I got around Vancouver for two years by bicycle and got hit 6 times
This is called "sometimes you have to start taking responsibility for not getting hurt".
As a driver of a bicycle or a small car or a motorcycle, it's your job to act as if everyone is out to get you. By driving cautiously and safely, you can make sure you don't end up on someone's hood.
I rode around for 2 years in Winnipeg, and never got into anything even remotely like an accident, because I rode prudently and avoided situations where anyone would or could hit me.
Same in one of these things. It's safer to be safer.
Depends what you consider emissions. CO2 is probably a lot lower, but particulates are probably way higher.
It's a simple engineering question of deciding what you want. If you reduce the particle emission and such, that's fine, but you're going to increase CO2 emissions and reduce mileage.
The "saving money" arguement doesn't actually take you very far.
I drive a big beast of a truck, a 1994 Ford F250 Turbodiesel. I use it to go to and from work, which costs me about 40 dollars per week.
At that rate, my annual gasoline budget is only about $2,000/yr. Assuming I'd be looking at a 5 year ownership period for a vehicle before depreciation eats everything, that's only about $10,000 I can play with in terms of gas payback before I sell the thing to try to get some of my capital back.
The ideal car, in my view, would get insane mileage, and also cost less than $10,000 new with a 3 year bumper to bumper/5 year powertrain warranty. With those terms, paying the price for that vehicle would cost about as much as buying a used vehicle, but you'd have no worries about key components failing.
At that point, you've got a vehicle that basically pays you to drive it. It gives me a reason to give up my truck (for the small savings in gasoline I'd get between it and a sedan, there's little reason to go without), it gives me a reason to buy new (the economics aren't there for most new vehicles, which I simply wouldn't buy because they're too expensive and after a year or two you can get them for half-price), and the small size gives me a practical reason to be interested (Ever try parking a full size longbox extended cab truck?).
Car company execs: Are you listening? Lobby the congress to reduce safety laws if you have to for certain categories of vehicle, and deliver what would amount to a modern yugo, with new technology to make up for the shortcomings of the original crappy car.
Simply kill larger vehicles the way they killed the station wagon, and the way they're trying to kill the motorcycle. Just make it more expensive to buy, more expensive to license, more expensive to insure, more expensive to operate.
Maybe we should appeal to their paranoid nature then, by telling them that if they keep on driving their SUVs, we're going to head to a dysopian future where our children will have to fight to the death for a litre of gas to put in their VW concept cars (that they had to murder an entire village with their bare hands to steal).
When the chips are down and it really matters, I'd say if you live up north black is the safest colour. Anything darker than the whiteout might actually get seen.
The people who drive white cars up here are absolutely insane. They should give up their SUVs and trucks and drive one of these, at least to save on gas.
I'd like to second the concept of "crash-worthiness".
For about a year and a half, I drove a 1985 Bronco II.
Now, by everyone's metrics here, I was laughing. The thing had my height in sheet metal behind me, probably four feet of metal in front of me, and a pretty good amount to my left. To my right, there was a door, but it doesn't matter what you drive, the driver-side door is not a good place to get hit.
When I drove it, I knew full well I had to make sure I didn't get into any major accidents, because if I did, I'd be dead.
It had no crumple zones, no airbags, it had a high center of gravity so if a small sports car hit me I could easily flip over. If I slid into the ditch, I could end up upside down. If I was on a rainy road, the short wheelbase and tall center of gravity would mean I could easily end up backwards, or upside down.
More metal doesn't mean more safety. It just means the illusion of more safety. That's one of the reasons we saw automotive manufacturers go from lots of sheet metal and cars built like tanks to small vehicles with crumple zones and airbags.
What's really sick is that they buy our votes right back.
Think about it. In the past 8 years, the average household has recieved about 3,000 in cheques from the government. The cheques aren't paid for with tax revenues, they're paid for with debt that the baby boomers never intend to pay back, putting the onus on me, and my kids, and my grandkids, to pay for their cheques.
Just imagine if everyone took their cheques and used it to "contribute" to their congressman or senator. We'd be able to bribe half the congress with the money they used to bribe us!
I think I'd consider it treasonous most of the stuff that gets by.
If the constitution says "You have the right to bear arms and form militias", then I don't really see, barring a larger conspiracy which includes the courts getting in on the action and deeming such things constitutional despite the fact that they clearly aren't, and having that same judicial fiat used to further tear holes in the constitution by precedent.
In that case, since the judiciary takes an oath to uphold the constitution, I'd deem the politician and the judge both treasonous.
Both. The congress passes laws, but the courts determine how it's going to be interpreted, which is a more subtle power, but one that allows the courts to effectively write the law when they want to.
Also, there's an entire body of law known as "common law", created by the courts. The courts themselves hold full authority in what the common law is, since they're the ones who created it, long ago.
I'd submit that the music industry has more to do with drug cartels than most would admit.
Or do musicians grow the famously massive quantities of drugs they're always smoking, snorting, and ijecting in their back yards? Maybe MC Hammer has a grow op in his pants?
Trees grow back, and using that much paper would help the struggling pulp and paper industry. If the struggling pulp and paper industry gets a boost, odds are they'll use some of their newfound capital for energy projects which will reduce the already negligable carbon footprint of paper mills.
Erm... The moon isn't made out of gold and silver, it's mostly made out of oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, and aluminium for the first 20km or so.
I think you're in trouble if you think you're going to get a trillion dollars for a cubic meter of anything on the moon.
Also, you're in for a rude awakening if you think you can create a machine that can create replicas of itself with anything less than a ridiculous amount of energy and time(Smelting in a cubic meter?! With what? Solar power?!). Most of the elements you'd need to produce such a device wouldn't be abundant enough in the moon's crust, destroying your reason for trying such a thing in the first place. Some of the compounds, like petroleum lubrication, simply wouldn't be available on the moon in any quantity, pretty much leaving you with nothing.
I'd say it's less about understanding statistics than understanding that statistics can be skewed too easily.
Excellent example:
1. Jack Thompson can point to studies showing that video games cause people to be more violent.
2. A central prediction of his theory should be an increase in violent crime, increasing constantly as older populations age and are replaced by those who would play video games.
3. When people say "I play video games and I'm not violent", he says it's not statistically relevant.
4. At this point, most people in the USA have played video games at some point.
5. DoJ statistics show a decrease in violent crime every single year since Doom was released.
Thus, the central prediction of his theory, an increase of violence among game playing individuals, can be shown to be false, despite his psychology and statistics showing it to be true within carefully controlled environments with carefully controlled definitions of violence.
As the phone systems in Canada aptly demonstrate, good cellular coverage requires massive capital investment against entrenched companies, making it prohibitively expensive to enter the market as 'some startup'.
If was easy to enter the market with modern equipment and a large enough coverage area, Canada wouldn't be using the wrong cell phone technology. A few small providers try to provide newer protocol service, but the cellular phone I bought in Winnipeg won't work anywhere but Winnipeg, while my crusty old cell phone from MTS will work across Canada, even in the far north.
Slashdot Mirror
I got around Vancouver for two years by bicycle and got hit 6 times
This is called "sometimes you have to start taking responsibility for not getting hurt".
As a driver of a bicycle or a small car or a motorcycle, it's your job to act as if everyone is out to get you. By driving cautiously and safely, you can make sure you don't end up on someone's hood.
I rode around for 2 years in Winnipeg, and never got into anything even remotely like an accident, because I rode prudently and avoided situations where anyone would or could hit me.
Same in one of these things. It's safer to be safer.
Depends what you consider emissions. CO2 is probably a lot lower, but particulates are probably way higher.
It's a simple engineering question of deciding what you want. If you reduce the particle emission and such, that's fine, but you're going to increase CO2 emissions and reduce mileage.
The "saving money" arguement doesn't actually take you very far.
I drive a big beast of a truck, a 1994 Ford F250 Turbodiesel. I use it to go to and from work, which costs me about 40 dollars per week.
At that rate, my annual gasoline budget is only about $2,000/yr. Assuming I'd be looking at a 5 year ownership period for a vehicle before depreciation eats everything, that's only about $10,000 I can play with in terms of gas payback before I sell the thing to try to get some of my capital back.
The ideal car, in my view, would get insane mileage, and also cost less than $10,000 new with a 3 year bumper to bumper/5 year powertrain warranty. With those terms, paying the price for that vehicle would cost about as much as buying a used vehicle, but you'd have no worries about key components failing.
At that point, you've got a vehicle that basically pays you to drive it. It gives me a reason to give up my truck (for the small savings in gasoline I'd get between it and a sedan, there's little reason to go without), it gives me a reason to buy new (the economics aren't there for most new vehicles, which I simply wouldn't buy because they're too expensive and after a year or two you can get them for half-price), and the small size gives me a practical reason to be interested (Ever try parking a full size longbox extended cab truck?).
Car company execs: Are you listening? Lobby the congress to reduce safety laws if you have to for certain categories of vehicle, and deliver what would amount to a modern yugo, with new technology to make up for the shortcomings of the original crappy car.
Because regular cars CAN get that already, but the cost is too great to justify buying one?
If you fear islamic terrorists, then they are your master.
Osama bin Laden could easily sway the election, simply by releasing a tape saying "I am Osama bin Laden, and I support John McCain."
He did it for Kerry, after all.
Simply kill larger vehicles the way they killed the station wagon, and the way they're trying to kill the motorcycle. Just make it more expensive to buy, more expensive to license, more expensive to insure, more expensive to operate.
I've heard that in the US, you don't even lose your license if you get caught for drinking and driving. Is this true?
Interestingly, if you crash into a divider at 70mph with a regular car, the video tells us, you'd be dead too.
What does this tell us? It tells us that you shouldn't run into walls at 70mph. How terrible. I'm crushed.
Maybe we should appeal to their paranoid nature then, by telling them that if they keep on driving their SUVs, we're going to head to a dysopian future where our children will have to fight to the death for a litre of gas to put in their VW concept cars (that they had to murder an entire village with their bare hands to steal).
When the chips are down and it really matters, I'd say if you live up north black is the safest colour. Anything darker than the whiteout might actually get seen.
The people who drive white cars up here are absolutely insane. They should give up their SUVs and trucks and drive one of these, at least to save on gas.
I'd like to second the concept of "crash-worthiness".
For about a year and a half, I drove a 1985 Bronco II.
Now, by everyone's metrics here, I was laughing. The thing had my height in sheet metal behind me, probably four feet of metal in front of me, and a pretty good amount to my left. To my right, there was a door, but it doesn't matter what you drive, the driver-side door is not a good place to get hit.
When I drove it, I knew full well I had to make sure I didn't get into any major accidents, because if I did, I'd be dead.
It had no crumple zones, no airbags, it had a high center of gravity so if a small sports car hit me I could easily flip over. If I slid into the ditch, I could end up upside down. If I was on a rainy road, the short wheelbase and tall center of gravity would mean I could easily end up backwards, or upside down.
More metal doesn't mean more safety. It just means the illusion of more safety. That's one of the reasons we saw automotive manufacturers go from lots of sheet metal and cars built like tanks to small vehicles with crumple zones and airbags.
What's really sick is that they buy our votes right back.
Think about it. In the past 8 years, the average household has recieved about 3,000 in cheques from the government. The cheques aren't paid for with tax revenues, they're paid for with debt that the baby boomers never intend to pay back, putting the onus on me, and my kids, and my grandkids, to pay for their cheques.
Just imagine if everyone took their cheques and used it to "contribute" to their congressman or senator. We'd be able to bribe half the congress with the money they used to bribe us!
If you don't vote republican, if the democrats win the election, then we're going to see another 9/11.
Wait. What?
I think I'd consider it treasonous most of the stuff that gets by.
If the constitution says "You have the right to bear arms and form militias", then I don't really see, barring a larger conspiracy which includes the courts getting in on the action and deeming such things constitutional despite the fact that they clearly aren't, and having that same judicial fiat used to further tear holes in the constitution by precedent.
In that case, since the judiciary takes an oath to uphold the constitution, I'd deem the politician and the judge both treasonous.
Both. The congress passes laws, but the courts determine how it's going to be interpreted, which is a more subtle power, but one that allows the courts to effectively write the law when they want to.
Also, there's an entire body of law known as "common law", created by the courts. The courts themselves hold full authority in what the common law is, since they're the ones who created it, long ago.
You guys HAD the choice of Ron Paul, but everyone said he was an insane fringe candidate.
He doesn't have a hundred million dollars from a lifetime of accepting bribes, he's got 5 million dollars from a lifetime of community service.
I'd submit that the music industry has more to do with drug cartels than most would admit.
Or do musicians grow the famously massive quantities of drugs they're always smoking, snorting, and ijecting in their back yards? Maybe MC Hammer has a grow op in his pants?
I'd call the enemies of the constitution the enemies of the state, since the state is founded upon the constitution.
Isn't that just because the wealthy have gotten a head start?
No need to change what's already been designed and built around you.
Since it's not the entire episode, just a clip, does it fall under fair use laws?
Trees grow back, and using that much paper would help the struggling pulp and paper industry. If the struggling pulp and paper industry gets a boost, odds are they'll use some of their newfound capital for energy projects which will reduce the already negligable carbon footprint of paper mills.
Net effect on the environment: Positive.
Erm... The moon isn't made out of gold and silver, it's mostly made out of oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, and aluminium for the first 20km or so.
I think you're in trouble if you think you're going to get a trillion dollars for a cubic meter of anything on the moon.
Also, you're in for a rude awakening if you think you can create a machine that can create replicas of itself with anything less than a ridiculous amount of energy and time(Smelting in a cubic meter?! With what? Solar power?!). Most of the elements you'd need to produce such a device wouldn't be abundant enough in the moon's crust, destroying your reason for trying such a thing in the first place. Some of the compounds, like petroleum lubrication, simply wouldn't be available on the moon in any quantity, pretty much leaving you with nothing.
Of course it's a series of tubes! What do you think, the Internet is a big truck? It isn't!
I'd say it's less about understanding statistics than understanding that statistics can be skewed too easily.
Excellent example:
1. Jack Thompson can point to studies showing that video games cause people to be more violent.
2. A central prediction of his theory should be an increase in violent crime, increasing constantly as older populations age and are replaced by those who would play video games.
3. When people say "I play video games and I'm not violent", he says it's not statistically relevant.
4. At this point, most people in the USA have played video games at some point.
5. DoJ statistics show a decrease in violent crime every single year since Doom was released.
Thus, the central prediction of his theory, an increase of violence among game playing individuals, can be shown to be false, despite his psychology and statistics showing it to be true within carefully controlled environments with carefully controlled definitions of violence.
As the phone systems in Canada aptly demonstrate, good cellular coverage requires massive capital investment against entrenched companies, making it prohibitively expensive to enter the market as 'some startup'.
If was easy to enter the market with modern equipment and a large enough coverage area, Canada wouldn't be using the wrong cell phone technology. A few small providers try to provide newer protocol service, but the cellular phone I bought in Winnipeg won't work anywhere but Winnipeg, while my crusty old cell phone from MTS will work across Canada, even in the far north.