They should stop selling these extra credits. And I mean "Make it illegal;" Because the wrong people (meaning you and me) are getting the benefits.
The whole world gets the benefits of moving towards EVs. We're investing in that because we believe it's beneficial.
The problem with this perspective is people are literally starving TODAY and you are discussing a future that is decades out.
Those who claim compassion as their motives for this kind of environmental regulation are deluding themselves about the true affects of what they are advocating or why the leaders of such movements are pushing for this. Al Gore was into carbon offset trading and the "Inconvenient truth" about his activity was that he was motivated to make money, not save the polar bears. Other such "leaders" are in it for the research grants that pay their salaries and keep their "labs" in work, and the rest are missing the forest for the trees.
Then we do stupid things like burn food (corn) in our cars as fuel, making food more expensive and pushing more poor into starvation, or making transportation costs rise, driving inflation in commodity prices, though unreasonably strict fuel efficiency and emission standards related to CO2, forcing our poor into lower standards of living.
How's all this compassionate today? People are starving to death right now and don't really care about 20 years in the future because they will be dead before that bright future arrives..
There is a reason we use internal combustion engines and it has a lot to do with the efficiency they have in turning heat into work under the varying load conditions in an automobile application. Other options, such as turbines or steam just don't work all that well or are inefficient under the varying loads.
I think the internal combustion engine is here to stay though the fuel being used may eventually change form, especially in the long haul transportation and freight markets.
I'm all for states rights... We shouldn't have a federal minimum wage if the states can have their own. In fact, a LOT of federal rules and regulations are unnecessary for the same reason. The states should be left to make their own rules about most things anyway.
(Shush though, you might sound like Trump if you keep this perspective up very long.)
another way is that they're pushing the real cost of driving onto the driver. Right now we've got heavily subsidized gasoline. And not just from direct subsidies or even tax breaks. We haven't been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade just to make democracies. We're over there because they have oil and we want it. Our military empire is basically the biggest subsidy in human history. Reducing our dependency on oil imports is how we get away from all that.
This tired old lie? Again?
As another poster points out, we EXPORT oil these days and most of the imported oil we use doesn't come from over there. Could it be that we *like* stable oil prices and that's a benefit for the whole world? Naw, that might be seen as a noble intent for the USA to do things like toss Iraq out of Kuwait...
California is just making cars more expensive for everybody AGAIN...
Look, I'm all for saving the planet, but there are just some things that violate the laws of physics. You can only aspire to gas mileage levels that are so high and after that you are doomed to fail or compromise other areas like safety.
With internal combustion engines we've just about reached the work limits, there isn't any more energy to be had in a gallon on gasoline with 93 octane. You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker), decreasing drag by making cars smaller or the tires harder and shorter. Hybrid technology helps re-use breaking energy but that doesn't help the EPA mileage numbers for highway and increases the weight. You can sell electrics... But only so many of those are even marketable...
So, California wants to push up mileage standards now? Come on, I'm putting up with your emission controls that drove the price of my cars up over the last three decades, I didn't complain all that much, having visited LA and understanding the problem you where facing. I'm complaining now.. Stop this. You are costing me money, money I don't think is necessary and largely impossible to accomplish given the laws of physics.
Hollyweird has a abysmal track record on picking movies.
But the reasons are generally more self inflicted wounds than incompetence. They drink their own self serving cool-aid, believe only their views matter, then end up offending half their prospective customers pushing their left coast morality and ethics in movie scripts that have nothing to do with them. I don't know how many times I've said to myself that had they cut 20- seconds out of the love making sequence (The part without the clothes that wasn't artistic or necessary to develop the story), didn't get all preachy about controversial topics unrelated to the storyline or having some character saying the "F" word twice in every paragraph for no other apparent reason than to draw the MPAA "R" rating, that would have been a great movie. However, given what they threw in for no apparent reason, I cannot recommend this movie to my friends...
Why offend folks if you don't need to for the story line or entertainment value? Seems stupid to me.
Nope, just Israel. Iran is not a real threat to anyone.
Who are you trying to kid? Iran IS a threat with both nukes (in progress), chemical weapons and missiles... Maybe not a direct threat to the USA... Yet... but certainly a threat to our allies. They are also a threat to the straights where most of the world's crude oil gets hauled though and they could shut down shipping though there.
Israel doesn't scare me, though I'm pretty sure they have nukes given to them by the USA... I suppose of you are intent on attacking Israel their nukes might be a threat to you, but they are not to me. Iran's development of nukes is a threat.
Not so stupid, compared to the damage done by having a radiological mess on land.
Where I'd prefer we NOT have the mess and not willy-nilly dump nuclear waste into the ocean, if the choice is having a partially melted down reactor blow apart and burring on land near a major city, or having the option of towing the mess away and scuttling it in the middle of the ocean, I know what I'd choose.
I can attest that it's bright blue... I've actually seen it....
How you ask? The university I went to had a research reactor and I got to visit once. We got to look down into the reactor pool.... And no, I didn't glow green after the visit.
You cannot be serious... You'd let the RNC literally INVENT stuff, pay somebody to put it in a document and hand it to the FBI to be used as material to drive an investigation into the democratic candidate DURING an election cycle?
You are certifiable.. You don't see how dangerous this kind of thing is?
The Steele dossier should have never been given to the FBI by the democrats if they wanted to be ethical about this. However the FBI, full knowing where it came from should have NEVER, EVER even looked at it. Accusations from political opponents are NOT evidence of anything. Making up stuff out of whole cloth on the other guy is the mainstay of political campaigns, mind you. Looking at or using such "information" by is a no win scenario for the FBI as a result. Even if the information is true, the investigation will be politically tainted and the FBI seen as a tool of their political masters, not an independent and impartial investigator of truth.
No, the Steele dossier should have never left Clinton's campaign, much less been used as a driver of an investigation by the FBI...
Why is anybody surprised? I thought the initial motivating idea behind this social media thing being developed was to stalk women. After all, it was developed by a couple of college guys in their dorm room. What do you THINK they where up to? It sure wasn't loud drinking parties, at least not all the time... Somebody was developing code now and then and what could motivate a couple of college guys to do that?
Well.. It's this and impeachment I guess that they can run on..
They are going to get hacked to pieces on immigration reform, DACA and the Wall right before the election, remember that temporary funding bill? That comes due just before the election. Trump tipped his hand over the weekend, he's threatening to shutdown the government over the wall thing... Not sure if that's a good idea or not.. I guess we shall see..
Um.. Yea, still got to say, Nancy was crazy back then too..
Also recall that they HAD to pass this bill NOW or it would be nothing doing in the Senate. They where just about ready to certify the election of a Republican to the vacated Ted Kennedy seat and bust the Democrats nearly 2 year strangle hold on congress and let the Republicans actually have any kind of say.
Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.
But it's not really what the name seems to mean... Typical political ploys and silly partisan games... Call your bill or law something NOBODY can vote no on, regardless of if it actually accomplishes what the title says or not.... So you get stuff like "Aid for Starving Children" act that feeds nobody or "Don't throw Grandma off the cliff!" law that provides wheelchairs so you can roll her instead.
The Net Neutrality rules did little of what it's name implies, it just loaded up the internet with soon to be arcane rules and a pile of jobs at the FCC to enforce them.
When presented with two songs of similar quality, human listeners will greatly prefer the loudest one. Since radio play is all about selling music in other formats, that means that the loudest songs make the most money. There is one easy way to make a song on a CD louder, and that is range compression.
Hence the loudness war, which could have been entirely prevented if radio stations had just done minimal volume correction instead of just dumping whatever is on the CD right onto the airwaves. But that would have required someone at the station to actually care about music.
LOL.. Yea, I cared about quality and thought the station sounded bad on my stereo system at home.. The problem was the program director cared about paying the bills and he was in control of the final processing equipment so he went for as hot as he could using that expensive multiband compressor to press every ounce of "umph" he could without drawing too many complaints or exceeding the FCC's modulation limits.
I don't blame him though, he kept us in the black and making money, which kept my paychecks coming, which where pretty nice for a starving engineering student back in the late 80s. Back in the days when FM was actually where people got their music from.
The sad part though is I think that POP artists and those who produced their albums started producing material that sounded good on the radio and the "sound" of using large amounts of compression and lots of stuff in the mix sort of stuck. Everybody sounded the same.... And those who bucked the trend became either the outcasts or the next new thing and sure as digital follows analog, their next album would revert to over compressed affairs that sounded like the last "best seller"....
'as useful as teets on a bull', but I'll modernize that by coining, "This effort will be as useful as a change.org petition."
Well, you and I know that this protest will be as effective as that petition... As far as Net Neutrality is concerned, this is pointless.
HOWEVER, this is about the midterms and democrats keeping their voters ginned up, not about changing Net Neutrality which is going to take an act of congress to change. Even with the best possible outcome for the democrats in the midterms, it won't happen in the next congress.
Settle in, this is going long term. Net Neutrality is currently dead. Republicans killed it, it's not coming back for at least 3 years, maybe more.
Using the Steele dossier is reasonable. Relying on it is not.
Using a politically funded opposition research document in what has been represented as a criminal probe into the OTHER party's candidate is "reasonable"?
We depart company right there. NOTHING that comes from research funded by ANY political campaign deserves even a glance from the FBI, much less being used in any way to justify search warrants of anybody. Opposition research can say literally ANYTHING about ANYBODY and has zero credibility and thus has zero value in establishing probable cause.
But in this case, it's even worse. Yes, there where "other sources" for some information. HOWEVER if you look at who these sources where and where they got their information it all traces back to the same place, the dossier and it's precursors. Basically, they took multiple news stories, all reporting the same rumors from the same source (i.e. Steele himself) who was blabbing to the press, in spite of his promise not to as terms of his "service" to the FBI. This whole thing, including the warrant on Page was the result of a whisper campaign FUNDED by the Hillary campaign, a fact the FBI KNEW, yet they went to FISA and got the warrant anyway? You've got to see how this stinks... Put the shoe on the other foot, reverse the political party's activities and you KNOW you'd be coming unglued over this.
Slashdot Mirror
They should stop selling these extra credits. And I mean "Make it illegal ;" Because the wrong people (meaning you and me) are getting the benefits.
The whole world gets the benefits of moving towards EVs. We're investing in that because we believe it's beneficial.
The problem with this perspective is people are literally starving TODAY and you are discussing a future that is decades out.
Those who claim compassion as their motives for this kind of environmental regulation are deluding themselves about the true affects of what they are advocating or why the leaders of such movements are pushing for this. Al Gore was into carbon offset trading and the "Inconvenient truth" about his activity was that he was motivated to make money, not save the polar bears. Other such "leaders" are in it for the research grants that pay their salaries and keep their "labs" in work, and the rest are missing the forest for the trees.
Then we do stupid things like burn food (corn) in our cars as fuel, making food more expensive and pushing more poor into starvation, or making transportation costs rise, driving inflation in commodity prices, though unreasonably strict fuel efficiency and emission standards related to CO2, forcing our poor into lower standards of living.
How's all this compassionate today? People are starving to death right now and don't really care about 20 years in the future because they will be dead before that bright future arrives..
What do you suggest we use? Steam?
There is a reason we use internal combustion engines and it has a lot to do with the efficiency they have in turning heat into work under the varying load conditions in an automobile application. Other options, such as turbines or steam just don't work all that well or are inefficient under the varying loads.
I think the internal combustion engine is here to stay though the fuel being used may eventually change form, especially in the long haul transportation and freight markets.
I'm all for states rights... We shouldn't have a federal minimum wage if the states can have their own. In fact, a LOT of federal rules and regulations are unnecessary for the same reason. The states should be left to make their own rules about most things anyway.
(Shush though, you might sound like Trump if you keep this perspective up very long.)
another way is that they're pushing the real cost of driving onto the driver. Right now we've got heavily subsidized gasoline. And not just from direct subsidies or even tax breaks. We haven't been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade just to make democracies. We're over there because they have oil and we want it. Our military empire is basically the biggest subsidy in human history. Reducing our dependency on oil imports is how we get away from all that.
This tired old lie? Again?
As another poster points out, we EXPORT oil these days and most of the imported oil we use doesn't come from over there. Could it be that we *like* stable oil prices and that's a benefit for the whole world? Naw, that might be seen as a noble intent for the USA to do things like toss Iraq out of Kuwait...
Careful, you might trigger them. The delusion is strong and the lie pervasive.
California is just making cars more expensive for everybody AGAIN...
Look, I'm all for saving the planet, but there are just some things that violate the laws of physics. You can only aspire to gas mileage levels that are so high and after that you are doomed to fail or compromise other areas like safety.
With internal combustion engines we've just about reached the work limits, there isn't any more energy to be had in a gallon on gasoline with 93 octane. You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker), decreasing drag by making cars smaller or the tires harder and shorter. Hybrid technology helps re-use breaking energy but that doesn't help the EPA mileage numbers for highway and increases the weight. You can sell electrics... But only so many of those are even marketable...
So, California wants to push up mileage standards now? Come on, I'm putting up with your emission controls that drove the price of my cars up over the last three decades, I didn't complain all that much, having visited LA and understanding the problem you where facing. I'm complaining now.. Stop this. You are costing me money, money I don't think is necessary and largely impossible to accomplish given the laws of physics.
Touché.... I should know better.. My bad..
Homonyms, Eye due knot no witch two right off ten.
Bravo.. You beat me to it..
Hollyweird has a abysmal track record on picking movies.
But the reasons are generally more self inflicted wounds than incompetence. They drink their own self serving cool-aid, believe only their views matter, then end up offending half their prospective customers pushing their left coast morality and ethics in movie scripts that have nothing to do with them. I don't know how many times I've said to myself that had they cut 20- seconds out of the love making sequence (The part without the clothes that wasn't artistic or necessary to develop the story), didn't get all preachy about controversial topics unrelated to the storyline or having some character saying the "F" word twice in every paragraph for no other apparent reason than to draw the MPAA "R" rating, that would have been a great movie. However, given what they threw in for no apparent reason, I cannot recommend this movie to my friends...
Why offend folks if you don't need to for the story line or entertainment value? Seems stupid to me.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
Queue complaints about the federal minimum wage not being a "living wage" in California in 3.... 2.... 1....
So if we implement E-Verify and you cannot be a 'contractor' any more... I think there will be a huge blow back in California over this.
Can you imagine what this means to the illegals?
Having a million names on a micro chip? Seriously? That's all the room/weight allowance you got? I think not.
You could easily get a billion names on a something pretty small and light.. Especially if you didn't really care to be able to read them later.
Besides, who's going to know?
Nope, just Israel. Iran is not a real threat to anyone.
Who are you trying to kid? Iran IS a threat with both nukes (in progress), chemical weapons and missiles... Maybe not a direct threat to the USA... Yet... but certainly a threat to our allies. They are also a threat to the straights where most of the world's crude oil gets hauled though and they could shut down shipping though there.
Israel doesn't scare me, though I'm pretty sure they have nukes given to them by the USA... I suppose of you are intent on attacking Israel their nukes might be a threat to you, but they are not to me. Iran's development of nukes is a threat.
ACTUALLY....
Not so stupid, compared to the damage done by having a radiological mess on land.
Where I'd prefer we NOT have the mess and not willy-nilly dump nuclear waste into the ocean, if the choice is having a partially melted down reactor blow apart and burring on land near a major city, or having the option of towing the mess away and scuttling it in the middle of the ocean, I know what I'd choose.
I know where you can get 1.21 gigawatts in wheels. It goes 88 MPH.
Only when you can get it started... Think McFly, Think!
Reactors typically glow blue, not green.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
I can attest that it's bright blue... I've actually seen it....
How you ask? The university I went to had a research reactor and I got to visit once. We got to look down into the reactor pool.... And no, I didn't glow green after the visit.
No.. That's the Russians fleet.
(Yes, I'm kidding, sort of)
You cannot be serious... You'd let the RNC literally INVENT stuff, pay somebody to put it in a document and hand it to the FBI to be used as material to drive an investigation into the democratic candidate DURING an election cycle?
You are certifiable.. You don't see how dangerous this kind of thing is?
The Steele dossier should have never been given to the FBI by the democrats if they wanted to be ethical about this. However the FBI, full knowing where it came from should have NEVER, EVER even looked at it. Accusations from political opponents are NOT evidence of anything. Making up stuff out of whole cloth on the other guy is the mainstay of political campaigns, mind you. Looking at or using such "information" by is a no win scenario for the FBI as a result. Even if the information is true, the investigation will be politically tainted and the FBI seen as a tool of their political masters, not an independent and impartial investigator of truth.
No, the Steele dossier should have never left Clinton's campaign, much less been used as a driver of an investigation by the FBI...
Hey, this is the court of public opinion.. Normal rules of evidence don't apply here..
Hearsay of hearsay is admissible here! Forget protecting the accused's rights.
There's no WAY it's "an" employee.
LOL, I see what you did there...
Why is anybody surprised? I thought the initial motivating idea behind this social media thing being developed was to stalk women. After all, it was developed by a couple of college guys in their dorm room. What do you THINK they where up to? It sure wasn't loud drinking parties, at least not all the time... Somebody was developing code now and then and what could motivate a couple of college guys to do that?
Well.. It's this and impeachment I guess that they can run on..
They are going to get hacked to pieces on immigration reform, DACA and the Wall right before the election, remember that temporary funding bill? That comes due just before the election. Trump tipped his hand over the weekend, he's threatening to shutdown the government over the wall thing... Not sure if that's a good idea or not.. I guess we shall see..
Um.. Yea, still got to say, Nancy was crazy back then too..
Also recall that they HAD to pass this bill NOW or it would be nothing doing in the Senate. They where just about ready to certify the election of a Republican to the vacated Ted Kennedy seat and bust the Democrats nearly 2 year strangle hold on congress and let the Republicans actually have any kind of say.
Just calling it "Net Neutrality" is meaningless. What is in the bill? If its true neutrality it will pass with a huge margin and Trump will sign it.
But it's not really what the name seems to mean... Typical political ploys and silly partisan games... Call your bill or law something NOBODY can vote no on, regardless of if it actually accomplishes what the title says or not.... So you get stuff like "Aid for Starving Children" act that feeds nobody or "Don't throw Grandma off the cliff!" law that provides wheelchairs so you can roll her instead.
The Net Neutrality rules did little of what it's name implies, it just loaded up the internet with soon to be arcane rules and a pile of jobs at the FCC to enforce them.
When presented with two songs of similar quality, human listeners will greatly prefer the loudest one. Since radio play is all about selling music in other formats, that means that the loudest songs make the most money. There is one easy way to make a song on a CD louder, and that is range compression.
Hence the loudness war, which could have been entirely prevented if radio stations had just done minimal volume correction instead of just dumping whatever is on the CD right onto the airwaves. But that would have required someone at the station to actually care about music.
LOL.. Yea, I cared about quality and thought the station sounded bad on my stereo system at home.. The problem was the program director cared about paying the bills and he was in control of the final processing equipment so he went for as hot as he could using that expensive multiband compressor to press every ounce of "umph" he could without drawing too many complaints or exceeding the FCC's modulation limits.
I don't blame him though, he kept us in the black and making money, which kept my paychecks coming, which where pretty nice for a starving engineering student back in the late 80s. Back in the days when FM was actually where people got their music from.
The sad part though is I think that POP artists and those who produced their albums started producing material that sounded good on the radio and the "sound" of using large amounts of compression and lots of stuff in the mix sort of stuck. Everybody sounded the same.... And those who bucked the trend became either the outcasts or the next new thing and sure as digital follows analog, their next album would revert to over compressed affairs that sounded like the last "best seller"....
'as useful as teets on a bull', but I'll modernize that by coining, "This effort will be as useful as a change.org petition."
Well, you and I know that this protest will be as effective as that petition... As far as Net Neutrality is concerned, this is pointless.
HOWEVER, this is about the midterms and democrats keeping their voters ginned up, not about changing Net Neutrality which is going to take an act of congress to change. Even with the best possible outcome for the democrats in the midterms, it won't happen in the next congress.
Settle in, this is going long term. Net Neutrality is currently dead. Republicans killed it, it's not coming back for at least 3 years, maybe more.
Using the Steele dossier is reasonable. Relying on it is not.
Using a politically funded opposition research document in what has been represented as a criminal probe into the OTHER party's candidate is "reasonable"?
We depart company right there. NOTHING that comes from research funded by ANY political campaign deserves even a glance from the FBI, much less being used in any way to justify search warrants of anybody. Opposition research can say literally ANYTHING about ANYBODY and has zero credibility and thus has zero value in establishing probable cause.
But in this case, it's even worse. Yes, there where "other sources" for some information. HOWEVER if you look at who these sources where and where they got their information it all traces back to the same place, the dossier and it's precursors. Basically, they took multiple news stories, all reporting the same rumors from the same source (i.e. Steele himself) who was blabbing to the press, in spite of his promise not to as terms of his "service" to the FBI. This whole thing, including the warrant on Page was the result of a whisper campaign FUNDED by the Hillary campaign, a fact the FBI KNEW, yet they went to FISA and got the warrant anyway? You've got to see how this stinks... Put the shoe on the other foot, reverse the political party's activities and you KNOW you'd be coming unglued over this.