The only way your GTI gets 31 mpg is if the stoplight in question is at the top of the mountain and you coast the rest of the way down. Sheesh! You're not going by what you see while cruising on the highway up on the trip computer, right? (BTW, 'trip computers' are notoriously bad from what I've seen. If you go to forums for a particular car and look at what the trip computer folks are reporting, vs. the people who really measure, you can often see a 5-10 mpg difference, with the trip computer almost always reading high.) GTI's typically run in the 16-22 mpg range, depending on how driven and type of driving from what I've seen.
You're correct however, about the TDIs. Our Jetta TDI has averaged 34.58 mpg over about the last 1.5 years in mostly city driving (measured by filling the tank at the same station and pump most of the time, and recording the amount of fuel and distance traveled each time... not quite as accurate as some methods, but much better than the trip computer.... and over that long of time, it starts to become pretty accurate.) We've never really taken a true highway trip. The closest we came is a trip through the mountains where we got 41 mpg for a tank. I know the TDIs are capable of much better in true highway situations.
Yea... they are freaking expensive up here for sure. We paid ~$30k for our 2010 Jetta TDI, and it certainly wasn't loaded (Tiptronic and winter package, otherwise base model). The good news is that we got zero interest for 5.5 years and they seem to hold their value reasonably well.
We'd certainly have considered a used one (we tend to go used), except 2008 were the first year of the new Jetta's where we get some performance as well, and used ones under higher interest payments would actually cost more than the new one.
Yea, not only safety improvements, but also more power on most cars today. Back when I was just out of college, I bought my first sports car, which had like 140hp. The typical family car at the time was between like 80-120 hp. Now, most cars have more than my sports car did back then. Also, some day go back and look at the mileage for cars in the 70s and early 80s, especially the smaller imports.
If we hadn't loaded up on so much safety stuff, and added so much power to our cars, we'd get considerably better mileage. I'm not saying I'd make those tradeoffs... just pointing it out. Personally, I think we'll eventually see bio-fuels and electric cars take over that are going to have even more safety and performance, and then we won't have to worry so much about the economy aspect. (This assumes we generate the electricity in clean ways, have clean battery technology, create bio-fuels from microbes, etc. which I don't think are all that far away if we get at it.)
Subaru, in general, had pretty dismal mileage though.... so that makes that improvement easier IMO. I really wanted to get a Subaru (love the Impreza), but it didn't fit the fuel economy needs of the family. I might be able to look at them again now if I were in the market. We ended up getting a VW Jetta TDI, which other than AWD, IMO is kind of a best of all worlds. It has great mileage and good performance in it's class.
Given the 'scientific' stance on Intelligent Design, apparently science is incapable of distinguishing intelligence (agency) from natural process. If that is the case, then no matter the signal, it would be an aliens-of-the-gap inference if SETI ever claimed we did find something.
So, was that judge in Dover possibly wrong about his (well, it was spoon-fed to him, actually) definition of science? Or, has SETI entering the territory of religion? I'll leave it up to the wise folks here on Slashdot to decide.;)
The problem isn't finding water... it's plentiful. The problem is more likely (if it has water) finding a planet with so little water as earth. That said, the term being used in the media so much lately, 'earth like', is a pretty big stretch. It would be kind of like calling me 'Michael Jordan-like', as I'm male and taller than some. No doubt we'll eventually find (as challenging as it might seem) another planet about Earth's size, orbiting a sun similar to our own, about about the right distance. Then we'll have to start looking for the hundreds of other criteria necessary to start considering if life might be there, let alone advanced life.
Actually, I need to take back some of what I said above... one of my friends 'schooled' me a bit more on it (I was operating on a kind of old model).
There is really no 'cost per GB' of data... that is only a) a way one could sort of estimate things if one were to assume the network maxed out, or b) propaganda by the industry. In actuality, you have a network... which has X bandwidth and costs Y to implement and Z to maintain. Everyone pays for bandwidth (or a slice of the total). ISPs have 'peering' arrangements between one another, as it is mutually beneficial for them to be connected together. ISP A basically signs an agreement with ISP B to form a connection for their mutual benefit. Smaller ISPs peer with each other and become a 'network' worth peering with a larger ISP.
The problem with my model above, as he pointed out, is that it will ultimately not benefit everyone (even the ISPs). If you charge per/GB... then people will reduce what they do (at least all the budget minded ones) and less advancement of content will happen... needing less Internet... vicious circle. What most of these ISPs are really upset about, is not that people are watching too much Netflix (if Netflix didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't buy their services), but that THEY aren't the ones collecting that fee Netflix is charging you.
Either way... as a point of comparison... if you lived in an urban area in Europe, you could probably get a fibre based 100 MB connection, with your phone, and TV all for about $45/mo. The US and Canada are so far behind this it is utterly ridiculous. So, while my proposal above would be a price break for North American users, it is still WAY too generous to the ISPs.
Sorry folks... I tried to interact with many of your points/posts... but I can't get to them all. Add to that, that while I was in the process of discussing this, Slashdot cut me off on my # of posts, so I think I need to give up on this thread.
If anyone wants to seriously** continue the discussion with me, you're welcome to contact me through my site @ TilledSoil.org (there is a form on the about page).
** - by seriously, I mean you've actually put some thought into this, and hopefully have done a bit of research on it too. (I mean... someone actually tried the Horus/Jesus comparison thing! Sheesh. That's about the intellectual level of having your PhD dissertation filled with National Enquirer references.)
I'm completely fine with this.... IF their pricing is based on some reasonable profit margin over their costs. The figure I've heard is around $0.03 / GB of data (or less is their cost), plus some reasonable monthly fee. So, let's say $10-20/mo is a reasonable monthly fee. Let's also say I use 100 GB of data, and that 100% profit on that data is a reasonable markup. My bill would be.... (on the high end)... $26. OK, so now I'll go a bit more crazy the next month and use 500 GB of data. My bill... $50. While I use NO WHERE NEAR 500 GB of data, my bill is higher than that $50 currently, and WAY over the $26 (and I typically don't even hit 100 GB). So, lets say someone uses 1 TB. The bill... $80.
Of course, then we could start asking what that $20/mo is being charged for (if all the costs are already included in the $0.03/GB). And if they are charging $20 before the data, they certainly don't need 100% markup on the data. Of course, if there were any real competition in the industry, these prices would work themselves out down into these kinds of prices and lower.
Hey, my claim is that I'm created in the image of God (a personal agent)... not the product of randomly bouncing atoms. I'd say the duty rests on the one making the impossible claim. We can argue about whether or not I can prove my view, but at least it is plausible.
"we inch ever so closer to that every day with each study on how the human brain functions" The brain isn't the mind. The brain is like a RAM chip, it's the program I'm talking about.
"Logic itself cannot describe our entire being" Logic exists apart from human beings... which essentially proves theism (ie: disproves atheism... which leaves theism).
"assertion that there's an afterlife," etc. Why isn't that plausible?
"the assertion that a diety can and did directly interact with the world, but currently does not" Who claims that?
"the fact that good things happen to bad people while bad things happen to good people" Why would we not expect that... the Bible says this will be the case. (see Job for example)
"the fact that any "representative" does not hold any additional powers greater than a normal human being" Not true.
"the fact that there exists multiple religions" What does that have to do with it? We'd expect that given the Christian worldview.
"If said diety was indeed omnipotent, then there wouldn't be other religions at all" Why?
"And the one I abhor the most: anti-intellectualism." Me too.... note though, many of the smartest people that ever lived (and live today) are Christians... hmm.
"And what are the benefits?" Oh, I don't know... science, hospitals, the education system, women's rights, abolition of slavery...;) Me thinks you need a history course or two.
Or, maybe in some cases, he's letting us have our just deserts. Why do you think God owes you (or anyone) to step in and fix our mess? (That said, I actually think He did.)
Very true. But unlike lightening... there can't be a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, free choice, reason, logic, or information. It would be a category error. Let me make this a bit more simple.... naturalism (materialism) = determinism = this conversation isn't real. You and I are not conscious, freely thinking, reasoning, using logic, or typing out information. We're merely acting out some what some combination of atoms happened to produce.
"Strange loop. Self-referential pattern." Atheism not only can't explain it, but it isn't possible for it to do so... that's the problem.
"So maybe you can't get to religion through logic." Well, one could argue that you can't avoid religion BECAUSE of logic.
"Off the top of my head: TV preachers. Hucksters..." What do those have to do several of those have to do with Christianity? Do you understand Biblical inerrancy? How about ID? Would you like to discuss any one of them? I'm game.
But, what does that have to do with being anti-religious? That we can better explain our world will only confirm or refute some segment of religious claims. If a religion is true, the advancement of science will strengthen it (as, I'd argue, is the case with Christianity).
I guess my question was more in regard to why. Is there something in the modern era that would make religion any less credible? The only actual trend I see which might do so is post-modernism, which is self-contradictory (so, should be ignored).
It would only be censorship, then, within Sam's Club. Should I complain about censorship because McDonald's refuses to sell me a flame-broiled burger? A little common sense here folks, please?
"I figure that if one has the position that accepting things on faith..." I think you need to define faith. Here is my definition and explanation: http://www.tilledsoil.org/category/topics/faith-topics/ To put it simply, faith is trust based on evidence.
re: Egypt - I'm not so convinced we'd have much archeological evidence (or at least evidence we could come down on one side or the other concerning the actual plagues). There is evidence for the Exodus itself. Another thing to remember is context. When the Bible says 'in all the land of Egypt', that doesn't necessarily mean what the literal reading might indicate. For example, the Bible said the flood covered the whole earth, or that all Israel was at temple celebrations, or that all the Canaanites were wiped out, etc. This last one might give us an interpretive key, as obviously, if we encounter Canaanites later on, they weren't all wiped out. When the Bible speaks in this way (common to other writings of the time), it generally means 'effectively all' rather than 'absolutely all'. For example, the flood did wipe out the whole earth of humanity (the purpose), or the Canaanites were conquered by Israel.
re: population - I'm not well studied on that point, but my understanding is that there is a textual-critical issue, with most scholars agreeing on what you find in most Biblical translations. I'm just pointing out that the number is possibly in error, not arguing that it actually is. (ie: I won't die on that hill, nor consider the account inaccurate should we find the scale less than that number). Either way, I'm not sure we can archeologically rule it out based on that number.
re; ebonmusings.org article - A bit over the top. For example, "every firstborn son in all of Egypt died (11:5), wiping out an entire generation of people". If you kill the firstborn of most ancient families, it certainly won't wipe out an entire generation. Most of the rest is problematic due to an overly-wooden reading of the account.
You probably should have read my post... but to repeat again and again... Explain consciousness from the atheistic worldview... or how reason, logic, and information come from matter. (and those are just a start)
To put it more simply, atheism as a worldview does't match reality as well as Christianity (by quite a bit).
"I'm curious - how do you 'rule out' religions?" You put their claims to the test. Is the universe eternal? Nope... there goes most Eastern religions. Is Mormonism even slightly historically accurate. Nope... not looking good. Was Joseph Smith a credible character... Nope... looking worse, etc. Did the author brag about making up a religion and his prophecies fail to come true? Yep... there goes Scientology.
For some, it will be really simple. For others, it is more of a circumstantial case on a huge number of factors.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way your GTI gets 31 mpg is if the stoplight in question is at the top of the mountain and you coast the rest of the way down. Sheesh! You're not going by what you see while cruising on the highway up on the trip computer, right? (BTW, 'trip computers' are notoriously bad from what I've seen. If you go to forums for a particular car and look at what the trip computer folks are reporting, vs. the people who really measure, you can often see a 5-10 mpg difference, with the trip computer almost always reading high.) GTI's typically run in the 16-22 mpg range, depending on how driven and type of driving from what I've seen.
You're correct however, about the TDIs. Our Jetta TDI has averaged 34.58 mpg over about the last 1.5 years in mostly city driving (measured by filling the tank at the same station and pump most of the time, and recording the amount of fuel and distance traveled each time... not quite as accurate as some methods, but much better than the trip computer.... and over that long of time, it starts to become pretty accurate.) We've never really taken a true highway trip. The closest we came is a trip through the mountains where we got 41 mpg for a tank. I know the TDIs are capable of much better in true highway situations.
Yea... they are freaking expensive up here for sure. We paid ~$30k for our 2010 Jetta TDI, and it certainly wasn't loaded (Tiptronic and winter package, otherwise base model). The good news is that we got zero interest for 5.5 years and they seem to hold their value reasonably well.
We'd certainly have considered a used one (we tend to go used), except 2008 were the first year of the new Jetta's where we get some performance as well, and used ones under higher interest payments would actually cost more than the new one.
Yea, not only safety improvements, but also more power on most cars today. Back when I was just out of college, I bought my first sports car, which had like 140hp. The typical family car at the time was between like 80-120 hp. Now, most cars have more than my sports car did back then. Also, some day go back and look at the mileage for cars in the 70s and early 80s, especially the smaller imports.
If we hadn't loaded up on so much safety stuff, and added so much power to our cars, we'd get considerably better mileage. I'm not saying I'd make those tradeoffs... just pointing it out. Personally, I think we'll eventually see bio-fuels and electric cars take over that are going to have even more safety and performance, and then we won't have to worry so much about the economy aspect. (This assumes we generate the electricity in clean ways, have clean battery technology, create bio-fuels from microbes, etc. which I don't think are all that far away if we get at it.)
Subaru, in general, had pretty dismal mileage though.... so that makes that improvement easier IMO. I really wanted to get a Subaru (love the Impreza), but it didn't fit the fuel economy needs of the family. I might be able to look at them again now if I were in the market. We ended up getting a VW Jetta TDI, which other than AWD, IMO is kind of a best of all worlds. It has great mileage and good performance in it's class.
Given the 'scientific' stance on Intelligent Design, apparently science is incapable of distinguishing intelligence (agency) from natural process. If that is the case, then no matter the signal, it would be an aliens-of-the-gap inference if SETI ever claimed we did find something.
So, was that judge in Dover possibly wrong about his (well, it was spoon-fed to him, actually) definition of science? Or, has SETI entering the territory of religion? I'll leave it up to the wise folks here on Slashdot to decide. ;)
The problem isn't finding water... it's plentiful. The problem is more likely (if it has water) finding a planet with so little water as earth.
That said, the term being used in the media so much lately, 'earth like', is a pretty big stretch. It would be kind of like calling me 'Michael Jordan-like', as I'm male and taller than some. No doubt we'll eventually find (as challenging as it might seem) another planet about Earth's size, orbiting a sun similar to our own, about about the right distance. Then we'll have to start looking for the hundreds of other criteria necessary to start considering if life might be there, let alone advanced life.
Actually, I need to take back some of what I said above... one of my friends 'schooled' me a bit more on it (I was operating on a kind of old model).
There is really no 'cost per GB' of data... that is only a) a way one could sort of estimate things if one were to assume the network maxed out, or b) propaganda by the industry. In actuality, you have a network... which has X bandwidth and costs Y to implement and Z to maintain. Everyone pays for bandwidth (or a slice of the total). ISPs have 'peering' arrangements between one another, as it is mutually beneficial for them to be connected together. ISP A basically signs an agreement with ISP B to form a connection for their mutual benefit. Smaller ISPs peer with each other and become a 'network' worth peering with a larger ISP.
The problem with my model above, as he pointed out, is that it will ultimately not benefit everyone (even the ISPs). If you charge per/GB... then people will reduce what they do (at least all the budget minded ones) and less advancement of content will happen... needing less Internet... vicious circle. What most of these ISPs are really upset about, is not that people are watching too much Netflix (if Netflix didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't buy their services), but that THEY aren't the ones collecting that fee Netflix is charging you.
Either way... as a point of comparison... if you lived in an urban area in Europe, you could probably get a fibre based 100 MB connection, with your phone, and TV all for about $45/mo. The US and Canada are so far behind this it is utterly ridiculous. So, while my proposal above would be a price break for North American users, it is still WAY too generous to the ISPs.
How so?
No, I think the mess started in Genesis 3.... and it wasn't God.
Sorry folks... I tried to interact with many of your points/posts... but I can't get to them all. Add to that, that while I was in the process of discussing this, Slashdot cut me off on my # of posts, so I think I need to give up on this thread.
If anyone wants to seriously** continue the discussion with me, you're welcome to contact me through my site @ TilledSoil.org (there is a form on the about page).
** - by seriously, I mean you've actually put some thought into this, and hopefully have done a bit of research on it too. (I mean... someone actually tried the Horus/Jesus comparison thing! Sheesh. That's about the intellectual level of having your PhD dissertation filled with National Enquirer references.)
I'm completely fine with this.... IF their pricing is based on some reasonable profit margin over their costs. The figure I've heard is around $0.03 / GB of data (or less is their cost), plus some reasonable monthly fee. So, let's say $10-20/mo is a reasonable monthly fee. Let's also say I use 100 GB of data, and that 100% profit on that data is a reasonable markup. My bill would be.... (on the high end)... $26. OK, so now I'll go a bit more crazy the next month and use 500 GB of data. My bill... $50. While I use NO WHERE NEAR 500 GB of data, my bill is higher than that $50 currently, and WAY over the $26 (and I typically don't even hit 100 GB). So, lets say someone uses 1 TB. The bill... $80.
Of course, then we could start asking what that $20/mo is being charged for (if all the costs are already included in the $0.03/GB). And if they are charging $20 before the data, they certainly don't need 100% markup on the data. Of course, if there were any real competition in the industry, these prices would work themselves out down into these kinds of prices and lower.
Hey, my claim is that I'm created in the image of God (a personal agent)... not the product of randomly bouncing atoms. I'd say the duty rests on the one making the impossible claim. We can argue about whether or not I can prove my view, but at least it is plausible.
"we inch ever so closer to that every day with each study on how the human brain functions"
The brain isn't the mind. The brain is like a RAM chip, it's the program I'm talking about.
"Logic itself cannot describe our entire being"
Logic exists apart from human beings... which essentially proves theism (ie: disproves atheism... which leaves theism).
"assertion that there's an afterlife," etc.
Why isn't that plausible?
"the assertion that a diety can and did directly interact with the world, but currently does not"
Who claims that?
"the fact that good things happen to bad people while bad things happen to good people"
Why would we not expect that... the Bible says this will be the case. (see Job for example)
"the fact that any "representative" does not hold any additional powers greater than a normal human being"
Not true.
"the fact that there exists multiple religions"
What does that have to do with it? We'd expect that given the Christian worldview.
"If said diety was indeed omnipotent, then there wouldn't be other religions at all"
Why?
"And the one I abhor the most: anti-intellectualism."
Me too.... note though, many of the smartest people that ever lived (and live today) are Christians... hmm.
"And what are the benefits?" ;) Me thinks you need a history course or two.
Oh, I don't know... science, hospitals, the education system, women's rights, abolition of slavery...
Or, maybe in some cases, he's letting us have our just deserts. Why do you think God owes you (or anyone) to step in and fix our mess? (That said, I actually think He did.)
Christianity and Christians are two different things. Christianity could be true if there weren't a single true Christian.
Very true. But unlike lightening... there can't be a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, free choice, reason, logic, or information. It would be a category error.
Let me make this a bit more simple.... naturalism (materialism) = determinism = this conversation isn't real. You and I are not conscious, freely thinking, reasoning, using logic, or typing out information. We're merely acting out some what some combination of atoms happened to produce.
"Strange loop. Self-referential pattern."
Atheism not only can't explain it, but it isn't possible for it to do so... that's the problem.
"So maybe you can't get to religion through logic."
Well, one could argue that you can't avoid religion BECAUSE of logic.
"Off the top of my head: TV preachers. Hucksters ..."
What do those have to do several of those have to do with Christianity?
Do you understand Biblical inerrancy? How about ID?
Would you like to discuss any one of them? I'm game.
How about the Big Bang or Christ's resurrection? (physical phenomena best explained by supernatural causes)
But, what does that have to do with being anti-religious? That we can better explain our world will only confirm or refute some segment of religious claims. If a religion is true, the advancement of science will strengthen it (as, I'd argue, is the case with Christianity).
I guess my question was more in regard to why. Is there something in the modern era that would make religion any less credible? The only actual trend I see which might do so is post-modernism, which is self-contradictory (so, should be ignored).
It would only be censorship, then, within Sam's Club. Should I complain about censorship because McDonald's refuses to sell me a flame-broiled burger? A little common sense here folks, please?
"I figure that if one has the position that accepting things on faith..."
I think you need to define faith. Here is my definition and explanation:
http://www.tilledsoil.org/category/topics/faith-topics/
To put it simply, faith is trust based on evidence.
re: Egypt -
I'm not so convinced we'd have much archeological evidence (or at least evidence we could come down on one side or the other concerning the actual plagues). There is evidence for the Exodus itself. Another thing to remember is context. When the Bible says 'in all the land of Egypt', that doesn't necessarily mean what the literal reading might indicate. For example, the Bible said the flood covered the whole earth, or that all Israel was at temple celebrations, or that all the Canaanites were wiped out, etc. This last one might give us an interpretive key, as obviously, if we encounter Canaanites later on, they weren't all wiped out. When the Bible speaks in this way (common to other writings of the time), it generally means 'effectively all' rather than 'absolutely all'. For example, the flood did wipe out the whole earth of humanity (the purpose), or the Canaanites were conquered by Israel.
re: population -
I'm not well studied on that point, but my understanding is that there is a textual-critical issue, with most scholars agreeing on what you find in most Biblical translations. I'm just pointing out that the number is possibly in error, not arguing that it actually is. (ie: I won't die on that hill, nor consider the account inaccurate should we find the scale less than that number). Either way, I'm not sure we can archeologically rule it out based on that number.
re; ebonmusings.org article -
A bit over the top. For example, "every firstborn son in all of Egypt died (11:5), wiping out an entire generation of people". If you kill the firstborn of most ancient families, it certainly won't wipe out an entire generation. Most of the rest is problematic due to an overly-wooden reading of the account.
In this field, that info is a bit old.
Also, many now disagree with Finkelstein.
You probably should have read my post... but to repeat again and again...
Explain consciousness from the atheistic worldview... or how reason, logic, and information come from matter. (and those are just a start)
To put it more simply, atheism as a worldview does't match reality as well as Christianity (by quite a bit).
"I'm curious - how do you 'rule out' religions?"
You put their claims to the test. Is the universe eternal? Nope... there goes most Eastern religions. Is Mormonism even slightly historically accurate. Nope... not looking good. Was Joseph Smith a credible character... Nope... looking worse, etc. Did the author brag about making up a religion and his prophecies fail to come true? Yep... there goes Scientology.
For some, it will be really simple. For others, it is more of a circumstantial case on a huge number of factors.