For the same reason a person can cross the street without having insurance or a tag. It's not rocket science. Just because something has wheels doesn't mean it's the same as everything else with wheels.
It won't be on the roof in production models, at least not all in the centre - it will likely be distributed around the outside of the roof, as it needs height and as close to 360 degrees of visibility around the car to work best.
To the government. Having the police receive the money they collect from fines is an obvious, disgusting conflict of interest. Most sane countries would never allow that simply because even if there was no pressure on police to issue as many tickets as possible, the public's perception might be otherwise, leading to animosity or disgust. I know the US's police are not generally regarded as good, and this really isn't helping.
Translation: "I am scientifically illiterate - I get my scientific facts from newspapers and TV shows. I don't bother to research the relevant papers, and assume that things are either true or false based on who's telling me, rather than the content of their arguments. I have given up thinking, because it's scary, difficult, and challenges my perceptions of reality which keep me happy."
Someone had the exact same thought as you. They looked into it, and it turns out that's not the case. Read the papers on this subject and you'd know. Reacting to an article you don't like the sound of, and assuming the science it's talking about is just as dodgy is not doing you any favours.
There's your problem - you are discussing the science the article presents and not the science itself. If you read the relevant papers on this topic you'd see that the journalism slathered on top of it might be misleading or sensationalist. If you get your scientific knowledge from newspaper articles you are destined to fail when discussing topics such as these. It might stagger you to learn that the scientists also know about changes in forestry, and have factored that in. If they're wrong, write a paper and debunk them - just sitting on slashdot complaining that an article is wrong shows just how much you know and care about this topic - enough to get riled up and shouty, but not enough to actually learn anything.
All that tells us is that you get your scientific information from the non-scientific press. I don't know why you'd think that would make anyone listen to you when it comes to scientific matters. I also find it rather concerning that you would confuse newspapers and scientific journals, and not be aware of doing so for decades. Was your education that bad?
It's not environmentalists who don't want the burns. Environmentalists (their party affiliation doesn't matter) know that it's beneficial to have controlled burnings. The people who do complain are the land owners, who have acres of prime real estate perched on expensive hills. At least get your facts straight. You railing on environmentalists is hilarious in itself, but highlights a disconcerting pattern - that there are more people like you out there who will gladly and easily substitute their idea of reality for that which they perceive, where they can cleanly paint things in black and white, "them vs. us", team mentality, twisting their perception of the world and the facts it contains simply to give their team a perceived advantage, even though everyone knows their house of cards will come tumbling down at some point.
Grow up. Please. Do the world a favor - you are embarrassing yourself.
You are confusing the journalist (who is engaged in journalism) with the scientist (who is engaged in science). Just because you don't like the journalism involved in bringing you the findings of the scientists doesn't magically invalidate the scientists' findings. It also doesn't allow you to ignore the science because you don't like how it's framed. Denying science because you don't like the font it's written in, or the language used by others who describe or discuss it, is rather childish.
You are confusing science with politics. If someone said that they wanted to tax the colour green or institute national ID cards to register how much green you see, it doesn't magically mean green doesn't exist. Your position is precisely the same as that.
But these people don't want people to have to pay for public transport, the same as you don't pay to walk down the sidewalk|pavement. So no, your "somehow" doesn't magically convey some immutable truth inherent to the universe. Some places have free public transport, and these folks want it too. Of course taxes will cover it, but as the city benefits massively from its citizens being able to travel around freely, it might be beneficial. Luckily the people who think about these things don't just make up policy based on gut feeling.
1. The company can't just shut down, as it's government-owned and is there to provide a public service.
2. The company already receives 50% of its money from the government, so in your bizarro land they'd only lose 45% of their money, not 90%.
They actually want the government to pay more money to the system to make it free for everyone. It's a political movement trying to achieve that goal. Did you read the article? Of course not.
No - the taxpayers pay once for the benefits (direct or indirect) their city receives from having decent public transport, then when they buy a ticket, they pay again to actually use it for themselves. If they were buying a monthly ticket with their taxes every month, then being forced to buy the ticket again, you'd have a point. But they're not. So you don't.
Did you purposely not listen to anything anyone's said, or the contents of the article? It's a political protest group who thinks that public transport should be free. They're not doing this because "[they] don't want to pay", but because they are trying to send a message. So yes, many parents think it's fine for their children to break a "law" (actually a regulation) which at most causes a penalty fare to be issued, in order to improve society as a whole (as they see it). Them just not using public transport does nothing to fix the perceived problems. And, furthermore, just because no-one might be able to run a commercial operation of the same quality with lower fares does not mean that the fares are acceptable. The value of public services can not be measured solely by their own bottom line, as their benefits reach far into other areas of society, making such measurements downright inaccurate and woefully misleading.
You'd have a point if you were right, but as you just pulled that out your ass, you're incorrect. Yes, fossil fuels were create from living organisms, but the coal we currently burn was created simply because microbes didn't exist which could break down the trees. Now those microbes exist, any trees which fall will begin to rot, and they will not turn into coal. The cycles of which you speak haven't existed for billions of years. You really should crack a book once in a while to stop yourself from inadvertently confusing your opinion with fact and haranguing reality for daring to disagree with you.
He should have said "the number of published peer-reviewed papers which have survived the peer-review process intact", which does indeed come out to 0. Linking to the list of non-climatologists who don't like the idea of AGW, or posting up links to papers which have been shredded by peer review also doesn't help your case. The fact of the matter is this is settled science - the work being done now is to improve the accuracy.
If the only thing which affected temperature was CO2 you'd have a point. As there are many things which affect global temperatures, you are not only wrong, but wrong and you managed to show everyone you know very little about this. Well done.
That and the massive amounts of regulation that works directly against the "evil capitalist profit incentive". You picked a really bad industry. Try something with fewer regulations - pogs or Justin Bieber CDs or something.
If you think the institution of marriage is in danger, you should be pressing for making divorce illegal. (Way more people get divorced every year than gay people get married.) As you're not, your position is indistinguishable on every level from a homophobe who simply doesn't want gay people to have the same rights; that gay people are second-class citizens. Don't be surprised if you get confused for one, as people honestly have no way of telling you apart. Of course, if you were just hired as the CEO of a very public company, and it turns out you gave money to a fringe group who were actively trying to deny rights to people, and you didn't do anything to apologise for attempting to deny rights to people, you'd get fired. Shocker. Big surprise.
Unless you think having to show your ticket at the cinema or airport is treating you "like some sort of a criminal" you are being a hypocrite. They're the exact same thing - if you have your ticket, you get what you came for. If your system supports the DRM, you get the content. It's that simple. DRM just ensures that you have more content available, as the choice for the content providers is either "no DRM and no content" or "DRM and content". You are using a lot of angry words to describe something you don't seem to fully understand. The parent post seems to be correct - you are getting angry at the exact wrong thing, and you don't even realise it.
There was a Wikipedia user called MojoKid HH who created the HotHardware wiki article. Coincidence? Who are we kidding. HotHardware is not affiliated with Dice - it seems we just have a single person trying to drum up some traffic for their website. MojoKid's wiki user page contains comments he's made which refer to HotHardware as "us", meaning he's at least affiliated with the site. I know Slashdot has gone down the pan recently, but this is not Dice's doing.
Slashdot Mirror
For the same reason a person can cross the street without having insurance or a tag. It's not rocket science. Just because something has wheels doesn't mean it's the same as everything else with wheels.
It won't be on the roof in production models, at least not all in the centre - it will likely be distributed around the outside of the roof, as it needs height and as close to 360 degrees of visibility around the car to work best.
To the government. Having the police receive the money they collect from fines is an obvious, disgusting conflict of interest. Most sane countries would never allow that simply because even if there was no pressure on police to issue as many tickets as possible, the public's perception might be otherwise, leading to animosity or disgust. I know the US's police are not generally regarded as good, and this really isn't helping.
I hope you were joking :) Blaming the UK for the current state of the US's runaway capitalism insanity is a bit weird.
Translation: "I am scientifically illiterate - I get my scientific facts from newspapers and TV shows. I don't bother to research the relevant papers, and assume that things are either true or false based on who's telling me, rather than the content of their arguments. I have given up thinking, because it's scary, difficult, and challenges my perceptions of reality which keep me happy."
Someone had the exact same thought as you. They looked into it, and it turns out that's not the case. Read the papers on this subject and you'd know. Reacting to an article you don't like the sound of, and assuming the science it's talking about is just as dodgy is not doing you any favours.
There's your problem - you are discussing the science the article presents and not the science itself. If you read the relevant papers on this topic you'd see that the journalism slathered on top of it might be misleading or sensationalist. If you get your scientific knowledge from newspaper articles you are destined to fail when discussing topics such as these. It might stagger you to learn that the scientists also know about changes in forestry, and have factored that in. If they're wrong, write a paper and debunk them - just sitting on slashdot complaining that an article is wrong shows just how much you know and care about this topic - enough to get riled up and shouty, but not enough to actually learn anything.
All that tells us is that you get your scientific information from the non-scientific press. I don't know why you'd think that would make anyone listen to you when it comes to scientific matters. I also find it rather concerning that you would confuse newspapers and scientific journals, and not be aware of doing so for decades. Was your education that bad?
Translation: "because I know everything, can never be wrong, and I know that an unnamed graph can somehow overturn a large scientific discipline".
It's not environmentalists who don't want the burns. Environmentalists (their party affiliation doesn't matter) know that it's beneficial to have controlled burnings. The people who do complain are the land owners, who have acres of prime real estate perched on expensive hills. At least get your facts straight. You railing on environmentalists is hilarious in itself, but highlights a disconcerting pattern - that there are more people like you out there who will gladly and easily substitute their idea of reality for that which they perceive, where they can cleanly paint things in black and white, "them vs. us", team mentality, twisting their perception of the world and the facts it contains simply to give their team a perceived advantage, even though everyone knows their house of cards will come tumbling down at some point.
Grow up. Please. Do the world a favor - you are embarrassing yourself.
You are confusing the journalist (who is engaged in journalism) with the scientist (who is engaged in science). Just because you don't like the journalism involved in bringing you the findings of the scientists doesn't magically invalidate the scientists' findings. It also doesn't allow you to ignore the science because you don't like how it's framed. Denying science because you don't like the font it's written in, or the language used by others who describe or discuss it, is rather childish.
You are confusing science with politics. If someone said that they wanted to tax the colour green or institute national ID cards to register how much green you see, it doesn't magically mean green doesn't exist. Your position is precisely the same as that.
But these people don't want people to have to pay for public transport, the same as you don't pay to walk down the sidewalk|pavement. So no, your "somehow" doesn't magically convey some immutable truth inherent to the universe. Some places have free public transport, and these folks want it too. Of course taxes will cover it, but as the city benefits massively from its citizens being able to travel around freely, it might be beneficial. Luckily the people who think about these things don't just make up policy based on gut feeling.
1. The company can't just shut down, as it's government-owned and is there to provide a public service.
2. The company already receives 50% of its money from the government, so in your bizarro land they'd only lose 45% of their money, not 90%.
They actually want the government to pay more money to the system to make it free for everyone. It's a political movement trying to achieve that goal. Did you read the article? Of course not.
No - the taxpayers pay once for the benefits (direct or indirect) their city receives from having decent public transport, then when they buy a ticket, they pay again to actually use it for themselves. If they were buying a monthly ticket with their taxes every month, then being forced to buy the ticket again, you'd have a point. But they're not. So you don't.
Did you purposely not listen to anything anyone's said, or the contents of the article? It's a political protest group who thinks that public transport should be free. They're not doing this because "[they] don't want to pay", but because they are trying to send a message. So yes, many parents think it's fine for their children to break a "law" (actually a regulation) which at most causes a penalty fare to be issued, in order to improve society as a whole (as they see it). Them just not using public transport does nothing to fix the perceived problems. And, furthermore, just because no-one might be able to run a commercial operation of the same quality with lower fares does not mean that the fares are acceptable. The value of public services can not be measured solely by their own bottom line, as their benefits reach far into other areas of society, making such measurements downright inaccurate and woefully misleading.
British Broadcasting Corporation. Nice try. They do have a commercial subsidiary, though, which is not called BBC.
You'd have a point if you were right, but as you just pulled that out your ass, you're incorrect. Yes, fossil fuels were create from living organisms, but the coal we currently burn was created simply because microbes didn't exist which could break down the trees. Now those microbes exist, any trees which fall will begin to rot, and they will not turn into coal. The cycles of which you speak haven't existed for billions of years. You really should crack a book once in a while to stop yourself from inadvertently confusing your opinion with fact and haranguing reality for daring to disagree with you.
He should have said "the number of published peer-reviewed papers which have survived the peer-review process intact", which does indeed come out to 0. Linking to the list of non-climatologists who don't like the idea of AGW, or posting up links to papers which have been shredded by peer review also doesn't help your case. The fact of the matter is this is settled science - the work being done now is to improve the accuracy.
If the only thing which affected temperature was CO2 you'd have a point. As there are many things which affect global temperatures, you are not only wrong, but wrong and you managed to show everyone you know very little about this. Well done.
That and the massive amounts of regulation that works directly against the "evil capitalist profit incentive". You picked a really bad industry. Try something with fewer regulations - pogs or Justin Bieber CDs or something.
If you think the institution of marriage is in danger, you should be pressing for making divorce illegal. (Way more people get divorced every year than gay people get married.) As you're not, your position is indistinguishable on every level from a homophobe who simply doesn't want gay people to have the same rights; that gay people are second-class citizens. Don't be surprised if you get confused for one, as people honestly have no way of telling you apart. Of course, if you were just hired as the CEO of a very public company, and it turns out you gave money to a fringe group who were actively trying to deny rights to people, and you didn't do anything to apologise for attempting to deny rights to people, you'd get fired. Shocker. Big surprise.
Unless you think having to show your ticket at the cinema or airport is treating you "like some sort of a criminal" you are being a hypocrite. They're the exact same thing - if you have your ticket, you get what you came for. If your system supports the DRM, you get the content. It's that simple. DRM just ensures that you have more content available, as the choice for the content providers is either "no DRM and no content" or "DRM and content". You are using a lot of angry words to describe something you don't seem to fully understand. The parent post seems to be correct - you are getting angry at the exact wrong thing, and you don't even realise it.
There was a Wikipedia user called MojoKid HH who created the HotHardware wiki article. Coincidence? Who are we kidding. HotHardware is not affiliated with Dice - it seems we just have a single person trying to drum up some traffic for their website. MojoKid's wiki user page contains comments he's made which refer to HotHardware as "us", meaning he's at least affiliated with the site. I know Slashdot has gone down the pan recently, but this is not Dice's doing.
*eke :)