True. My point was not so much that we shouldn't seek out improvements to technology, but that we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Everybody gets so focused on electric or hydrogen, when the truth is we already have viable technology that doesn't require a complete change of platform, as those do.
And when VW is making prototypes of hybrid diesel vehicles aiming at 90 mpg which actually get closer to 135 mpg, it becomes clear real quick that that is the way to go.
'Instead of the attitude that many have toward SUVs, why not make SUVs themselves efficient, instead self-righteously passing judgment against them, or making statements along the lines of "well, they don't NEED that vehicle, therefore they shouldn't have it"? '
While I agree with what you're saying as a whole, it should be noted that a lot of the dislike people (myself included) have towards SUVs is for reasons other than fuel economy. For example:
1) If you get hit by one, you are much more likely to get seriously hurt or killed than if you are hit by a sedan.
2) They take up a lot more parking space, which leads to frustration of those boxed in.
3) On the road, they are extremely hard to see through, over, or around. This diminishes the safety of those around SUVs.
4) Many drivers of SUVs feel empowered to a point that is not safe, eg speeding during snowy conditions, making unsafe passes, etc. They fail to realize than four-wheel drive doesn't do any good if none of the four wheels has traction.
But overall, I think you make a very good point about marketing environmentalism (something many environmentalists don't get).
3) Diesel fuel can be produced from non-fossil sources such as soy and corn (even hogfat!)
But aren't diesel engines dirty, you might ask? Not inherently. The problem is the quality of the fuel, specifically the level of sulfur. Here in the States, in less than a year the standard will reduce that nasty impurity by huge amount.
A whole lot of goodness, no? Plus, it is a way for our struggling farmers to increase demand for their products.
Why should people from halfway across the state have any say in how my city spends or doesn't spend its tax money? That's exactly what these bills do. If you want to debate whether it's a good use of tax money or not would seem to me something that should be argued on the level of government that would be doing the taxation.
By your reasoning, if presented with the question, "Does 2+2 equal 1 or purple?" We know that purple isn't a valid answer, so the answer must be 1. Maybe you should clean up your on fallacies before you start being a dick about other people's.
While I agree with the sentiment, the French didn't suffer the most in WW2. That honor (as measured by casualties and deaths) belongs to the Russians, who lost tens of millions of people due to poor supply management (ie they didn't have any) and the fact that Stalin didn't blink twice when it came to using his soldiers as cannon fodder. After the Russians, the Germans lost the most. Then it's the French.
Start rhyming, because your grasp on history leaves something to be desired. Reconstruction was a Republican program. It was misused at times, with Democrats being the ones on the short end of the stick.
And then there's the McCarthy era, also one of Republican excesses. Ditto the Nixon years, when they used the CIA to spy on american citizens.
I don't wish to imply that Democrats, or liberals, are blameless. In fact, during the reconstruction era, the Republican party was the liberal party. That didn't really start to change until the TR years.
However, I think the main point is that you are quite misguided if you think the GOP is less likely to misuse power than the Democrats.
Most likely, it would be taken as, "I only need to convince 5% to vote for me! Cool!"
Think about it. W just won the presidency without winning the popular vote (as provided by the constitution), yet he still acts as though he had a convincing mandate.
since both the house and the senate are republican controlled, partisan issues brought forth by a united republican party could be pushed through easily without fear of a veto.
This is true if and only if the Republicans march lockstep. I don't think that will be the case in the senate. I can think of three republican senators off the top of my head (Jeffords - VT, Snowe and Collins - ME) that tend to stick to the middle, even if it's not where their party is. That right there is enough to keep the extremists from pushing their agenda with no fear of reprisal.
Um... the senate has the power to "advise and consent", and the house of reps has nothing to do with it. The president does the selecting.
To use an anology, The prez sez "I want to have pizza for dinner tonight." The senate votes on whether they want pizza. They cannot say, "No, we're having fishsticks," because the president selected pizza, not fish.
Of course, this is all semantics. The point that the previous post was trying to make is that the president does have significant power to change the law of the land simply by getting the justices he wants onto the supreme court. The senate might not confirm (e.g. Robert Bork), but they can't nominate anyone themselves.
Why should this case be dropped at the federal level? This is clearly and issue of interstate commerce (MS has used the same business practices in multiple states, and their products are manufactured in Washington state and sold in every other state), which means it is a federal issue.
I didn't say anything about proselytization. I said that Judaism is considered by it's adherents to be the one true faith (at least in my studies and amongst the faithful jews I have spoken with). I certainly am not infallible, so if a practicing jew tells me I'm wrong and why, I will certain withdraw that part of my statement. However, the meat of my statement is only strengthened if I'm wrong.
The conversion ritual even has the question to non-Jew if (s)he is sure (s)he wants to convert, and this question is repeated 3 times.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you please clarify?
Judaism does not deny Heaven to people of the other faiths
To my understanding, it's not so much that Heaven isn't denied to other faiths as that there is no hell for those believers to go to. Once again, I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but an asthma inhaler is.
True. My point was not so much that we shouldn't seek out improvements to technology, but that we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Everybody gets so focused on electric or hydrogen, when the truth is we already have viable technology that doesn't require a complete change of platform, as those do.
And when VW is making prototypes of hybrid diesel vehicles aiming at 90 mpg which actually get closer to 135 mpg, it becomes clear real quick that that is the way to go.
'Instead of the attitude that many have toward SUVs, why not make SUVs themselves efficient, instead self-righteously passing judgment against them, or making statements along the lines of "well, they don't NEED that vehicle, therefore they shouldn't have it"? '
While I agree with what you're saying as a whole, it should be noted that a lot of the dislike people (myself included) have towards SUVs is for reasons other than fuel economy. For example:
1) If you get hit by one, you are much more likely to get seriously hurt or killed than if you are hit by a sedan.
2) They take up a lot more parking space, which leads to frustration of those boxed in.
3) On the road, they are extremely hard to see through, over, or around. This diminishes the safety of those around SUVs.
4) Many drivers of SUVs feel empowered to a point that is not safe, eg speeding during snowy conditions, making unsafe passes, etc. They fail to realize than four-wheel drive doesn't do any good if none of the four wheels has traction.
But overall, I think you make a very good point about marketing environmentalism (something many environmentalists don't get).
Let's get on with diesel. Why?
1) Better efficiency than gasoline
2) Longer engine life
3) Diesel fuel can be produced from non-fossil sources such as soy and corn (even hogfat!)
But aren't diesel engines dirty, you might ask? Not inherently. The problem is the quality of the fuel, specifically the level of sulfur. Here in the States, in less than a year the standard will reduce that nasty impurity by huge amount.
A whole lot of goodness, no? Plus, it is a way for our struggling farmers to increase demand for their products.
For more info:
http://www.biodiesel.org/
"At least it would teach us a lesson."
Yes: Never listen to you when it comes to money.
Why should people from halfway across the state have any say in how my city spends or doesn't spend its tax money? That's exactly what these bills do. If you want to debate whether it's a good use of tax money or not would seem to me something that should be argued on the level of government that would be doing the taxation.
I got it. If I had mod points, I'd definitely fritter one away here.
"This doesn't sound like it's too different than a wiretap or audio bug planted on something."
Those are two activities for which the police need A WARRANT!
By your reasoning, if presented with the question, "Does 2+2 equal 1 or purple?" We know that purple isn't a valid answer, so the answer must be 1. Maybe you should clean up your on fallacies before you start being a dick about other people's.
While I agree with the sentiment, the French didn't suffer the most in WW2. That honor (as measured by casualties and deaths) belongs to the Russians, who lost tens of millions of people due to poor supply management (ie they didn't have any) and the fact that Stalin didn't blink twice when it came to using his soldiers as cannon fodder. After the Russians, the Germans lost the most. Then it's the French.
Too bad they can't seem to put out a game with the polish and technology of something like "Far Cry".
Softhome.net does.
Yes, but I think the way they handled the Ballhog more than made up for it. Frito Lives!
Start rhyming, because your grasp on history leaves something to be desired. Reconstruction was a Republican program. It was misused at times, with Democrats being the ones on the short end of the stick.
And then there's the McCarthy era, also one of Republican excesses. Ditto the Nixon years, when they used the CIA to spy on american citizens.
I don't wish to imply that Democrats, or liberals, are blameless. In fact, during the reconstruction era, the Republican party was the liberal party. That didn't really start to change until the TR years.
However, I think the main point is that you are quite misguided if you think the GOP is less likely to misuse power than the Democrats.
And that message would be?
Most likely, it would be taken as, "I only need to convince 5% to vote for me! Cool!"
Think about it. W just won the presidency without winning the popular vote (as provided by the constitution), yet he still acts as though he had a convincing mandate.
MOD THIS UP!
since both the house and the senate are republican controlled, partisan issues brought forth by a united republican party could be pushed through easily without fear of a veto.
This is true if and only if the Republicans march lockstep. I don't think that will be the case in the senate. I can think of three republican senators off the top of my head (Jeffords - VT, Snowe and Collins - ME) that tend to stick to the middle, even if it's not where their party is. That right there is enough to keep the extremists from pushing their agenda with no fear of reprisal.
I got it, even if no one else did.
Um ... the senate has the power to "advise and consent", and the house of reps has nothing to do with it. The president does the selecting.
To use an anology, The prez sez "I want to have pizza for dinner tonight." The senate votes on whether they want pizza. They cannot say, "No, we're having fishsticks," because the president selected pizza, not fish.
Of course, this is all semantics. The point that the previous post was trying to make is that the president does have significant power to change the law of the land simply by getting the justices he wants onto the supreme court. The senate might not confirm (e.g. Robert Bork), but they can't nominate anyone themselves.
Maybe he's referring to those who use caustic alkaline cleaning materials.
Why should this case be dropped at the federal level? This is clearly and issue of interstate commerce (MS has used the same business practices in multiple states, and their products are manufactured in Washington state and sold in every other state), which means it is a federal issue.
...of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. He ran because none of the other candidates were doing anything to preserve wetlands within the city.
I'm Hindu! There are 800,000,000 of us!
I didn't say anything about proselytization. I said that Judaism is considered by it's adherents to be the one true faith (at least in my studies and amongst the faithful jews I have spoken with). I certainly am not infallible, so if a practicing jew tells me I'm wrong and why, I will certain withdraw that part of my statement. However, the meat of my statement is only strengthened if I'm wrong.
The conversion ritual even has the question to non-Jew if (s)he is sure (s)he wants to convert, and this question is repeated 3 times.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you please clarify?
Judaism does not deny Heaven to people of the other faiths
To my understanding, it's not so much that Heaven isn't denied to other faiths as that there is no hell for those believers to go to. Once again, I could be wrong.
Whoops! That subject line should read:
The ass that can be assed is not the true ass.