You also forgot that most houses in US already receive 220VAC.
No, it's close enough to 100% of houses. And it's actually 240 VAC. For commercial property, you can take any two legs of a three-phase circuit and get 208 VAC.
You are asking people to lower their standard of living (giving up personal transport)
Two fallacies, here. First, places with good public transportation are correlated with a higher standard of living, not the other way around, and some of that is direct cause and effect. I don't blame you for not knowing this, because it's likely you're an American, and thus likely that you haven't spent much time (much less lived) in such a place, and you can't love what you don't know.
The second error was that no one said anything about giving up your personal transport -- just using it less. Reducing the problem to absolutes is to create a false dichotomy. There will be no 100% solutions.
In a slowly-moving traffic, a running A/C will really eat into battery life.
No it won't; No need to spread misinformation. Typical road load in an EV is 10,000-20,000 watts. Typical load from the AC compressor is 500 watts, and closer to half that in practice because the compressor cycles on and off. Measurable, yes. Significant, no.
Unless it is really cheap, I don't see, why many people would rush to buy it.
It's the fuel cost that's cheap -- almost negligible -- and the convenience of being able to refuel at home (usually overnight). Also, EVs are powerful, smooth, and quiet, which makes them fun to drive.
The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.
That's only self censorship in the same sense that employer-mandated drug tests are "optional -- as long as you don't mind losing your job". Game developers censor themselves because if they didn't, their publishing opportunities would be zero thanks to console vendors and the ESRB.
...all of you are fixating on the USA, which is infamous for having a generally good road system, and some of the shittiest embarrassing public transit systems in the world.
Basing your "public transit won't work for me" whining on a known-bad system isn't useful. OF COURSE our transit systems won't work for you because THEY SUCK, but look around (perhaps even to, gasp, other countries) to get an idea of what COULD BE.
The real question should be "Why are we still using ancient text messages instead of regular email?" All of my friends in Japan regularly do full-on email on their phones, and only have a vague-if-any notion of what a regular "text message" is elsewhere. 160-character limit? That is *so* 1990s.
Wind and solar [...] require huge upfront costs, have low reliability
Oh good grief. In many parts of the world, wind energy is profitable without subsidies at $0.05/kWh. Wind and particularly solar are fantastically reliable. A PV install typically has either 0 or 1 moving parts (a fan for active cooling).
Maybe one day there will be an entity that I trust to run a nuclear power plant safely and efficiently.
Do you trust them to run coal plants instead? Because that's what you're getting, whether you realize it or not. The trade-off isn't "nuclear vs. wind and solar", it's "nuclear vs. coal".
More radiation is released from coal-fired generation plants every day than will EVER be released from nuclear plants, and don't even get me started on coal's mercury contamination of fresh water, the environmental effects of coal mining, etc., etc.
It will be decades before wind, solar, and other clean generation technologies begin to make a dent in our generation. Nuclear has the ability to offset coal generation TODAY.
That, and the problem of waste that's hazardous for 10,000 years....
As with the monsters under the bed, those fears aren't rational, they're emotional.
The courts have held, time and time again (in the past) that driving WAS a right.
That doesn't mean you have the right to drive dangerously, run red lights when no one is looking, or drive without insurance, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are the things we're discussing, here.
People do run red lights. Usually because they are ANGRY at a really badly timed intersection.
Back that up. I'm keenly interested in the reasons why people break laws, and I'd love to see your references. I'm pretty sure you just made it up, but I'd genuinely like to be proven wrong. Cite your evidence.
And then explain why that makes it okay to run red lights.
You've posted a few links that offer weak defense of your third point, which was:
3. This means that in order for red light cameras to be profitable, the lights they are installed in must be poorly timed.
According to your links, several jurisdictions had unreasonably short yellow light times. There is weak evidence that this was a deliberate move to collect additional revenue. If true, this is obviously bad and it needs to be stopped, but it doesn't have much bearing on your assertions.
You've offered no evidence that the cameras aren't profitable unless the lights are poorly timed. You haven't offered any evidence to support your asserted reasons why people run red lights.
Speed traps as profit centers are ridiculous, too. A speed trap almost always means your speed limit is too low.
Sorry, no sympathy from me. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Vehicle crashes in the US kill more people monthly than all of the September 11th attacks combined.
An automated system that extracts money from red light runners and speeders? I can't think of anything better unless it also gives back rubs.
It drives me nuts when traffic violations are used as tax rather then for public safety, and these things typically get passed under the guise of safety.
It drives me nuts when people consider red light violations to be okay as long as no one is looking. Shenanigans like decreasing the yellow light time are dirty and underhanded and need to be decisively stopped, but anything that reduces red light running is a fantastic idea. If the city gets revenue from it, too, then so much the better. Bad drivers get no sympathy from me -- let them pay for my street signs and other public works projects.
Better still would be to make the fines progressive and based on your annual income. This would effectively crack down on the David Lettermans of the world who simply pay the fines because they're negligible.
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Nothing wrong with that, even if it is a profit center for the city.
Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing.
This is the bad part, if it's true. I'm not a traffic engineer -- there may be other reasons for adjusting timings, but trading safety for revenue is immoral at best.
Slashdot Mirror
You also forgot that most houses in US already receive 220VAC.
No, it's close enough to 100% of houses. And it's actually 240 VAC. For commercial property, you can take any two legs of a three-phase circuit and get 208 VAC.
You are asking people to lower their standard of living (giving up personal transport)
Two fallacies, here. First, places with good public transportation are correlated with a higher standard of living, not the other way around, and some of that is direct cause and effect. I don't blame you for not knowing this, because it's likely you're an American, and thus likely that you haven't spent much time (much less lived) in such a place, and you can't love what you don't know.
The second error was that no one said anything about giving up your personal transport -- just using it less. Reducing the problem to absolutes is to create a false dichotomy. There will be no 100% solutions.
In a slowly-moving traffic, a running A/C will really eat into battery life.
No it won't; No need to spread misinformation. Typical road load in an EV is 10,000-20,000 watts. Typical load from the AC compressor is 500 watts, and closer to half that in practice because the compressor cycles on and off. Measurable, yes. Significant, no.
Unless it is really cheap, I don't see, why many people would rush to buy it.
It's the fuel cost that's cheap -- almost negligible -- and the convenience of being able to refuel at home (usually overnight). Also, EVs are powerful, smooth, and quiet, which makes them fun to drive.
Why do you need to be a minority to have an experience with race-based bigotry?
Why are you asking the GP to defend a position he didn't put forth?
The lack of sex has little to do with first amendment as its pretty much all based on the self censorship the industry is doing via the ESRB.
That's only self censorship in the same sense that employer-mandated drug tests are "optional -- as long as you don't mind losing your job". Game developers censor themselves because if they didn't, their publishing opportunities would be zero thanks to console vendors and the ESRB.
"Hang on, let me get my computer out of suspend...
And put my headset on...
I'm going to put on my robe and wizard hat...
...all of you are fixating on the USA, which is infamous for having a generally good road system, and some of the shittiest embarrassing public transit systems in the world.
Basing your "public transit won't work for me" whining on a known-bad system isn't useful. OF COURSE our transit systems won't work for you because THEY SUCK, but look around (perhaps even to, gasp, other countries) to get an idea of what COULD BE.
The real question should be "Why are we still using ancient text messages instead of regular email?" All of my friends in Japan regularly do full-on email on their phones, and only have a vague-if-any notion of what a regular "text message" is elsewhere. 160-character limit? That is *so* 1990s.
The fact that there was a seriously inappropriate response to the problem in the 1930s doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
[...]and only windy areas will benefit from them.
Well I'm glad we finally cleared that up.
Wind and solar [...] require huge upfront costs, have low reliability
Oh good grief. In many parts of the world, wind energy is profitable without subsidies at $0.05/kWh. Wind and particularly solar are fantastically reliable. A PV install typically has either 0 or 1 moving parts (a fan for active cooling).
Maybe one day there will be an entity that I trust to run a nuclear power plant safely and efficiently.
Do you trust them to run coal plants instead? Because that's what you're getting, whether you realize it or not. The trade-off isn't "nuclear vs. wind and solar", it's "nuclear vs. coal".
More radiation is released from coal-fired generation plants every day than will EVER be released from nuclear plants, and don't even get me started on coal's mercury contamination of fresh water, the environmental effects of coal mining, etc., etc.
It will be decades before wind, solar, and other clean generation technologies begin to make a dent in our generation. Nuclear has the ability to offset coal generation TODAY.
That, and the problem of waste that's hazardous for 10,000 years....
As with the monsters under the bed, those fears aren't rational, they're emotional.
There's plenty wrong with that, starting with the fact that a machine cannot be witness against you in Texas.
Oh, good point. You're right. Speeding and red light running should be legal unless a human saw you do it. Nicely done. Bravo.
And I mean if Texas does it then it's got to be the best.
Tesla Roadster (all electric): $98,000
Slightly available.
Liv Inizio (all electric): $100,000
Imaginary.
Lightning Hybrids car (biodiesel): $39,000-$59,000
Imaginary.
The courts have held, time and time again (in the past) that driving WAS a right.
That doesn't mean you have the right to drive dangerously, run red lights when no one is looking, or drive without insurance, which, in case you hadn't noticed, are the things we're discussing, here.
People do run red lights. Usually because they are ANGRY at a really badly timed intersection.
Back that up. I'm keenly interested in the reasons why people break laws, and I'd love to see your references. I'm pretty sure you just made it up, but I'd genuinely like to be proven wrong. Cite your evidence.
And then explain why that makes it okay to run red lights.
You've posted a few links that offer weak defense of your third point, which was:
3. This means that in order for red light cameras to be profitable, the lights they are installed in must be poorly timed.
According to your links, several jurisdictions had unreasonably short yellow light times. There is weak evidence that this was a deliberate move to collect additional revenue. If true, this is obviously bad and it needs to be stopped, but it doesn't have much bearing on your assertions.
You've offered no evidence that the cameras aren't profitable unless the lights are poorly timed. You haven't offered any evidence to support your asserted reasons why people run red lights.
That's all great. Do you have any citations to back up your assertions?
Speed traps as profit centers are ridiculous, too. A speed trap almost always means your speed limit is too low.
Sorry, no sympathy from me. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Vehicle crashes in the US kill more people monthly than all of the September 11th attacks combined.
An automated system that extracts money from red light runners and speeders? I can't think of anything better unless it also gives back rubs.
It drives me nuts when traffic violations are used as tax rather then for public safety, and these things typically get passed under the guise of safety.
It drives me nuts when people consider red light violations to be okay as long as no one is looking. Shenanigans like decreasing the yellow light time are dirty and underhanded and need to be decisively stopped, but anything that reduces red light running is a fantastic idea. If the city gets revenue from it, too, then so much the better. Bad drivers get no sympathy from me -- let them pay for my street signs and other public works projects.
Better still would be to make the fines progressive and based on your annual income. This would effectively crack down on the David Lettermans of the world who simply pay the fines because they're negligible.
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
Thanks to the Compy, we may never know.
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Houston, TX installed "red light cameras."
Nothing wrong with that, even if it is a profit center for the city.
Then the greedy-ass city council wanted more revenue, so they shortened the yellow-light timing.
This is the bad part, if it's true. I'm not a traffic engineer -- there may be other reasons for adjusting timings, but trading safety for revenue is immoral at best.
i've got the hardware, on the phone, to get the free signal. and verizon won't let me
So stop giving them your money, already.
I've heard that in some countries, traffic fines are proportional to one's income. I wish we'd institute that system here.
Sounds like the piece should be called "Ohm's Law".