Cars are worse. It's not uncommon to find another car that your key can unlock.
The obvious question here is how do you know?;) Do you go around trying to open random car doors with your keys? I know I don't..
Oh, but there is the ignition key chip stuff now where an RFID tag is embedded in the key, so you may be able to turn the key, but it's not going to start for you unless that RFID is loaded using a manufacturer specific tool.
How do I know? The whole thing has MBA all over it. It will be designed by a group of MBA's, marketed by a different group of MBA's and coded by 10 software engineers who are managed by 100 MBA's...
So having a lock really is an advantage... Well, actually it doesn't matter to a thief anyway.
I once had the window broken in my car so they could steal my wife's purse... The doors where unlocked, but they broke the window anyway.
I guess the issue here is that the "key" is easily changed in this case. You don't need to have the guy at the home improvement store rekey it for you...
So, we've established that you are willing to accept *partial* solutions from your laws.
Why is this any different? The number of people who really don't care about traffic fines because they make so much money it doesn't matter is vanishingly small too. They are still going to do it, regardless of the fine, so why bother with all the complexity here. Just set the fines high enough to get most people's attention and leave the rest alone.
All this is really just class envy when you boil it down anyway. But you didn't hear me say that..
That's not objective in some ways. True, you are tried by a jury of your peers, but the will of the majority is subjective at times. The majority thought slavery was right, thought the Jim Crow laws and "Separate but Equal" was the proper way. The majority was wrong.
The problem with this "fairness" argument is that it is entirely subjective. What you think is far might not match what I think and a law that is based on being "fair" but is subjective is NEVER going to work.
Law must be OBJECTIVE, in as may cases as possible. There must be a clear line between actions that are lawful and actions which are not. That means speeding is defined by "breaking the speed limit" in most cases. If the sign says 55 MPH and you are doing 55.001, you are technically breaking the law. It is objective. But "driving too fast for conditions" is subjective, and generally unenforceable until you wreck you car because you where going to fast to make the turn.
So put this "fairness" idea out of your legal mind. It's to subjective to be useful.
But if you write objective rules, then there might be unfairness, but if you can achieve a 99% solution in your law, you've done well. If the 1% of unfairness bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't have the law to start with?
Given your examples, it seems that the fines do tend to work for the masses...
Personally, that's good enough for me, because 99% of the people out there cannot just afford to pay the fine and move on. For the 1% where it doesn't matter, most of those cannot be bothered to drive in the same traffic I do and don't live anywhere near me, so my chances of running into somebody like that are almost nil. What is more likely for me is to be hit by some illegal who doesn't carry insurance or have a license. That's happened to me TWICE so far, but I've NEVER been hit by a rich person, who just offered to buy his way out of it, though I'd welcome the chance to name my price....
That is the problem, but making something illegal doesn't do what you want either. People who are intent on breaking the law are NEVER going to care, regardless of the fines. 1st degree murder is "banned" and the fines are dire, but people still do it. Making fines progressive, doesn't really do it either. If you make it income based, rich folks just hide their income. If you make it net worth based, they hide their assets. They can afford the high priced accountants and lawyers needed to do it. Your best bet is to sue in civil court... Not that even then you will succeed in keeping them from doing stuff, unless they just are inconvenienced enough by having to spend time in court....
Use a combination of repeat offences, income and net worth. As you one continues to draw fines, they become more and more tied to your income and net worth.
First offence, you get the poor person's fine, second offence draws the middle class fine, third upper middle class which starts into means testing of income and forth draws you the I'm rich and don't care fine where your income AND net worth come into play. Let offences drop off your record over time, say one a year, so if you hit the "I don't care" fine, it takes you 4-5 years to be back in the poor house fine. Also allow for jail time/community service for those who cannot pay, but that would have to be requested by the person charged based on financial need and recommended by a judge. If you don't pay and don't serve your time, you loose your license until you do. Get caught with a suspended license and you go to jail, end of report. Make it so all violations in a single stop count as ONE progression. So if you get pulled for speeding and running a red light and have nothing on your record, it's the poor person's fines for you.
Group traffic violations into categories, where those things that can endanger life and limb of others are what's subject to these progressive fines, other things like inspection stickers, registrations and lack of insurance don't count. So if you speed and run red lights or stop signs you get slammed, but if you don't wear you seat belt, have proof of insurance or fail to register your car it doesn't pile up.
This will eventually catch up with the rich people who don't care and keep breaking the law, but not make it so onerous for the less fortunate who get caught from time to time.
I'm there... Not that I speed but what's the fine for speeding in a '65 VW bug worth $250? Personally I think I should get a reward for getting that thing past 55 MPH anyway....
Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments. As such, if the punishment doesn't reach even 1% of the money you earn in a day, you can effectively ignore them always, and in the process possibly endanger others. The proportionality of the system is to level the playing field, but that is clearly communism and can't be had in the united states of money.
But need we all be reminded of this.... IF you have something to loose, it's a bad idea to run around doing dangerous things. So if Richie Rich was speeding and being negligent, wrecks your car and you get injured in the process, you can bet that he will be fined for breaking the law, and then found liable in Civil court for his actions. Richie will be less rich after that.
So, here in the USA, this graduated fine idea really isn't necessary. We already have an effective way to deal with such eventualities. Not to mention it supports a whole industry that keeps personal injury attorneys chasing ambulances and in business and the civil courts busy.
Given the engineering requirements, YES they are.. But they are SMALL, LIGHT, and capable of huge swings in power output over time, not to mention reliable.... All of which make the internal combustion engine a pretty staggering engineering accomplishment, both in design and efficiency. They run thousands of hours in varying environmental conditions, require very little maintenance and are generally a lot cleaner to run than you'd think (apart from the CO2 emissions).
Given that there are NO existing examples of practical machines that are 100% efficient, and will never be, IMHO internal combustion engines ARE a marvel of modern engineering and efficiency.
Same thing applies in the United States. Different states have differing fuel taxes on diesel fuel and truckers routinely schedule their stops to take advantage of such things. In fact, many fuel stations end up getting built just inside the borders of lower taxed states for that very reason.
I've been know to stop and refuel before crossing the border into an "expensive" state like Illinois, even when there was half a tank left for that very reason.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that this didn't meet the spirit of the constitution, as a lot of stuff going on in Washington DC doesn't these days. I'm just saying that you don't beat a dead horse and get anything you are striving for.
IMHO, there ARE things we can do about Obamacare AND what's passing as constitutional in Washington which are legal and have a possibility of success. Getting this law thrown out on the "it didn't originate in the house" argument is effectively dead at this point. We need legislators who understand how this is supposed to work, who will appoint judges who understand how the constitution is supposed to work, passing laws consistent with the constitution and reining in the abuse of power that is Washington today a thing of the past. But that takes winning the hearts and minds of the American people who vote, and just continually going after this one thing is not going to appeal to them.
Another Thermodynamic neophyte... It is the rate of heat FLOW from the hot to the cold that gets you power our of a system, so you need to dump a lot of heat.
Yeah, I know how they work. Electric motors don't have this problem. That's why they are superior.
So are you seriously arguing that electric motors are more efficient?
Perhaps from an "energy in" to "work out" for the motor they might be, but if you go back to the production of the electricity and calculate the losses in: the IR losses in transmission to the charger, conversion from AC to DC to charge the battery, the chemical reactions in the battery, the IR losses IN the battery, the IR losses in the car to the motor AND the IR losses in the motor, I seriously doubt the efficiency of the total system is even close to an internal combustion engine...
But given how they are used, with wildly varying power outputs, RPMs and operating conditions, they are amazingly good.
Electric motors are much better. Very efficient. No problem with varying power. Maximum torque at low speed. Smaller and lighter.
But the over all efficiency is the REAL question. Where does that electric power come from? No not the battery, it's just storing power that comes from someplace else, where does it come from? Usually the electric grid, and were does that come from? Just going back to the electrical generation source is going to blow your efficiency calculations in favor of an internal combustion engine.
Oh, and NOT that much smaller and lighter when you figure in the batteries and control systems... Where an electric motor isn't that big, Batteries are pretty heavy and bulky.
If your opponent has an argument that is "technically correct" and the courts didn't call them on it but doesn't meet the spirit of the law as you see it, you are playing a bad hand. I don't disagree with you that this didn't meet the spirit of the constitution but Given that the courts have declined to see it our way, Stop beating this horse, it's dead.
I'm suggesting that we let the argument over what is clearly opinion go in favor of arguments which are more likely to gain results where it counts, in public opinion. There are a whole lot more important things to be harping on than this.
Software update is software to call it to you when it calculates that you will not be able to make it to your destination.
And here my first thought was similar but different. Not only will the car complain about how far it can go, it will start complaining if you drive out of battery range of a charging station, letting you know in advance how long the 115V extension cord charge will take to get you back into range of a charging station.
Oh wait, that only puts certainty into the "how far can I go" calculus, it doesn't really do away with range anxiety, at least if it doesn't prompt you to take the other car out of the motor pool and leave the model S at home.
The small subgroup of middle age, mid life crises men, who bought the model S as some form of maintaining their sexual prowess only to be overcome with 'range anxiety'.
And here I thought the model S purchase was about assuaging their guilt over their incredibly large and expensive carbon foot print that their rich lives had.
Where is all the "bigger the foot the bigger the... " logic here?
Large trucks routinely get 700+ miles out of a tank full, or actually two tanks full. Of course they usually carry over 100 gal per side too. However, this is really because "time is money" in the trucking business and it's all about getting miles behind the load ASAP. You don't want to stop for fuel every 300 miles if you can help it, you want to book as many miles as your hours allow and only stop when the law requires it.
Oh the horror.. You need to stop slaughtering the sacred cow of the environmentalists.
Let them spend more money on their electric cars and believe they are helping the environment if they insist. Stop confusing them with actual logic and facts because this is about assuaging their guilt about being rich consumers, and not about the environment. You are poking the sacred cow when you bring up CO2 emissions. They won't like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Cars are worse. It's not uncommon to find another car that your key can unlock.
The obvious question here is how do you know? ;) Do you go around trying to open random car doors with your keys? I know I don't..
Oh, but there is the ignition key chip stuff now where an RFID tag is embedded in the key, so you may be able to turn the key, but it's not going to start for you unless that RFID is loaded using a manufacturer specific tool.
Microsoft Bing Application.... OR MBA for short.
How do I know? The whole thing has MBA all over it. It will be designed by a group of MBA's, marketed by a different group of MBA's and coded by 10 software engineers who are managed by 100 MBA's...
So having a lock really is an advantage... Well, actually it doesn't matter to a thief anyway.
I once had the window broken in my car so they could steal my wife's purse... The doors where unlocked, but they broke the window anyway.
I guess the issue here is that the "key" is easily changed in this case. You don't need to have the guy at the home improvement store rekey it for you...
So, we've established that you are willing to accept *partial* solutions from your laws.
Why is this any different? The number of people who really don't care about traffic fines because they make so much money it doesn't matter is vanishingly small too. They are still going to do it, regardless of the fine, so why bother with all the complexity here. Just set the fines high enough to get most people's attention and leave the rest alone.
All this is really just class envy when you boil it down anyway. But you didn't hear me say that..
Fairness? By what definition? By who's reckoning?
By that of the majority.
That's not objective in some ways. True, you are tried by a jury of your peers, but the will of the majority is subjective at times. The majority thought slavery was right, thought the Jim Crow laws and "Separate but Equal" was the proper way. The majority was wrong.
Welcome to parallel construction.
It's called being railroaded for a reason....
I am surprised that one hasn't been stolen yet.
Are you SURE about that?
Just make sure to use a long enough key, a key exchange method that is secure and an encryption method that's not already easily broken. CAPTCHA: WEP
Fairness? By what definition? By who's reckoning?
The problem with this "fairness" argument is that it is entirely subjective. What you think is far might not match what I think and a law that is based on being "fair" but is subjective is NEVER going to work.
Law must be OBJECTIVE, in as may cases as possible. There must be a clear line between actions that are lawful and actions which are not. That means speeding is defined by "breaking the speed limit" in most cases. If the sign says 55 MPH and you are doing 55.001, you are technically breaking the law. It is objective. But "driving too fast for conditions" is subjective, and generally unenforceable until you wreck you car because you where going to fast to make the turn.
So put this "fairness" idea out of your legal mind. It's to subjective to be useful.
But if you write objective rules, then there might be unfairness, but if you can achieve a 99% solution in your law, you've done well. If the 1% of unfairness bothers you, perhaps you shouldn't have the law to start with?
Given your examples, it seems that the fines do tend to work for the masses...
Personally, that's good enough for me, because 99% of the people out there cannot just afford to pay the fine and move on. For the 1% where it doesn't matter, most of those cannot be bothered to drive in the same traffic I do and don't live anywhere near me, so my chances of running into somebody like that are almost nil. What is more likely for me is to be hit by some illegal who doesn't carry insurance or have a license. That's happened to me TWICE so far, but I've NEVER been hit by a rich person, who just offered to buy his way out of it, though I'd welcome the chance to name my price....
That is the problem, but making something illegal doesn't do what you want either. People who are intent on breaking the law are NEVER going to care, regardless of the fines. 1st degree murder is "banned" and the fines are dire, but people still do it. Making fines progressive, doesn't really do it either. If you make it income based, rich folks just hide their income. If you make it net worth based, they hide their assets. They can afford the high priced accountants and lawyers needed to do it. Your best bet is to sue in civil court... Not that even then you will succeed in keeping them from doing stuff, unless they just are inconvenienced enough by having to spend time in court....
You haven't seen my rusted out hulk with no chrome left, fresh air box gone and that seat cover from an old lawn chair. I guess.... LOL
Use a combination of repeat offences, income and net worth. As you one continues to draw fines, they become more and more tied to your income and net worth.
First offence, you get the poor person's fine, second offence draws the middle class fine, third upper middle class which starts into means testing of income and forth draws you the I'm rich and don't care fine where your income AND net worth come into play. Let offences drop off your record over time, say one a year, so if you hit the "I don't care" fine, it takes you 4-5 years to be back in the poor house fine. Also allow for jail time/community service for those who cannot pay, but that would have to be requested by the person charged based on financial need and recommended by a judge. If you don't pay and don't serve your time, you loose your license until you do. Get caught with a suspended license and you go to jail, end of report. Make it so all violations in a single stop count as ONE progression. So if you get pulled for speeding and running a red light and have nothing on your record, it's the poor person's fines for you.
Group traffic violations into categories, where those things that can endanger life and limb of others are what's subject to these progressive fines, other things like inspection stickers, registrations and lack of insurance don't count. So if you speed and run red lights or stop signs you get slammed, but if you don't wear you seat belt, have proof of insurance or fail to register your car it doesn't pile up.
This will eventually catch up with the rich people who don't care and keep breaking the law, but not make it so onerous for the less fortunate who get caught from time to time.
I agree with this. Except jail costs the state money, while fines bring it in.
So make one change - replace 'jail' with community service,
One speeding ticket = 4 hours spent picking up garbage on the side of the road.
How about you let people buy out of each hour by paying say $50 or perhaps paying somebody to do their service for them?
Oh, wait a min....
I'm there... Not that I speed but what's the fine for speeding in a '65 VW bug worth $250? Personally I think I should get a reward for getting that thing past 55 MPH anyway....
Proportional fines are not a means of revenue, where did you get that stupid idea from? Fines are punishments. As such, if the punishment doesn't reach even 1% of the money you earn in a day, you can effectively ignore them always, and in the process possibly endanger others. The proportionality of the system is to level the playing field, but that is clearly communism and can't be had in the united states of money.
But need we all be reminded of this.... IF you have something to loose, it's a bad idea to run around doing dangerous things. So if Richie Rich was speeding and being negligent, wrecks your car and you get injured in the process, you can bet that he will be fined for breaking the law, and then found liable in Civil court for his actions. Richie will be less rich after that.
So, here in the USA, this graduated fine idea really isn't necessary. We already have an effective way to deal with such eventualities. Not to mention it supports a whole industry that keeps personal injury attorneys chasing ambulances and in business and the civil courts busy.
Given the engineering requirements, YES they are.. But they are SMALL, LIGHT, and capable of huge swings in power output over time, not to mention reliable.... All of which make the internal combustion engine a pretty staggering engineering accomplishment, both in design and efficiency. They run thousands of hours in varying environmental conditions, require very little maintenance and are generally a lot cleaner to run than you'd think (apart from the CO2 emissions).
Given that there are NO existing examples of practical machines that are 100% efficient, and will never be, IMHO internal combustion engines ARE a marvel of modern engineering and efficiency.
Of course.... "Your mileage may vary" (grin)
Same thing applies in the United States. Different states have differing fuel taxes on diesel fuel and truckers routinely schedule their stops to take advantage of such things. In fact, many fuel stations end up getting built just inside the borders of lower taxed states for that very reason.
I've been know to stop and refuel before crossing the border into an "expensive" state like Illinois, even when there was half a tank left for that very reason.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that this didn't meet the spirit of the constitution, as a lot of stuff going on in Washington DC doesn't these days. I'm just saying that you don't beat a dead horse and get anything you are striving for.
IMHO, there ARE things we can do about Obamacare AND what's passing as constitutional in Washington which are legal and have a possibility of success. Getting this law thrown out on the "it didn't originate in the house" argument is effectively dead at this point. We need legislators who understand how this is supposed to work, who will appoint judges who understand how the constitution is supposed to work, passing laws consistent with the constitution and reining in the abuse of power that is Washington today a thing of the past. But that takes winning the hearts and minds of the American people who vote, and just continually going after this one thing is not going to appeal to them.
Another Thermodynamic neophyte... It is the rate of heat FLOW from the hot to the cold that gets you power our of a system, so you need to dump a lot of heat.
Yeah, I know how they work. Electric motors don't have this problem. That's why they are superior.
So are you seriously arguing that electric motors are more efficient?
Perhaps from an "energy in" to "work out" for the motor they might be, but if you go back to the production of the electricity and calculate the losses in: the IR losses in transmission to the charger, conversion from AC to DC to charge the battery, the chemical reactions in the battery, the IR losses IN the battery, the IR losses in the car to the motor AND the IR losses in the motor, I seriously doubt the efficiency of the total system is even close to an internal combustion engine...
But given how they are used, with wildly varying power outputs, RPMs and operating conditions, they are amazingly good.
Electric motors are much better. Very efficient. No problem with varying power. Maximum torque at low speed. Smaller and lighter.
But the over all efficiency is the REAL question. Where does that electric power come from? No not the battery, it's just storing power that comes from someplace else, where does it come from? Usually the electric grid, and were does that come from? Just going back to the electrical generation source is going to blow your efficiency calculations in favor of an internal combustion engine.
Oh, and NOT that much smaller and lighter when you figure in the batteries and control systems... Where an electric motor isn't that big, Batteries are pretty heavy and bulky.
If your opponent has an argument that is "technically correct" and the courts didn't call them on it but doesn't meet the spirit of the law as you see it, you are playing a bad hand. I don't disagree with you that this didn't meet the spirit of the constitution but Given that the courts have declined to see it our way, Stop beating this horse, it's dead.
I'm suggesting that we let the argument over what is clearly opinion go in favor of arguments which are more likely to gain results where it counts, in public opinion. There are a whole lot more important things to be harping on than this.
Software update is software to call it to you when it calculates that you will not be able to make it to your destination.
And here my first thought was similar but different. Not only will the car complain about how far it can go, it will start complaining if you drive out of battery range of a charging station, letting you know in advance how long the 115V extension cord charge will take to get you back into range of a charging station.
Oh wait, that only puts certainty into the "how far can I go" calculus, it doesn't really do away with range anxiety, at least if it doesn't prompt you to take the other car out of the motor pool and leave the model S at home.
The small subgroup of middle age, mid life crises men, who bought the model S as some form of maintaining their sexual prowess only to be overcome with 'range anxiety'.
And here I thought the model S purchase was about assuaging their guilt over their incredibly large and expensive carbon foot print that their rich lives had.
Where is all the "bigger the foot the bigger the... " logic here?
Large trucks routinely get 700+ miles out of a tank full, or actually two tanks full. Of course they usually carry over 100 gal per side too. However, this is really because "time is money" in the trucking business and it's all about getting miles behind the load ASAP. You don't want to stop for fuel every 300 miles if you can help it, you want to book as many miles as your hours allow and only stop when the law requires it.
Oh the horror.. You need to stop slaughtering the sacred cow of the environmentalists.
Let them spend more money on their electric cars and believe they are helping the environment if they insist. Stop confusing them with actual logic and facts because this is about assuaging their guilt about being rich consumers, and not about the environment. You are poking the sacred cow when you bring up CO2 emissions. They won't like that.