Except for they won't because thankfully most local governments are still responsible to their people.
This is especially true in rural areas were ironically government is the most democratic and the people are the most free.
In such settings you'll find that people aren't harassed by their government because that leads to them losing their jobs pretty much immediately.
Large cities get away with this because there are many factions in cities and politicians can play those factions off against each other to basically give NO ONE want they want simply by threatening every faction with the other side getting what they want. National politics does the same thing on a grander scale which is why we consistently get legislation that no one short of a few very small and very active interest groups wanted.
These rules aren't in place to make you safe. They're there so the national politicians can justify their funding support from various environmental lobbies. That's it.
And the net result of it like most things written for such a purpose is that at best it will have no impact on anything. At worst... we take one more step to our system of laws being just a lot of words backed up by people with guns that will shoot you if you disobey those words. It didn't start out that way but that's what its becoming. And when its finally arrived... there will be no morality in it. The law won't be right or wrong. It will be getting caught and not getting caught. And when that happens the police won't care about it either. Go to Mexico or any other country where the law doesn't have a moral meaning. Everyone is bribed.
In this case... you want a zoning permit or a wood burning stove? You slip the commissioner some sports tickets and get a permit.
That's what this sort of thing does. And you think the politicians mind? They like sports tickets. This works for them. They like it when people are so frustrated and jaded that they'll just give them money to get an exemption or permit. For them, that's mission accomplished.
The law requires that the government have control over the matter...
Do you know how easy it is to make a wood burning stove? I could make one. I've never made one before and yet I know I could make one pretty easily. They're not complicated.
How are you going to regulate that?
News flash... you can't. You might as well try to regulate what words someone can write down on a bit of paper in their pocket.
I believe I said something pretty clear about zoning, population density, etc.
Your argument ignores that and is thus invalid. Please address my point if you presume to contradict it. Otherwise your argument will be at best a strawman and thus have no value.
Conservatives also don't call themselves liberals.
Do they?
Words have meaning. If you call yourself a liberal and then don't make freedom a central part of your platform then you're using the wrong word.
Call yourself a "social safety netter" or something... I'm not saying you need to embrace terms like socialist that have a bad stigma and a lot of bad history. But you should at least use terms that actually have something to do with your beliefs.
Conservatives for example do believe in traditional US political and economic relationships. They want things to be like they were. That's what conservative means really.
So they're not misrepresenting themselves with that term.
Language. It either means something or you're just making animal noises.
I'd love to see what those standards are... because the current models require nothing but cleaning the silt out of them at intervals. That's it. You buy them and they will work pretty much for hundreds of years with nothing but an occasional cleaning to keep them operational.
Tell you what, sport... you come up with a stove you like that is that awesome and fine. Otherwise... these things last for hundreds of years and are resold all the time in manners you won't be able to regulate. Furthermore, building them is actually very simple.
Long story short... we aren't buying these things from china. You have no way of stopping the stoves if they're non-competitive.
Think of it like the smart trigger guards they tried to impose on people. Remember those? Yeah. No one bought them and it died hilariously.
In the vast majority of situations where people are using wood burning stoves you are talking about rural homes. The population density is so low that complaining about air quality is moronic... as in something a moron would complain about.
In urban settings? Sure... wood burning stoves are bad in urban environments. But people don't use wood burning stoves in urban environments... so mission accomplished.
You apparently don't know that in rural communities you won't see their house most of the time much less their roof.
Furthermore, who will report on them? The local Sheriff? They're elected by residents. So they're not reporting on people for anything that everyone does.
A good example would be marijuana cultivation in Humboldt county in California. Very rural area where everyone grows weed. They just plant it in the backyard. They have so much of it that they literally cannot sell it. Its worthless because everyone they know that wants weed grows their own. They just give it away. No really.
Do you think the Sheriff doesn't know about that? He does. He doesn't care. In fact, he probably does it himself.
That is what you're dealing with in rural communities. You pass STUPID laws that no one likes and they will be IGNORED because NO ONE will enforce them.
STUPID
IGNORED
NO ONE.
No offense. Just making the point clear. These are the sorts of communities that when alcohol was banned were brewing their own by the hundreds of gallons within a month.
You will NOT get them to follow any rule that the majority of them find unreasonable. Unless you want to station state troopers all over the place to inspect them. And have fun with that because they'll figure out your inspection schedule. Again, my uncle has all this brush and he actually has a lot more then he can burn in a wood stove. He has to burn literally tons of wood on a regular basis just to keep his property clear. Most of it is leaves, fallen branches, etc. Anyway, there are restrictions about if and when he can make bonfires. Guess what... Everyone in the community figures out when the park rangers and state troopers are inspecting... when they're gone... the fires burn.
You see the same thing with wild wolves and cattle ranchers. They made it illegal to kill wild wolves even if they were killing a rancher's cattle.
So ranchers don't kill the cattle. The wolves just disappear. The ranchers have no idea where the wolves went. Its a mystery.
Lying is fraud and would thus be a violation of consent.
Legalism from lawyers is only exploitable to the extent that the legal system permits it. Therefore that is entirely the ill of the government. Free of that, the lawyers would have no basis to make threats. It is only due to the over complexity and vagueness of the legal system that allows that to happen.
In any case, it all boils down to consent. Violence is not the only basis. Consent must be established.
The result will be the law is unenforceable and the government will look stupid for trying to pass the law.
At best you'll hurt communities that weren't causing a problem in the first place and annoy people that will find ways to make you pay for it.
So that is the result.
In short... it will backfire. Like prohibition and many other laws in the past that were ill considered.
You have excuses for it... and that's fine. People always make excuses for stupid ideas. It won't make any difference. Excuses are worthless. It will backfire. Rural communities will continue to use wood burning ovens. And you can actually just make them yourself. They're not complicated. You have no means to tax or stop it short of knocking on doors and you won't.
In US politics, liberal means socialist or some weak form of socialism.
The term originally did mean freedom but the modern "liberal" parties are only liberal in their approach to SOME social issues. Homosexuality for example is something most "liberals" are liberal about. But when it comes to economic policy, environmental policy, health policy, safety policy, etc they are not actually liberal. If they were liberal then they'd let people make their own choices and not impose government restrictions and edicts on everything.
Do not confuse liberty with anarchy. Freedom does not mean no government at all. The difference is between consensual action and non-consensual action.
For example, if I point a gun at someone's head and tell them to give me something that is something the government has a right and responsibility to act upon. However, if I talk to someone and ask them for something and they consensually provide it, then the government has no right to influence that situation unless its willing to breach individual rights.
Political distinctions address... On the subject of wood burning stoves, I think it all boils down to population density and the frequency of use. Banning wood burning stoves indifferent to zoning, population density, and frequency of use is actually pretty irrational. Do you really care if some guy in the mountains is using a wood burning stove in his cabin? Its not an environmental problem. Furthermore, what if you have a city with 10 million people in it and five people use wood burning stoves. Also not an environmental problem. Etc.
So for this law to be rational it has to take all of that into consideration rather then just blanketly banning their use. Banning them entirely is actually a really bad idea for a few reasons. One, many people will simply not follow the law and there is no means to actually enforce it. You're not going to inspect kitchens in rural house holds. Which means you've created a law that will not be followed which will then undermine all other laws. You're making people feel comfortable breaking the law. Because once everyone breaks one law they become more comfortable breaking others. And the law increasingly loses moral authority. When that happens the law becomes not a matter of right or wrong but rather what you have the police to enforce. You lose community support. There is no moral stigma for violations. The second problem with this law is that it hurts people that aren't hurting anyone else. There are a lot of people in rural communities that need to use wood burning stoves. I have an uncle that lives in a cabin in the woods. The man heats his home and cooks his meals with a wood burning stove. He's in the middle of giant forest and has to keep brush clear of his property on a regular basis. That brush must be burned. Understand, if he doesn't burn it then nature will. The area goes through a burn phase as intervals naturally. And even if he didn't burn it, it would be impractical to mulch or dispose of otherwise. So its going to burn. If its going to burn one way or another, why not use the energy released to heat the home and cook food? Right?
Look, no one is arguing for wood burning stoves in Manhattan or something. But if you're in a rural community wood burning stoves are not a problem for the environment.
This analysis of the movie misses that the movie is based on a book which has a fairly well understand point and for which the author actually explained what he was trying to say.
Too often critics presume to insert their own opinions and views into someone else's mouth and then judge them upon it. That's not the point of a critic. If you want to make a point on your own then make your own movie or write your own book. You don't express yourself by effectively making a strawman out of someone else's work.
Then look at this article about the movie again. See the problem? He's making all sorts of judgments about it that actually don't make sense if you actually have what we like to call... "a clue".
Ol' Robert was anti communist and the book largely was a him channeling some of his anti communist/socialist bile into a book about how the world collapsed due to such systems... and his new society rose from the ashes. No really. And then he shows that society defeating the bugs which are again a hive cast society where billions of slave insects follow the orders of some central brain bug.
To take that and say that the whole book is a criticism of militarism etc is actually idiotic.
The movie does parody a great many of these issues. But it doesn't actually fight the central theme. Take the role of Lt Rasczak... the man that serves as the protagonist's teacher in high school and then his commanding officer in war. The man remains an admirable authority figure throughout the movie. And is also the primary source for general information about that world of Starship troopers. He is furthermore pretty damn gung ho and Ra Ra for the military. To watch that and yet some how conclude that it was making fun of him... can only be described as blind idiocy.
Wow, so your new defense is that every american is part of some ultra privileged elite... and thus its wrong for us to want little things like "cars" or "electric lights".
Your idiotic fanaticism is actually really useful. Most people are fooled at first and give people like you the benefit of the doubt. Happily, most of you are crazy enough that if given a chance you'll start sputtering and foaming at the mouth like mental patients.
And then you really just make my argument for me. Who is going to support if they actually know what you really think? Pretty much no one. You are a believer in mass social suicide.
Do the environment a favor and cut your dick off. Again, by your own logic this is good for the environment. You shouldn't have children. Ever. Not even one.
And while you're at it, get off the internet. Only evil 1 percenters have computers. Then get yourself a mud hut and enjoy the squallier.
Again... no need to reply. If you reply it just means you sat there and wasted more electricity and used a computer made from heavy metals in sweatshops in asia.
You're not going to be able to pee on me from down there, pal. You have no standing to presume superiority with me. You're little more then a brainwashed sock puppet that had his brains craved out like a Halloween pumpkin and then filled with a conga line of suicidal politics. Aka a "tool".
All they did was press "undo"... the shutdown didn't actually change anything. Government agencies were ordered to inconvenience everyone for awhile for entirely political reasons and then were returned to normal operation. That's it.
There was no policy or functionality change. They just disabled systems and then turned them back on again. All the government has to do to coordinate that is... Nothing. CNN basically did it. Government employees and their IT departments were watching the news. When the "shutdown" was ended they just went back to work and turned things on again.
Politics aside, I just don't see why that is impressive. You get the same sort of coordination at every bathroom in the US during Super bowl. Oh half time started!... 100 million toilets flush. That isn't organization anymore then every cock crowing at dawn or fish showing up at the surface of the water at dusk and dawn. Its like giving people credit for all commuting at the same time in the morning.
Would be nice to know which sites took eight days though.
While this is true, the answer is not inflate energy prices. Doing that will just hurt poor people that actually have a hard time making ends meet even if they are efficient.
Consider what higher gas prices are doing to poor people. Sure, you're making the middle class consider efficient cars a bit more but you're basically making it hard for poorer people to even have cars at all. By the same token, many people live in homes or apartments that they had no hand in designing and thus have no ability to control energy costs. They're too poor. They simply accept what the market offers them and pay it because they have no choice. Raising costs hurts them.
The best thing in everyone's interest is to keep all costs as low as possible and just let the technology advance. Give this some time. We're at the cusp of fixing a lot of these problems but we need the economic stability and growth to fund them. Pushing the whole system into poverty to make people efficient will retard technological development and actually make real change take longer.
Stop f'ing people over to "save" the environment. All it does it hurt poor people and make the few people at the top that control the limited supply rich.
The think tank should remain. Defense Department has to be ready for the next thing. Nations lose wars because they fight the next war the same way they fought the last one. A think tank like that might keep you ready.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for they won't because thankfully most local governments are still responsible to their people.
This is especially true in rural areas were ironically government is the most democratic and the people are the most free.
In such settings you'll find that people aren't harassed by their government because that leads to them losing their jobs pretty much immediately.
Large cities get away with this because there are many factions in cities and politicians can play those factions off against each other to basically give NO ONE want they want simply by threatening every faction with the other side getting what they want. National politics does the same thing on a grander scale which is why we consistently get legislation that no one short of a few very small and very active interest groups wanted.
These rules aren't in place to make you safe. They're there so the national politicians can justify their funding support from various environmental lobbies. That's it.
And the net result of it like most things written for such a purpose is that at best it will have no impact on anything. At worst... we take one more step to our system of laws being just a lot of words backed up by people with guns that will shoot you if you disobey those words. It didn't start out that way but that's what its becoming. And when its finally arrived... there will be no morality in it. The law won't be right or wrong. It will be getting caught and not getting caught. And when that happens the police won't care about it either. Go to Mexico or any other country where the law doesn't have a moral meaning. Everyone is bribed.
In this case... you want a zoning permit or a wood burning stove? You slip the commissioner some sports tickets and get a permit.
That's what this sort of thing does. And you think the politicians mind? They like sports tickets. This works for them. They like it when people are so frustrated and jaded that they'll just give them money to get an exemption or permit. For them, that's mission accomplished.
Consider what is going on here.
The EPA isn't going to be able to enforce that.
Might it be used in a court case now and again?... Sure... what isn't illegal these days? There is always some new pretext to make something illegal.
The law requires that the government have control over the matter...
Do you know how easy it is to make a wood burning stove? I could make one. I've never made one before and yet I know I could make one pretty easily. They're not complicated.
How are you going to regulate that?
News flash... you can't. You might as well try to regulate what words someone can write down on a bit of paper in their pocket.
GG.
I believe I said something pretty clear about zoning, population density, etc.
Your argument ignores that and is thus invalid. Please address my point if you presume to contradict it. Otherwise your argument will be at best a strawman and thus have no value.
Conservatives also don't call themselves liberals.
Do they?
Words have meaning. If you call yourself a liberal and then don't make freedom a central part of your platform then you're using the wrong word.
Call yourself a "social safety netter" or something... I'm not saying you need to embrace terms like socialist that have a bad stigma and a lot of bad history. But you should at least use terms that actually have something to do with your beliefs.
Conservatives for example do believe in traditional US political and economic relationships. They want things to be like they were. That's what conservative means really.
So they're not misrepresenting themselves with that term.
Language. It either means something or you're just making animal noises.
Conservatives don't call themselves "liberals"... they call themselves "conservatives"...
The issue is that words have meaning. Are conservatives conservative? Yes. So they apparently know how to speak English.
Is liberty a primary platform for liberals? No... not really. So... what gives? Can't afford a dictionary?
That's an interesting idea...
I'd love to see what those standards are... because the current models require nothing but cleaning the silt out of them at intervals. That's it. You buy them and they will work pretty much for hundreds of years with nothing but an occasional cleaning to keep them operational.
Tell you what, sport... you come up with a stove you like that is that awesome and fine. Otherwise... these things last for hundreds of years and are resold all the time in manners you won't be able to regulate. Furthermore, building them is actually very simple.
Long story short... we aren't buying these things from china. You have no way of stopping the stoves if they're non-competitive.
Think of it like the smart trigger guards they tried to impose on people. Remember those? Yeah. No one bought them and it died hilariously.
In the vast majority of situations where people are using wood burning stoves you are talking about rural homes. The population density is so low that complaining about air quality is moronic... as in something a moron would complain about.
In urban settings? Sure... wood burning stoves are bad in urban environments. But people don't use wood burning stoves in urban environments... so mission accomplished.
If you provided consent for them to dump trash in your yard then its fine. If they did not obtain your consent then clearly consent was not obtained.
No offense... really... but you're not as clever as you think.
You apparently don't know that in rural communities you won't see their house most of the time much less their roof.
Furthermore, who will report on them? The local Sheriff? They're elected by residents. So they're not reporting on people for anything that everyone does.
A good example would be marijuana cultivation in Humboldt county in California. Very rural area where everyone grows weed. They just plant it in the backyard. They have so much of it that they literally cannot sell it. Its worthless because everyone they know that wants weed grows their own. They just give it away. No really.
Do you think the Sheriff doesn't know about that? He does. He doesn't care. In fact, he probably does it himself.
That is what you're dealing with in rural communities. You pass STUPID laws that no one likes and they will be IGNORED because NO ONE will enforce them.
STUPID
IGNORED
NO ONE.
No offense. Just making the point clear. These are the sorts of communities that when alcohol was banned were brewing their own by the hundreds of gallons within a month.
You will NOT get them to follow any rule that the majority of them find unreasonable. Unless you want to station state troopers all over the place to inspect them. And have fun with that because they'll figure out your inspection schedule. Again, my uncle has all this brush and he actually has a lot more then he can burn in a wood stove. He has to burn literally tons of wood on a regular basis just to keep his property clear. Most of it is leaves, fallen branches, etc. Anyway, there are restrictions about if and when he can make bonfires. Guess what... Everyone in the community figures out when the park rangers and state troopers are inspecting... when they're gone... the fires burn.
You see the same thing with wild wolves and cattle ranchers. They made it illegal to kill wild wolves even if they were killing a rancher's cattle.
So ranchers don't kill the cattle. The wolves just disappear. The ranchers have no idea where the wolves went. Its a mystery.
Get me?
Lying is fraud and would thus be a violation of consent.
Legalism from lawyers is only exploitable to the extent that the legal system permits it. Therefore that is entirely the ill of the government. Free of that, the lawyers would have no basis to make threats. It is only due to the over complexity and vagueness of the legal system that allows that to happen.
In any case, it all boils down to consent. Violence is not the only basis. Consent must be established.
No.
The result will be the law is unenforceable and the government will look stupid for trying to pass the law.
At best you'll hurt communities that weren't causing a problem in the first place and annoy people that will find ways to make you pay for it.
So that is the result.
In short... it will backfire. Like prohibition and many other laws in the past that were ill considered.
You have excuses for it... and that's fine. People always make excuses for stupid ideas. It won't make any difference. Excuses are worthless. It will backfire. Rural communities will continue to use wood burning ovens. And you can actually just make them yourself. They're not complicated. You have no means to tax or stop it short of knocking on doors and you won't.
In US politics, liberal means socialist or some weak form of socialism.
The term originally did mean freedom but the modern "liberal" parties are only liberal in their approach to SOME social issues. Homosexuality for example is something most "liberals" are liberal about. But when it comes to economic policy, environmental policy, health policy, safety policy, etc they are not actually liberal. If they were liberal then they'd let people make their own choices and not impose government restrictions and edicts on everything.
Do not confuse liberty with anarchy. Freedom does not mean no government at all. The difference is between consensual action and non-consensual action.
For example, if I point a gun at someone's head and tell them to give me something that is something the government has a right and responsibility to act upon. However, if I talk to someone and ask them for something and they consensually provide it, then the government has no right to influence that situation unless its willing to breach individual rights.
Political distinctions address... On the subject of wood burning stoves, I think it all boils down to population density and the frequency of use. Banning wood burning stoves indifferent to zoning, population density, and frequency of use is actually pretty irrational. Do you really care if some guy in the mountains is using a wood burning stove in his cabin? Its not an environmental problem. Furthermore, what if you have a city with 10 million people in it and five people use wood burning stoves. Also not an environmental problem. Etc.
So for this law to be rational it has to take all of that into consideration rather then just blanketly banning their use. Banning them entirely is actually a really bad idea for a few reasons. One, many people will simply not follow the law and there is no means to actually enforce it. You're not going to inspect kitchens in rural house holds. Which means you've created a law that will not be followed which will then undermine all other laws. You're making people feel comfortable breaking the law. Because once everyone breaks one law they become more comfortable breaking others. And the law increasingly loses moral authority. When that happens the law becomes not a matter of right or wrong but rather what you have the police to enforce. You lose community support. There is no moral stigma for violations. The second problem with this law is that it hurts people that aren't hurting anyone else. There are a lot of people in rural communities that need to use wood burning stoves. I have an uncle that lives in a cabin in the woods. The man heats his home and cooks his meals with a wood burning stove. He's in the middle of giant forest and has to keep brush clear of his property on a regular basis. That brush must be burned. Understand, if he doesn't burn it then nature will. The area goes through a burn phase as intervals naturally. And even if he didn't burn it, it would be impractical to mulch or dispose of otherwise. So its going to burn. If its going to burn one way or another, why not use the energy released to heat the home and cook food? Right?
Look, no one is arguing for wood burning stoves in Manhattan or something. But if you're in a rural community wood burning stoves are not a problem for the environment.
This analysis of the movie misses that the movie is based on a book which has a fairly well understand point and for which the author actually explained what he was trying to say.
Too often critics presume to insert their own opinions and views into someone else's mouth and then judge them upon it. That's not the point of a critic. If you want to make a point on your own then make your own movie or write your own book. You don't express yourself by effectively making a strawman out of someone else's work.
I mean just look at the wikipedia article on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_troopers
Then look at this article about the movie again. See the problem? He's making all sorts of judgments about it that actually don't make sense if you actually have what we like to call... "a clue".
Ol' Robert was anti communist and the book largely was a him channeling some of his anti communist/socialist bile into a book about how the world collapsed due to such systems... and his new society rose from the ashes. No really. And then he shows that society defeating the bugs which are again a hive cast society where billions of slave insects follow the orders of some central brain bug.
To take that and say that the whole book is a criticism of militarism etc is actually idiotic.
The movie does parody a great many of these issues. But it doesn't actually fight the central theme. Take the role of Lt Rasczak... the man that serves as the protagonist's teacher in high school and then his commanding officer in war. The man remains an admirable authority figure throughout the movie. And is also the primary source for general information about that world of Starship troopers. He is furthermore pretty damn gung ho and Ra Ra for the military. To watch that and yet some how conclude that it was making fun of him... can only be described as blind idiocy.
So... That's what this article was... try again.
vastly.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
You have not once made a coherent argument. I laid out an argument and you responded with cheap evasions.
Your presumption of superiority at this point is as disappointing as it is predictable.
Wow, so your new defense is that every american is part of some ultra privileged elite... and thus its wrong for us to want little things like "cars" or "electric lights".
Your idiotic fanaticism is actually really useful. Most people are fooled at first and give people like you the benefit of the doubt. Happily, most of you are crazy enough that if given a chance you'll start sputtering and foaming at the mouth like mental patients.
And then you really just make my argument for me. Who is going to support if they actually know what you really think? Pretty much no one. You are a believer in mass social suicide.
Do the environment a favor and cut your dick off. Again, by your own logic this is good for the environment. You shouldn't have children. Ever. Not even one.
And while you're at it, get off the internet. Only evil 1 percenters have computers. Then get yourself a mud hut and enjoy the squallier.
Again... no need to reply. If you reply it just means you sat there and wasted more electricity and used a computer made from heavy metals in sweatshops in asia.
You're not going to be able to pee on me from down there, pal. You have no standing to presume superiority with me. You're little more then a brainwashed sock puppet that had his brains craved out like a Halloween pumpkin and then filled with a conga line of suicidal politics. Aka a "tool".
Seriously. Kill yourself. No really.
So let me get this straight.
If I tell you that poor people have a hard time owning a car then I am a member of the 1 percent.
Then I tell you that illegal aliens in Los Angeles own cars thus proving that poor people do in fact own cars which was apparently a surprise to you.
Then you say I must be poor and stupid because I corrected you and proved you wrong?
You're a fucktard. Good game. Do not respond. You lose. Close the window, log off the internet, and then kill yourself. No really. Kill yourself.
I live in los angeles where illegal aliens own cars.
You're an idiot.
All they did was press "undo"... the shutdown didn't actually change anything. Government agencies were ordered to inconvenience everyone for awhile for entirely political reasons and then were returned to normal operation. That's it.
There was no policy or functionality change. They just disabled systems and then turned them back on again. All the government has to do to coordinate that is... Nothing. CNN basically did it. Government employees and their IT departments were watching the news. When the "shutdown" was ended they just went back to work and turned things on again.
Politics aside, I just don't see why that is impressive. You get the same sort of coordination at every bathroom in the US during Super bowl. Oh half time started!... 100 million toilets flush. That isn't organization anymore then every cock crowing at dawn or fish showing up at the surface of the water at dusk and dawn. Its like giving people credit for all commuting at the same time in the morning.
Would be nice to know which sites took eight days though.
While this is true, the answer is not inflate energy prices. Doing that will just hurt poor people that actually have a hard time making ends meet even if they are efficient.
Consider what higher gas prices are doing to poor people. Sure, you're making the middle class consider efficient cars a bit more but you're basically making it hard for poorer people to even have cars at all. By the same token, many people live in homes or apartments that they had no hand in designing and thus have no ability to control energy costs. They're too poor. They simply accept what the market offers them and pay it because they have no choice. Raising costs hurts them.
The best thing in everyone's interest is to keep all costs as low as possible and just let the technology advance. Give this some time. We're at the cusp of fixing a lot of these problems but we need the economic stability and growth to fund them. Pushing the whole system into poverty to make people efficient will retard technological development and actually make real change take longer.
Stop f'ing people over to "save" the environment. All it does it hurt poor people and make the few people at the top that control the limited supply rich.
There is likely some sort of data port... likely this thing flashes by USB or something... better to make firmware updates require a chip change.
Then pay for my food and my house and my shoes.
OR I get to call myself a slave and you my evil task master.
And when you're done with that you can make me a sandwich. If it isn't delicious then I'll call you a heartless bastard.
Long story short... you remain a comical twit.
*flicks frozen peas at Uber's shinny forehead*
Cya, chuckles.
The think tank should remain. Defense Department has to be ready for the next thing. Nations lose wars because they fight the next war the same way they fought the last one. A think tank like that might keep you ready.