Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.
The irony being if pollution doesn't kill you having an accident in this car will, far more than other vehicles.
Obviously you haven't seen the 'other vehicles' they're driving now. Ever seen a husband riding a motorcycle along a highway with his wife on the pillion seat sitting sideways holding onto a child and not a single helmet between them? I'm not kidding. This thing will be a huge improvement over the death traps people are using right now.
Cabintaxi had a novel approach. Pods on top of the track went in one direction, suspended cars hanging underneath went the other direction. From the linked article:
Cabintaxi, a joint venture of Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm (MBB) and Demag, has been the only group in the world to build a small-vehicle PRT system (referred to by some as a "true" PRT). A large test track facility was built in Hagen, Germany, that was used for an extensive testing program conducted from 1973 to 1979. The Cabintaxi technology logged over 400,000 miles of vehicle testing and operations from 1975 to 1978. In 1977 the system completed, fleet operation endurance testing, of 7500 continuous vehicle hours, and again in 1978, of 10,000 continuous vehicle hours, for a total of 17,500 vehicle hours of fleet endurance testing. The fleet was made up, at its maximum in this time period, of 24 operating vehicles over two levels. The Cabintaxi endurance tests are the only fleet endurance test of these magnitudes ever carried out successfully with vehicle separations under 3 seconds.
The German Government considered this PRT development effort successfully completed and ready for urban deployment , but a planned application in Hamburg was terminated for budgetary reasons in 1979. With the termination of the Hamburg project, the participating companies withdrew from the field.
Think how much easier it would be to see the stars if we just stopped making electricity. The night skies would be black like they were a thousand years ago. We could all go back to living in caves and wearing fur, no wait, we can't kill animals, and wearing fur is evil and sit by the fire, no burning wood produces CO2, so we'll sit in our dark caves, huddled together to stay warm and slowly starve to death. But then there wouldn't be anyone to look up at the stars. And that is the true goal of "environmentalism".
Are you on a mission to pack the maximum amount of gibberish and straw men into a single post?
Note: This is applicable to the US only, where health care is treated as a business.
People who resort to alternative medicine have probably had a bad experience with mainstream medicine that didn't work for them.
Mainstream health care providers seem to act suspiciously like the sales force of the drug industry. The process is streamlined and efficient. Make an appointment, pay your co-pay at the reception desk (that's right, American hospital receptions have cash registers), see the doc, he emails the prescription to the pharmacy, and on a quiet day it's available for you to pick it up by the time you get down there, where of course there's another cash register. All credit cards accepted.
1 Examine 2 Diagnose 3 Prescribe a drug 4 Profit
I had a back injury that tortured me for years, and I got sick of the expensively ineffective painkillers that my health care provider foisted on me to mask the problem, nor was I impressed with the exercise class that I had to share with 20 other people who were completely different from me and had completely different needs.
I then tried a chiropractor who seemed to spend more time convincing me that I needed to keep coming back for many more expensive adjustments if I really wanted to get better. I didn't get better.
Then I went to a doctor who disagrees with the culture of prescribing a pill for every ill, but who also sees through the chiropractic single-type-of-adjustment-to-fix-everything charade. She gave me personalised attention, figured out what was wrong with my posture, came to my car and fixed my driving position, let me bring my bike in to check my riding position, used a little bit of massage and a few chiropractic type adjustments, and prescribed a set of exercises that she taught me how to perform. I was as right as rain within weeks.
Bottom line: there's a happy medium between Chiropractic's overblown claims and Big Pharma's allies in the commercialised health care industry.
Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet, which is the 'executive branch' if you want to call it that. Not sure about whether or not he/she's the head of Parliament though. Anyone...?
Berlusconi is not the president of Italy. He's the prime minister. The president is Giorgio Napolitano.
Reminds me of a story CNN ran some years ago about the Spanish 'Presidential election.' I'll bet King Juan Carlos was a bit horrified when he heard about that!
Sorry, but the two situations are completely different. The potential benefit or drain on society of the fetus/fertilised egg/sperm/whatever does not come into it. We are talking about what the fetus is at the time of the abortion procedure, not what it might be in the future. A potential murderer has already demonstrated that he is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a sentient human being, is incapable of demonstrating anything any more than a blade of grass is, and is not deserving of the protections that sentient human beings deserve.
I don't know if any of this is sinking in and I'm not going to get drawn into an eternal thread that might get heated, so feel free to have the last word.
And I say again that you are comparing apples and oranges. A potential killer is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. A potential human being is not a human being and is therefore not entitled to the same protection as a sentient human being.
I'm not dodging the argument at all. A blade of grass has no potential for sentience, a human fetus has some. But the question is about sentience, not potential sentience. We're not talking about what a fetus becomes at a hypothetical later stage of the pregnancy, we're talking about what it is at the time of abortion. If the procedure is early enough in the pregnancy, no harm done. If it's later, then it's a sentient human that is being killed.
It's a big jump because it's two completely different things. Attempted murder makes you a danger to society and therefore you should be locked up. Killing a bunch of cells with no sentience is no different from cutting a blade of grass out of the ground.
Only in the USA and UK. Everywhere else, you'd be too hot to call it living.
Huh? When did they start using Celcius in the US and since when was 37 degrees C too hot? It gets up to that kind of temp around here and while it can get a bit uncomfortable, I wouldn't say it's 'too hot to call living.'
There is indeed quite a spectrum between dead and alive; Life has never been easy to classify and put into boxes, because the curious thing about it is you never observe the same thing twice looking at it.
And that is why the Abortion debate is so heated. It gets lost in an emotional hissy fit about 'murder' and 'choice.' Nobody seems to bring up the amount of sentience in a fetus at different stages of a pregnancy and where to draw the line between a bunch of cells (not worth protecting in law) and a sentient being (possibly worth protecting in law). As for the US media's constant use of loaded terms such as 'pro life' and 'pro choice,' don't get me started on that.
Thank you! I've tried to explain it to the/. crowd before. Movies are movies, books are books. What works in one medium isn't going to work in another. If the I Robot stories had been made into movies verbatim exactly as written in the book, the movie would have Sucked with a capital S. But it didn't. It was actually a good flick that perfectly captured the spirit and the point of the novel and at the same time appealed to a broad enough audience that the message wasn't lost.
Also, despite the canonization of Asimov, his characters were flat as pancakes and their dialogue was wooden. It was the scope of his ideas that carried the stories through.
But the big question is, when is America going to get its first Neanderthal President?
Re:Hey, remember when Ender's Game was good?
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
full of proselytising and glorifying Mormon "values"
Orson Scott Card is a Mormon. Mormonism != Christianity
So the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints doesn't do exactly what it says on the tin?
Re:Something wrong with the movie
on
New Star Trek Trailer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's the beauty of doing a reboot. You can dispense with canon and give the nitpicking nerds a box of tissues if they're so upset about irrelevant details being slightly off.
I might be mistaken, but I think Picard got more "action" than Riker did.
I think you're mistaken. Picard hooked up with Vash once, then she showed up later for another bit of action. There was sexual tension between him and Beverly, but that's as far as it went. He got a peck on the cheek with the girl in First Contact, hooked up again in that awful movie that came after First Contact (I can barely remember its name), and that's about it. Riker was hooking up left right and center.
That car chase scene? My suspicions are that this film is largely going to consist of tits, explosions, and weirdly shaped evil aliens. That's fine for a mindless action flick for the summer, but
It's just a trailer. I'm sure they cut out the deeper stuff that will appear in the movie.
What's so hard about waiting to see a movie before reviewing it? Speculation is futile. All we have is the trailer, that's all we can review.
Whether or not we should care is irrelevant. I don't care if anyone cares or not. All that matters is whether or not we are AWARE that we're all doomed. If we're aware that we're going to oblivion and revert back to our pre-birth state of non-existence, then we'll be more inclined to make the most of the three score years and ten that we've got to make a positive difference for our fellow man. There are a lot of people who are not aware of our mortality though (they're called religious people), and they have a disturbing knack for getting into positions of power.
Yes dear. I was actually raised a catholic and so had Christian doctrine rammed down my throat for at least an hour each day from the age of three to the age of sixteen. So I'm quite familiar with Christian doctrine. Christianity describes man as having been created in God's image, hence my description of God as a 'man' is quite accurate. You cannot see him despite him being everywhere, hence he is invisible.
The big three monotheistic religions all believe in an invisible man in the sky. You're not the first person to raise objections to that description of the entity also known as God/Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah, but it is an accurate one nevertheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.
The irony being if pollution doesn't kill you having an accident in this car will, far more than other vehicles.
Obviously you haven't seen the 'other vehicles' they're driving now. Ever seen a husband riding a motorcycle along a highway with his wife on the pillion seat sitting sideways holding onto a child and not a single helmet between them? I'm not kidding. This thing will be a huge improvement over the death traps people are using right now.
Cabintaxi had a novel approach. Pods on top of the track went in one direction, suspended cars hanging underneath went the other direction. From the linked article:
Think how much easier it would be to see the stars if we just stopped making electricity. The night skies would be black like they were a thousand years ago. We could all go back to living in caves and wearing fur, no wait, we can't kill animals, and wearing fur is evil and sit by the fire, no burning wood produces CO2, so we'll sit in our dark caves, huddled together to stay warm and slowly starve to death. But then there wouldn't be anyone to look up at the stars. And that is the true goal of "environmentalism".
Are you on a mission to pack the maximum amount of gibberish and straw men into a single post?
Note: This is applicable to the US only, where health care is treated as a business.
People who resort to alternative medicine have probably had a bad experience with mainstream medicine that didn't work for them.
Mainstream health care providers seem to act suspiciously like the sales force of the drug industry. The process is streamlined and efficient. Make an appointment, pay your co-pay at the reception desk (that's right, American hospital receptions have cash registers), see the doc, he emails the prescription to the pharmacy, and on a quiet day it's available for you to pick it up by the time you get down there, where of course there's another cash register. All credit cards accepted.
1 Examine
2 Diagnose
3 Prescribe a drug
4 Profit
I had a back injury that tortured me for years, and I got sick of the expensively ineffective painkillers that my health care provider foisted on me to mask the problem, nor was I impressed with the exercise class that I had to share with 20 other people who were completely different from me and had completely different needs.
I then tried a chiropractor who seemed to spend more time convincing me that I needed to keep coming back for many more expensive adjustments if I really wanted to get better. I didn't get better.
Then I went to a doctor who disagrees with the culture of prescribing a pill for every ill, but who also sees through the chiropractic single-type-of-adjustment-to-fix-everything charade. She gave me personalised attention, figured out what was wrong with my posture, came to my car and fixed my driving position, let me bring my bike in to check my riding position, used a little bit of massage and a few chiropractic type adjustments, and prescribed a set of exercises that she taught me how to perform. I was as right as rain within weeks.
Bottom line: there's a happy medium between Chiropractic's overblown claims and Big Pharma's allies in the commercialised health care industry.
Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet, which is the 'executive branch' if you want to call it that. Not sure about whether or not he/she's the head of Parliament though. Anyone...?
Berlusconi is not the president of Italy. He's the prime minister. The president is Giorgio Napolitano.
Reminds me of a story CNN ran some years ago about the Spanish 'Presidential election.' I'll bet King Juan Carlos was a bit horrified when he heard about that!
Sorry, but the two situations are completely different. The potential benefit or drain on society of the fetus/fertilised egg/sperm/whatever does not come into it. We are talking about what the fetus is at the time of the abortion procedure, not what it might be in the future. A potential murderer has already demonstrated that he is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is not a sentient human being, is incapable of demonstrating anything any more than a blade of grass is, and is not deserving of the protections that sentient human beings deserve.
I don't know if any of this is sinking in and I'm not going to get drawn into an eternal thread that might get heated, so feel free to have the last word.
Good talking with you.
And I say again that you are comparing apples and oranges. A potential killer is a danger to society and needs to be locked up. A potential human being is not a human being and is therefore not entitled to the same protection as a sentient human being.
I'm not dodging the argument at all. A blade of grass has no potential for sentience, a human fetus has some. But the question is about sentience, not potential sentience. We're not talking about what a fetus becomes at a hypothetical later stage of the pregnancy, we're talking about what it is at the time of abortion. If the procedure is early enough in the pregnancy, no harm done. If it's later, then it's a sentient human that is being killed.
It's a big jump because it's two completely different things. Attempted murder makes you a danger to society and therefore you should be locked up. Killing a bunch of cells with no sentience is no different from cutting a blade of grass out of the ground.
Only in the USA and UK. Everywhere else, you'd be too hot to call it living.
Huh? When did they start using Celcius in the US and since when was 37 degrees C too hot? It gets up to that kind of temp around here and while it can get a bit uncomfortable, I wouldn't say it's 'too hot to call living.'
There is indeed quite a spectrum between dead and alive; Life has never been easy to classify and put into boxes, because the curious thing about it is you never observe the same thing twice looking at it.
And that is why the Abortion debate is so heated. It gets lost in an emotional hissy fit about 'murder' and 'choice.' Nobody seems to bring up the amount of sentience in a fetus at different stages of a pregnancy and where to draw the line between a bunch of cells (not worth protecting in law) and a sentient being (possibly worth protecting in law). As for the US media's constant use of loaded terms such as 'pro life' and 'pro choice,' don't get me started on that.
Thank you! I've tried to explain it to the /. crowd before. Movies are movies, books are books. What works in one medium isn't going to work in another. If the I Robot stories had been made into movies verbatim exactly as written in the book, the movie would have Sucked with a capital S. But it didn't. It was actually a good flick that perfectly captured the spirit and the point of the novel and at the same time appealed to a broad enough audience that the message wasn't lost.
Also, despite the canonization of Asimov, his characters were flat as pancakes and their dialogue was wooden. It was the scope of his ideas that carried the stories through.
'Know?' Not until he gives you his business card you don't.
But the big question is, when is America going to get its first Neanderthal President?
full of proselytising and glorifying Mormon "values"
Orson Scott Card is a Mormon. Mormonism != Christianity
So the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints doesn't do exactly what it says on the tin?
That's the beauty of doing a reboot. You can dispense with canon and give the nitpicking nerds a box of tissues if they're so upset about irrelevant details being slightly off.
I might be mistaken, but I think Picard got more "action" than Riker did.
I think you're mistaken. Picard hooked up with Vash once, then she showed up later for another bit of action. There was sexual tension between him and Beverly, but that's as far as it went. He got a peck on the cheek with the girl in First Contact, hooked up again in that awful movie that came after First Contact (I can barely remember its name), and that's about it. Riker was hooking up left right and center.
It's just a trailer. I'm sure they cut out the deeper stuff that will appear in the movie.
What's so hard about waiting to see a movie before reviewing it? Speculation is futile. All we have is the trailer, that's all we can review.
The trailer is cool. Message ends.
Whether or not we should care is irrelevant. I don't care if anyone cares or not. All that matters is whether or not we are AWARE that we're all doomed. If we're aware that we're going to oblivion and revert back to our pre-birth state of non-existence, then we'll be more inclined to make the most of the three score years and ten that we've got to make a positive difference for our fellow man. There are a lot of people who are not aware of our mortality though (they're called religious people), and they have a disturbing knack for getting into positions of power.
Yes dear. I was actually raised a catholic and so had Christian doctrine rammed down my throat for at least an hour each day from the age of three to the age of sixteen. So I'm quite familiar with Christian doctrine. Christianity describes man as having been created in God's image, hence my description of God as a 'man' is quite accurate. You cannot see him despite him being everywhere, hence he is invisible.
Want fries with that?
No I haven't.
I don't suppose you've seen the Monty Python argument skit, have you?
here it is
No I haven't.
Can you please tell me who does believe that?
The big three monotheistic religions all believe in an invisible man in the sky. You're not the first person to raise objections to that description of the entity also known as God/Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah, but it is an accurate one nevertheless.
Theism is not "an invisible man in the sky."
Yes it is.