What I am saying is, that when you drive a 1985 Citation (or other older car) and you critize someone for driving an SUV and polluting the enviroment, it's a bit hypocritical to say so when you pollute more than they do. Sometimes, environmentalists don't look in their own backyard.
Until you take care of your own backyard, I will not respect you telling other people what they need to do.
As I've said elsewhere, I commute exclusively by bicycle and subway (in that order, riding the subway once or twice per month). I hope that entitles me to an opinion here.
The old cheapies are already on the road. Allowing them to remain there does not cause a net increase in the amount of pollution. The same cannot be said for the purchase and operation of new SUVs.
First, worry about not making the situation worse. Then worry about making it better.
Re: Never said fuel wasn't precious
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
if I can buy the gas right from the wellhead in Saudi, gas is pretty damn cheap.
We'll all be fascinated to see (though not necessarily to smell!) your car that runs on crude oil.
That's wonderful, you happen to be one of the 1% of Americans who live within walking distance to work, supermarkets and shopping outlets and recreation or have access to an excellent transportation system. Unfortunately the other 99% of society is not so lucky
99%? I think your statistics are a little off. Here are some of the places I've lived in the US (and remember I've never owned a car, and walking/biking/transit worked fine for me): Dubuque, IA; Holland, MI (home of Slashdot); Princeton, NJ; Ann Arbor, MI; San Francisco, CA; New York, NY; Washington, DC; Louisville, KY; New Haven, CT; Colorado Springs, CO. Surely that's a decent cross-section. In other countries it's been even easier (except compared to New York, which is transit paradise, and for Saudi Arabia, which is a royal pain to get around and I did rely on my provided driver much of the time, especially in peak summer when it's 50C out).
The guy said 'decent' car too. You cannot rent a nice, comfortable car or truck for $30 a day.
The internet, remember? Learn to use Priceline, etc. $30/day is no problem at all. I get decent-sized cars (i.e., enough to cart several people around) from name-brand rental agencies. What did you think was happening, I'm renting a stolen '78 Datsun from the crackhead on the corner?
Re:Golfing is Environmentally Unsound
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
Yet another example of leftist ignorance and hypocrisy. The fact that they would torch SUV dealerships at the same time they play golf.
Ah, I see we have a Master of Subtlety here.
Re:Bacteria are NOT a good idea, IMHO...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
By the way, and totally off on a tangent... Are there any Neal Stephenson books that don't involve large boats as a major plot device?
I don't recall any boats at all in Interface and The Cobweb, two books he co-wrote with J. Frederick George.
As far as environmental problems, if overpopulation is such a big problem, why is the USA at 270-some million people seen as the bogeyman, whereas China and India each with over a billion people seem to catch attention much less frequently?
Well, for one, there's the oft-quoted figure that greater Los Angeles, population 15 million, uses more energy than India, population 1000 million.
Once (if) India and China get to the point where they're wasting as much energy and materials as the US does, then it'll be time to take them to task.
This, by the way, is the only salient argument I've seen for aggressive anti-immigration measures in the US; each person who comes from China or India to the US starts to contribute 50 times as much to the destruction of the planet.
Because renting a decent car for a day costs as much as owning it for months.
Where'd you get that crazy idea? I don't own a car, so I rent when I need one. I usually pay about $30/day. On average I'll spent about $200/year on this. I've done the math already; I could have a rental car every other weekend of the year and still be better off than if I'd bought one. And I really really couldn't imagine what I'd do with a car for that much time.
So, what about the emissions? Well, that big Excursion has to produce as few emissions as a car sold in California did in 1992 or sold in any of the other 49 states in 1996. And, it hasn't had all those years to deteriorate and produce more emissions. The cars that pollute the most are the 20 year old beaters you see on the highway. Fully 80% of the pollution can be attributed to the bottom 20% of vehicles. Don't let logic stand in your way, though, that 1985 Chevy Citation sure looks enviromentally friendly standing next to that 2001 Surburban -- but it's polluting more just standing still.
Another specious point. Someone in the market for a new car today doesn't have the 1985 Citation as an option. They can choose between a comparatively high-polluting SUV or a comparatively low-polluting compact car.
Fuel isn't that precious of a resouce -- yet. It still costs less per gallon than Milk -- or coca-cola.
Your comparisons are specious. Milk is expensive because it is perishable. Price milk in bulk from the dairy and it's quite different.
Coca-cola is expensive because of the advertising costs and because of strategic pricing. Generic cola costs the same to make and it's well cheaper than gasoline.
What, so you think that if you don't drive a SUV you are champion of the environment? Any vehicle, even a tiny little 3 cylinder car, puts tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every year.
My vehicle doesn't pollute. I've done all my commuting by bike for 25 years now.
It sickens me to see how lazy people are in the US. Live out in the country, 20 miles from the nearest store? Have 3 kids you need to ferry around all the time and you don't live near a subway? Okay, fair enough - I can see why a few people might need to drive.
Living in a city, I can spot a driver from a block away - their fat rear ends and petrified manner crossing the street are a dead giveaway. What I really don't get is why people hate themselves and their bodies so much that they'd subject them to the slow atrophying suicide of the driver's seat.
I beg to differ. You may wish to have a look at the online traffic analysis reports at various places that map network traffic. The one I go to is the Internet Traffic Report It quite clearly shows that Mae West has been generating 100% packet loss for well over 24hrs now.
You continue to fail to understand what MAE-West is or how it works. It is not a router or a single failable item. It is a building containing networks where ISPs communicate with each other. Some of these ISPs links can be malfunctioning or defunct without meaning that the others are.
As for your internet traffic report, all I can suggest is that its connection is suffering from the same localized problem - or another coincidental localized problem - that you're experiencing.
As you can clearly see here, racksfull of routers are working just fine. You yourself can perform traceroutes, etc., from a MAE-West-located machine here.
Your problems are not necessarily the world's problems, as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.
I think a better comment to make would be on the point of connection redundancy over the internet - wasn't the original military plan for the net to make sure information could still get around even following a nuclear strike......one fried router and suddenly a whole shedload of sites go down
That would be a pretty dumb comment to make in this context since the router that went down was on the premises of the customer whose sites went down.
I mean, if you step on the modem in your house, you lose your link to the internet, but that doesn't mean you've identified an Achilles' heel in the internet's infrastructure - "Aha! This single modem controls access to the ENTIRE INTERNET! By stepping on it I have rendered the whole network inaccessible to EVERYONE in my house!!"
Well, for the past 36 hours at least Mae West has been un-responsive to the rest of the world.
MAE-West hasn't been unresponsive, your ISP or its backbone provider was having trouble. MAE-West is a large facility in which hundreds of ISPs peer with each other under various arrangements. Some of them don't talk to some others and have entirely independent links that have nothing to do with you or your ISP. Barring earthquake or nuclear strike, MAE-West can't be "unresponsive" any more than Melbourne can be "shut". Maybe the shop you wanted to visit was shut, but that doesn't mean they all are.
My country borders Germany. The Autobahn isn't particularly safe but the drivers in Germany are sufficiently well-trained (and largely conscientious) that it compensates for the difference in speed practice.
Try Autobahn rules with American drivers and the freeway system would turn into one big steaming mass of twisted metal and flesh. Don't take my word for it - look at Montana, who had to give up on their no-speed-limit policy.
The rental car company won't divulge the fact that the car fines you for going over 90 when you rent it
According to the article, it was in the contract. In any case, it's not going to be a secret forever.
In reality, you probably won't notice any difference in quality between a car that has gone 90MPH on the freeway versus one that hasn't.
Huh? Of course you will. Traveling at higher speeds puts more stress on moving parts and accelerates their failure.
So where is the safety gain? There isn't one.
The safety gain comes for me as another road user. Traveling at speeds in excess of 90mph is unsafe if only because the majority of drivers aren't, and therefore it's a disruption in traffic flow. And in the case of a collision, there's more kinetic energy transferred to the collisee.
How can you be against getting Big Brother out of the passenger seat?
The roads are public space. If you want to behave as you please without regard for the rest of society, do so on private property. If you are going to reap the benefits of social organization (such as fine paved expressways) then your behavior while using these resources must not be damaging to others. Society does, and should, take measures to ensure your compliance. Otherwise we have anarchy, which rewards only greed and unpleasantness, and on a scale far in excess of the odd $150 fine.
I don't advocate reckless abandonment of law and order, but I don't think any private corporation has ANY right to fine somebody for "breaking the law" with their equipment when there is nobody holding them accountable for that.
A very obvious example of a company charging you money for breaking the law is your auto insurance policy. The more laws you break, the more they charge you.
Another example would be pageant winners, who often must return the prize money if they subsequently behave badly.
In any case, I do not see any cogent argument as to why a company shouldn't be able to write a contract where you pay money if you break the law, other than the fact that you don't like it.
And furthermore, the person wasn't being charged for "breaking the law", they were being fined for traveling at a high rate of speed. The fact that both the legal system and the rental company don't like this is immaterial. The legal system doesn't like it because it's dangerous to others. The rental car company doesn't like it because it wears out the car and increases their insurance cost risk. There are plenty of things which are illegal and also may be injurious to various parties that have their own means of redress.
Then everyone is given their say and due process can fairly occur.
Private parties have no obligation to provide "due process." You can't file an appeal if you lose at Keno in Vegas. You don't get a hearing if you're kicked out of a hotel pool for rough-housing. Your mother is not required to provide you with legal representation prior to sentencing you for failure to clean the garage.
Certainly the company would owe it to the person to inform him or her of the exact extra charges being put on the credit card. This is something else which did not appear to happen in this story.
Read the story again. It was mentioned in the contract the renter signed.
If you think that this is being done to help the consumer in some way, you're mistaken.
How'd you do on the reading comprehension section of the SAT? I said "I am glad to see someone looking out for my safety, even if it is just because it coincides with their economic situation."
It is clear from this that I recognize the rental company's reason for their policy is because it helps them financially, not because they want me to be safe. Nonetheless I am happy when, as happens from time to time in the market economy, someone's financial interest is aligned with my own personal interest. This is one of those cases.
in my town we are required by law to have both reflectors and also headlights if we are biking at night
As I said, I had lights. The guy was probably looking for a car, or my headlight was drowned out by the streetlight overhead, or whatever.
The fact is, the only way to really be sure nobody's in an intersection is to stop and take a good long look. If we don't want to have to do that at every single intersection, the only alternative is to come up with a system everyone's willing to follow - like traffic lights - and punish violators severely.
I'm not denying he signed the contract, what I want to know is the legality of ACME reinterpreting how to enforce the State's laws. If a police officer pulled him over and issued him a ticket and he lpead guilty, would ACME be allowed to fine him? Would this violate his protection against double jeopardy?
ACME is not the government and thus none of its actions are relevant to double jeopardy prohibition.
Do you have car insurance? They raise your premiums when you get moving violations. Is that double jeopardy? No, it's a contract you signed.
For that matter, ACME can write in its contract that you're not allowed to driver than 15mph if they want to. If you sign the contract, you're agreeing to the terms. You have full freedom not to sign it.
It's the local government's responsibility to deal with speeding. It's a crime and the car rental company doesn't have any jurisdiction in handing out citations. I think he probably has a case because it seems that the rental company is impersonating a police officer.
This is absurd.
The rental company never said they were the police.
The fact that something is a crime doesn't mean that nobody but the police are allowed to react.
I can fire you for stealing even if it doesn't go to court.
I can evict you for making noise in your apartment even if no complaint is filed with the police.
I can divorce you for murdering my child even if you didn't get convicted.
In none of these cases am I "impersonating a police officer" or "handing out citations". I am just exercising my rights of association and contract.
While I can't say how a privacy fight would turn out, I suspect that a fight in the courts against the constitutionality of assuming the driver of the vehicle would be a tough one to win. If my car is going 110 mph on surface roads, do I get points on my license? What if my wife/mother/girlfriend/dog/roommate/mechanic/car thief is at the wheel?
So barcode the driver's license and require that and a PIN in order to get a car going.
Sure, he was probably going well over 90MPH, but what business does the rental car company have knowing this?
It's clearly the rental company's business. Traveling at high speeds increases the wear on the car, and it increases the likelihood of accident, therefore affecting their insurance premiums. They have a direct financial interest in the use to which their asset is put and it is entirely their right to keep track of this.
I have rented from ACME on Whalley several times in the past (they always have minivans when everyone else in town is out) and now I'll make sure to use them exclusively. I am glad to see someone looking out for my safety, even if it is just because it coincides with their economic situation.
And if they ever try to do it and successfully prosecute someone, just watch how many thousands of EZ-Pass transponders are returned the next day!
So require a transponder in order to use those roads. Works for Singapore - you can't enter the CBD unless your car has a transponder. You can rent one for the day if you've driven in from Malaysia or whatever.
If the speed limit on California freeways defaulted to 90
90 is rarely a safe speed, and certainly not for older people or inexperienced teenage drivers.
And as one of the most dangerous things on the highway is when people are moving at wildly different speeds from each other, you have to pick a speed that accomodates all the people you'll be allowing to drive.
So either limit freeway driving to ages 25-60, or come up with a reasonable speed limit (which has been done - 65-70 is manageable safely for the vast majority of people).
yep, every time i run that 5 minute long redlight at 4 am when there is no one else awake. I'm definitely running the risk of killing someone. I'm surprised I haven't killed hundreds.
You're lucky.
I got mowed down while riding a bike (equipped with lights) by someone who blew through a red light in the middle of the night thinking nobody was there (in New Haven, about a mile from ACME rent-a-car, oddly enough). Wiped me clean out and messed my knee up for a good long time.
The fact is, bicycles and pedestrians - and even other cars that happen not to have their lights on or whatever - do go through intersections at all hours, even if not that often. That one time when someone's in your path is a whole lot worse than all the 2-minute stretches you spent waiting for the light to change.
Slashdot Mirror
As I've said elsewhere, I commute exclusively by bicycle and subway (in that order, riding the subway once or twice per month). I hope that entitles me to an opinion here.
The old cheapies are already on the road. Allowing them to remain there does not cause a net increase in the amount of pollution. The same cannot be said for the purchase and operation of new SUVs.
First, worry about not making the situation worse. Then worry about making it better.
We'll all be fascinated to see (though not necessarily to smell!) your car that runs on crude oil.
99%? I think your statistics are a little off. Here are some of the places I've lived in the US (and remember I've never owned a car, and walking/biking/transit worked fine for me): Dubuque, IA; Holland, MI (home of Slashdot); Princeton, NJ; Ann Arbor, MI; San Francisco, CA; New York, NY; Washington, DC; Louisville, KY; New Haven, CT; Colorado Springs, CO. Surely that's a decent cross-section. In other countries it's been even easier (except compared to New York, which is transit paradise, and for Saudi Arabia, which is a royal pain to get around and I did rely on my provided driver much of the time, especially in peak summer when it's 50C out).
The internet, remember? Learn to use Priceline, etc. $30/day is no problem at all. I get decent-sized cars (i.e., enough to cart several people around) from name-brand rental agencies. What did you think was happening, I'm renting a stolen '78 Datsun from the crackhead on the corner?
Ah, I see we have a Master of Subtlety here.
I don't recall any boats at all in Interface and The Cobweb, two books he co-wrote with J. Frederick George.
Well, for one, there's the oft-quoted figure that greater Los Angeles, population 15 million, uses more energy than India, population 1000 million.
Once (if) India and China get to the point where they're wasting as much energy and materials as the US does, then it'll be time to take them to task.
This, by the way, is the only salient argument I've seen for aggressive anti-immigration measures in the US; each person who comes from China or India to the US starts to contribute 50 times as much to the destruction of the planet.
Where'd you get that crazy idea? I don't own a car, so I rent when I need one. I usually pay about $30/day. On average I'll spent about $200/year on this. I've done the math already; I could have a rental car every other weekend of the year and still be better off than if I'd bought one. And I really really couldn't imagine what I'd do with a car for that much time.
Another specious point. Someone in the market for a new car today doesn't have the 1985 Citation as an option. They can choose between a comparatively high-polluting SUV or a comparatively low-polluting compact car.
Your comparisons are specious. Milk is expensive because it is perishable. Price milk in bulk from the dairy and it's quite different.
Coca-cola is expensive because of the advertising costs and because of strategic pricing. Generic cola costs the same to make and it's well cheaper than gasoline.
My vehicle doesn't pollute. I've done all my commuting by bike for 25 years now.
It sickens me to see how lazy people are in the US. Live out in the country, 20 miles from the nearest store? Have 3 kids you need to ferry around all the time and you don't live near a subway? Okay, fair enough - I can see why a few people might need to drive.
Living in a city, I can spot a driver from a block away - their fat rear ends and petrified manner crossing the street are a dead giveaway. What I really don't get is why people hate themselves and their bodies so much that they'd subject them to the slow atrophying suicide of the driver's seat.
You continue to fail to understand what MAE-West is or how it works. It is not a router or a single failable item. It is a building containing networks where ISPs communicate with each other. Some of these ISPs links can be malfunctioning or defunct without meaning that the others are.
As for your internet traffic report, all I can suggest is that its connection is suffering from the same localized problem - or another coincidental localized problem - that you're experiencing.
As you can clearly see here, racksfull of routers are working just fine. You yourself can perform traceroutes, etc., from a MAE-West-located machine here.
Your problems are not necessarily the world's problems, as much as you'd like to believe otherwise.
That would be a pretty dumb comment to make in this context since the router that went down was on the premises of the customer whose sites went down.
I mean, if you step on the modem in your house, you lose your link to the internet, but that doesn't mean you've identified an Achilles' heel in the internet's infrastructure - "Aha! This single modem controls access to the ENTIRE INTERNET! By stepping on it I have rendered the whole network inaccessible to EVERYONE in my house!!"
Seems that should be pretty obvious.
MAE-West hasn't been unresponsive, your ISP or its backbone provider was having trouble. MAE-West is a large facility in which hundreds of ISPs peer with each other under various arrangements. Some of them don't talk to some others and have entirely independent links that have nothing to do with you or your ISP. Barring earthquake or nuclear strike, MAE-West can't be "unresponsive" any more than Melbourne can be "shut". Maybe the shop you wanted to visit was shut, but that doesn't mean they all are.
My country borders Germany. The Autobahn isn't particularly safe but the drivers in Germany are sufficiently well-trained (and largely conscientious) that it compensates for the difference in speed practice.
Try Autobahn rules with American drivers and the freeway system would turn into one big steaming mass of twisted metal and flesh. Don't take my word for it - look at Montana, who had to give up on their no-speed-limit policy.
According to the article, it was in the contract. In any case, it's not going to be a secret forever.
Huh? Of course you will. Traveling at higher speeds puts more stress on moving parts and accelerates their failure.
The safety gain comes for me as another road user. Traveling at speeds in excess of 90mph is unsafe if only because the majority of drivers aren't, and therefore it's a disruption in traffic flow. And in the case of a collision, there's more kinetic energy transferred to the collisee.
The roads are public space. If you want to behave as you please without regard for the rest of society, do so on private property. If you are going to reap the benefits of social organization (such as fine paved expressways) then your behavior while using these resources must not be damaging to others. Society does, and should, take measures to ensure your compliance. Otherwise we have anarchy, which rewards only greed and unpleasantness, and on a scale far in excess of the odd $150 fine.
A very obvious example of a company charging you money for breaking the law is your auto insurance policy. The more laws you break, the more they charge you.
Another example would be pageant winners, who often must return the prize money if they subsequently behave badly.
In any case, I do not see any cogent argument as to why a company shouldn't be able to write a contract where you pay money if you break the law, other than the fact that you don't like it.
And furthermore, the person wasn't being charged for "breaking the law", they were being fined for traveling at a high rate of speed. The fact that both the legal system and the rental company don't like this is immaterial. The legal system doesn't like it because it's dangerous to others. The rental car company doesn't like it because it wears out the car and increases their insurance cost risk. There are plenty of things which are illegal and also may be injurious to various parties that have their own means of redress.
Private parties have no obligation to provide "due process." You can't file an appeal if you lose at Keno in Vegas. You don't get a hearing if you're kicked out of a hotel pool for rough-housing. Your mother is not required to provide you with legal representation prior to sentencing you for failure to clean the garage.
Read the story again. It was mentioned in the contract the renter signed.
How'd you do on the reading comprehension section of the SAT? I said "I am glad to see someone looking out for my safety, even if it is just because it coincides with their economic situation."
It is clear from this that I recognize the rental company's reason for their policy is because it helps them financially, not because they want me to be safe. Nonetheless I am happy when, as happens from time to time in the market economy, someone's financial interest is aligned with my own personal interest. This is one of those cases.
As I said, I had lights. The guy was probably looking for a car, or my headlight was drowned out by the streetlight overhead, or whatever.
The fact is, the only way to really be sure nobody's in an intersection is to stop and take a good long look. If we don't want to have to do that at every single intersection, the only alternative is to come up with a system everyone's willing to follow - like traffic lights - and punish violators severely.
ACME is not the government and thus none of its actions are relevant to double jeopardy prohibition.
Do you have car insurance? They raise your premiums when you get moving violations. Is that double jeopardy? No, it's a contract you signed.
For that matter, ACME can write in its contract that you're not allowed to driver than 15mph if they want to. If you sign the contract, you're agreeing to the terms. You have full freedom not to sign it.
This is absurd.
The rental company never said they were the police.
The fact that something is a crime doesn't mean that nobody but the police are allowed to react.
I can fire you for stealing even if it doesn't go to court.
I can evict you for making noise in your apartment even if no complaint is filed with the police.
I can divorce you for murdering my child even if you didn't get convicted.
In none of these cases am I "impersonating a police officer" or "handing out citations". I am just exercising my rights of association and contract.
So barcode the driver's license and require that and a PIN in order to get a car going.
It's clearly the rental company's business. Traveling at high speeds increases the wear on the car, and it increases the likelihood of accident, therefore affecting their insurance premiums. They have a direct financial interest in the use to which their asset is put and it is entirely their right to keep track of this.
I have rented from ACME on Whalley several times in the past (they always have minivans when everyone else in town is out) and now I'll make sure to use them exclusively. I am glad to see someone looking out for my safety, even if it is just because it coincides with their economic situation.
So require a transponder in order to use those roads. Works for Singapore - you can't enter the CBD unless your car has a transponder. You can rent one for the day if you've driven in from Malaysia or whatever.
90 is rarely a safe speed, and certainly not for older people or inexperienced teenage drivers.
And as one of the most dangerous things on the highway is when people are moving at wildly different speeds from each other, you have to pick a speed that accomodates all the people you'll be allowing to drive.
So either limit freeway driving to ages 25-60, or come up with a reasonable speed limit (which has been done - 65-70 is manageable safely for the vast majority of people).
You're lucky.
I got mowed down while riding a bike (equipped with lights) by someone who blew through a red light in the middle of the night thinking nobody was there (in New Haven, about a mile from ACME rent-a-car, oddly enough). Wiped me clean out and messed my knee up for a good long time.
The fact is, bicycles and pedestrians - and even other cars that happen not to have their lights on or whatever - do go through intersections at all hours, even if not that often. That one time when someone's in your path is a whole lot worse than all the 2-minute stretches you spent waiting for the light to change.