This just goes to show that the "free market" is a uselessly naive concept. If one could rely on "good faith" from the participants, then we wouldn't need any type of markets at all; everyone would just get along by freely sharing with others, and perhaps unicorns would bring us free lunches on rainbows.
Nonsense, what this shows is your utter lack of comprehension and understand of a market in general. Good faith does not mean you will just share whatever your have. How you ever got that Idea is beyond me. Good faith means that you will not go into a deal with the intent of screwing someone over. This has nothing to do with everyone getting along and everything to do with you delivering what you sold or getting what you purchased with no misrepresentations of the materials or tricks to inflate the price or deprive others from participating.
However, any viable system needs to address the fact that many of the participants will be greedy, amoral bastards. The "free market" system rewards and elevates those most successful at gaming the system for their own ends, allowing them to accumulate ever more wealth, hence influence over the system.
I'm certain that you don't have a clue now. Accumulation of wealth does not give someone influence over a system. It may give them an advantage but not influence. As for being amoral, what part of my post did you not understand?
You can't rely on "good regulation" to promote "good faith" actions in a system that empowers those who successfully act in bad faith to subvert regulation with a strong destructive feedback loop of more money -> more influence over the markets -> greater ability to distort markets and regulation -> more money. That feedback loop has to be broken somewhere (by, for example, relying more on democracy rather than "market forces" representing the will of a wealthy minority for deciding fundamental economic issues).
Yea, I'm convinced your an ignorant fuck spouting bullshit that you have absolutely no clue of other then what you were told by some liar. Go do some research before you attempt to comment and play with the intelligent people.
Really? You deliberately ignore Kethinov's meaning when he said "making a copy of your car, should I have the means" and you're surprised when someone shoves it back in your face?
You didn't shove anything back into anyone's face. You took an overly complex approach to something with absolutely no merit in favor of some hypothetical comparison that still falls flat on it's face. Face it, the car analogy is dead and dead wrong.
Quite right; of course if I never had access to the file in the first place, I couldn't have made a copy of it. If I had access to it, I'm not violating your property rights by looking at it since you have given me access. Furthermore, copying it does not violate your property rights since I have not altered your file in any way, nor have I deprived you of your property by taking it away from you. What I have done is violate your copyright, assuming you own the copyrights on that file. Please note that copyright does not equal property right.
I agree until the point where the law grants me additional rights to the file. Had copyright not did that and you signed a NDA as a condition to view the file, then I would still have rights you couldn't reconcile away. And while I agree that copyright does not equal property right, they both do equal legal rights and in that same sense, they are extensions to the same principle.
I'm not sure why you're so fixated on "your" property and people violating that property. No one is talking about hacking into your computer or assaulting your home to make a copy of some silly file. We're just trying to get you to understand that physical property rights by definition cannot apply to something that is not physical: information.
I'm not fixated on anything. The op said your car, as in my car, your file as in my file and when talking about my property, my physical property rights allow it to be stopped. If he would have said a car as in any car he could get his hands on or a file as in any file he could get his hands on, then it would be entirely different. He didn't so his analogy fails dramatically.
Maybe you get the warm fuzzies from knowing that your car is different from my car even though they are the exact same make and model because yours has a speck of dirt somewhere, but it doesn't apply to information.
You hit the nail on the head right there without even realizing it. I can tell by the way you got side tracked. Your means mine when someone says to me, I'm taking your car. Well, no you are not, because I have rights and the right to control who takes my car anywhere is one of them. The same is true when it's a copyrighted file on my computer, it's mine- not yours, and I don't care if you can get one like it, your not getting mine unless I willingly give it to you. It's preposterous to think you can go around violating the law and stealing shit to begin with, let alone attempt to claim any specific person can be targeted at it.
If you download a song you purchased from somewhere that has a bit pattern of 11011...11101 and I instead "pirate" it, it still has that same bit pattern of 11011...11101. I have not violated anyone's property rights simply because I'm now in possession of that bit pattern. At worst I've violated the copyrights of the artist of that song.
Um, that's not what Your means. When you say yours, you mean mine which infers a lot more then going out and pirating a file somewhere else. But back to the example I gave, if the two bit patterns are identical and they use a unique identifier to identify who they gave the file to, then by definition my rights have been violated by either you taking something from me or selling me a fake and representing it as real. And if the existence of multiple copies causes a kill switch to shit the file down or make it unplayable
Wow.. You are really stretching to make a non-existent point. The bottom line is that the paint was paid for each time it was applies. The building was paid for each time it was built, maintained, or expanded. If you build ten buildings, you will have to pay for ten buildings. If you paint it ten times, you will have to pay ten times. If you play a song 10 times, you will have to pay for it ten times. Like I said, the biggest difference is the frequency where it might take months or years to paint or build a building and they years in between doing it again where one song could be play 10 times in one hour or less.
Now you want to argue that you do not like the difference between how they treat private consumption differently then commercial consumption. Well, copyright isn't all that different then anything else that has arbitrary restrictions on it. Drink a beer at home, it's fine. Drink one in public, and you will have to go to some place that purchased a special license to allow it with a small few exceptions.
Also, you're off on the value to businesses. It's about atmosphere and it does several things to calm people who would otherwise be pisses off at your shitty offerings. That's why calm relaxing elevator music is generally played at the doctors office where you pay an over priced bill and spend more time waiting in the lobby or some vacant room then you do being treated. In a grocery store or any other place of commerce when it is done to further this atmosphere, then it's different then you listening to it at home or in your car. Most of the stores I go to use the Musac systems to insert store adds in between songs so they can sell off all the 5 day old meat at a discount before it spoils or something. That's clearly a commercial setting and is little different then a radio station needing to pay royalties.
Now, as I said, if it's a simple employee keeping themselves occupied while the do some task, then it's completely different. But if it's the employee doing it to attract and keep customers, then it's commercial. There is nothing difficult about that.
I think your confusing the term free with only politically regulated. It's not the same as in your example, "who find it within their interests and capabilities to distort the market", the distortion renders it non-free as regulation (albeit illegitimate) has entered the scene.
Please keep in mind, a free market is only a free market as long as "all participant" act in good faith. Regulation to keep participants acting in good faith is not necessarily a bad thing because it would never effect the market if all participants were acting in good faith. What becomes a problem with regulation is when it favors someone in particular, places arbitrary restrictions on trade without good cause, or somehow defines what's not in good faith in such a limited way that it allows what otherwise would be considered not in good faith to happen. That's the difference between good and bad regulation and there is a hell of a lot of bad regulation out there- legitimate or not.
So, in your mind, what happens when someone copies a song is the following: the encoded music file is run through a decoder, the output of which is analyzed by a tone processor to produce sheet music which is then provided to a band/orchestra with all parts filled and all members exhibiting the same level of skill as the original performer. This new replica music group performs the song and their output is recorded onto a new medium which is engineered and mastered before finally being transcoded down into a new portable media file format. All this happens as opposed to me just reading a stream of 1s and 0s and writing them down in a new location in the exact same order?
Of course not. I'm not even sure why you would even suggest that unless your ignorant about how digital media works.
If you're going to make a car analogy, at least make one that exists in the same level of consciousness. A more appropriate comparison of copying "intellectual property" to copying a car would be obtaining a machine that could make an exact molecular duplicate of your vehicle (e.g. a Star Trek style replicator). Your car is scanned with no damage done to it, and the machine produces a perfect duplicate. This is exactly what happens on my computer. The original file is opened and the contents are copied into a new file somewhere else. The file has not been torn apart or damaged in any way, nor would anyone ever even know that the file had been copied without examining the filesystem journal.
Actually, I didn't make a car analogy, I was pointing to the flaws in the parents car analogy.
And even with the Star Trek style replicator, I can physically stop you from scanning my car with my physical property rights because I can control your access to it. I can park it in a seal garage that blocks your scanner and I can create an electrical field that disrupts your scanner when I'm not under the protection of the garage. This bodes equally well for a digital song or something. You can copy ones you have access to but my physical property rights allows me to prevent you from having access to mine. Suppose there is a unique identifier in the file to mark who the file was given to originally, my physical property rights allows me to prevent you from accessing my file regardless of how digital it is or how easy you think making a copy could be. You can make a copy of your own or someone else' but not mine unless you break or violate the natural extension to my physical property rights.
The car analogy just falls flat on it's face as well as your attempt to refute my refuting of it.
My objection was not so much with the adjective "real" as to the way in which you applied it to the losses claimed by the BSA. You are now trying to establish the reality of Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy by pointing to the existence of Mud. It doesn't work. Sorry.
Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm simple stating that if you create X, the law allow you control of it to the point you can charge Y for it's copying and distribution. When that happens without the fee being paid, you have a loss because X=Y becomes X alone. It's proper to count the difference between X and Y as a loss. It's simple logic and copying and distribution is only the mechanism to get X to equal Y.
Then stop trying to over-simplify it.
It's not that difficult in the first place. It basically comes down to as stated above, X=Y. Now if 4X happened, then 4Y is expected. When the law is violated and someone illegally copies and distributes X you end up with 4X=2Y which is a loss of 2Y. What you attempting to say is that if no one violated the law and things were magically different from reality, only 2X would happen at all. That may be true or not, we do not know because it hasn't happened. But that's all good and all, it just doesn't reflect the reality that the law was violated and and the current expectation is 4X. If you think that's overly simplified, then there is probably problems with your pretext that doesn't conform to the real world.
Uh-uh. If I thought breaking the law was always moral, that would be inferring morality from law, just as much as it would be if I thought it law-breaking was always immoral. Either way I'd be drawing an inference about morality from the legality of an action.
I know you're fond of telling people to look up the meaning of the words you use; why don't you take your own advice, and go and see if the word "infer" actually means what you think it means.
It's not the damn law, it's your actions which are moral or immoral. The law can be either but what it boils down to is if you are willing to play buy the same rules that bind everyone else or are you going to be a cheating, perhaps lieing ass who ignores the laws and rules everyone else is stuck with. The morality is to play by the same rules until those rules become unconscionable. Again, this says nothing about the rules and laws and everything about your own actions. Sometimes you can justify those actions but most of the time you cannot.
I agree entirely. What's your point?
The point is that it's your actions in consideration, not the law unless your excuse involves the law being wrong somehow. You keep attempting to ignore your own actions and place the entire morality issue on the law which not appropriate at all.
Suppose Joe sells apples. We'll keep the math easy and say he buys them for $1 and sells for $2, and that he's got a hundred apples in stock. One night a burglar steals all his apples. Joe now has a tangible, real loss of $100 worth of apples which he needs to replace (costing him another $100) before he can resume business. He also has a hypothetical loss of $200 for all the apple sales he might have made. Joe being basically an optimist assumes he would have sold the lot, and so he's out of pocket by $300.
Now let's consider Pete, who sells digital oranges. If someone steals 100 units of his stock one night, his real loss is $0, since he still has his entire stock in hand and can continue business as before. He has the same hypothetical losses as Joe of course. However, since Pete's burglar can be expected to engage in some distribution of his own, then Pete's hypothetical losses are potentially somewhat than Joe's. In fact, Pete can pretty much pluck a figure out the air as to the extent of his losses. To present that hypothetical loss as "real" is outright intellectu
In the US, playing the radio or TV in a restaurant is actually regulated by copyright laws. However, there are size limits before you need to pay royalties. See Section 5 here. It may be that they are exempt in the US from needing to pay royalties. However, the bring CD in from home might not be covered.
Actually, they do get royalties. Well, unless they are stealing the paint, not paying the painters, stole the building, and so on.
The big difference is that those are one time costs and are done once until years later when they need redone. They pay each time it gets done so essentially, they are paying royalties each time the work is performed. It's not really that much different from playing songs as an aid to commerce. The biggest and most obvious difference is the frequency of which is it being done. Now, that doesn't mean that someone inadvertently humming a tune while working or singing a song while doing some remedial task should have to pay, it's only when they are doing it for the purpose of keeping customers or whatever. Then it becomes just like having a live singer on site for some promotional thing. The fact that it's some hill jack stock boy instead of the original artist or some professional artist doing it is pointless when the intentions are the same.
Intellectual property and physical property are not equivalent and considering the former an extension of the latter confuses the issue. Your physical property rights do not legally bar me from making a copy of your car, should I have the means, only from depriving you of yours.
Actually, physical property ownership rights do legally bar you from making a copy of my car. In order to do so, you would have to tear my car apart and take measurements and so one which my physical property rights can prohibit. Now you can get the information from somewhere else, you can also purchase pre-made parts and so on, but then it wouldn't be a copy of my car, it would be a copy of a model of car I own.
Suppose no one else makes the car or the parts for my car. Suppose I made it from scratch as a concept, I can stop you from doing what would be necessary to make the copy of my car by simply exerting physical property rights.
Courts are also a form of government regulation. Without them, you couldn't have enforceable contracts. Sounds like fun capitalism to me, not having enforceable contracts...
There, fixed that for you. Before courts enforced contracts, retaliation at the point of a weapon or being railed out of town was the solutions. Since courts started deciding contracts, the court can do the heavy lifting. But contracts have been around a lot longer then courts- if only on a verbal scale.
The "Fact of Evolution" is that organisms change over time - an observable fact. The "Theory of Evolution" is that these changes explain the diversity of life. "Evolution" can refer to both. On the other hand, some people forget that there's a difference between an incredibly well-supported theory and a fact - and they should be reminded that all scientific conclusions are provisional. But most importantly, no matter how many sun worshipers there are, the sun itself is not a religion.
True, but as I said, for some evolution is their religion. Now that doesn't mean evolution is a religion, it's just that some religiously believe in it beyond any scientific principle to the point that faith is reality.
What do you mean by "this is false"? Within a single generation there is no gene flow between current, small Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but there is over longer generational distances - which is essentially the definition of a ring species.
What I mean is that the pure breed of Chihuahua can actually mate with a great dane and produce viable offspring. The notion of it being incapable happens only when you limit the breed to the 9 lbs or smaller show class of the chihuahua breed. That brings the ring end back closer to the same taxonomy to the point it doesn't appear at separate. Now don't get me wrong, there are lots of differences between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, but they aren't separate species by any means. In other words, the argument for speciation by diversity in species is lost on this particular example.
It depends on which religion you practice and how you interpret it - science clearly contradicts plenty of Greek myths, but probably will never conflict with a Deist's religion. From my perspective, the reason that there's so little conflict is that whenever they have conflicted and there's been an even slightly level playing field religion gets its ass kicked, so modern religions generally avoid conflict as much as possible. The gods hide in the gaps before the big bang and after death, where science can't get to them.
Not really. Take the Judeo-Christian-muslin religion. The old testament which is part of them all to a degree only makes specific comments about a few specific things that are in conflict with science. The rest of it is pretty much dealing with spiritual and supernatural areas. Even the PI equals 3 examples ignorant fucks like to trot out is not in conflict because they have to ignore the differences between inside and outside diameters of the artificial sea in order to get the 3 instead of 3.14. Actually, it works out to about 3.1395 which is close enough for the rough measurements of the time. But the main arguments in conflict are the age of the earth which is decided by dogma and not the old testament, and the creation of man in which the bible gets pretty specific about. Then you have the flood and about everything else is pretty much semantics or dealing with stuff science has no legitimate interest in. Now I'm not sure what extras the Qu'oran has, but the new testament pretty much doesn't touch anything scientific unless it's using hyperbole or something to exaggerate a supposed effect or outcome. There is so little that crosses realms that it's really not an issue. Now you're probably right about the greek mythology and so on but last I heard, that was a dead religion. There are probably religions like it though.
So, essentially, you work for a meteorological group and have a deep scientific understanding of the weather, but when you go home and your grass is brown you sacrifice a goat to make it rain? And then you wonder why your neighbors joke about you being crazy?!?
Of course not. Sacrifices haven't been part of modern religions forever. And even when they were (at least for the judeo-christian religions), it wasn't to make something happen, it was to m
So did Reagan, Clinton, Carter, and a host of other presidents. They are political jobs just as Obama effectivly went political with federal law by1 telling the federal prosecutors to not prosecute pot charges that fall in line with state medical marijuana laws.
There is nothing shocking or new there. It's like your saying the sun goes down at night, well, yea, it does- Who cares.
So going back the question that I asked, that would be "Yes, I am using the term 'real' in a highly specific, complex, technical sense, since the hypothetical theft of imaginary property would not be considered 'real' in the everyday sense of the word, except perhaps by those experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs, or undergoing a psychotic breakdown". Do please note that I am not disputing that the law entitles the rights holders to compensation, so you can probably stop explaining that part now.
So copying isn't real? Distributing something isn't real? I mean seriously, the only reason you own your house or car and I can't just come over and take it from you is because the law granted and recorded a legal right for you beyond any physical possession.
Of course it's different. You've found a single point of similarity under law, That doesn't make all other differences go away.
Not in principle. So stop attempt to conflate the issue.
No, I'm saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is illegal. You cannot infer the morality of the action from its legality. Either way.
Yes you can infer morality. That is unless you think breaking the law is always moral. If not, then you need to follow the law to act morally until it becomes conflicted with that morality. I can't believe that your actually saying it's perfectly fine for you to break the law at will and it's not a moral indecator when you do illegal acts.
I'm fairly certain you already conceded this point. You do not need social consensus for your actions to be moral, any more than you need legislation. You probably need that social consensus to change the law (having a lot of money has been known to work, too) but since law != morality, that has no bearing on the morality of the initial action.
Jesus fucking Christ man. I didn't concede that point. You're just refusing to look at it. You only need to convince others of the morality of your actions when you want or need them to believe the same as you. You do not need a community consensus to act morally or ethically, you can derive your values from your own experiences. But you as a person are morally obligated to be law abiding and follow all the rules that bind you and everyone else legally until there is a conflict in those rules and your morality. At that point, you have to justify to yourself and anyone you expect to side with you.
The Devil take your "automatically!" Violating the law is automatically illegal, unless it can be justified in a court of law. It is not automatically immoral. The distinction exists because the difference is important.
And being unlawful means you are not acting morally. You are in essence a cheater and not following the same rules everyone else has to. How can you justify getting special privileges that no one else has because you ignore the law as moral? You have to look at the specifics which is beyond the point I made. Is it immoral for me to randomly pick any law and violate it when dealing with you? Yes it is, because we are morally obligated to be law abiding.
Yes, but that's not how they present the data. These figures are always presented with a strong subtext of "this is actual money that we would have had in out pockets if it hadn't been stolen from us by filthy pirates". It's the intention to deceive that I find immoral here. And since I doubt that they think that on-paper loss would have translated into actual sales, you don't think it, and I don't think it, then I don't think "disingenuous" is too harsh a term. If anything, I'm being rather restrained.
It's not disingenuous, if the law says you can charge a fee for use, then each use without a fee being paid is money out of their pockets. The problem is as I sai
Strange, the first part of my post got eaten between preview and submit. I posted the numbers the state used, which are based on research, rather than idle speculation like your argument.
I've seen more strange things happen here then that. Your post does make more sense now.
They came up with the figure that, in the initial phase, this would save a driver $16 a year in gas, and when it's fully ramped up, $20 per year. Overall, they estimate it reducing statewide emissions by 700,000 tons of CO(2). You have a nice-sounding argument; they have the results of actual empirical testing. Even the groups opposing these rules aren't disputing that the rules will be effective, and those guys are industry pros with engineering degrees and everything.
You need to post the results of real tests rather than intellectual exercises.
They are probably referencing material in this PDF. I thought I posted it before but it must have been another thread. Another person pointed me to it and I'll relay the same problems I have with it. The problem is that in order to get the savings on fuel and emissions, it requires a redesign of the AC cooling unit plus systems to be installed that aren't even in existence today. That's fine and all if the purposed law actually required the changes to the cars AC units too. However, it doesn't which is what makes the purposed rule so asinine.
It's like saying that if you build a dam and put in an electrical power generation plant in place, you will save X in pollution and then never building the dam and putting a non-functional power generation system in place. I guess what I'm trying to explain is that it's only part of the solution and it's superficial at that. With how cars currently operate, no difference would be seen at all.
Sure you can; I phrased that poorly. I meant comment formally, not comment on Slashdot. The rules are open to public comments before they're set in stone, but you have to live here to do so.
But you're still a damned fool for arguing that things ain't the way they are, like the man who saw an elephant and said "there ain't no such animal". If you want to argue with the results of controlled testing, argue with the methodology, or find or perform a study that gets different results. Waving your arms and spouting theory is meaningless when compared to empirical research.
I think the argument has been made. I'm generally against regulations that cost more then any potential savings but the glazed coatings or only part of the picture. The problem is that they are ignoring the parts that actually make the differences and realize the savings in both fuel and emissions. If I'm hand waving, it's only because I wasn't more clear earlier. Just as with the old tinted windows, that alone will not realize any fuel or emissions savings because of the way current cars are designed. If they change the designs of the AC units, then the savings can be realized- just not until then.
Mmmm.... It's not as though anyone's been around their warehouses and stolen 25,000 units of product, so I can only assume you're using "real" in some complex, technical sense here. Feel free to enlighten me.
As I attempted to state before, because someone has copied and distributed it, and because it's in use outside your explicit control as the law allows, then you are entitles to a payment or restitution for each time it happened. This is no different then someone taking 25,000 units from a warehouse, using it when your entitled to compensation for the use. You see, the law says you can charge for use, while it's true that if everyone had to pay, there wouldn't be as much use, but because the law says you can charge for use, then once it's in use, it's a legitimate loss if you didn't receive the fees for the use.
However, none of that means, in and of itself, that the action is immoral. And if the illegality of the action is your only basis for claiming immorality, if you can't show the immoral nature of the activity without bringing the law into the argument, then to my way of thinking, you can't support your argument at all.
So your saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is moral? It really has nothing to do with what the law actually says, it's about the character of the person who is immoral because they do not follow the law. If somehow they can justify that action, then the immoral can become moral but until it's justified, it's just someone choosing not to play by the same rules that bind everyone else. This is something that happened often, take insider trading for instance, is it moral for someone to take inside information or to manipulate the conditions to profit over others who aren't doing that because they follow the laws? It's immoral to not follow the laws and rules everyone else is bound to. Violating the law is automatically immoral unless it can be justified as moral and proper.
Going back to the example: in your hypothetical career as a multiple grandmother rapist, you have by definition committed acts of violence against one of the segments of the population least able to defend themselves, you have undoubtedly caused considerable mental trauma, and you've additionally created great anguish among the families of these unfortunate women. It is not difficult to show actual harm and clear immorality based on the actions themselves. I don't need to say "rape is illegal, and therefore you are behaving immorally" in order to make my argument stick in this case.
And at the same time, you do not need to say any of the rest to know that rape is illegal and therefore immoral. Let's change this a little but. Suppose that instead of raping grandma's we are playing a game of ping pong. Now you are following the rules and I'm placing things behind you to cause you to stumble and miss when attempting to hit the ball. Suppose I count out of bounds balls as good and penalize you a point while strictly doing this in my favor. I'm cheating right? Is cheating immoral? Is not following the same rules that everyone else is bound to immoral? If your answer is anything other then yes, it's immoral, then you really need to explain.
All I'm asking of you is that, if you think the activity under debate is immoral, that you argue your point based on the actual immorality of the action. As opposed to trying to intimidate them with the law as though that were some absolute and unwavering moral compass. I honestly don't see what's so terrible about that.
I think we are talking about separate actions. I'm saying breaking the law is immoral unless you can justify it as moral. I mean killing people is both illegal and immoral, killing someone who is attacking you or your family is neither. So breaking the law is immoral, breaking it for self preservation isn't. That's a rule th
It only runs both when the AC is on. This is by default when either the AC is actually on and the temp dial is not set to max cold or when the defrosters are on. Some cars have valves controlled by a solenoid or cable that will turn the water flow to the heater core off when the max cold is on.
The Heating and cooling-ventilation systems in cars are relatively dumb. They started using AC for defrosters in the late 1980's because it aided the job a lot more then heat alone. Grab a book on your car or ask a mechanic about it. Apart from my useless MS certifications, I'm actually an ASC certified mechanic as well. Although I haven't worked as a mechanic professionally since the early 1990's, but I keep current so I can service my own vehicles without running into warranty issues and for when I do repossession work and need to disable alarms, code keys and make out fitness reports before dropping them off at the recovery lots.
I understand that there is a difference between this and a warranty. I just thought it tread very closely to the spirit of the act. However, I'm glad to hear case law makes it possible to get around MS's asshatery. Perhaps it's time real law reflected the same thing.
The way AC works in automobiles is different then the way it works in a house. The compressor pump runs continuously in either high or low mode and when pressure reaches a certain amount in the lines, an electric clutch free spool the unit. The high or low mode is controlled by a switch in the condenser coil that signals the opening and closing of a valve that allows the coolant to move fast or slower. The high mode is designed to remove heat as if you were sitting in Phoenix AZ with 121 degrees internal heat. When you change your selector from economy to max, it engages the high mode or disengages it depending on the direction. Other then that, the operation is static regardless of cabin temperature and the cool-warm selections open and close a damper that controls air movement either from fresh air or across the heater coil. When you turn your windshield defrosters on, it's actually running the heater core directly though the AC unit to remove moisture from the air and facilitate clearing the windows faster. This is why in older cars, you have to run the defroster on hot and newer cars can defrost while cooling.
Anyways, glazing the windshields, while it may help make the interior cooler, it won't change the energy use in running the AC unless you actively turn it on and off which would then mimic household AC operation. That's unlikely to happen if it isn't already happening. Another poster posted this report which attempts to address ways power savings can be implemented with the use of glazing's but so far, the laws do not mandate anything like that.
In short, the numbers I have are sufficient because nothing would deviate from what is already happening. It's static as far as fuel consumption whether your using it in 90 degree weather or 10 degree weather with or without the glaze. This isn't even new technology either. It's the same as tinted windows except that it allows a much larger amount of visible white lite through (70 or more percent). In order to have an effect, the AC technology would have to change too and it doesn't appear that's required by this rule.
Also, I'm not a resident of CA, but I am a citizen of the USA which means I can alert fellow citizens of inane regulation and allow them to act if they wish. It's the same principle as my protesting the taze first ask questions later mentality of cops outside my state.
I have - I regularly go to ICR's and Answers in Genesis' web sites. The problem is that 95% of the articles are rehashes of something that I've rejected before, 4% are new but don't make it very far past the laugh test, and the final 1% make me think (like the radiohalos), but in the end I find better explanations elsewhere. I can't claim perfect objectivity of course, but I really do try to give every idea I come across a fair shot at convincing me.
I'm not going to preach to you or try to convert you. All I'm about is letting you do whatever you want. If your having problems justifying your conviction, you will need to talk to someone but me. That 1% you mentioned is probably where you should start if that's the direction you want to move in but ultimately it's going to be up to you.
And I'd love to give those ideas the chance they're due, but I would need a citation, a name, which grain or oil field... something to go on.
Wallace Pratt is one such YEC who viewed genesis as a literal 6 days but found a huge amount of oil fields. He worked for humble oil and standard oil which I think became Exxon Mobile as a geologist and an executive. I forget which fields he is supposed to be responsible for, but they are still in use today. Now, it probably should be known that time doesn't really matter in geology when finding oil. You can pretty much attach any time scale to stratospheric layers in the soil and predict sedimentary deposits as well as oil. In fact, there are such small contradictions in religion and science that there arne't many places it actually crosses. Check out the sections labeled Christianity Is Not in Opposition to Science from the linked site. It attempts to explain how small the crossing of science and religion is and provides some advice on how to approach it.
I partly agree with this. One way to keep things separate is to believe what science produces, but also that there are additional things as well - this is how most religious scientists deal with the issue. There's nothing scientifically wrong with that, but other people might think it's odd that you believe "relativity explains gravity, but that's true only because Vishnu wills it to be so" or "our minds are clearly based on physical phenomena, but some part of us gets reincarnated" or "evolution has an explanation for why human beings experience love, but I think you also need the Holy Ghost".
I know people who take drugs and drink excessively in attempts to find their enlightenment. Who's to say their path is better or worse. I know it's a little more self destructive but the point is they are pretty much doing the same thing. They are just looking in different places. One of the funniest religious comedy routine I have seen is where a preacher tells a wino he won't find the answers he looking for in that bottle and the wino replies, good thing I have more bottles. Anyways, concentrate more on what you think and less on what they think.
Another way is to keep things separate is to simply accept a religion on faith, and completely reject science when they come into conflict. There's nothing wrong with that, but since you're rejecting the mostly widely held (and provably beneficial) philosophical system, the one the rest of us use as a common basis for discussing things, on what looks like a whim, don't be surprised if you get left out of the conversation.
I often push the idea of compartmentalization anyways. If we can play different games or drive different types of cars with standard or automatic transmissions, then we surely can keep two opposing views in perspective. When dealing with Science A is true, if it conflict in religion, then when dealing with religion B is true even if it's the exact opposite of A. The point is, you do not need to ignore one
Isn't locking competitors out of the game sort of like Harley Davidson and their requirement to use only HD oil in order not to void the warranties of the new motorcycles? I believe they lost a lawsuit in the mid 1980's over that and ended up having to supply all warrantied locked purchasers with of their HD oil until they changes the warranty clause. I know MS isn't doing a warranty thing here bit the principle seems to be the same.
Check out 2302 sections C of the Magnusson-Moss Act. I'm sort of thinking that altering the device to accept competitors devices should be completely legal and still maintain a warranty if the interfaces are the same. IE, if the SD car slot is the same as others, then locking you into a single SD card is clearly a violation of the spirit of this. And I'm assuming that a newly purchased Xbox would have warranty disclaimers if you attempt to get around this.
Any legal minds care to comment on this? I know it isn't the same as a warranty, but I do not know how they arne't brushing against it if not in spirit alone.
Don't worry, my 87 GMC pickup and my 84 chevy blazer had the antenna in the windshield stock. I have since then relocated them to an antenna array on the outside of the vehicle as it was easy to do when connecting and setting up antennas for other applications. It ended up costing about $30 less to replace a windshield when I didn't need the built in antenna on the GMC so evidently, there was an external option somewhere.
Don't feel sad, just think, don't laugh, it's paid for.
I think your injecting too much outside wishes into the mix. First of all, the PDF you linked to models 1995-1997 cars and assumed, even with the glazed windshields, that a system would be using advanced sensors would be implemented that ensure only the comfort of the driver and not the rest of the occupants. While they did show a.5 MGP increase in fuel economy if the auxiliary load on the engine due to the AC was halved on gasoline engines. In order to reach the halved state, they required a hypothetical (not then in existence and who knows if it is now or not) system that measured vehicle occupancy and adjusted AC loads based on it, concentrated only on the driver's comfort, and used alternative methods for defrosting and clearing the windows.
Why is this all pointless? Because the CA legislation does not mandate a smaller compressor, it does not mandate sensors to adjust the load on the AC unit, it does not mandate reduced fresh air intake adjustments. It doesn't do anything the study concluded was needed in order to see the return. What we will end up with is the same systems already in use and no noticeable or beneficial power savings.
In short, while what you say is achievable (although at a cost well above the savings), simply making a law mandating glazed windows will not create the implementation of the systems required to make it possible. This is an idiot law/regulation and it will do nothing but increase costs.
The fans turn off when your vehicle reaches the set temp? As far as the spec for it goes, the fans speed slows down and a damper mixes fresh air with cool air to maintain and regulate cabin temperature. It does not shut off the AC pump or exchangers like a home AC unit would.
It's not the same and provides no noticeable benefit that this would take advantage of.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense, what this shows is your utter lack of comprehension and understand of a market in general. Good faith does not mean you will just share whatever your have. How you ever got that Idea is beyond me. Good faith means that you will not go into a deal with the intent of screwing someone over. This has nothing to do with everyone getting along and everything to do with you delivering what you sold or getting what you purchased with no misrepresentations of the materials or tricks to inflate the price or deprive others from participating.
I'm certain that you don't have a clue now. Accumulation of wealth does not give someone influence over a system. It may give them an advantage but not influence. As for being amoral, what part of my post did you not understand?
Yea, I'm convinced your an ignorant fuck spouting bullshit that you have absolutely no clue of other then what you were told by some liar. Go do some research before you attempt to comment and play with the intelligent people.
You didn't shove anything back into anyone's face. You took an overly complex approach to something with absolutely no merit in favor of some hypothetical comparison that still falls flat on it's face. Face it, the car analogy is dead and dead wrong.
I agree until the point where the law grants me additional rights to the file. Had copyright not did that and you signed a NDA as a condition to view the file, then I would still have rights you couldn't reconcile away. And while I agree that copyright does not equal property right, they both do equal legal rights and in that same sense, they are extensions to the same principle.
I'm not fixated on anything. The op said your car, as in my car, your file as in my file and when talking about my property, my physical property rights allow it to be stopped. If he would have said a car as in any car he could get his hands on or a file as in any file he could get his hands on, then it would be entirely different. He didn't so his analogy fails dramatically.
You hit the nail on the head right there without even realizing it. I can tell by the way you got side tracked. Your means mine when someone says to me, I'm taking your car. Well, no you are not, because I have rights and the right to control who takes my car anywhere is one of them. The same is true when it's a copyrighted file on my computer, it's mine- not yours, and I don't care if you can get one like it, your not getting mine unless I willingly give it to you. It's preposterous to think you can go around violating the law and stealing shit to begin with, let alone attempt to claim any specific person can be targeted at it.
Um, that's not what Your means. When you say yours, you mean mine which infers a lot more then going out and pirating a file somewhere else. But back to the example I gave, if the two bit patterns are identical and they use a unique identifier to identify who they gave the file to, then by definition my rights have been violated by either you taking something from me or selling me a fake and representing it as real. And if the existence of multiple copies causes a kill switch to shit the file down or make it unplayable
Wow.. You are really stretching to make a non-existent point. The bottom line is that the paint was paid for each time it was applies. The building was paid for each time it was built, maintained, or expanded. If you build ten buildings, you will have to pay for ten buildings. If you paint it ten times, you will have to pay ten times. If you play a song 10 times, you will have to pay for it ten times. Like I said, the biggest difference is the frequency where it might take months or years to paint or build a building and they years in between doing it again where one song could be play 10 times in one hour or less.
Now you want to argue that you do not like the difference between how they treat private consumption differently then commercial consumption. Well, copyright isn't all that different then anything else that has arbitrary restrictions on it. Drink a beer at home, it's fine. Drink one in public, and you will have to go to some place that purchased a special license to allow it with a small few exceptions.
Also, you're off on the value to businesses. It's about atmosphere and it does several things to calm people who would otherwise be pisses off at your shitty offerings. That's why calm relaxing elevator music is generally played at the doctors office where you pay an over priced bill and spend more time waiting in the lobby or some vacant room then you do being treated. In a grocery store or any other place of commerce when it is done to further this atmosphere, then it's different then you listening to it at home or in your car. Most of the stores I go to use the Musac systems to insert store adds in between songs so they can sell off all the 5 day old meat at a discount before it spoils or something. That's clearly a commercial setting and is little different then a radio station needing to pay royalties.
Now, as I said, if it's a simple employee keeping themselves occupied while the do some task, then it's completely different. But if it's the employee doing it to attract and keep customers, then it's commercial. There is nothing difficult about that.
I think your confusing the term free with only politically regulated. It's not the same as in your example, "who find it within their interests and capabilities to distort the market", the distortion renders it non-free as regulation (albeit illegitimate) has entered the scene.
Please keep in mind, a free market is only a free market as long as "all participant" act in good faith. Regulation to keep participants acting in good faith is not necessarily a bad thing because it would never effect the market if all participants were acting in good faith. What becomes a problem with regulation is when it favors someone in particular, places arbitrary restrictions on trade without good cause, or somehow defines what's not in good faith in such a limited way that it allows what otherwise would be considered not in good faith to happen. That's the difference between good and bad regulation and there is a hell of a lot of bad regulation out there- legitimate or not.
Of course not. I'm not even sure why you would even suggest that unless your ignorant about how digital media works.
Actually, I didn't make a car analogy, I was pointing to the flaws in the parents car analogy.
And even with the Star Trek style replicator, I can physically stop you from scanning my car with my physical property rights because I can control your access to it. I can park it in a seal garage that blocks your scanner and I can create an electrical field that disrupts your scanner when I'm not under the protection of the garage. This bodes equally well for a digital song or something. You can copy ones you have access to but my physical property rights allows me to prevent you from having access to mine. Suppose there is a unique identifier in the file to mark who the file was given to originally, my physical property rights allows me to prevent you from accessing my file regardless of how digital it is or how easy you think making a copy could be. You can make a copy of your own or someone else' but not mine unless you break or violate the natural extension to my physical property rights.
The car analogy just falls flat on it's face as well as your attempt to refute my refuting of it.
Of course not. Don't be silly. I'm simple stating that if you create X, the law allow you control of it to the point you can charge Y for it's copying and distribution. When that happens without the fee being paid, you have a loss because X=Y becomes X alone. It's proper to count the difference between X and Y as a loss. It's simple logic and copying and distribution is only the mechanism to get X to equal Y.
It's not that difficult in the first place. It basically comes down to as stated above, X=Y. Now if 4X happened, then 4Y is expected. When the law is violated and someone illegally copies and distributes X you end up with 4X=2Y which is a loss of 2Y. What you attempting to say is that if no one violated the law and things were magically different from reality, only 2X would happen at all. That may be true or not, we do not know because it hasn't happened. But that's all good and all, it just doesn't reflect the reality that the law was violated and and the current expectation is 4X. If you think that's overly simplified, then there is probably problems with your pretext that doesn't conform to the real world.
It's not the damn law, it's your actions which are moral or immoral. The law can be either but what it boils down to is if you are willing to play buy the same rules that bind everyone else or are you going to be a cheating, perhaps lieing ass who ignores the laws and rules everyone else is stuck with. The morality is to play by the same rules until those rules become unconscionable. Again, this says nothing about the rules and laws and everything about your own actions. Sometimes you can justify those actions but most of the time you cannot.
The point is that it's your actions in consideration, not the law unless your excuse involves the law being wrong somehow. You keep attempting to ignore your own actions and place the entire morality issue on the law which not appropriate at all.
In the US, playing the radio or TV in a restaurant is actually regulated by copyright laws. However, there are size limits before you need to pay royalties. See Section 5 here. It may be that they are exempt in the US from needing to pay royalties. However, the bring CD in from home might not be covered.
Actually, they do get royalties. Well, unless they are stealing the paint, not paying the painters, stole the building, and so on.
The big difference is that those are one time costs and are done once until years later when they need redone. They pay each time it gets done so essentially, they are paying royalties each time the work is performed. It's not really that much different from playing songs as an aid to commerce. The biggest and most obvious difference is the frequency of which is it being done. Now, that doesn't mean that someone inadvertently humming a tune while working or singing a song while doing some remedial task should have to pay, it's only when they are doing it for the purpose of keeping customers or whatever. Then it becomes just like having a live singer on site for some promotional thing. The fact that it's some hill jack stock boy instead of the original artist or some professional artist doing it is pointless when the intentions are the same.
Actually, physical property ownership rights do legally bar you from making a copy of my car. In order to do so, you would have to tear my car apart and take measurements and so one which my physical property rights can prohibit. Now you can get the information from somewhere else, you can also purchase pre-made parts and so on, but then it wouldn't be a copy of my car, it would be a copy of a model of car I own.
Suppose no one else makes the car or the parts for my car. Suppose I made it from scratch as a concept, I can stop you from doing what would be necessary to make the copy of my car by simply exerting physical property rights.
Courts are also a form of government regulation. Without them, you couldn't have enforceable contracts. Sounds like fun capitalism to me, not having enforceable contracts...
There, fixed that for you. Before courts enforced contracts, retaliation at the point of a weapon or being railed out of town was the solutions. Since courts started deciding contracts, the court can do the heavy lifting. But contracts have been around a lot longer then courts- if only on a verbal scale.
True, but as I said, for some evolution is their religion. Now that doesn't mean evolution is a religion, it's just that some religiously believe in it beyond any scientific principle to the point that faith is reality.
What I mean is that the pure breed of Chihuahua can actually mate with a great dane and produce viable offspring. The notion of it being incapable happens only when you limit the breed to the 9 lbs or smaller show class of the chihuahua breed. That brings the ring end back closer to the same taxonomy to the point it doesn't appear at separate. Now don't get me wrong, there are lots of differences between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, but they aren't separate species by any means. In other words, the argument for speciation by diversity in species is lost on this particular example.
Not really. Take the Judeo-Christian-muslin religion. The old testament which is part of them all to a degree only makes specific comments about a few specific things that are in conflict with science. The rest of it is pretty much dealing with spiritual and supernatural areas. Even the PI equals 3 examples ignorant fucks like to trot out is not in conflict because they have to ignore the differences between inside and outside diameters of the artificial sea in order to get the 3 instead of 3.14. Actually, it works out to about 3.1395 which is close enough for the rough measurements of the time. But the main arguments in conflict are the age of the earth which is decided by dogma and not the old testament, and the creation of man in which the bible gets pretty specific about. Then you have the flood and about everything else is pretty much semantics or dealing with stuff science has no legitimate interest in. Now I'm not sure what extras the Qu'oran has, but the new testament pretty much doesn't touch anything scientific unless it's using hyperbole or something to exaggerate a supposed effect or outcome. There is so little that crosses realms that it's really not an issue. Now you're probably right about the greek mythology and so on but last I heard, that was a dead religion. There are probably religions like it though.
Of course not. Sacrifices haven't been part of modern religions forever. And even when they were (at least for the judeo-christian religions), it wasn't to make something happen, it was to m
So did Reagan, Clinton, Carter, and a host of other presidents. They are political jobs just as Obama effectivly went political with federal law by1 telling the federal prosecutors to not prosecute pot charges that fall in line with state medical marijuana laws.
There is nothing shocking or new there. It's like your saying the sun goes down at night, well, yea, it does- Who cares.
So copying isn't real? Distributing something isn't real? I mean seriously, the only reason you own your house or car and I can't just come over and take it from you is because the law granted and recorded a legal right for you beyond any physical possession.
Not in principle. So stop attempt to conflate the issue.
Yes you can infer morality. That is unless you think breaking the law is always moral. If not, then you need to follow the law to act morally until it becomes conflicted with that morality. I can't believe that your actually saying it's perfectly fine for you to break the law at will and it's not a moral indecator when you do illegal acts.
Jesus fucking Christ man. I didn't concede that point. You're just refusing to look at it. You only need to convince others of the morality of your actions when you want or need them to believe the same as you. You do not need a community consensus to act morally or ethically, you can derive your values from your own experiences. But you as a person are morally obligated to be law abiding and follow all the rules that bind you and everyone else legally until there is a conflict in those rules and your morality. At that point, you have to justify to yourself and anyone you expect to side with you.
And being unlawful means you are not acting morally. You are in essence a cheater and not following the same rules everyone else has to. How can you justify getting special privileges that no one else has because you ignore the law as moral? You have to look at the specifics which is beyond the point I made. Is it immoral for me to randomly pick any law and violate it when dealing with you? Yes it is, because we are morally obligated to be law abiding.
It's not disingenuous, if the law says you can charge a fee for use, then each use without a fee being paid is money out of their pockets. The problem is as I sai
You should also consider that 80% of all statistics are made up. Anyways. go ahead and get it out.
I've seen more strange things happen here then that. Your post does make more sense now.
They are probably referencing material in this PDF. I thought I posted it before but it must have been another thread. Another person pointed me to it and I'll relay the same problems I have with it. The problem is that in order to get the savings on fuel and emissions, it requires a redesign of the AC cooling unit plus systems to be installed that aren't even in existence today. That's fine and all if the purposed law actually required the changes to the cars AC units too. However, it doesn't which is what makes the purposed rule so asinine.
It's like saying that if you build a dam and put in an electrical power generation plant in place, you will save X in pollution and then never building the dam and putting a non-functional power generation system in place. I guess what I'm trying to explain is that it's only part of the solution and it's superficial at that. With how cars currently operate, no difference would be seen at all.
I think the argument has been made. I'm generally against regulations that cost more then any potential savings but the glazed coatings or only part of the picture. The problem is that they are ignoring the parts that actually make the differences and realize the savings in both fuel and emissions. If I'm hand waving, it's only because I wasn't more clear earlier. Just as with the old tinted windows, that alone will not realize any fuel or emissions savings because of the way current cars are designed. If they change the designs of the AC units, then the savings can be realized- just not until then.
As I attempted to state before, because someone has copied and distributed it, and because it's in use outside your explicit control as the law allows, then you are entitles to a payment or restitution for each time it happened. This is no different then someone taking 25,000 units from a warehouse, using it when your entitled to compensation for the use. You see, the law says you can charge for use, while it's true that if everyone had to pay, there wouldn't be as much use, but because the law says you can charge for use, then once it's in use, it's a legitimate loss if you didn't receive the fees for the use.
So your saying that breaking the law when everyone else is following it is moral? It really has nothing to do with what the law actually says, it's about the character of the person who is immoral because they do not follow the law. If somehow they can justify that action, then the immoral can become moral but until it's justified, it's just someone choosing not to play by the same rules that bind everyone else. This is something that happened often, take insider trading for instance, is it moral for someone to take inside information or to manipulate the conditions to profit over others who aren't doing that because they follow the laws? It's immoral to not follow the laws and rules everyone else is bound to. Violating the law is automatically immoral unless it can be justified as moral and proper.
And at the same time, you do not need to say any of the rest to know that rape is illegal and therefore immoral. Let's change this a little but. Suppose that instead of raping grandma's we are playing a game of ping pong. Now you are following the rules and I'm placing things behind you to cause you to stumble and miss when attempting to hit the ball. Suppose I count out of bounds balls as good and penalize you a point while strictly doing this in my favor. I'm cheating right? Is cheating immoral? Is not following the same rules that everyone else is bound to immoral? If your answer is anything other then yes, it's immoral, then you really need to explain.
I think we are talking about separate actions. I'm saying breaking the law is immoral unless you can justify it as moral. I mean killing people is both illegal and immoral, killing someone who is attacking you or your family is neither. So breaking the law is immoral, breaking it for self preservation isn't. That's a rule th
It only runs both when the AC is on. This is by default when either the AC is actually on and the temp dial is not set to max cold or when the defrosters are on. Some cars have valves controlled by a solenoid or cable that will turn the water flow to the heater core off when the max cold is on.
The Heating and cooling-ventilation systems in cars are relatively dumb. They started using AC for defrosters in the late 1980's because it aided the job a lot more then heat alone. Grab a book on your car or ask a mechanic about it. Apart from my useless MS certifications, I'm actually an ASC certified mechanic as well. Although I haven't worked as a mechanic professionally since the early 1990's, but I keep current so I can service my own vehicles without running into warranty issues and for when I do repossession work and need to disable alarms, code keys and make out fitness reports before dropping them off at the recovery lots.
I understand that there is a difference between this and a warranty. I just thought it tread very closely to the spirit of the act. However, I'm glad to hear case law makes it possible to get around MS's asshatery. Perhaps it's time real law reflected the same thing.
Whatever you need to do brother. That's right, if you feel better about yourself, I'm glad I was here for you.
The way AC works in automobiles is different then the way it works in a house. The compressor pump runs continuously in either high or low mode and when pressure reaches a certain amount in the lines, an electric clutch free spool the unit. The high or low mode is controlled by a switch in the condenser coil that signals the opening and closing of a valve that allows the coolant to move fast or slower. The high mode is designed to remove heat as if you were sitting in Phoenix AZ with 121 degrees internal heat. When you change your selector from economy to max, it engages the high mode or disengages it depending on the direction. Other then that, the operation is static regardless of cabin temperature and the cool-warm selections open and close a damper that controls air movement either from fresh air or across the heater coil. When you turn your windshield defrosters on, it's actually running the heater core directly though the AC unit to remove moisture from the air and facilitate clearing the windows faster. This is why in older cars, you have to run the defroster on hot and newer cars can defrost while cooling.
Anyways, glazing the windshields, while it may help make the interior cooler, it won't change the energy use in running the AC unless you actively turn it on and off which would then mimic household AC operation. That's unlikely to happen if it isn't already happening. Another poster posted this report which attempts to address ways power savings can be implemented with the use of glazing's but so far, the laws do not mandate anything like that.
In short, the numbers I have are sufficient because nothing would deviate from what is already happening. It's static as far as fuel consumption whether your using it in 90 degree weather or 10 degree weather with or without the glaze. This isn't even new technology either. It's the same as tinted windows except that it allows a much larger amount of visible white lite through (70 or more percent). In order to have an effect, the AC technology would have to change too and it doesn't appear that's required by this rule.
Also, I'm not a resident of CA, but I am a citizen of the USA which means I can alert fellow citizens of inane regulation and allow them to act if they wish. It's the same principle as my protesting the taze first ask questions later mentality of cops outside my state.
I'm not going to preach to you or try to convert you. All I'm about is letting you do whatever you want. If your having problems justifying your conviction, you will need to talk to someone but me. That 1% you mentioned is probably where you should start if that's the direction you want to move in but ultimately it's going to be up to you.
Wallace Pratt is one such YEC who viewed genesis as a literal 6 days but found a huge amount of oil fields. He worked for humble oil and standard oil which I think became Exxon Mobile as a geologist and an executive. I forget which fields he is supposed to be responsible for, but they are still in use today. Now, it probably should be known that time doesn't really matter in geology when finding oil. You can pretty much attach any time scale to stratospheric layers in the soil and predict sedimentary deposits as well as oil. In fact, there are such small contradictions in religion and science that there arne't many places it actually crosses. Check out the sections labeled Christianity Is Not in Opposition to Science from the linked site. It attempts to explain how small the crossing of science and religion is and provides some advice on how to approach it.
I know people who take drugs and drink excessively in attempts to find their enlightenment. Who's to say their path is better or worse. I know it's a little more self destructive but the point is they are pretty much doing the same thing. They are just looking in different places. One of the funniest religious comedy routine I have seen is where a preacher tells a wino he won't find the answers he looking for in that bottle and the wino replies, good thing I have more bottles. Anyways, concentrate more on what you think and less on what they think.
I often push the idea of compartmentalization anyways. If we can play different games or drive different types of cars with standard or automatic transmissions, then we surely can keep two opposing views in perspective. When dealing with Science A is true, if it conflict in religion, then when dealing with religion B is true even if it's the exact opposite of A. The point is, you do not need to ignore one
Isn't locking competitors out of the game sort of like Harley Davidson and their requirement to use only HD oil in order not to void the warranties of the new motorcycles? I believe they lost a lawsuit in the mid 1980's over that and ended up having to supply all warrantied locked purchasers with of their HD oil until they changes the warranty clause. I know MS isn't doing a warranty thing here bit the principle seems to be the same.
Check out 2302 sections C of the Magnusson-Moss Act. I'm sort of thinking that altering the device to accept competitors devices should be completely legal and still maintain a warranty if the interfaces are the same. IE, if the SD car slot is the same as others, then locking you into a single SD card is clearly a violation of the spirit of this. And I'm assuming that a newly purchased Xbox would have warranty disclaimers if you attempt to get around this.
Any legal minds care to comment on this? I know it isn't the same as a warranty, but I do not know how they arne't brushing against it if not in spirit alone.
Don't worry, my 87 GMC pickup and my 84 chevy blazer had the antenna in the windshield stock. I have since then relocated them to an antenna array on the outside of the vehicle as it was easy to do when connecting and setting up antennas for other applications. It ended up costing about $30 less to replace a windshield when I didn't need the built in antenna on the GMC so evidently, there was an external option somewhere.
Don't feel sad, just think, don't laugh, it's paid for.
I think your injecting too much outside wishes into the mix. First of all, the PDF you linked to models 1995-1997 cars and assumed, even with the glazed windshields, that a system would be using advanced sensors would be implemented that ensure only the comfort of the driver and not the rest of the occupants. While they did show a .5 MGP increase in fuel economy if the auxiliary load on the engine due to the AC was halved on gasoline engines. In order to reach the halved state, they required a hypothetical (not then in existence and who knows if it is now or not) system that measured vehicle occupancy and adjusted AC loads based on it, concentrated only on the driver's comfort, and used alternative methods for defrosting and clearing the windows.
Why is this all pointless? Because the CA legislation does not mandate a smaller compressor, it does not mandate sensors to adjust the load on the AC unit, it does not mandate reduced fresh air intake adjustments. It doesn't do anything the study concluded was needed in order to see the return. What we will end up with is the same systems already in use and no noticeable or beneficial power savings.
In short, while what you say is achievable (although at a cost well above the savings), simply making a law mandating glazed windows will not create the implementation of the systems required to make it possible. This is an idiot law/regulation and it will do nothing but increase costs.
The fans turn off when your vehicle reaches the set temp? As far as the spec for it goes, the fans speed slows down and a damper mixes fresh air with cool air to maintain and regulate cabin temperature. It does not shut off the AC pump or exchangers like a home AC unit would.
It's not the same and provides no noticeable benefit that this would take advantage of.