That shiney new SUV likely is way more fuel efficent than a 20-30 year old car.
How many 1976 cars do you seen on the road, compared to recent SUVs? But yes, I have no problem with also removing older cars from the road. (With an exception for maintained antique cars.) Indeed it has been suggested by some that a targeted buy-back of old cars would be a great way to reduce pollution, but I haven't examined that proposal.
As gas is almost 1/3 tax WTF more do you want?
Current gas taxes pay only for roads. The ecological costs are not factored in; nor are the foreign policy and military costs required to keep oil cheap, nor the costs of subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies.
That we're here to worry about it, for one. Climate changes that occurred 50 million years ago didn't affect human civilization; the one we're undergoing now, will.
do you guys really think that 'man' is actually doing enough harm to this planet??
It is the scientific consensus that human activity is likely a significant factor in global climate change, yes.
There are a few, mostly industry shills, who argue very loudly that this consensus is wrong. Unfortunately they receive press coverage far out of proportion with their numbers.
Oh, that's right, you liberals don't think twice about dictating how other people spend the fruits of their labor.
Your right to spend the "fruits of your labor" ends where it affects others. If you want to run your SUV on biodiesel, I won't complain, but if you're driving a standard Hummer you're externalizing a hell of a lot of the cost onto the rest of us, and it is appropriate to use state power to make you stop.
Perhaps we should work first on understanding the problem before coming up with solutions.
The best thing you do when confronted with a critial system you don't understand, is don't do anything that can screw it up. ("Hey, here's our spaceship's life support system! I'll bet if I frob a few controls I can make everything more comfortable for everyone!") Unfortunately, we've already done that.
The next best thing is to stop doing things that screw it up. We are slowly starting to move in the direction of thinking about forming a committee to investigate the possibility of forming a plan to do that.
If we are very very lucky, we will get out shit together in the next decade or two, and the system is self-regulating enough and the damage done small enough that it will gently self-correct.
If it does not, we will not have time to fully understand the system before taking action to preserve an ecosystem compatible with human civilization. Which means we'll have a choice of definitely get screwed, or take a gamble on a action that might save us or might get us screwed worse.
Of course we should strive to understand the system better. But we're probably going to have to make some drastic choices on the basis of incomplete understanding.
(hint: the state is not permitted to regulate what constitutes a safe speed on a federal roadway).
Nonsense. Eisenhower may have successfully argued that building limited access highways was vital to national security, but there's no way that implies that the states lose sovereignty to set their own driving laws.
reckless driving: thought crime, ticket them only if they have an accident
Reckless driving is no more a "thought crime" than reckless discharge of a firearm; both are significant threats to the safety of other people, and both should be punished, regardless of whether the bullet or car hits someone.
You'll be standing out there with 8 other like-minded individuals holding your guns, and in front of you will be a tank, a 50 cal. machine gun, and a bunch of guys in body armor. A happy populace does not constitute an environment within which executing a revolution will result in anything but getting the revolutionaries creamed.
My goal is not to start a revolution. My goal is to raise the price of government repression.
If I envision some future total collpase of liberty in the U.S., my objective as an armed citizen is that when they come to drag me off to Gitmo or whereever, I can take some stormtroopers out of this world with me. That just might make some naive kid think twice about signing up to bust down doors and drag off malcontents; and if the Powers That Be run out of naive kids to sign up for stormtrooper duty, they're screwed.
I could counter with 'if you don't know what a red tolerance band on a resistor means' I guess.
Actually, while I remember "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls Behind Various Garden Walls", you'd have got me on that until I saw your.sig. We only had gold, silver, and none back in the high school electronics lab where I learned that.:-) (When I did some circuits in college physics lab, we didn't use color-coded components but some big ol' power resistors with the values printed on 'em.)
"u tube" does not list the domain utube.com in the first 100 search results. Neither does u tube. I wrongly suggested that utube didn't either, and for that I am sorry.
With a quoted phrase '"u tube"', you are correct. With the much more likely unquoted two-word search phrase 'u tube', Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corporation's utube.com is the second result, behind youtube.com.
Just because Google vaguely understands egregiously broken HTML doesn't mean it's a good practice producing it.
Didn't suggest that it was. Only that your statement that "Non-semantic code is basically just jibberish for search engines" is about an order of magnitude too strong.
I would agree that this is unfortunate, but creationists are at least better off than flat-earth folk. I mean, you can fly a plane around the earth if you want.
You gonna lend me the plane?
Oh, I'm supposed to take your word for it? How is that different than taking the word of people who do carbon dating "proving" that the world is older than 6,000 years? Feh. Like you can't fly in a circle above a flat plane. This "spherical Earth" stuff is all a bunch of Satanic lies
You either understand that the world is flat (quadralateral, in fact, since the Bible refers to the "four corners" of the world), about 6,000 years old, that the first woman was made out a man's rib, and that we're all decended from incestual relations amoung their children; or you go down the path of sin and start listening to these evil "scientists" spin their web of lies.
A Google search for "U Tube" or search for "utube"doesn't yield Universal Tube's homepage as any of the first 100 results.
What are you talking about? utube.com is the very first result on a Google search for "utube", and the second for "u tube".
And Google is smart enough to understand code that doesn't pass w3c validation - which is good, because only a vanishingly small percent of sites pass.
Re:Soundspace (not namespace) problem
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
If a trademarked sound
Trademark is not the issue.
youtube (2005) had launched after utube.com (2006)
The news page of a website is not a guide to the domain's age, whois is. utube.com (26-Oct-1996) is far older then youtube.com (15-Feb-2005).
Anyone with even half a brain would have upgraded thier hosting and stuck adverts on that page
Having trouble with your website? Hey, why don't you just completely change your business model, and instead of being a company that actually makes things useful in the real world (providing valuable manufacturing jobs), just become a domain-typo squatting parasite instead?
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
how does a different website prevent your customers from getting to yours?
Have you ever heard of something called the "slashdot effect", by which one site linking to anyother can overwhelm it?
This is overwhelming utube.com in a very similar way. Except that it's ongoing, not just a few hours long, and is destroying their business.
While neither of those would seem to apply here, it is the case that Universal Tube is suffering harm, via the endless slashdotting caused by the phonetic confusion.
No, it's not. It's a slashdotting that never ends. It's destroying their ability to do business via their website.
Not every company makes its money off of ad impressions, some actually make real things. And suggesting, as some have in this thread, that a manufacturing company ought to just change, overnight, into an domain-name squatting parasite is ridiculous.
Wait, is the problem you are describing with the repeaters, or the XM / Sirius client devices?
From the definition you're using, the "client device". (Which, since it is repeating the XM content on a different frequency, would seem to me to be a sort of "repeater", but infinite are the arguments of technomages.)
I suspect that NPR is invovled here because NPR isn't being broadcast on XM/Sirius because they can't pay or won't make enough revenue for the satellite providers.
NPR is involved because (for reasons I don't understand) NPR stations cluster at the low end of the dial, where this XM interference problem is occuring. I get interference with my reception of 88.1, WYPR, at least weekly now from these unlawful XM portable transceivers.
So why aren't car-radio manufacturers just putting some good ol' RCA plugs, eighth-inch stereo mini-plugs
They are, finally, starting to do this. My new cheap Sony car stereo has a stereo mini-plug on the front; about 40% of the models I looked at at Best Buy had such an aux input.
I have no idea how to parse that sentance (or sentance-like string of words, anyway), but from context I'm assuming you're expressing skepticism that an NPR listener might have Stern suddenly interrupt the program they're listening to.
I can vouch for this, it happens to me about once or twice a week now. Not always Stern, sometimes it's classic rock, and there's one house I pass that's usually listening to what appears to be and all-Sinatra channel. They have some sort of repeater (like the ones people use to listen to their iPod via the radio, but much more powerful) that is set to broadcast the XM content on 88.1FM, the same channel as our local NPR station.
So I'll have problems listening to FM 87.8?
Dunno. Maybe. But I can state from my own direct experience that around here, you'll have trouble listening to 88.1.
people who don't want to listen to XM radio but have the signal they are listening to(such as NPR) overridden by someone who is broadcasting XM from their decoder
This happens to me several times a week now. I often like to listen to WYPR, 88.1 FM (local NPR talk and news station in Baltimore) while I'm driving around. Suddenly I'll get some completely different program - ranging from Stern to oldies heavy on Sinatra.
Usually it's from another vehicle; the problem goes away as the traffic flow changes and doesn't repeat when I pass by the same spot. But there's one spot where someone apparently has a home receiver - that's where I pick up the Sinatra every time I pass by.
It was mystifying at first, but about 6 months ago WYPR had a post on their website about the problem with XM's repeaters.
Unfortunately de-mystification makes it no less annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, it means that they can copy me (darned biters) and edit the copies.
How many 1976 cars do you seen on the road, compared to recent SUVs? But yes, I have no problem with also removing older cars from the road. (With an exception for maintained antique cars.) Indeed it has been suggested by some that a targeted buy-back of old cars would be a great way to reduce pollution, but I haven't examined that proposal.
Current gas taxes pay only for roads. The ecological costs are not factored in; nor are the foreign policy and military costs required to keep oil cheap, nor the costs of subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies.
Estimates of the true price of gasoline come in between 5 and 15 dollars a gallon.
That we're here to worry about it, for one. Climate changes that occurred 50 million years ago didn't affect human civilization; the one we're undergoing now, will.
Today's CO2 concentration is the highest seen since the emergence of Homo sapiens, and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.
It is the scientific consensus that human activity is likely a significant factor in global climate change, yes.
There are a few, mostly industry shills, who argue very loudly that this consensus is wrong. Unfortunately they receive press coverage far out of proportion with their numbers.
Your right to spend the "fruits of your labor" ends where it affects others. If you want to run your SUV on biodiesel, I won't complain, but if you're driving a standard Hummer you're externalizing a hell of a lot of the cost onto the rest of us, and it is appropriate to use state power to make you stop.
The best thing you do when confronted with a critial system you don't understand, is don't do anything that can screw it up. ("Hey, here's our spaceship's life support system! I'll bet if I frob a few controls I can make everything more comfortable for everyone!") Unfortunately, we've already done that.
The next best thing is to stop doing things that screw it up. We are slowly starting to move in the direction of thinking about forming a committee to investigate the possibility of forming a plan to do that.
If we are very very lucky, we will get out shit together in the next decade or two, and the system is self-regulating enough and the damage done small enough that it will gently self-correct.
If it does not, we will not have time to fully understand the system before taking action to preserve an ecosystem compatible with human civilization. Which means we'll have a choice of definitely get screwed, or take a gamble on a action that might save us or might get us screwed worse.
Of course we should strive to understand the system better. But we're probably going to have to make some drastic choices on the basis of incomplete understanding.
Funny, I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention it that directly before. I think it's pretty well forgotten.
Nonsense. Eisenhower may have successfully argued that building limited access highways was vital to national security, but there's no way that implies that the states lose sovereignty to set their own driving laws.
Reckless driving is no more a "thought crime" than reckless discharge of a firearm; both are significant threats to the safety of other people, and both should be punished, regardless of whether the bullet or car hits someone.
My goal is not to start a revolution. My goal is to raise the price of government repression.
If I envision some future total collpase of liberty in the U.S., my objective as an armed citizen is that when they come to drag me off to Gitmo or whereever, I can take some stormtroopers out of this world with me. That just might make some naive kid think twice about signing up to bust down doors and drag off malcontents; and if the Powers That Be run out of naive kids to sign up for stormtrooper duty, they're screwed.
Actually, while I remember "Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls Behind Various Garden Walls", you'd have got me on that until I saw your .sig. We only had gold, silver, and none back in the high school electronics lab where I learned that. :-) (When I did some circuits in college physics lab, we didn't use color-coded components but some big ol' power resistors with the values printed on 'em.)
With a quoted phrase '"u tube"', you are correct. With the much more likely unquoted two-word search phrase 'u tube', Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment Corporation's utube.com is the second result, behind youtube.com.
Didn't suggest that it was. Only that your statement that "Non-semantic code is basically just jibberish for search engines" is about an order of magnitude too strong.
You gonna lend me the plane?
Oh, I'm supposed to take your word for it? How is that different than taking the word of people who do carbon dating "proving" that the world is older than 6,000 years? Feh. Like you can't fly in a circle above a flat plane. This "spherical Earth" stuff is all a bunch of Satanic lies
You either understand that the world is flat (quadralateral, in fact, since the Bible refers to the "four corners" of the world), about 6,000 years old, that the first woman was made out a man's rib, and that we're all decended from incestual relations amoung their children; or you go down the path of sin and start listening to these evil "scientists" spin their web of lies.
Of course it can be. It's a slashdotting that never ends.
What are you talking about? utube.com is the very first result on a Google search for "utube", and the second for "u tube".
And Google is smart enough to understand code that doesn't pass w3c validation - which is good, because only a vanishingly small percent of sites pass.
Trademark is not the issue.
The news page of a website is not a guide to the domain's age, whois is. utube.com (26-Oct-1996) is far older then youtube.com (15-Feb-2005).
Having trouble with your website? Hey, why don't you just completely change your business model, and instead of being a company that actually makes things useful in the real world (providing valuable manufacturing jobs), just become a domain-typo squatting parasite instead?
Have you ever heard of something called the "slashdot effect", by which one site linking to anyother can overwhelm it?
This is overwhelming utube.com in a very similar way. Except that it's ongoing, not just a few hours long, and is destroying their business.
Of course there are many such requirements in law. There is for example the "attractive nuisance doctrine", and the concept of "negligent entrustment".
While neither of those would seem to apply here, it is the case that Universal Tube is suffering harm, via the endless slashdotting caused by the phonetic confusion.
No, it's not. It's a slashdotting that never ends. It's destroying their ability to do business via their website.
Not every company makes its money off of ad impressions, some actually make real things. And suggesting, as some have in this thread, that a manufacturing company ought to just change, overnight, into an domain-name squatting parasite is ridiculous.
Ok, if you don't know Vernor Vinge's story True Names, turn in your geek card...
From the definition you're using, the "client device". (Which, since it is repeating the XM content on a different frequency, would seem to me to be a sort of "repeater", but infinite are the arguments of technomages.)
NPR is involved because (for reasons I don't understand) NPR stations cluster at the low end of the dial, where this XM interference problem is occuring. I get interference with my reception of 88.1, WYPR, at least weekly now from these unlawful XM portable transceivers.
They are, finally, starting to do this. My new cheap Sony car stereo has a stereo mini-plug on the front; about 40% of the models I looked at at Best Buy had such an aux input.
I have no idea how to parse that sentance (or sentance-like string of words, anyway), but from context I'm assuming you're expressing skepticism that an NPR listener might have Stern suddenly interrupt the program they're listening to.
I can vouch for this, it happens to me about once or twice a week now. Not always Stern, sometimes it's classic rock, and there's one house I pass that's usually listening to what appears to be and all-Sinatra channel. They have some sort of repeater (like the ones people use to listen to their iPod via the radio, but much more powerful) that is set to broadcast the XM content on 88.1FM, the same channel as our local NPR station.
Dunno. Maybe. But I can state from my own direct experience that around here, you'll have trouble listening to 88.1.
This happens to me several times a week now. I often like to listen to WYPR, 88.1 FM (local NPR talk and news station in Baltimore) while I'm driving around. Suddenly I'll get some completely different program - ranging from Stern to oldies heavy on Sinatra.
Usually it's from another vehicle; the problem goes away as the traffic flow changes and doesn't repeat when I pass by the same spot. But there's one spot where someone apparently has a home receiver - that's where I pick up the Sinatra every time I pass by.
It was mystifying at first, but about 6 months ago WYPR had a post on their website about the problem with XM's repeaters. Unfortunately de-mystification makes it no less annoying.
That depends on the type of omnivorous diet - the Supersize Me diet is omnivorous, after all.
And once you've gotten what your body needs, further "variety of nutrients" doesn't have any benefit.
On that, we can agree.