An underlying anti-human bent has long since slipped into the mainstream of the movement, and the mainstream of environmental science in general.
Quite the contrary. The environmental movement care more about the human race than those opposed to environmentalism. Those opposed to improving the environment only care about themselves, not their fellow humans.
for someone making under 15 grand a year (sadly many americans these days) raising the cost of fuel will destroy them.
Bullshit. The US has some of the cheapest fuel in the world. The US has it's fair share of poor people, and so do those other countries where fuel already costs much more. When people can no longer afford fuel, they take the bus, and or work closer to where they live.
It's been proven that increasing the cost of fossil fuels has no effect on consumption of fossil fuels
Bullshit. Consumption may still be rising, but that is not the same thing as saying rising prices have no effect. Of course they have an effect, as they do with all consumables. All it means is that prices haven't risen enough to counteract other growth factors.
Autonomous cars will come gradually, feature by feature. But when the time comes that autonomous cars are the mainstream option, for sure there will be cheaper cars available that only have the autonomous driving, and save the money on providing steering wheel and pedals etc. Which also gives them freedom to change the seating arrangement. Economics, not the government, will remove the driving interface from some cars, leaving manual driving for those people who want to pay extra for it.
The whole thing is hand waving anyhow. They aren't even close to being able to build one. Requires strong AI.
It'll come gradually. And it's already started with cars that can parallel park themselves, and ones that will break if it senses you are going to hit something in front of you.
The fully autonomous cars will continue as research vehicles, and bit by bit their features will be incorporated into ordinary cars, until eventually the human driver becomes redundant to the process.
My dream transport-solution is: (a) not owning a car at all; (b) call a car anytime I need one; (c) getting driven (automatically) to any place I want; (d) I pay for the time I use the car and can leave it anywhere in the country (obviously, in a village/town/city or so).
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
I'm really glad some of you EU nations have managed to put up a full service light rail system connecting all your major cities
Light rail isn't used to connect cities. Light rail operates within cities, and out to the suberbs. Inter-city is proper railway(railroad).
And the longer the distance, the better rail competes with road. So don't think there's a distance argument for it being rare in the USA.
For sure the longer the distance, also the more air competes with them both. But that's still a fraction of passenger miles, and less still of freight.
The 'increase taxes on fossil fuel' part is a deal-breaker in the US. Even with the current very low petrol tax, the national pasttimes include grumbling about the cost to fill up.
What? You think the people in the countries with high fuel tax don't grumble? It's not a deal breaker when it's already been done in other democracies.
"The U.S., they explain, determines the residency of companies based on their incorporation location, but Ireland uses their actual base of operations. So for tax purposes, for example, Apple's Apple Operations International -- officially located in Ireland -- exists nowhere. AOI accounts for about 30 percent of the company's total net profits worldwide from 2009-2011, according to USA Today."
Apple has found the holy grail of tax avoidance schemes. They claim not to be resident in any nation, for tax purposes. It works by having a shell company in Ireland. Irish tax law says that companies pay tax from where they are run, which in Apple's case is the US. US tax law says that companies pay tax where they are incorporated, which is Ireland. So neither Ireland nor the United States gets any tax revenue from that company, except for what it can't avoid by having US employees and offices. Profits are funnelled to it from subsidiaries around the world. Tens of billions coming and and stored in untaxable bank accounts.
All nonsense. Apple Ireland is the HQ for Apple's European subsidiary - which makes perfect sense even were it not for the favourable tax rate - it's in the Euro zone, in the closest European time zone to America, and the native language is English. European sales go there. It's not a shell company for the rest of the enterprise. And revenues from elsewhere in the world do not go to Ireland.
Top Gear commented a few years back that if you drive after being awake for 18 hours you have the same reaction speeds as someone who'd had half a bottle of whisky.
Top Gear is a comedy show. A spoof of a motoring programme. The presenters are clowns. If you're taking anything said as if it were actual fact, you're making a big mistake.
What you've so far demonstrated is that you don't actually have enough faith in your argument to put money on it.
Really? You're doubling down on the worst argument technique there is?
Here's a hint. Go to a casino, racetrack or betting shop. You'll find masses of people willing to put money on their opinions. All different. And the vast majority of the opinions are wrong.
Well, that and I was hoping to take enough of your money to buy a second- or third- generation Glass in 2016.
And that's your second problem. Thinking that your opinion of what will happen in the future is a certainty. Another reason why you belong with the idiots described above.
You brought an end to rational argument when you said "wanna bet". Because you have no more argument.
Have you had any real (rather than fantasy) bets with people you don't know on the internet?
I remember when Jobs died, or maybe it was right before, Apple basically said he had left them with 3 to 5 years of new products in the pipeline.
I think that was just the opinion of bloggers. Might be right or wrong, but I don't think it's anything Apple said.
The common expectation of new product categories from Apple every year or two is ridiculous and doesn't reflect the historical record. Significantly different devices within categories, sure. And we've had those - the iPad Mini and the new Mac Pro.
Slashdot Mirror
An underlying anti-human bent has long since slipped into the mainstream of the movement, and the mainstream of environmental science in general.
Quite the contrary. The environmental movement care more about the human race than those opposed to environmentalism. Those opposed to improving the environment only care about themselves, not their fellow humans.
for someone making under 15 grand a year (sadly many americans these days) raising the cost of fuel will destroy them.
Bullshit. The US has some of the cheapest fuel in the world. The US has it's fair share of poor people, and so do those other countries where fuel already costs much more. When people can no longer afford fuel, they take the bus, and or work closer to where they live.
It's been proven that increasing the cost of fossil fuels has no effect on consumption of fossil fuels
Bullshit. Consumption may still be rising, but that is not the same thing as saying rising prices have no effect. Of course they have an effect, as they do with all consumables. All it means is that prices haven't risen enough to counteract other growth factors.
Please, first prove that reducing GHG emissions is the best strategy.
Kindly fuck off. You've been delaying for years with AGW denial. This is just another sad delaying tactic.
if by a "couple dozen" you mean two dozen.
That's exactly what he means. "A couple" meaning exactly two.
If by "maximum tax" you mean the tax that companies in other industries are expected to pay, yes, that's a subsidy.
Autonomous cars will come gradually, feature by feature. But when the time comes that autonomous cars are the mainstream option, for sure there will be cheaper cars available that only have the autonomous driving, and save the money on providing steering wheel and pedals etc. Which also gives them freedom to change the seating arrangement. Economics, not the government, will remove the driving interface from some cars, leaving manual driving for those people who want to pay extra for it.
A senior something should be a little more level headed and less hysterical, don't you think.
The whole thing is hand waving anyhow. They aren't even close to being able to build one. Requires strong AI.
It'll come gradually. And it's already started with cars that can parallel park themselves, and ones that will break if it senses you are going to hit something in front of you.
The fully autonomous cars will continue as research vehicles, and bit by bit their features will be incorporated into ordinary cars, until eventually the human driver becomes redundant to the process.
My dream transport-solution is: (a) not owning a car at all; (b) call a car anytime I need one; (c) getting driven (automatically) to any place I want; (d) I pay for the time I use the car and can leave it anywhere in the country (obviously, in a village/town/city or so).
So, a taxi then.
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
I'm really glad some of you EU nations have managed to put up a full service light rail system connecting all your major cities
Light rail isn't used to connect cities. Light rail operates within cities, and out to the suberbs. Inter-city is proper railway(railroad).
And the longer the distance, the better rail competes with road. So don't think there's a distance argument for it being rare in the USA.
For sure the longer the distance, also the more air competes with them both. But that's still a fraction of passenger miles, and less still of freight.
Unfortunately the petroleum industry pretty much owns the Republican party. (And quite a lot of the Democratic party too.)
The 'increase taxes on fossil fuel' part is a deal-breaker in the US. Even with the current very low petrol tax, the national pasttimes include grumbling about the cost to fill up.
What? You think the people in the countries with high fuel tax don't grumble? It's not a deal breaker when it's already been done in other democracies.
Wrong again.
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=51.906121,-8.514322&spn=0.12031,0.282898&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.456673,72.421875&layer=c&cbll=51.906121,-8.514322&panoid=LFTFnrUcWHfVtrrlkb_5DA&cbp=12,102.13,,0,0.22
Mercantilism,.. It's how power works..
It's how power worked in bygone centuries. Not now. It's capitalism now and that's not the same thing.
The other choice is feudalism. Take your pick..
There are many other choices.
Why are you shilling for Apple?
"The U.S., they explain, determines the residency of companies based on their incorporation location, but Ireland uses their actual base of operations. So for tax purposes, for example, Apple's Apple Operations International -- officially located in Ireland -- exists nowhere. AOI accounts for about 30 percent of the company's total net profits worldwide from 2009-2011, according to USA Today."
Yeah, no dodge there.
No truth there either.
Apple has found the holy grail of tax avoidance schemes. They claim not to be resident in any nation, for tax purposes. It works by having a shell company in Ireland. Irish tax law says that companies pay tax from where they are run, which in Apple's case is the US. US tax law says that companies pay tax where they are incorporated, which is Ireland. So neither Ireland nor the United States gets any tax revenue from that company, except for what it can't avoid by having US employees and offices. Profits are funnelled to it from subsidiaries around the world. Tens of billions coming and and stored in untaxable bank accounts.
All nonsense. Apple Ireland is the HQ for Apple's European subsidiary - which makes perfect sense even were it not for the favourable tax rate - it's in the Euro zone, in the closest European time zone to America, and the native language is English. European sales go there. It's not a shell company for the rest of the enterprise. And revenues from elsewhere in the world do not go to Ireland.
it's only the top 10% that carry their own weight.
Nonsense. As Buffet repeated recently, his tax rate is still less than his secretary's.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/index.html
US taxes are regressive, not progressive.
Top Gear commented a few years back that if you drive after being awake for 18 hours you have the same reaction speeds as someone who'd had half a bottle of whisky.
Top Gear is a comedy show. A spoof of a motoring programme. The presenters are clowns. If you're taking anything said as if it were actual fact, you're making a big mistake.
Google maps mobile apps just added adverts based on your location.
http://adwords.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/attract-new-customers-with-local-ads-on.html
See, you might get beta products for free for years. But for Google the end goal is always advertising. Death or adware. That's the two possibilities.
You imagine that Google's location aware HUD device won't also be advertising the businesses and products around you? Dream on. It's the entire point.
It's not the reader with the problem. It's the writer. Your post might have made sense to you. But not to others. It still doesn't.
What you've so far demonstrated is that you don't actually have enough faith in your argument to put money on it.
Really? You're doubling down on the worst argument technique there is?
Here's a hint. Go to a casino, racetrack or betting shop. You'll find masses of people willing to put money on their opinions. All different. And the vast majority of the opinions are wrong.
Well, that and I was hoping to take enough of your money to buy a second- or third- generation Glass in 2016.
And that's your second problem. Thinking that your opinion of what will happen in the future is a certainty. Another reason why you belong with the idiots described above.
You brought an end to rational argument when you said "wanna bet". Because you have no more argument.
Have you had any real (rather than fantasy) bets with people you don't know on the internet?
Because if you don't understand the _context_ how do you expect to know what TO do AND what NOT to do??
CLI is not part of the the context of phone UIs.
Is about as useful as someone saying "3x3 pixel font? FAIL
Do you even understand the concept of "experiment" ?
Huh? I wasn't saying fail. Quite the opposite.
Epic Fail. Your *opinion* in this context is worthless. Please go troll elsewhere.
Oh dear.
I remember when Jobs died, or maybe it was right before, Apple basically said he had left them with 3 to 5 years of new products in the pipeline.
I think that was just the opinion of bloggers. Might be right or wrong, but I don't think it's anything Apple said.
The common expectation of new product categories from Apple every year or two is ridiculous and doesn't reflect the historical record. Significantly different devices within categories, sure. And we've had those - the iPad Mini and the new Mac Pro.