Lol.. So now you have given up on your position and went straight to attempting to insult me. I figured as much would happen seeing how I was goating you. so lets play this game.
1: My english is good enough to deal with you.
2: I never said anything about statistics other then you fall into the group who aren't as smart as they think they are. However, if your talking about the increased risk verses causes, then you need to look at the program again because your still wrong.
3: Perhaps you should learn more about everything before attempting to challenge me. Rhetoric isn't one of your strong points and I wasn't attempting to use it. I was calling you an idiot.
4: Ditto to you. I don't think you really have the comprehension of either. Certainly claims you have made show this.
5: What caused the crash? The pilot error'd in his man=maneuvering of the plane. The artificial horizon is not needed to keep the plane in the air. It just makes navigating and doing so easier. If a plane crashed with a bad artificial horizon, it would be because of an action the pilot took, not because of a bad resistor.
6: I suggest you do the same. At least then you won't look like a sheeple being lead to the slaughter. You have made connections that don't exist and presented them as fact, you have attempted to deny shit that is fact, face it, your a mess. Look around and listen to what others are saying. It is fact that the ones you are listening to have had to go back and incorporate some of the things they were dismissing just a few months before because the non-believers were right. That's just fact, it's happened at least 3 times now and you can't deny it. It's because the entire process is politically motivated and politicians lie. You accept those lies without question which makes you a complete idiot.
7: Mentally retarded patients on the 6th floor does not equal intelectuals. You yourself couldn't even be considered an intellectual. Look at how this threat started, you made mention to Shell execs not being able to take their money with them to the after life, I pointed out that they most likely aren't considering any world other then this one, you jumped in with Jesus is a magical zombie and global warming is the one true religion. Do you seriously think that is intellectual? I mean show your intellectual friends and see what they tell you. You a fucking moron is what you are. You can't even see that money and the control of money is effected by both sides of the arguments or that the entire process has been hijacked by politics. You even attempted to claim an increased risk meant a cause which is false. how intellectual is that? Someone has lied to you, probably your parents, you aren't the smartest person they know, they just say that so as to not hurt your feelings. They probably lie to you about other things too. Have you ever wondered why your mom thinks your the most hansom man around yet you have never had a date that you didn't have to product a credit card before hand? And no, your cousin doesn't count even if you did take her to the prom.
You are gullible aren't you. You remind me of lemmings incapable of noticing what is going on and diverting their actions.
Sorry. I assumed intelligence on the part of the reader. My bad.
Inteligence has nothing to do with it. I already stated that you think you are smarter then what you are so please don't try to hang your failed jokes on the intelligence thing. Face it, it wasn't funny to anyone but you and that is because of your mental aptitude not some superior intellect.
"Correctly"? You'll have to define that a little more precisely.
There goes your mental aptitude again, Correctly in this sense would mean used as it is in the real world. You can take anything and show that if it is used in ways no one else every uses, it is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it is bad or dangerous nor does it mean it should be removed from public consumption.
Ah. I see. I had failed to realise that you were the sole arbiter of correct English. So if I were to say "A failed transistor in the artificial horizon of this aircraft caused 160 people to die" you would deny that that made any sense? Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.
Don't mistake normal rules of communication for my special interpretation. You simply didn't realize is what your trying to say I guess. There is nothing special about me or anyone else who reads "it caused X" and determines that means it directly caused X.
And no, a faulty transistor in an artificial horizon wouldn't be the cause of the crash. Well, not unless the auto pilot was flying when it crashed and for some reason it took reading from it (which is shouldn't). The faulty transistor would have allowed the pilot to make an error which caused the crash. In either cause, something else caused the crash, the malfunctioning artificial horizon was just a bad input stream. Many pilots fly without them entirely so it isn't necessary to keep the plane in the air.
I usually expect people to be able to put two and two together on their own. Saves the electrons, y'know.
You have to make a coherent statement first. You in effect saying the dog is blue and then expecting people to understand that you were only talking about his leash. You have wasted more electrons then you could have ever saved because you didn't say what you meant to say- or so you claim by going back and clarifying what you meant.
Geez, I thought that was common knowledge. But since you asked me instead of Google, I'll pass along the first few hits to a rather obvious query. Thanks! I didn't know the numbers--125 people per day? That's almost exactly as many as are killed by cars in the USA.
Common knowledge, you didn't even read the links you posted did you? None of the but that last one say fossil fuels kill or damage anyone. The last link isn't something I would consider scientific either. All the other links you provided said little more then it an increased risk was noticed. Contrary to what you might think, increasing a rick does not mean "causes". But here you are claiming it is know that something is caused by something when you can't even find a creditable link that makes that claim. Instead you post links about increased risks and so on and then through your imaginative mind, jump from a risk to a cause. Here is something to consider, people jump out of perfectly good airplanes every day. Doing so increases your risk of injury or death. That doesn't mean that parachuting will kill you. It means that something in the process can and you are exposed to it when you participate. To lump things like you have, that would mean that ever skydiver has dies or be injured, every person who drives a car has dies or been injured and everyone who gets into a gun fight dies because guns kill. Obviously, if that seems ridiculous, then so does you claim on
The Americans think of Pearl Harbour being the start of the Second World War, 7 Dec, 1941, but the fighting in Europe had been going on for two years already.
Well, to our credit, 1941 is when the allies stopped losing the war. It may seem egotistical but us American sort of think the fight just started when we entered.
Actually, I'm joking a bit. Canada allowed Americans to join their military before America entered the war. One of two fighter air squadrons served under Canadian command and was transferred to American command when we entered the war. Roosevelt signed an executive order allowing American officers to resign their positions/commands with honors to join up with the Canadians. Not counting the Flying tigers in China, I think something along the lines of 15,000 Americans served under Canadian/British authority before the US entered the war.
The penny has started to drop. Good. Comments that would have been true in other contexts are often called "jokes".
Joke usually have the distinguishing characteristics of being funny or noticeable as a joke. You on the other hand made it appear as if you couldn't tell the difference between 2 centuries ago and today. I'm sorry, but don't blame me for your poor delivery.
Say what? I didn't say anything about them.
You said "fossil fuels have already caused enormous damage/illness/death". You can't make that claim unless you are talking about them. There is no evidence that fossil fuels caused any of that when used correctly. There is plenty of evidence that it may have aggravated it but no caused.
Did I say "direct"? Define "direct". And then tell me why I should care. "Oh, the death was due to exhaust via a well-understood mechanism that does not meet sumdumass's definition of 'direct', so we're innocent!" Exhaust emissions have repeatedly and conclusively been shown to do damage of various sorts. Asthma, various cancers, poisoned ecosystems, smog, global warming,... and that doesn't even consider the environmental costs of extraction, transportation, refining... And then there are the costs of making war on nations who control the oil that we need in order to prop up a crumbling economy that was based on the assumption that energy was essentially free...
Yes, you did say direct. You said it caused X. That means it directly caused X. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have explained your thoughts better. Unfortunately, this is the second time you have failed to do that. First with the joke and now with the direct that isn't direct. Again, don't fault me for taking your words as you wrote them and not interpreting them in some other way.
And no, they don't rise to the problem you are making them out to be. That is of course if your not once again writing one thing for everyone to understand and meaning something different again.
Good call. Sorry. I assumed wrongly that you were talking about the USA. Of course, the little data in the tip of my brain tells me that the more secular the society, the more emphasis it places on moving away from burning fossil fuels. The possible reasons for this vary between very simple and very complex, and are a little irrelevant here.
Actually, the more secular the society, the more it seems to want to grab something to believe in. Take global warming for instance, it has become a religion on some parts of the world and non of the rituals surrounding it will do anything to cure it. They blindly accept the Kyoto accords, Carbon offsets, and all that shit without realizing that to date, it has done nothing but caused the pollution to be created elsewhere. Their reductions only shoved it into another area which isn't a reduction at all. Either Carbon is a problem or it isn't.
Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. Could you explain it? What does making a comment about a bunch of religious nitwits have to do with assuming that your comment was about a bunch of religious nitwits?
That wasn't exactly an anaolgy. I was saying that you aren't mentally acute enough to understand the claims you chastise which was obvious with your statement. Normally, that isn't a problem until you attempt to share your disadvantage with others and then I have to spank you for it. Either learn something about what your bitching about or shut the fuck up like all the other ignorant asses out there.
Incidentally, I understand rather well what Christians are claiming, as plenty of my Christian acquaintances will admit if forced. So what if their saviour is a magical zombie? If you don't think he is, perhaps looking up the definitions of "magical" and "zombie" will help. Chr
Pointing out flaws and direct negligence isn't an accusation of more then that. Pointing out that when confronted with those actions, he attempts to hide from them isn't either.
Well, most cars don't have a resistor to bring the voltage down from 12v. They do pulse it to the coil(s), which convert it way up in the tens of thousands of volts, which brings the amperage down to virtually nothing. Some cars use a resistant ignition wire, and/or spark plugs, but that's after the original 12v hits the coil. It starts out as 12v though, which was the original argument.:) Most cars are ok down around 7v. When I was racing, the higher class cars would run without alternators, to save a few horsepower. They'd run strictly on the regular car battery. They'd be severely discharged by the end of the races (sometimes at the beginning of the race if they forgot to recharge). A HEI ignition system starts to suffer at about 7v. I don't know what the lower limit is for a points ignition.
Actually, thy will have a resister. It may not be before the coil but it will be somewhere in the circuit for the primary side of it. Dodge used to put it directly on the firewall and call it a ballast resister and a trick to a hard starting car/truck was to run a bypass around it when turning the engine over. GM put the resister in the ignition control module which takes input from the hall effect sensors and balances it with a computer timing signal. The newer the system, the more effect the computer has if the car even has one (it replaces the vacuum advance in newer models). In fact, the test to check the ignition control module for malfunction on almost all cars involves a series of resistance tests with the values being within a certain range. This is also why the car will still run on 5-6 volts power input (more if a computer needs power).
I'm not sure about the distributorless ignition systems on the new cars of today. The concept is fairly the same except the computer fires individual coils itself.
Now when your talking of racing, your not talking normal ignition systems. MSD makes a true 12 volt system as do many others. But your not exactly using pump gas on them. In the high dollar racing, they don't even use 12 volts, the magnetos on my blown 455 olds engine generate 36 volts above idle that fires each cylinder at once. If you were to ever bypass the stock engine computer and either build your own digital electronic ignition system or purchase one of the many aftermarket computers, you will find some pretty interesting things about them.
I was thinking about it. When I was a kid, I was into model rocketry. We launched those rockets with 6v batteries. It was enough to very quickly heat the thin wire of the igniter, which had a little powder on it (like a small match head), which was enough to get the motor burning.
Exactly, however, I wouldn't stop firing those rockets just because you grew up. I recently found some with digital cameras, altimeters, accelerometers and quite a few other interesting toys to build in.
Anyways, I was thinking about this and the model rockets. The rockets have a fuel source that most solar cells wouldn't have and came to the conclusion that methanol is basically made by an incomplete burn of wood so if something was hot enough to smolder the silicon or rubber wire coatings or whatever inside the sealed panels, then eventually, it may be possible for enough flamable material to build up and cause the same sort of ignition. The ignition doesn't need to be an explosion or anything, just a small fire hot enough to catch something else on fire. But if you want an explosion, take a charcoal brick from the grill and crush it into a fine power. Then place it in a jar that you can shake up so the dust goes all through the air. A small (less then 1 volt) piezoelectric sparker like the ones on some disposable lighters can ignite the air with the charcoal dust in it.
Actually, I find the republican leadership arguing that he isn't the second coming of Christ more then the spawn of Satan. I guess the opposite of one might be the other if your convinced enough.
Your car makes fire with 12VDC. It sparks at each spark plug, which ignites the air/fuel mix. Your car cigarette lighter works on 12VDC, which makes enough heat to light a cigarette.
Actually, most cars spark from 6-8 volts. Usually closer to 6. It has a 12 volt battery and what is considered a 12 volt system but the ignition systems only use a portion of that and usually have a resister to regulate the voltage going into the ignition coils.
Another example is steel wool. You can actually set that on fire with a regular hand held 9 volt battery. I keep a wad of it and a spare nine volt in the car in case I get stranded somewhere or need to start a fire in an emergency. It sits with my emergency kit along with the first aid kit, blankets, rope, basic tools and various other things.
Anyways, I don't disagree with what you said as much as I wanted to point out that you don't even need 12 volts.
Abrahamic and many other populist religions (most surviving popular ones, as you said) try to cater to the poor (Buddhism warns against focusing on money, but certainly does not prohibit wealth, and many Buddhists are quite wealthy). But historically there have been plenty of others--created by a slightly different demographic--that allowed taking wealth into the next world. Look at the ancient Egyptians!
And if the comment was made in ancient times when those religions were more relevant, they would have more standing. But the point was that the people doing the greed thing today most likely aren't thinking of anything other then the world they live in now.
We know that fossil fuels have already caused enormous damage/illness/death and are going to cause vastly more. Anyone who values science knows this, and yet there are execs who, given the unavoidable choice between accruing huge personal fortunes and a clean, healthy, sustainable, safe world, choose the former. Given this emphasis on money over life, and I draw the obvious conclusion--the only alternative I see is that they don't believe in science (hence the joke). Perhaps William McDonough (?) explained it most concisely when he said "Republicans are afraid of dying poor."
I like the way you lump people who have drank gasoline and poisoned themselves or pored diesel fuel on themselves and lit it on fire to commit suicide in with the bunch. You have to be doing that because exhaust emissions from oil have not been shown to cause any direct damage unless you view them from unintended ways. Sure, stuff a hose from the tail pipe into your mouth and claim it caused another death/illness or whatever. But what shell is doing can't really be considered the same things can they? You should have said something more along the lines of anyone who values what they think is science knows this because there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that the global warming scare doesn't fit your description there.
At one time, the best scientific knowledge out there proudly proclaimed that the sun moved across the sky instead of the earth revolving to create that illusion. At one time, the best of medical science refused to accept creditable works showing that some stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria colonies because they thought it was impossible for bacteria to live in the acidic conditions that break down about everything else. At one time, you made a statement that was more based on ignorance produced by an illusions of intellect which is why I didn't get your joke. Perhaps you and William McDonough should stop thinking you know it all and look around with the same scientific interest you base your claims on. It does appear that neither of you have figures oil company exec or republicans out. You certainly haven't figured democrats out, they say one thing and do another as current events are showing right now.
And no, we in the USA are not anywhere close to being an atheist society. The details depend on how you ask the questions, but well over half of USians really believe that the world is less than 6000 years old, 75% go to churches regularly and believe in some kind of Christian Jesus (ie. the magical zombie, not the historical figure who said some wise things and may or may not have existed), perhaps half believe weird doctrine like "homosexuality is a sin"...
Yawn.. Shell is an international company much like most oil companies are. Why would I want to limit my interpretation of society to just one part of their existence? That doesn't make sense. It would be like trash talking religious people and calling their savior a magical zombie because you aren't smart enough to understand what they are claiming. Here is the thing, I might sail in the same seas but I'm not sailing on your boat. Statistically speaking, you would most likely fall into the groups of people "who think you know more then you d
I think a problem is the wording. The op said they are cost prohibited and you said no they aren 't.
You then bring up some system you are working on but you failed to mention that it isn't ready for delivery. We are flooded/flooding with promises of Tomorrow.
Finally, as your production has yet to deliver the promised product, it can't really be compared to something on the market currently and even though your discussing it, it won't be registered or in production soon. We then have to consider the costs of your efforts compared to the existing utilities.
In my area, I'm paying 8.1 cents per kqh. It's likely that the GP's 11.2c/kwj is subsidized by the other tech. That's normal in states that mandate a certain percentage of the electricity/energy produced or used to be from "green sources". Some of these states are Texas, California, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan and 27 some other states. There are more but those are the ones that stand out in my mind.
Many of those states with those mandates end up paying more for energy. Here is some dated previously held electric rates.
Now some of those rates are high because of the use of Nuclear power. But almost everyone one with a mandate has more checks to do before making accurate statements.
How are wind and solar ever going to come down from being cost prohibitive if people discontinue their investment?
While I will agree that shell doesn't have to be the company investing in the tech to make it cheaper, you have to at least acknowledge that solar has had over a century of investment in it and nothing fruitful has come about and wind was actually replaces by coal and oil at one point in time because it was cheaper.
It isn't like this stuff was born yesterday, a lot of the advancements were but it's been around for nearly a century or more in some cases. Currently, it seems that it becomes affordable only when the alternatives become too expensive.
A good reply to that is that we have been fucking with wind and solar for 130 some years already and it has produced nothing better yet. Solar has been around since the 1800's and wind was once highly popular in the 1920's though the 50's in the mid west until our current grid system replaced it as cheaper. We are actually attempting to replace the current tech with the stuff it replaced nearly a century ago. No wonder why it's proving to be so hard.
Currently the governments subsidizes a large portion of the wind and solar development and deployment. Laws in most states force power generators to implement solar or wind or some sort of alternative energy generation or require them to purchase a percentage of the energy they resell from one of those alternative sources which is paid for by increases in your electric bills. Just because the money doesn't get diluted by going to the government first doesn't mean that government isn't behind it. And that doesn't even start to touch the millions of dollars directly invested by the government currently in research with universities and private sources for development of more efficient processes. This entire "we havn't spent enough" argument is usually only made by people who are wow'd by smooth talkers and havn't investigated the real situation.
They can't fund it with their own money because the entire process is a scam. The people pushing won't risk their own money unless it's a small amount for bragging rights in order to trick more people out of their money. Take Al Gore for instance, last I heard his mansion in TN used enough energy to supply 25 normal homes with energy. And that's after he had solar installed and put CFLs in every where. So he plays the part and then claims he can make you guilt free by allowing you to purchase carbon offsets from his company just like he did. He's getting a "pass" by paying himself for Christ's sake. And the smooth talking has caused the ignorant masses to eat it up.
In case the video link doesn't work, just look for "P&T BullShit! Being Green" in your favorite search engine.
Not to fed the trolls but, we are largely an atheist society. Why would someone care about the next world when science and economics is all that is true to them?
Also, even if the people are religious, most all religions state that greedy rich fucks will goto hell or some sort of it. Even Buddhism has something along these lines in the rebirth or reincarnation. So why would a greedy rich fuck care about the next life, they probably already know it's going to suck if they are slightly religious and only car about the now.
There is one point of benefit to alternatives companies like shell have though. They already possess the distribution networks that will be required to supplant oil energies. It makes sense for them to move into the new market because of that.
Perhaps companies like Exxon and shell will turn into distribution leasing companies instead of oil companies? Eventually, the need for that will-can fade too. But there is a lengthy and expensive transition stage ahead of us if we move away from oil. Take cars for instance, in the best of our US economies, the amount of new cars registered for private use never equaled more then 6% of the total registered new cars since before the 70's. It's much less when you consider that some of those new cars are replacing vehicles destroyed by accidents including new cars and another portion is going to new drivers. A guess could probably be made at just a little over 3-4% is actually replacing older cars on the road. It will be much less in down economies like we have today.
Anyways, if we were replacing just half of our cars on the road with vehicles that don't use oil and if we could start today while not selling any more "new" oil burning cars, we would need roughly 13-16 years at least with a good economy. And that's assuming the number of cars on the road doesn't increase during that time. If it does, it would be likely that a lot of the older cars would stick around longer making it take even more time to replace just half of the total cars in use.
I think I might do the same in a few days too if I can figure out the math a little better. Let us know your results if anything shady or dangerous is observed. I would hope that the lights are soundly times but I have a cynical side of me that thinks maybe even some without the redlight cameras might be off due to incompetence or inexperience or something.
However, it would be great to go into court and tell a judge that you had to run the red light because there was simply no way to avoid it safely. Nothing like redirecting the finger pointing to the system/people in charge to get out of something that never should have issued in the first place.
well, not in this case and hopefully any other case. Granted it takes time to work through the courts and all, but publix opinion doesn't have to fade. The federal government is limited in what it can or cannot do by the constitution and the premise held by the founding fathers that it only has the powers granted to it by the constitution.
When the government wants to regulate something that it cannot or impose some law it doesn't have the power to, the courts can put them in check and stop it. Hopefully, the courts don't act on public opinion and instead rely on sound laws, the constitution, and treaties made according to it. If this is the case, then public opinion wouldn't mean much outside motivating the feds to do something it couldn't normally do. So what it would more or less mean in this case is that they can do whatever they want even if it is unconstitutional for a while and will get away with it until the courts step in as the voice of reason.
I heard it was both. The spinal fluids lack the chemical concentrations of the stuff that would promote regrowth so it happens at a severely slow rate which allows for scaring that more or less makes the nerves non-susceptible to rejoining and operating in a previously normal function.
In other words, they regrow, just not fast enough to repair the damage or be useful in ways we would expect them to be.
Not really, in their first couple of wars, they basically took sticks and rocks and used them to steal tanks and artillery pieces from the enemies just to turn around and use them to capture more ammunition for them. They did this all with the US and most other powerful country sitting back and watching.
Actually, they had some real weapons. But they might as well have been primitive campfire novelties compared to the tech they went up against. The first war (1948) was pretty even on arms but the Israelis outnumbered the arabs pretty good. The others, it was pretty lopsided against Israel as far as armaments go. However, they rode the winning horse before the US and/or Russia got involved with supporting them. In fact, money and later arms development are about the only support the US ever gave Israel. In the beginning, we contributed to the Palestinian territories too. That stayed in effect until Hammas became leaders in their governments.
Your argument appears to be that you believe it should illegal for an ISP to throttle traffic below the maximum advertised rate with out just cause. You further argue that a Net Neutrality bill would reinforce the legal requirement of ISPs to provide service at the maximum advertised rate.
We are sort of there. I do believe that the ISP shouldn't throttle traffic below the maximum advertised rates and I think it should already be illegal if they did so because they wouldn't be delivering what they represented as a point of the sale. I also believe that if that was true, there wouldn't be a need for any net neutrality laws because if the ISP was not allowed to limit something to a rate below what they advertised, it would be impossible for them to do anything that would stifle innovation or the ability to deliver a product/service outside of the users connection speeds. It sort of solves the entire neutrality problem because the limiting factor then becomes the rate of your connection and not some arbitrary reasoning by the ISP to promote their own services while damaging the delivery of a competitors.
My argument is that I believe it is illegal for an ISP to throttle traffic below the maximum advertised rate with out just cause. I further argue that excess traffic is a short term justification, but long term deferment of corrective measures is actionable under a variety of existing consumer protection laws. And finally I argue that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with whole-sale throttling.
I can agree with this except for I don't think the throttling below the advertised rates are justifiable for any cause and that the net neutrality issue is one where it doesn't have anything to do with throttling but not throttling can negate the need for net neutrality laws. When the ISP is barred from restricting the deliver of any traffic to rates below the advertised speeds, they simply cannot "unfair technical and business practices that allow ISPs and their partners to destroy small business and inventive software at the push of a button" to any effect greater then the limits to the speeds of your connection would bring about. Obviously is someone's business required end users to have a 10 meg connection and you only purchased a 3 meg or up to 3 meg connection, your spending habits will influence the delivery. If the ISP isn't allowed to limited your 3 meg connection to speeds less then 3 meg, then outside of actions not related to the ISP, the only thing unfair in the deal would be your decision to purchase a certain rate at a certain price. In that case, it isn't unfair at all. But when the ISP limits you to 1 meg instead of the 3 meg or up to 3 meg connection, they are being unfair in a meaningful way to you and the business and/or innovations.
Imagine if you will, an ISP that was over leveraged on it's upstream provider, like the original author to 70:1. In order to deal with the volume the ISP does at the OA's boss suggests and throttles traffic at peek times. Unsurprisingly, with in a week customers start calling in complaining. In response to the customer complaints the ISP comes up with a new billing idea. For $25 a month you get the same old 3Mb connection, but you will be throttled at peek times. For $30 a month you get the same 3Mb connection, but you will not be throttled at prime time.
The ISP is now getting an extra $5 a month from a bunch of customers. They haven't increased their bandwidth, and as more and more people make the jump to the "fast lane" the worse and worse the discount connection becomes. Eventually, if enough people jump to the fast lane, it too will start to degrade.
I don't have a problem with this except that the throttling is unnecessary and actually hides the problems which could possibly make it take a lot longer for the customer to realize something is wrong.
I'm positive that someone has thought of that before. However, I am also positive that some politicians are viewing the RLCs as purely a revenue stream and I wouldn't trust someone like that to pay attention to concerns over turning right on red. Especially when a governor of a state vetoes a bill to limit the revenue generation abilities of speed and red light cameras and to give citizens rights in their uses because it does just that.
Now they are wanting to make seat belt violations a primary offense (so they can cite people not wearing them without those people breaking another law or traffic violation first) and to put speed cameras in construction zones even when workers aren't present. BTW, in my state, there are typically two speed limits in construction zones depending on where they are at. One reduced but still fast to safely promote the flow of traffic and one slower then that for when workers are present to help ensure their safety. Fines are also doubled in construction zones. I wonder which speeds will be used when the workers aren't present or if workers hiding in the trees alongside the roadway and out of the view of the public count for the lower speeds. Please excuse me if I seem cynical. There seems to be ample evidence of its necessity though.
You might find it useful in figuring out your timing length for road speeds. The NHTS rules recommend between 3 and 6 seconds but isn't a hard limit and states are free to set their own lengths by law. Most states do require the cities to "permit" their traffic signals which means they will have to follow state laws and formulas if there are any. Some states claim that an engineering study is needed so it might be more difficult to determine their rules.
For your proof, This site seems to think there is proof as reported by another site. It's short on details and I decided to give up on searching the other site for the details so take it with a grain of salt.
That's most likely your age and probably your credit record (or lack of one) plus a monthly break down where you generally get billed an extra $5 or so for each payment not in the full term of coverage. In my state, the full term is 6 months, it used to be 1 year or 6 months but it changed for some reason. Anyways, paying monthly instead of every six months would cause the rate to increase roughly by $25 over the same time period. Sometimes they present/hide that as a "paid in full" discount too.
Back in 1990-92, I was paying $600/6 months for liability on a junker. That's about the same or so as you are paying now. I went to the DMV and got an abstract of my license and found a citation applied to my record that wasn't issued to me and it took roughly 2 months to take care of but that dropped my rates. When I purchased my first home, that dropped my rates. By 1995 or so, I passed the 25 year mark, owned my own home (well me and the bank), Had a newer car, not new but not junk and paid for, I was paying around $250/6 Months ($41/month) for liability and uninsured motorist auto insurance with glass coverage. I guess not driving junk lowers your rates a little too.
Crap is more expensive now and I don't understand what the hell a credit rating has to do for insurance rates if you pay in full every term, but you will see the price drop a little/lot as you start growing into life. I guess being married or even having kids reduce rates to some degree. Right now, your one of those risks that they use to pay for the reckless people giving you (your age group) a bad name.
I said it is legal and has nothing to with Net Neutrality. You said the opposite. I can not in good concience find a way in which those two points of view could both be accepted as being on the same page.
Well, I think the differences that we are at is that you are saying that you will never get the advertised network speeds and even point to the advertising of an "up to" speed. My point is that is all normal and fine until it is directly because of an action the ISP itself took. They the ISP is not providing the agreed upon speeds or even the "up to" speeds. I find fault with this in much the same way I find fault in snake oil salesmen claiming their product will cure everything including cancer plus get you tons of women begging to sleep with you when it simply can't do that. They have pushed something that isn't what they delivered. Now even with the speeds of "up to" some number, if the ISP limits anything to below those speeds, it would simply be false and a misrepresentation of the products they are selling that you or I would purchase based on those representations to claim a certain speed or a speed up to a certain number because they have purposely limited it to below that number. If the ISP caps your service at 1Mbps, they cannot claim you have up to 4Mbps service. It simply isn't possible for you to achieve that 4Mbps service while they have you throttled.
That being said, if the ISP wasn't allowed to limit anything to a speed below what they are selling, even if the promise is speeds up to a certain number, then it is impossible for the ISP to block P2P or VoIP or some streaming video service or Itunes traffic while allowing their competing traffic through. So if the ISP is barred from limiting speeds (because of an action they took), a neutral net would be present and each customer would be getting what they paid for even if network conditions outside the ISP's control limits to a slower speed.
The key is the ISP taking an action to limit something below what they represented when making a sale. If they sold 3 meg connections or connections up to 3 megs, they would not be delivering either of those connections when they limited the speeds to 1 meg or even up to 1 meg. Now, lets assume you purchased a connection with speeds up to 6Mbps down and up to 1Mbps up. You toss your pots line and use some cutrate VoIP phone. Your ISP has it's own VoIP offerings so they decide to throttle all your VoIP traffic not originating from their service to 256k. IF they are required to give you speeds up to 6/1 because that is what they represented to you in order to get you to purchase their service, then are they giving you that service if it is limited to 256k? Of course the answer is no because the people who sold you the service have locked the speeds of your traffic in a way that you would never get above 256k for that service. The only way they could be truthful in their advertising and actually deliver what they are selling is if they represented to you that certain traffic was limited to speeds up to 256k instead of the up to 6/1 Mbps service.
I agree with you that throttling sucks, and that if a vendor fails to provide their advertised service, that there should be ramifications for it, but again, that is not an issue of net neutrality, it is an issue for lawyers to hash out over the exiting case law of consumer rights, marketing, fraud, and the like.
My bad, I must have said that backwards to leave an unclear idea of what I meant. Throttling bandwidth isn't an issue of net neutrality, it's that if it wasn't allowed to be done at speeds below what they sell the service at, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue or a problem. Neither your ISP or the service's ISP you are attempting to use could threaten anything with slower speeds when they are barred from giving the customer (you or the internet service) speeds below what they paid for. You see, if you purchase service with up to 6Mbps down and up t
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. So now you have given up on your position and went straight to attempting to insult me. I figured as much would happen seeing how I was goating you. so lets play this game.
1: My english is good enough to deal with you.
2: I never said anything about statistics other then you fall into the group who aren't as smart as they think they are. However, if your talking about the increased risk verses causes, then you need to look at the program again because your still wrong.
3: Perhaps you should learn more about everything before attempting to challenge me. Rhetoric isn't one of your strong points and I wasn't attempting to use it. I was calling you an idiot.
4: Ditto to you. I don't think you really have the comprehension of either. Certainly claims you have made show this.
5: What caused the crash? The pilot error'd in his man=maneuvering of the plane. The artificial horizon is not needed to keep the plane in the air. It just makes navigating and doing so easier. If a plane crashed with a bad artificial horizon, it would be because of an action the pilot took, not because of a bad resistor.
6: I suggest you do the same. At least then you won't look like a sheeple being lead to the slaughter. You have made connections that don't exist and presented them as fact, you have attempted to deny shit that is fact, face it, your a mess. Look around and listen to what others are saying. It is fact that the ones you are listening to have had to go back and incorporate some of the things they were dismissing just a few months before because the non-believers were right. That's just fact, it's happened at least 3 times now and you can't deny it. It's because the entire process is politically motivated and politicians lie. You accept those lies without question which makes you a complete idiot.
7: Mentally retarded patients on the 6th floor does not equal intelectuals. You yourself couldn't even be considered an intellectual. Look at how this threat started, you made mention to Shell execs not being able to take their money with them to the after life, I pointed out that they most likely aren't considering any world other then this one, you jumped in with Jesus is a magical zombie and global warming is the one true religion. Do you seriously think that is intellectual? I mean show your intellectual friends and see what they tell you. You a fucking moron is what you are. You can't even see that money and the control of money is effected by both sides of the arguments or that the entire process has been hijacked by politics. You even attempted to claim an increased risk meant a cause which is false. how intellectual is that? Someone has lied to you, probably your parents, you aren't the smartest person they know, they just say that so as to not hurt your feelings. They probably lie to you about other things too. Have you ever wondered why your mom thinks your the most hansom man around yet you have never had a date that you didn't have to product a credit card before hand? And no, your cousin doesn't count even if you did take her to the prom.
You are gullible aren't you. You remind me of lemmings incapable of noticing what is going on and diverting their actions.
Inteligence has nothing to do with it. I already stated that you think you are smarter then what you are so please don't try to hang your failed jokes on the intelligence thing. Face it, it wasn't funny to anyone but you and that is because of your mental aptitude not some superior intellect.
There goes your mental aptitude again, Correctly in this sense would mean used as it is in the real world. You can take anything and show that if it is used in ways no one else every uses, it is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it is bad or dangerous nor does it mean it should be removed from public consumption.
Don't mistake normal rules of communication for my special interpretation. You simply didn't realize is what your trying to say I guess. There is nothing special about me or anyone else who reads "it caused X" and determines that means it directly caused X.
And no, a faulty transistor in an artificial horizon wouldn't be the cause of the crash. Well, not unless the auto pilot was flying when it crashed and for some reason it took reading from it (which is shouldn't). The faulty transistor would have allowed the pilot to make an error which caused the crash. In either cause, something else caused the crash, the malfunctioning artificial horizon was just a bad input stream. Many pilots fly without them entirely so it isn't necessary to keep the plane in the air.
You have to make a coherent statement first. You in effect saying the dog is blue and then expecting people to understand that you were only talking about his leash. You have wasted more electrons then you could have ever saved because you didn't say what you meant to say- or so you claim by going back and clarifying what you meant.
Common knowledge, you didn't even read the links you posted did you? None of the but that last one say fossil fuels kill or damage anyone. The last link isn't something I would consider scientific either. All the other links you provided said little more then it an increased risk was noticed. Contrary to what you might think, increasing a rick does not mean "causes". But here you are claiming it is know that something is caused by something when you can't even find a creditable link that makes that claim. Instead you post links about increased risks and so on and then through your imaginative mind, jump from a risk to a cause. Here is something to consider, people jump out of perfectly good airplanes every day. Doing so increases your risk of injury or death. That doesn't mean that parachuting will kill you. It means that something in the process can and you are exposed to it when you participate. To lump things like you have, that would mean that ever skydiver has dies or be injured, every person who drives a car has dies or been injured and everyone who gets into a gun fight dies because guns kill. Obviously, if that seems ridiculous, then so does you claim on
Well, to our credit, 1941 is when the allies stopped losing the war. It may seem egotistical but us American sort of think the fight just started when we entered.
Actually, I'm joking a bit. Canada allowed Americans to join their military before America entered the war. One of two fighter air squadrons served under Canadian command and was transferred to American command when we entered the war. Roosevelt signed an executive order allowing American officers to resign their positions/commands with honors to join up with the Canadians. Not counting the Flying tigers in China, I think something along the lines of 15,000 Americans served under Canadian/British authority before the US entered the war.
Joke usually have the distinguishing characteristics of being funny or noticeable as a joke. You on the other hand made it appear as if you couldn't tell the difference between 2 centuries ago and today. I'm sorry, but don't blame me for your poor delivery.
You said "fossil fuels have already caused enormous damage/illness/death". You can't make that claim unless you are talking about them. There is no evidence that fossil fuels caused any of that when used correctly. There is plenty of evidence that it may have aggravated it but no caused.
Yes, you did say direct. You said it caused X. That means it directly caused X. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have explained your thoughts better. Unfortunately, this is the second time you have failed to do that. First with the joke and now with the direct that isn't direct. Again, don't fault me for taking your words as you wrote them and not interpreting them in some other way.
And no, they don't rise to the problem you are making them out to be. That is of course if your not once again writing one thing for everyone to understand and meaning something different again.
Actually, the more secular the society, the more it seems to want to grab something to believe in. Take global warming for instance, it has become a religion on some parts of the world and non of the rituals surrounding it will do anything to cure it. They blindly accept the Kyoto accords, Carbon offsets, and all that shit without realizing that to date, it has done nothing but caused the pollution to be created elsewhere. Their reductions only shoved it into another area which isn't a reduction at all. Either Carbon is a problem or it isn't.
That wasn't exactly an anaolgy. I was saying that you aren't mentally acute enough to understand the claims you chastise which was obvious with your statement. Normally, that isn't a problem until you attempt to share your disadvantage with others and then I have to spank you for it. Either learn something about what your bitching about or shut the fuck up like all the other ignorant asses out there.
Pointing out flaws and direct negligence isn't an accusation of more then that. Pointing out that when confronted with those actions, he attempts to hide from them isn't either.
Actually, thy will have a resister. It may not be before the coil but it will be somewhere in the circuit for the primary side of it. Dodge used to put it directly on the firewall and call it a ballast resister and a trick to a hard starting car/truck was to run a bypass around it when turning the engine over. GM put the resister in the ignition control module which takes input from the hall effect sensors and balances it with a computer timing signal. The newer the system, the more effect the computer has if the car even has one (it replaces the vacuum advance in newer models). In fact, the test to check the ignition control module for malfunction on almost all cars involves a series of resistance tests with the values being within a certain range. This is also why the car will still run on 5-6 volts power input (more if a computer needs power).
I'm not sure about the distributorless ignition systems on the new cars of today. The concept is fairly the same except the computer fires individual coils itself.
Now when your talking of racing, your not talking normal ignition systems. MSD makes a true 12 volt system as do many others. But your not exactly using pump gas on them. In the high dollar racing, they don't even use 12 volts, the magnetos on my blown 455 olds engine generate 36 volts above idle that fires each cylinder at once. If you were to ever bypass the stock engine computer and either build your own digital electronic ignition system or purchase one of the many aftermarket computers, you will find some pretty interesting things about them.
Exactly, however, I wouldn't stop firing those rockets just because you grew up. I recently found some with digital cameras, altimeters, accelerometers and quite a few other interesting toys to build in.
Anyways, I was thinking about this and the model rockets. The rockets have a fuel source that most solar cells wouldn't have and came to the conclusion that methanol is basically made by an incomplete burn of wood so if something was hot enough to smolder the silicon or rubber wire coatings or whatever inside the sealed panels, then eventually, it may be possible for enough flamable material to build up and cause the same sort of ignition. The ignition doesn't need to be an explosion or anything, just a small fire hot enough to catch something else on fire. But if you want an explosion, take a charcoal brick from the grill and crush it into a fine power. Then place it in a jar that you can shake up so the dust goes all through the air. A small (less then 1 volt) piezoelectric sparker like the ones on some disposable lighters can ignite the air with the charcoal dust in it.
Great, that's all we need, a transvestite dressed us in drag with clear plastic clothing while we are trying to eat diner.
Actually, I find the republican leadership arguing that he isn't the second coming of Christ more then the spawn of Satan. I guess the opposite of one might be the other if your convinced enough.
Actually, most cars spark from 6-8 volts. Usually closer to 6. It has a 12 volt battery and what is considered a 12 volt system but the ignition systems only use a portion of that and usually have a resister to regulate the voltage going into the ignition coils.
Another example is steel wool. You can actually set that on fire with a regular hand held 9 volt battery. I keep a wad of it and a spare nine volt in the car in case I get stranded somewhere or need to start a fire in an emergency. It sits with my emergency kit along with the first aid kit, blankets, rope, basic tools and various other things.
Anyways, I don't disagree with what you said as much as I wanted to point out that you don't even need 12 volts.
And if the comment was made in ancient times when those religions were more relevant, they would have more standing. But the point was that the people doing the greed thing today most likely aren't thinking of anything other then the world they live in now.
I like the way you lump people who have drank gasoline and poisoned themselves or pored diesel fuel on themselves and lit it on fire to commit suicide in with the bunch. You have to be doing that because exhaust emissions from oil have not been shown to cause any direct damage unless you view them from unintended ways. Sure, stuff a hose from the tail pipe into your mouth and claim it caused another death/illness or whatever. But what shell is doing can't really be considered the same things can they? You should have said something more along the lines of anyone who values what they think is science knows this because there is quite a bit of scientific evidence that the global warming scare doesn't fit your description there.
At one time, the best scientific knowledge out there proudly proclaimed that the sun moved across the sky instead of the earth revolving to create that illusion. At one time, the best of medical science refused to accept creditable works showing that some stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria colonies because they thought it was impossible for bacteria to live in the acidic conditions that break down about everything else. At one time, you made a statement that was more based on ignorance produced by an illusions of intellect which is why I didn't get your joke. Perhaps you and William McDonough should stop thinking you know it all and look around with the same scientific interest you base your claims on. It does appear that neither of you have figures oil company exec or republicans out. You certainly haven't figured democrats out, they say one thing and do another as current events are showing right now.
Yawn.. Shell is an international company much like most oil companies are. Why would I want to limit my interpretation of society to just one part of their existence? That doesn't make sense. It would be like trash talking religious people and calling their savior a magical zombie because you aren't smart enough to understand what they are claiming. Here is the thing, I might sail in the same seas but I'm not sailing on your boat. Statistically speaking, you would most likely fall into the groups of people "who think you know more then you d
I think a problem is the wording. The op said they are cost prohibited and you said no they aren
't.
You then bring up some system you are working on but you failed to mention that it isn't ready for delivery. We are flooded/flooding with promises of Tomorrow.
Finally, as your production has yet to deliver the promised product, it can't really be compared to something on the market currently and even though your discussing it, it won't be registered or in production soon. We then have to consider the costs of your efforts compared to the existing utilities.
In my area, I'm paying 8.1 cents per kqh. It's likely that the GP's 11.2c/kwj is subsidized by the other tech. That's normal in states that mandate a certain percentage of the electricity/energy produced or used to be from "green sources". Some of these states are Texas, California, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Michigan and 27 some other states. There are more but those are the ones that stand out in my mind.
Many of those states with those mandates end up paying more for energy. Here is some dated previously held electric rates.
Now some of those rates are high because of the use of Nuclear power. But almost everyone one with a mandate has more checks to do before making accurate statements.
While I will agree that shell doesn't have to be the company investing in the tech to make it cheaper, you have to at least acknowledge that solar has had over a century of investment in it and nothing fruitful has come about and wind was actually replaces by coal and oil at one point in time because it was cheaper.
It isn't like this stuff was born yesterday, a lot of the advancements were but it's been around for nearly a century or more in some cases. Currently, it seems that it becomes affordable only when the alternatives become too expensive.
A good reply to that is that we have been fucking with wind and solar for 130 some years already and it has produced nothing better yet. Solar has been around since the 1800's and wind was once highly popular in the 1920's though the 50's in the mid west until our current grid system replaced it as cheaper. We are actually attempting to replace the current tech with the stuff it replaced nearly a century ago. No wonder why it's proving to be so hard.
Currently the governments subsidizes a large portion of the wind and solar development and deployment. Laws in most states force power generators to implement solar or wind or some sort of alternative energy generation or require them to purchase a percentage of the energy they resell from one of those alternative sources which is paid for by increases in your electric bills. Just because the money doesn't get diluted by going to the government first doesn't mean that government isn't behind it. And that doesn't even start to touch the millions of dollars directly invested by the government currently in research with universities and private sources for development of more efficient processes. This entire "we havn't spent enough" argument is usually only made by people who are wow'd by smooth talkers and havn't investigated the real situation.
They can't fund it with their own money because the entire process is a scam. The people pushing won't risk their own money unless it's a small amount for bragging rights in order to trick more people out of their money. Take Al Gore for instance, last I heard his mansion in TN used enough energy to supply 25 normal homes with energy. And that's after he had solar installed and put CFLs in every where. So he plays the part and then claims he can make you guilt free by allowing you to purchase carbon offsets from his company just like he did. He's getting a "pass" by paying himself for Christ's sake. And the smooth talking has caused the ignorant masses to eat it up.
In case the video link doesn't work, just look for "P&T BullShit! Being Green" in your favorite search engine.
Not to fed the trolls but, we are largely an atheist society. Why would someone care about the next world when science and economics is all that is true to them?
Also, even if the people are religious, most all religions state that greedy rich fucks will goto hell or some sort of it. Even Buddhism has something along these lines in the rebirth or reincarnation. So why would a greedy rich fuck care about the next life, they probably already know it's going to suck if they are slightly religious and only car about the now.
It really changes nothing.
There is one point of benefit to alternatives companies like shell have though. They already possess the distribution networks that will be required to supplant oil energies. It makes sense for them to move into the new market because of that.
Perhaps companies like Exxon and shell will turn into distribution leasing companies instead of oil companies? Eventually, the need for that will-can fade too. But there is a lengthy and expensive transition stage ahead of us if we move away from oil. Take cars for instance, in the best of our US economies, the amount of new cars registered for private use never equaled more then 6% of the total registered new cars since before the 70's. It's much less when you consider that some of those new cars are replacing vehicles destroyed by accidents including new cars and another portion is going to new drivers. A guess could probably be made at just a little over 3-4% is actually replacing older cars on the road. It will be much less in down economies like we have today.
Anyways, if we were replacing just half of our cars on the road with vehicles that don't use oil and if we could start today while not selling any more "new" oil burning cars, we would need roughly 13-16 years at least with a good economy. And that's assuming the number of cars on the road doesn't increase during that time. If it does, it would be likely that a lot of the older cars would stick around longer making it take even more time to replace just half of the total cars in use.
Great.
I think I might do the same in a few days too if I can figure out the math a little better. Let us know your results if anything shady or dangerous is observed. I would hope that the lights are soundly times but I have a cynical side of me that thinks maybe even some without the redlight cameras might be off due to incompetence or inexperience or something.
However, it would be great to go into court and tell a judge that you had to run the red light because there was simply no way to avoid it safely. Nothing like redirecting the finger pointing to the system/people in charge to get out of something that never should have issued in the first place.
well, not in this case and hopefully any other case. Granted it takes time to work through the courts and all, but publix opinion doesn't have to fade. The federal government is limited in what it can or cannot do by the constitution and the premise held by the founding fathers that it only has the powers granted to it by the constitution.
When the government wants to regulate something that it cannot or impose some law it doesn't have the power to, the courts can put them in check and stop it. Hopefully, the courts don't act on public opinion and instead rely on sound laws, the constitution, and treaties made according to it. If this is the case, then public opinion wouldn't mean much outside motivating the feds to do something it couldn't normally do. So what it would more or less mean in this case is that they can do whatever they want even if it is unconstitutional for a while and will get away with it until the courts step in as the voice of reason.
I heard it was both. The spinal fluids lack the chemical concentrations of the stuff that would promote regrowth so it happens at a severely slow rate which allows for scaring that more or less makes the nerves non-susceptible to rejoining and operating in a previously normal function.
In other words, they regrow, just not fast enough to repair the damage or be useful in ways we would expect them to be.
Not really, in their first couple of wars, they basically took sticks and rocks and used them to steal tanks and artillery pieces from the enemies just to turn around and use them to capture more ammunition for them. They did this all with the US and most other powerful country sitting back and watching.
Actually, they had some real weapons. But they might as well have been primitive campfire novelties compared to the tech they went up against. The first war (1948) was pretty even on arms but the Israelis outnumbered the arabs pretty good. The others, it was pretty lopsided against Israel as far as armaments go. However, they rode the winning horse before the US and/or Russia got involved with supporting them. In fact, money and later arms development are about the only support the US ever gave Israel. In the beginning, we contributed to the Palestinian territories too. That stayed in effect until Hammas became leaders in their governments.
We are sort of there. I do believe that the ISP shouldn't throttle traffic below the maximum advertised rates and I think it should already be illegal if they did so because they wouldn't be delivering what they represented as a point of the sale. I also believe that if that was true, there wouldn't be a need for any net neutrality laws because if the ISP was not allowed to limit something to a rate below what they advertised, it would be impossible for them to do anything that would stifle innovation or the ability to deliver a product/service outside of the users connection speeds. It sort of solves the entire neutrality problem because the limiting factor then becomes the rate of your connection and not some arbitrary reasoning by the ISP to promote their own services while damaging the delivery of a competitors.
I can agree with this except for I don't think the throttling below the advertised rates are justifiable for any cause and that the net neutrality issue is one where it doesn't have anything to do with throttling but not throttling can negate the need for net neutrality laws. When the ISP is barred from restricting the deliver of any traffic to rates below the advertised speeds, they simply cannot "unfair technical and business practices that allow ISPs and their partners to destroy small business and inventive software at the push of a button" to any effect greater then the limits to the speeds of your connection would bring about. Obviously is someone's business required end users to have a 10 meg connection and you only purchased a 3 meg or up to 3 meg connection, your spending habits will influence the delivery. If the ISP isn't allowed to limited your 3 meg connection to speeds less then 3 meg, then outside of actions not related to the ISP, the only thing unfair in the deal would be your decision to purchase a certain rate at a certain price. In that case, it isn't unfair at all. But when the ISP limits you to 1 meg instead of the 3 meg or up to 3 meg connection, they are being unfair in a meaningful way to you and the business and/or innovations.
I don't have a problem with this except that the throttling is unnecessary and actually hides the problems which could possibly make it take a lot longer for the customer to realize something is wrong.
You see, if the customer knows before hand and
I'm positive that someone has thought of that before. However, I am also positive that some politicians are viewing the RLCs as purely a revenue stream and I wouldn't trust someone like that to pay attention to concerns over turning right on red. Especially when a governor of a state vetoes a bill to limit the revenue generation abilities of speed and red light cameras and to give citizens rights in their uses because it does just that.
Now they are wanting to make seat belt violations a primary offense (so they can cite people not wearing them without those people breaking another law or traffic violation first) and to put speed cameras in construction zones even when workers aren't present. BTW, in my state, there are typically two speed limits in construction zones depending on where they are at. One reduced but still fast to safely promote the flow of traffic and one slower then that for when workers are present to help ensure their safety. Fines are also doubled in construction zones. I wonder which speeds will be used when the workers aren't present or if workers hiding in the trees alongside the roadway and out of the view of the public count for the lower speeds. Please excuse me if I seem cynical. There seems to be ample evidence of its necessity though.
At the bottom of this PDF link/a> is an old formula for figuring out safe stopping distances on the duration of transition signals (yellow lights). Here is another with some actual examples you might find interesting. This one actually claims a city near me placed the traffic light timing in an unsafe timming and "By doing so, the city also placed motorists in harm's way without regard to their safety." They used math to determine that too.
You might find it useful in figuring out your timing length for road speeds. The NHTS rules recommend between 3 and 6 seconds but isn't a hard limit and states are free to set their own lengths by law. Most states do require the cities to "permit" their traffic signals which means they will have to follow state laws and formulas if there are any. Some states claim that an engineering study is needed so it might be more difficult to determine their rules.
For your proof, This site seems to think there is proof as reported by another site. It's short on details and I decided to give up on searching the other site for the details so take it with a grain of salt.
That's most likely your age and probably your credit record (or lack of one) plus a monthly break down where you generally get billed an extra $5 or so for each payment not in the full term of coverage. In my state, the full term is 6 months, it used to be 1 year or 6 months but it changed for some reason. Anyways, paying monthly instead of every six months would cause the rate to increase roughly by $25 over the same time period. Sometimes they present/hide that as a "paid in full" discount too.
Back in 1990-92, I was paying $600/6 months for liability on a junker. That's about the same or so as you are paying now. I went to the DMV and got an abstract of my license and found a citation applied to my record that wasn't issued to me and it took roughly 2 months to take care of but that dropped my rates. When I purchased my first home, that dropped my rates. By 1995 or so, I passed the 25 year mark, owned my own home (well me and the bank), Had a newer car, not new but not junk and paid for, I was paying around $250/6 Months ($41/month) for liability and uninsured motorist auto insurance with glass coverage. I guess not driving junk lowers your rates a little too.
Crap is more expensive now and I don't understand what the hell a credit rating has to do for insurance rates if you pay in full every term, but you will see the price drop a little/lot as you start growing into life. I guess being married or even having kids reduce rates to some degree. Right now, your one of those risks that they use to pay for the reckless people giving you (your age group) a bad name.
Well, I think the differences that we are at is that you are saying that you will never get the advertised network speeds and even point to the advertising of an "up to" speed. My point is that is all normal and fine until it is directly because of an action the ISP itself took. They the ISP is not providing the agreed upon speeds or even the "up to" speeds. I find fault with this in much the same way I find fault in snake oil salesmen claiming their product will cure everything including cancer plus get you tons of women begging to sleep with you when it simply can't do that. They have pushed something that isn't what they delivered. Now even with the speeds of "up to" some number, if the ISP limits anything to below those speeds, it would simply be false and a misrepresentation of the products they are selling that you or I would purchase based on those representations to claim a certain speed or a speed up to a certain number because they have purposely limited it to below that number. If the ISP caps your service at 1Mbps, they cannot claim you have up to 4Mbps service. It simply isn't possible for you to achieve that 4Mbps service while they have you throttled.
That being said, if the ISP wasn't allowed to limit anything to a speed below what they are selling, even if the promise is speeds up to a certain number, then it is impossible for the ISP to block P2P or VoIP or some streaming video service or Itunes traffic while allowing their competing traffic through. So if the ISP is barred from limiting speeds (because of an action they took), a neutral net would be present and each customer would be getting what they paid for even if network conditions outside the ISP's control limits to a slower speed.
The key is the ISP taking an action to limit something below what they represented when making a sale. If they sold 3 meg connections or connections up to 3 megs, they would not be delivering either of those connections when they limited the speeds to 1 meg or even up to 1 meg. Now, lets assume you purchased a connection with speeds up to 6Mbps down and up to 1Mbps up. You toss your pots line and use some cutrate VoIP phone. Your ISP has it's own VoIP offerings so they decide to throttle all your VoIP traffic not originating from their service to 256k. IF they are required to give you speeds up to 6/1 because that is what they represented to you in order to get you to purchase their service, then are they giving you that service if it is limited to 256k? Of course the answer is no because the people who sold you the service have locked the speeds of your traffic in a way that you would never get above 256k for that service. The only way they could be truthful in their advertising and actually deliver what they are selling is if they represented to you that certain traffic was limited to speeds up to 256k instead of the up to 6/1 Mbps service.
My bad, I must have said that backwards to leave an unclear idea of what I meant. Throttling bandwidth isn't an issue of net neutrality, it's that if it wasn't allowed to be done at speeds below what they sell the service at, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue or a problem. Neither your ISP or the service's ISP you are attempting to use could threaten anything with slower speeds when they are barred from giving the customer (you or the internet service) speeds below what they paid for. You see, if you purchase service with up to 6Mbps down and up t