On 27th July I flew Iberia to Malaga via Barcelona (because Iberian cancelled my direct flight, as it happens) and my luggage arrived 6 days later, via Madrid (I always wanted to visit Madrid sometime, and my luggage beat me to it!).
This is where the "money" part comes in. I purchased the items I needed as I needed them. The airline will, I'm sure, end up reimbursing me for these extra items once the claim goes through.
This is the first time my luggage has gone off on it's own (and it didn't even send a postcard!) and I fly twice or so a year. I will continue to check the majority of my luggage as I don't want to have to carry the bags around the airport for an hour or more whilst I wait for my flight. Also, if you check your bag into the hold the 'plane simply WILL NOT take off without you. I had a mate miss a flight 'cos he was in the toilet with his hand luggage!... hmmm. "Hand Luggage" sounds like it ought to be a euphemism for something!
That said, most of my flights cross a border and require "passport control" of some sort, I often like a bog-break too, and in that time the luggage has usually been roughly manhandled/thrown/beaten into the baggage reclaim area so it might only take 10 or 15 mins longer than just taking hand luggage.
[cliche]An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.[/cliche] It's oft quoted because it's true.
I agree with that entirely, but I think the argument is that we have a ton of prevention, but still only vs the pound of cure. The balance seems to be wonky, and some suspect the Government's thumb is on one end of the scales!
Had they (terrorists/freedom fighters) succeeded would this article be here complaining about we cant bring on toothpaste
I think it's mostly you US chaps with the perfect teeth who are complaining about the toothpaste issue. I don't think I've heard one Brit moaning about it at all. Toothpaste Schmoothpaste I say!
Oh yes, and I can eat an apple through a tennis racket!
... and the screener morons were taking his nail scissors.
But they're fscking nail scissors for fscks sake! Nobody move or someone's getting a manicure!
What could someone do with nail scissors that they couldn't do with something else - a plastic knife would cut someone's throat. Hell, a specially sharpened edge of a credit card would do it, probably easier!
It's a badly thought out knee jerk reaction at best, and security slight-of-hand to fool the population at worst.
You are right , we should just let them blow up the planes when we have a known specific threat.
Hmmmm. If we just "ignored" the terrorists and let them do their evil deeds, but did nothing else, and didn't report the events in a sensationalist way, what would happen? It's possible the suicide bombers would continue to hurl themselves on their swords, taking as many with them as they can, or they might decide it isn't worth it if they aren't creating the "terror" that goes hand in hand with "terrorism", let alone the recruitment potential of the world-wide splash headlines and security backlash that goes along with it.
Not wanting to necessarily hold Isreal up as a shining light, but remember there were certain people who liked to hijack Isreali airplanes a while ago... Isreal declared that ALL Isreali people were part of their armed forces and any hijacked plane would be stormed when it landed. It happened once or twice and some Isrealis certainly died, but it saved far more Isrealis in the long run because people stopped hijacking their planes because they KNEW they'd get nothing from it.
Now it'd be a hard-arsed Government who would dare to do something like that now, but IMHO it WOULD be the right way to combat the problem. Do still have the investigations and intelligence community trying to thwart them. Do still have reasonable and sensible security precautions and checks at airports. But just get on with living life as we want to live it and don't let the terrorists win, simply by not allowing ourselves to be terrorised.
I, for one, don't want to live in terror and I choose not to do so. I flew home, into LHR, on Wednesday. My folks are flying in tomorrow, and others on Monday. I surely hope that everything's going to be OK, and the chance is that it will be. I refuse to worry about it, because by worrying I am giving in to the terrorists. That is exactly what they want.
What will be will be!
Of course, In London we've been here before. Several of my favourite pubs were blown up by the IRA at one time or another. I continued and will continue to use them. I still use the underground and I will continue to fly if it is appropriate, but I just wish the security was more "useful" than just "visible" - a previous poster called it "security theatre".
In my opinion this whole illusion of security, and I include the whole facile "Security Level" nonsense, just deepens the feeling of terror and actually aids the terrorists to disrupt our society.
In fact, it's easier to blow up some track in the middle of nowhere as the train passes over than it is to plan and execute the downing of a plane.
That is true, but there will likely be some survivors. Indeed, there will likely be a lot of survivors. The useful part of targeting a plane is that you only have to cripple the plane and the fact that it is in the air means there will likely be no survivors. Added to that the advantage of having the plane crash somewhere populated and you increase the "terror". Blow up a train and you may kill everyone in a carriage. That said, there were many survivors in the carriages of the London tube trains that were targeted, and that was worse because the trains were in a confined space.
If I had to choose to be on a plane or a train when a bomb went off, I'd plump for the train everytime, always assuming I couldn't choose to be in my car instead!
If we didn't put all the security requirements on planes, and had quick trains from the downtowns to the airports which clear you and whisk you right onto your plane, nobody would dream of comparing the downtown-to-downtown times
But "start to finish" is what we compare, and as there are few people who live at airports it will always be the comparison. A race was organised from the (recognised) centre of London to the (recognised) centre of Paris, one person flying and one using the train (via the Channel Tunnel). The train did have the advantage because the line starts right near the centre of London and ends right near the centre of Paris, and it won by a considerable margin. That was using the current rail lines, and half an hour will be shaved off once the terminus changes from Waterloo (using the old slow south London lines) to Kings Cross (using a new dedicated fast link). The advantage goes if you want to travel much further, but the high speed European lines do and are competing with the airlines for the shorter journeys.
I'd like to be able to go to Kings Cross (actually, Waterloo is easier for me, and it's going to take me another 1/2 hour to cross London negating the time saved by the faster line, but they didn't ask me, oh no, just went right on ahead and planned the new route!) and hop on a sleeper train to any of the European capitals and be able to wake up in Madrid, or Rome, or whereever. That'd be marvellous! Make it the cost of a reasonable hotel and provide a good food and a comfortable bed and I reckon they'd cleanup!
I always pack "criticals" in a carry on. That includes my toothbrush and toothpaste.
When I travel I always list my "criticals" when I leave the house, and it doesn't take long:-
1.. Tickets
2.. Money
3.. Passport
(er 4.. Profit?)
If I have those I know I will be OK. Of course, this day and age of the ticketless travel has even reduced that onerous task, though I will include info about car rental/hotel reservations if I have pre-booked.
I'd say restrict carry-on to a single bag. You want it to be your laptop bag, or your handbag, that's fine. Make checkable luggage that can safely hold a laptop or other valuables and maybe have a pre-checkin process where you can be involved in the contents check and the securing of your luggage before the "throwers" get their mits on it. Maybe improve the loading and unloading process to reduce the opportunity for the "throwers" to throw stuff might help too!
And as for the size of the bags some people use. The number of times I've seen people turn up at the checkin desk with a bag they can't even lift onto the conveyor! It makes me want to scream at them...
IF YOU CAN'T LIFT IT - IT'S TOO HEAVY!
I saw two women checkin together, and between them they still couldn't put the bag on the conveyor!
... and whilst we're railing against the stupidity of travelors, what is it with people who feel the need to stand up holding their carryon luggage as soon as the plane stops! It's going to be 5 or 10 minutes at least before the doors open, just sit back and relax!
Perhaps seat 12C's cold drink is Binary Part A (which is reasonably safe to drink) and seat 20D's cold drink is Binary Part B (which is also reasonably safe to drink, although it tastes worse than Part A).
Well they are suicide bombers for chrissakes! As long as the liquid doesn't kill them within 30 or 40 mins they should be airborne!
Maybe the liquid has some alcohol content and they're fed some BS about not getting their share of the virgins if they drink it but blowing up innocent people is OK! ... and won't someone think of the children! I do wish the telly and tabloids would stop throwing in the "and children" line, like it's somehow worse. A bomb went off, but luckily only men and women were killed! Oh thank goodness, that's OK then!... and in other news, a cat stuck up a tree...
It's doubtful that most of these people could locate the general region of the Middle East on a map, let alone nations like Iraq and Lebanon.
I think a lot of them couldn't locate their arse with both hands if you gave them a diagram, but that's why politicians smile at the cameras and kiss babies right!
If you can get liquid explosives past the sniffers in the carry on security checkpoints, you could probably get some in the hold with your normal luggage easier. What difference do these security measures really make?
I saw someone on the telly saying this too. I guess maybe part of the difference is that the cabin is pressurised and the hold isn't. So an explosion in the cabin would be double-plus-ungood, whereas in the hold it'd just be ungood. Also, the containers that all the luggage is loaded into, and which are then loaded into the hold, are also supposed to help contain any explosions. You'd also need a timer or some such to detonate it if it's in the hold, and with no electronic devices allowed it makes it just that much more difficult.
I'm not saying it totally prevents the possibility, but it does make it harder.
But I also think the use of "threat levels" is somewhat cynical and yet another US import we can live without.
As for not allowing hand luggage, I'd say people take the piss with hand luggage anyway. One small bag per person should be enough for anyone. OK... + a laptop/personal stereo if you don't mind it being thoroughly examined.
And I'm someone who had 6 days of vacation before my luggage caught up with me - thanks to Iberia and their Barcelona baggage handlers - and I'd STILL say put everything but the clothes you wear (+ essentials) in the hold!
As it happens, I eventually had to go back to the airport and search the piles and piles of "lost luggage" myself to find my own damn bag! They've got luggage tags with barcodes on them for god's sake! Couldn't one of them get off their fat arse and scan the bags as they arrive. They sure as hell weren't manning the help line telephone that's for sure! The woman who was dealing with me at the airport left for lunch or something in the middle of dealing with me (!), so I had to queue up again for another 20 mins to let them know I'd found my bag. Truely beggars belief! Iberian Airlines - Never knowingly useful or efficient.
Sorry - I hadn't realised quite how annoyed I was by the whole sorry episode - probably off topic or a troll or something, but I feel a bit better about it now - even though that's not the whole story... oh don't get me started again...
There isn't a great deal any politician can do right now.
For "now" read "ever"!
I guess politicians might be useful for medical research, but other than that I really don't see what they do that anyone else couldn't do given the same amount of backup. I say make being a politician something that is organised more like jury service. The politian's just the shmo that kisses babies and arses and carries the can for the telly and tabloids!
What we need is a scale that goes all the way up to eleven. You see previously they'd be at level 10 and thinking they need a little bit more but with no where to go...
Re:Not even funny anymore
on
The Hybrid Scooter
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think what you are saying is that if the US wanted to try and move to a more eco-friendly transport infrastructure, they wouldn't want to start from here.
On my trips to the US I've been amazed to find that there aren't any pedestrian walkways (pavement to us UK chaps, and I think "sidewalk" is what you US fellows call them). Because of the ubiquitous car (and that perhaps because of the cheap petrol) there is no (useful) public transport, and because there is no public transport, everyone uses the car, so why build cycle lanes or sidewalks, or foot-bridges over highways.
It's a bit of a catch-22. The problem is that the petrol is going to run out at some point - the light at the end of the tunnel isn't some unobtanium that's gonna replace petrol, it's a runaway train hurtling towards us.
But it's not a vote winner. Do you want $2 on a gallon of gas to put towards finding an alternative? Hell No! No Gov, local or otherwise, is going to impose that tax because they won't get re-elected, and when the problem does hit they'll all be nicely retired from the fray, so why bother now - right?
What we need is some government with some backbone to impose the tax, to encourage (nay, fund!) the research. There'd be a bunch of bleating about it now, but in 20, 30, 50 years, it'll sure be nice to realise we're ahead of the curve rather than sitting in the dark in our houses that we can no longer afford to cool in the summer or heat in the winter.
But then I was always a "do my homework as soon as I got it" sort of person, rather than the "stay up late the night before" chap.
Oh come on Mods... in the absence of a "+3 Smile" this must rate a "+1 Funny"... and I just used my mods on the stupid hydrogen powered toy story! NUTS!
All the talk of innovation in bicycle design and yet they ban the use of recumbents. As I understand it, recumbents (or recumbants?) reduce the drag so massively decreasing the effort required to cycle (once you get the hang of balancing the contraption).
Now everything is poised to strip us of religion...
You say that like it might be a bad thing.
Religion is all well and good when it is a personal thing and mayebe OK when you are following the teachings of people (or things) long gone, but once it forms into clumps or groups of people, and it would seem especially once these groups of people start following the teachings of people who are alive now, we start getting problems. It's the high priests, the living leaders of religions who decide they need to spread the word of their god at the point of their follower's swords and that's when the trouble starts!
Some of them were deltic rather than "V" configuration. Fascinating engine configuration, and there's even a Deltic Preservation Society. A mate of mine actually owns a share of one of them - not sure if that's good or just sad!
I'd agree with that. Certainly anyone who thinks wind/wave/solar/etc are going to supply all our power needs in the future are likely living in a dream world, but where appropriate they can be added to the mix.
I think the big saving, maybe only for city dwellers, is to have clean air because the vehicles run on electicity that was generated elsewhere. It is also true that whereever that "elsewhere" might be, they should endeavour to make the generation process as clean as possible though!
How about cabs and buses all running off electicity. Cab ranks could have charge points. The busses could take electricity from overhead wires where possible, maybe reverting to batteries or even bio-diesel in the suburbs.
As for the people who live 30 miles from work, aren't they the very people who should be in electric cars? Granted, it'd be nice if they could car pool, but giving or getting a lift to work is actually a right-royal pain in the arse most of the time - and I know because I've done it whenever I could!
In general, the laws of physics prevent much of what people think can be done. Solar power for New Jersey, for example, would require covering a large part of New Jersey with solar cells, and even then it would not provide enough power for all the vehicles.
OK.. not wanting to nit-pick, but your example doesn't really indicate that the problem is due to breaking any of the laws of physics that I am aware of. I agree that much of the (so called) green solutions are impractical, and I think that is what your example is successfully indicating.
What if the solar arrays were put somewhere more sensible like the middle of the USA where the population is lower and the climate perhaps more suitable. I'm not saying that solar is the answer, but it might be an answer, in some areas, for some people.
What if every house had a small solar panel on the roof. Probably just collecting the sun to warm/heat water rather than actually generate electricity as it is (I think) far more efficient. Sure, this doesn't charge your batteries, but it does mean you're not drawing the current from the grid to heat your water. Cold/dull climates might opt for a small wind generator on each property, or maybe even a mixture of the two.
Even then, I hear you say, that wouldn't be enough. True, it wouldn't, but it would take some of the pressure off the large generation stations which might be able to burn a lot less carbon based fuel to generate the rest of the power needed.
New Jersey has some coastline (if only the Hudson) so maybe some tidal power generation too. It's all probably more expensive than just burning coal or oil of course, but if you think global warming is an issue at some point it should be worth spending a bit extra.
I think the point is that once we have some viable electric vehicles we can expend more effort in cleaning up the power generation, and that might involve generating some using "alternative technologies" such as wind/sun/tidal/geothermal.
Is this a viable electric vehicle?
Not for everyone, but certainly for some. The more that buy it the better, and cheaper, the next generation will be.
OK, let's see it go to Tahoe. Start at Sacramento, and make that long climb up I-80 at Donner Pass. That's 100 miles, but it's mostly uphill. It's easy to get range on the flat.
It's funny how so many focus on the limited range as the show-stopper. Isn't that like saying the new Nissan Micra is no use because it can't tow a boat or caravan very easily? Surely it's horses for courses. The Tesla is based on a 2 seater, open topped, Lotus Elise. You could just as well damn the original Elise for not having enough room for the kids or not being comfortable enough to drive across the continent (although actually, it's not half bad as it 'appens!).
Slashdot Mirror
This is where the "money" part comes in. I purchased the items I needed as I needed them. The airline will, I'm sure, end up reimbursing me for these extra items once the claim goes through.
This is the first time my luggage has gone off on it's own (and it didn't even send a postcard!) and I fly twice or so a year. I will continue to check the majority of my luggage as I don't want to have to carry the bags around the airport for an hour or more whilst I wait for my flight. Also, if you check your bag into the hold the 'plane simply WILL NOT take off without you. I had a mate miss a flight 'cos he was in the toilet with his hand luggage! ... hmmm. "Hand Luggage" sounds like it ought to be a euphemism for something!
That said, most of my flights cross a border and require "passport control" of some sort, I often like a bog-break too, and in that time the luggage has usually been roughly manhandled/thrown/beaten into the baggage reclaim area so it might only take 10 or 15 mins longer than just taking hand luggage.
I agree with that entirely, but I think the argument is that we have a ton of prevention, but still only vs the pound of cure. The balance seems to be wonky, and some suspect the Government's thumb is on one end of the scales!
I think it's mostly you US chaps with the perfect teeth who are complaining about the toothpaste issue. I don't think I've heard one Brit moaning about it at all. Toothpaste Schmoothpaste I say!
Oh yes, and I can eat an apple through a tennis racket!
But they're fscking nail scissors for fscks sake! Nobody move or someone's getting a manicure!
What could someone do with nail scissors that they couldn't do with something else - a plastic knife would cut someone's throat. Hell, a specially sharpened edge of a credit card would do it, probably easier!
It's a badly thought out knee jerk reaction at best, and security slight-of-hand to fool the population at worst.
Hmmmm. If we just "ignored" the terrorists and let them do their evil deeds, but did nothing else, and didn't report the events in a sensationalist way, what would happen? It's possible the suicide bombers would continue to hurl themselves on their swords, taking as many with them as they can, or they might decide it isn't worth it if they aren't creating the "terror" that goes hand in hand with "terrorism", let alone the recruitment potential of the world-wide splash headlines and security backlash that goes along with it.
Not wanting to necessarily hold Isreal up as a shining light, but remember there were certain people who liked to hijack Isreali airplanes a while ago ... Isreal declared that ALL Isreali people were part of their armed forces and any hijacked plane would be stormed when it landed. It happened once or twice and some Isrealis certainly died, but it saved far more Isrealis in the long run because people stopped hijacking their planes because they KNEW they'd get nothing from it.
Now it'd be a hard-arsed Government who would dare to do something like that now, but IMHO it WOULD be the right way to combat the problem. Do still have the investigations and intelligence community trying to thwart them. Do still have reasonable and sensible security precautions and checks at airports. But just get on with living life as we want to live it and don't let the terrorists win, simply by not allowing ourselves to be terrorised.
I, for one, don't want to live in terror and I choose not to do so. I flew home, into LHR, on Wednesday. My folks are flying in tomorrow, and others on Monday. I surely hope that everything's going to be OK, and the chance is that it will be. I refuse to worry about it, because by worrying I am giving in to the terrorists. That is exactly what they want.
What will be will be!
Of course, In London we've been here before. Several of my favourite pubs were blown up by the IRA at one time or another. I continued and will continue to use them. I still use the underground and I will continue to fly if it is appropriate, but I just wish the security was more "useful" than just "visible" - a previous poster called it "security theatre".
In my opinion this whole illusion of security, and I include the whole facile "Security Level" nonsense, just deepens the feeling of terror and actually aids the terrorists to disrupt our society.
That is true, but there will likely be some survivors. Indeed, there will likely be a lot of survivors. The useful part of targeting a plane is that you only have to cripple the plane and the fact that it is in the air means there will likely be no survivors. Added to that the advantage of having the plane crash somewhere populated and you increase the "terror". Blow up a train and you may kill everyone in a carriage. That said, there were many survivors in the carriages of the London tube trains that were targeted, and that was worse because the trains were in a confined space.
If I had to choose to be on a plane or a train when a bomb went off, I'd plump for the train everytime, always assuming I couldn't choose to be in my car instead!
But "start to finish" is what we compare, and as there are few people who live at airports it will always be the comparison. A race was organised from the (recognised) centre of London to the (recognised) centre of Paris, one person flying and one using the train (via the Channel Tunnel). The train did have the advantage because the line starts right near the centre of London and ends right near the centre of Paris, and it won by a considerable margin. That was using the current rail lines, and half an hour will be shaved off once the terminus changes from Waterloo (using the old slow south London lines) to Kings Cross (using a new dedicated fast link). The advantage goes if you want to travel much further, but the high speed European lines do and are competing with the airlines for the shorter journeys.
I'd like to be able to go to Kings Cross (actually, Waterloo is easier for me, and it's going to take me another 1/2 hour to cross London negating the time saved by the faster line, but they didn't ask me, oh no, just went right on ahead and planned the new route!) and hop on a sleeper train to any of the European capitals and be able to wake up in Madrid, or Rome, or whereever. That'd be marvellous! Make it the cost of a reasonable hotel and provide a good food and a comfortable bed and I reckon they'd cleanup!
When I travel I always list my "criticals" when I leave the house, and it doesn't take long :- .. Tickets .. Money .. Passport
1
2
3
(er 4 .. Profit?)
If I have those I know I will be OK. Of course, this day and age of the ticketless travel has even reduced that onerous task, though I will include info about car rental/hotel reservations if I have pre-booked.
I'd say restrict carry-on to a single bag. You want it to be your laptop bag, or your handbag, that's fine. Make checkable luggage that can safely hold a laptop or other valuables and maybe have a pre-checkin process where you can be involved in the contents check and the securing of your luggage before the "throwers" get their mits on it. Maybe improve the loading and unloading process to reduce the opportunity for the "throwers" to throw stuff might help too!
And as for the size of the bags some people use. The number of times I've seen people turn up at the checkin desk with a bag they can't even lift onto the conveyor! It makes me want to scream at them ...
IF YOU CAN'T LIFT IT - IT'S TOO HEAVY!
I saw two women checkin together, and between them they still couldn't put the bag on the conveyor!
Sometimes I despair.
Well they are suicide bombers for chrissakes! As long as the liquid doesn't kill them within 30 or 40 mins they should be airborne!
Maybe the liquid has some alcohol content and they're fed some BS about not getting their share of the virgins if they drink it but blowing up innocent people is OK!
... and won't someone think of the children! I do wish the telly and tabloids would stop throwing in the "and children" line, like it's somehow worse. A bomb went off, but luckily only men and women were killed! Oh thank goodness, that's OK then! ... and in other news, a cat stuck up a tree ...
I think a lot of them couldn't locate their arse with both hands if you gave them a diagram, but that's why politicians smile at the cameras and kiss babies right!
I saw someone on the telly saying this too. I guess maybe part of the difference is that the cabin is pressurised and the hold isn't. So an explosion in the cabin would be double-plus-ungood, whereas in the hold it'd just be ungood. Also, the containers that all the luggage is loaded into, and which are then loaded into the hold, are also supposed to help contain any explosions. You'd also need a timer or some such to detonate it if it's in the hold, and with no electronic devices allowed it makes it just that much more difficult.
I'm not saying it totally prevents the possibility, but it does make it harder.
But I also think the use of "threat levels" is somewhat cynical and yet another US import we can live without.
As for not allowing hand luggage, I'd say people take the piss with hand luggage anyway. One small bag per person should be enough for anyone. OK ... + a laptop/personal stereo if you don't mind it being thoroughly examined.
And I'm someone who had 6 days of vacation before my luggage caught up with me - thanks to Iberia and their Barcelona baggage handlers - and I'd STILL say put everything but the clothes you wear (+ essentials) in the hold!
As it happens, I eventually had to go back to the airport and search the piles and piles of "lost luggage" myself to find my own damn bag! They've got luggage tags with barcodes on them for god's sake! Couldn't one of them get off their fat arse and scan the bags as they arrive. They sure as hell weren't manning the help line telephone that's for sure! The woman who was dealing with me at the airport left for lunch or something in the middle of dealing with me (!), so I had to queue up again for another 20 mins to let them know I'd found my bag. Truely beggars belief! Iberian Airlines - Never knowingly useful or efficient. ... oh don't get me started again ...
Sorry - I hadn't realised quite how annoyed I was by the whole sorry episode - probably off topic or a troll or something, but I feel a bit better about it now - even though that's not the whole story
For "now" read "ever"!
I guess politicians might be useful for medical research, but other than that I really don't see what they do that anyone else couldn't do given the same amount of backup. I say make being a politician something that is organised more like jury service. The politian's just the shmo that kisses babies and arses and carries the can for the telly and tabloids!
What we need is a scale that goes all the way up to eleven. You see previously they'd be at level 10 and thinking they need a little bit more but with no where to go ...
On my trips to the US I've been amazed to find that there aren't any pedestrian walkways (pavement to us UK chaps, and I think "sidewalk" is what you US fellows call them). Because of the ubiquitous car (and that perhaps because of the cheap petrol) there is no (useful) public transport, and because there is no public transport, everyone uses the car, so why build cycle lanes or sidewalks, or foot-bridges over highways.
It's a bit of a catch-22. The problem is that the petrol is going to run out at some point - the light at the end of the tunnel isn't some unobtanium that's gonna replace petrol, it's a runaway train hurtling towards us.
But it's not a vote winner. Do you want $2 on a gallon of gas to put towards finding an alternative? Hell No! No Gov, local or otherwise, is going to impose that tax because they won't get re-elected, and when the problem does hit they'll all be nicely retired from the fray, so why bother now - right?
What we need is some government with some backbone to impose the tax, to encourage (nay, fund!) the research. There'd be a bunch of bleating about it now, but in 20, 30, 50 years, it'll sure be nice to realise we're ahead of the curve rather than sitting in the dark in our houses that we can no longer afford to cool in the summer or heat in the winter.
But then I was always a "do my homework as soon as I got it" sort of person, rather than the "stay up late the night before" chap.
This is just 5 examples.
We have 6 things ... oh damn. I'll come in again.
They'll probably have turned it all on it's head and have a "don't watch" list instead by then.
"Good morning sir, you appear to be on the don't watch list, you may board immediately. No. It's OK, I don't need to see your passport."
Oh come on Mods ... in the absence of a "+3 Smile" this must rate a "+1 Funny" ... and I just used my mods on the stupid hydrogen powered toy story! NUTS!
Why are there no recumb[ea]nt races eh?
You say that like it might be a bad thing.
Religion is all well and good when it is a personal thing and mayebe OK when you are following the teachings of people (or things) long gone, but once it forms into clumps or groups of people, and it would seem especially once these groups of people start following the teachings of people who are alive now, we start getting problems. It's the high priests, the living leaders of religions who decide they need to spread the word of their god at the point of their follower's swords and that's when the trouble starts!
Some of them were deltic rather than "V" configuration. Fascinating engine configuration, and there's even a Deltic Preservation Society. A mate of mine actually owns a share of one of them - not sure if that's good or just sad!
I think the big saving, maybe only for city dwellers, is to have clean air because the vehicles run on electicity that was generated elsewhere. It is also true that whereever that "elsewhere" might be, they should endeavour to make the generation process as clean as possible though!
How about cabs and buses all running off electicity. Cab ranks could have charge points. The busses could take electricity from overhead wires where possible, maybe reverting to batteries or even bio-diesel in the suburbs.
As for the people who live 30 miles from work, aren't they the very people who should be in electric cars? Granted, it'd be nice if they could car pool, but giving or getting a lift to work is actually a right-royal pain in the arse most of the time - and I know because I've done it whenever I could!
OK .. not wanting to nit-pick, but your example doesn't really indicate that the problem is due to breaking any of the laws of physics that I am aware of. I agree that much of the (so called) green solutions are impractical, and I think that is what your example is successfully indicating.
What if the solar arrays were put somewhere more sensible like the middle of the USA where the population is lower and the climate perhaps more suitable. I'm not saying that solar is the answer, but it might be an answer, in some areas, for some people.
What if every house had a small solar panel on the roof. Probably just collecting the sun to warm/heat water rather than actually generate electricity as it is (I think) far more efficient. Sure, this doesn't charge your batteries, but it does mean you're not drawing the current from the grid to heat your water. Cold/dull climates might opt for a small wind generator on each property, or maybe even a mixture of the two.
Even then, I hear you say, that wouldn't be enough. True, it wouldn't, but it would take some of the pressure off the large generation stations which might be able to burn a lot less carbon based fuel to generate the rest of the power needed.
New Jersey has some coastline (if only the Hudson) so maybe some tidal power generation too. It's all probably more expensive than just burning coal or oil of course, but if you think global warming is an issue at some point it should be worth spending a bit extra.
I think the point is that once we have some viable electric vehicles we can expend more effort in cleaning up the power generation, and that might involve generating some using "alternative technologies" such as wind/sun/tidal/geothermal.
Is this a viable electric vehicle?
Not for everyone, but certainly for some. The more that buy it the better, and cheaper, the next generation will be.
It's funny how so many focus on the limited range as the show-stopper. Isn't that like saying the new Nissan Micra is no use because it can't tow a boat or caravan very easily? Surely it's horses for courses. The Tesla is based on a 2 seater, open topped, Lotus Elise. You could just as well damn the original Elise for not having enough room for the kids or not being comfortable enough to drive across the continent (although actually, it's not half bad as it 'appens!).