane sounds like quite the flight of fancy. Even if it worked, I wonder about charging them at the airport in any reasonable amount of time. An average 747 carries around 150,000 kg of fuel. Jet A has 42.80 MJ/kg, so we need 6,420,000 MJ to fuel up equivalently.
Since 3,600 MJ = 1 MWh, we need 1,783 MWh to fuel a plane. That's an entire gigawatt power plant running for almost two hours just to fuel one aircraft.
If you wanted the ability to fuel just five aircraft at a time, that's more power output than all but the the three largest dams in the world. To fuel just three at a time you need the world's largest coal or fuel power plants, or a top 10 nuclear plant.