Maybe that's something that should be solved. After all, there are millions of people who average less than 30 mph on their way to work every day. If highways would ditch the carpool lane and turn it into a scooter lane maybe we'd see more use. Or better yet, keep the carpool lane, let scooters use it, and make the maximum speed 30 mph.
Those are just two possibilities off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others that we could come up with. Your concern for creating a solution which people actually will use is important. People don't go for mass transit. Most people won't even carpool. It seems like scooters would be a great solution. They're smaller and don't go as fast, so you can pack them much more densely on a roadway, and you can park them much more efficiently too.
The festival has a hippy/save the earth theme, and so it is solar powered. a small area(about 20m by 10m) of photoelectric cells power the whole festival(easily 100m by 100m), including a good size stage.
How much energy was used to create those solar cells?
If they want to tax driving, they'd be better off taxing gasoline, or the cars themselves upon manufacture or importation. As for insurance, I'd use New Hampshire's system. As long as you can afford to pay for the accidents you cause, you don't have to have insurance.
And while we're at it, it should be possible to get really high deductables for liability insurance. Like $10,000 or even more.
So what? If it's such a big deal, get his out of office. I'm sure there's a mechanism in England for doing that. Otherwise, accept the fact that England is not a democracy.
Actually that's probably how we got into this situation in the first place. It wasn't such a big deal to put license plates on cars back in early 1900s. There wasn't very much harm that could be done with them. But today we have computers that can scan and track millions of people at once using these license plates.
Personally, I think we should get rid of license plates. That would protect our privacy the best.
Perhaps a little bit of big brotherism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws.
No, a lot of big brotehrism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws. A little bit is what this system proposes, where the police will have discretion to issue or not issue a ticket. So they'll issue the tickets to those who can't afford to defend themselves. Certainly not to friends and family.
You're right that this plan has plusses and minuses. I was merely objecting to your comment that you "cannot see a bad side to this."
Personally I think the problem is that are forced to have plates on our cars in the first place. As for the cameras, I'm fine with that as long as the cost savings outweigh the cost of the system. Buy a bunch of camera, but lay off a bunch of police officers too then.
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. Yes, the Constitution can't stop the government from abusing its power, but the Constitution itself gives people power in the form of information. If nothing else (and it really doesn't do much else), the Constitution tells us what things we should revolt against if the government tries to impose them upon us.
Like any other contract, a written constitution is powerful because it keeps us from forgetting what we've said in the past. Anyone who has read 1984 probably gets an idea what the problem is when you don't keep written records of your promises. Unfortunately, over time even a written contract tends toward meaninglessness. Words change their meanings, fundamental concepts change, and campaigns are waged to either distort what was once a plain meaning or convince people that the constitution is some sort of "living document" which can change upon the whims of the judiciary.
You do not need insurance, or a permit to drive on private property, know yourself out, but do not go onto a public road.
I don't know what the laws are where you live, but here in New Jersey you have to have insurance just to own a car which is garaged in the state.
But more to the point, the right vs. priviledge argument does nothing more than beg the question. The question is whether or not driving should be a right or a privilege.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, but Elvis is still alive, so that's a bad example.
Now I get to get paid for distributing looped mp3s instead of just doing it for the fun of it!
But, wouldn't it be a lot nicer if all of these companies that sell/share your data had an Opt-In policy instead.
No way. With opt-out I get to keep my information private, while the company still makes money off the other 99% of people who don't opt out.
Now if only slashdot advertising were opt-out...
Any well designed democratically elected leadership has an impeachment process.
not any more than a tank full of gasoline.
You can't drive them in enough places.
Maybe that's something that should be solved. After all, there are millions of people who average less than 30 mph on their way to work every day. If highways would ditch the carpool lane and turn it into a scooter lane maybe we'd see more use. Or better yet, keep the carpool lane, let scooters use it, and make the maximum speed 30 mph.
Those are just two possibilities off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others that we could come up with. Your concern for creating a solution which people actually will use is important. People don't go for mass transit. Most people won't even carpool. It seems like scooters would be a great solution. They're smaller and don't go as fast, so you can pack them much more densely on a roadway, and you can park them much more efficiently too.
It's just a scooter, so I'd imagine it can't do very much damage.
The festival has a hippy/save the earth theme, and so it is solar powered. a small area(about 20m by 10m) of photoelectric cells power the whole festival(easily 100m by 100m), including a good size stage.
How much energy was used to create those solar cells?
I wonder if this would not make a good replacement for lawn mower engines and the like.
Nah, we already have a replacement, batteries. Unlike cars, you don't need the 0-60 power that comes from combustion in a lawn mower.
Hindenburg... Because if at first you don't succeed, give up.
the power has to come from somewhere, and while solar is all very well, some days it just won't do (bad weather)
Not to mention the enormous power consumption used in creating the solar panels.
If they want to tax driving, they'd be better off taxing gasoline, or the cars themselves upon manufacture or importation. As for insurance, I'd use New Hampshire's system. As long as you can afford to pay for the accidents you cause, you don't have to have insurance.
And while we're at it, it should be possible to get really high deductables for liability insurance. Like $10,000 or even more.
So what? If it's such a big deal, get his out of office. I'm sure there's a mechanism in England for doing that. Otherwise, accept the fact that England is not a democracy.
Imagine how you'll feel when you get rammed off the road by some jackass, and when you go to catch some of his license plate, it is not there.
I'll feel exactly the same way. What do I care whether or not the jackass goes to jail, anyway?
OK, I don't have collision, but to me the risk of losing that amount of money is justified by the increase in privacy.
Because they're all going to get arrested!
Actually that's probably how we got into this situation in the first place. It wasn't such a big deal to put license plates on cars back in early 1900s. There wasn't very much harm that could be done with them. But today we have computers that can scan and track millions of people at once using these license plates.
Personally, I think we should get rid of license plates. That would protect our privacy the best.
Whoever modded this up has no brain.
Or just realized I was being sarcastic. ;)
Exactly... My country, the United States, has ignored millions of people who were against giving women and blacks the right to vote.
Perhaps a little bit of big brotherism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws.
No, a lot of big brotehrism is what we need to abolish unreasonable laws. A little bit is what this system proposes, where the police will have discretion to issue or not issue a ticket. So they'll issue the tickets to those who can't afford to defend themselves. Certainly not to friends and family.
And 95% of the population is going to voluntarily hand over these taxes for the government to use to hire judges to arrest them? Huh?
Who cares what "thousands of people" think. I can show you "thousands of people" who oppose just about any government plan.
You're right that this plan has plusses and minuses. I was merely objecting to your comment that you "cannot see a bad side to this."
Personally I think the problem is that are forced to have plates on our cars in the first place. As for the cameras, I'm fine with that as long as the cost savings outweigh the cost of the system. Buy a bunch of camera, but lay off a bunch of police officers too then.
Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. Yes, the Constitution can't stop the government from abusing its power, but the Constitution itself gives people power in the form of information. If nothing else (and it really doesn't do much else), the Constitution tells us what things we should revolt against if the government tries to impose them upon us.
Like any other contract, a written constitution is powerful because it keeps us from forgetting what we've said in the past. Anyone who has read 1984 probably gets an idea what the problem is when you don't keep written records of your promises. Unfortunately, over time even a written contract tends toward meaninglessness. Words change their meanings, fundamental concepts change, and campaigns are waged to either distort what was once a plain meaning or convince people that the constitution is some sort of "living document" which can change upon the whims of the judiciary.
Yeah, and that's a good example since that not only caught (alleged) criminals, it most likely stopped crime.
You do not need insurance, or a permit to drive on private property, know yourself out, but do not go onto a public road.
I don't know what the laws are where you live, but here in New Jersey you have to have insurance just to own a car which is garaged in the state.
But more to the point, the right vs. priviledge argument does nothing more than beg the question. The question is whether or not driving should be a right or a privilege.