In some (warm) parts of the world alternative fuel cars may be just fine, but where I'm from you can experience a 120hr period where the temperature never goes much above -40F (not including windchill), and nothing but petrol seems to work very well.
Yeah, a BEV might not be your best bet in that environment. But in a normal winter environment (Northeast US) it would probably work just fine, albeit with reduced range due to the need to use electricity to heat the passenger cabin.
Another complication is again is the fragile power grid. One ice storm brought the whole grid for a quarter of the state down, and it was weeks until all areas had power back. New York had a bit of a problem a ways back too as I recall.
I don't see that as being a showstopper. If the power grid goes down then you aren't buying gasoline either -- they need electric for their pumps. If the outage is widespread enough then the few stations that still have gas will rapidly run out of it because everybody will rush down to top off their tanks. The only way you'd get screwed with your BEV is if your battery charge was low and you couldn't drive it somewhere that had power for a recharge. But, likewise, with a low gas tank, you might be equally screwed in your gasoline powered car.
On top of all that it seems like styling and mechanical engineers for electric cars are always asked to use a diaper clad toddler as the inspiration for both the look and the performance (not talking about efficiency here) of the electric car.
There's no excuse for styling them bad other then Detroit's vested interest in not seeing them sell well. As for the performance a well designed BEV should (in theory) kick the shit out of a gasoline engine. Electric motors can provide torque without being in motion -- when you floor an electric motor the torque IS THERE RIGHT NOW as opposed to a gasoline motor that needs to spin up. There doesn't need to be a torque converter/clutch eating your power. There also doesn't need to be a transmission (although it is possible to include one -- it's not a requirement). You could even design it so each wheel had it's own motor. Think about that for offroading -- that would beat all but the best 4x4 designs. The only one that would come close would be a four wheel drive with four wheel drive positraction.
I'll simply say this: From my perspective electric cars blow goats, but they may be great for you.
I would disagree with the blow goats statement but to each their own. My whole point was that I should have the option of buying one if it will suit my needs. Likewise you should have the option of buying something else. And think about how much cheaper your gasoline would be if electric cars were on the road. After all, if you listen to the oil cartels the only reason that gas is expensive is because of supply and demand.
ook at your right to be a Moslim fundamentalist advocating (but not taking part in) terrorist activities against the U.S. or advocating the assassination of the president
Advocating the assassination of the President is not free speech and has been illegal for quite some time. Advocating terrorist activities is a big fat gray area. It certainly isn't illegal in the United States to try and tell Al-Qaida's side of the story. It wouldn't be illegal to form a political party with Al-Qaida's goals -- such as ending support for Israel or withdrawing from Saudi Arabia.
Contrast that to Europe where the Nazi Party is outlawed in many areas.
You're absolutely wrong. The first thing we learned in Army basic training was our chain of command. Guess who was right up there in it? A certain guy named "Rumsfeld"... wonder who he could be!
Yes, he is in the chain of command. He can relay orders from POTUS to the armed forces. But he can not legally issue those orders himself. I recall reading on 9/11 that both Rumsfeld and Cheney tried to give the military the authority to shoot down suspected hijacked flights before Bush was able to do so. Neither one of them had the authority to issue this order and the military was under no obligation to follow it. Of course one would hope that in a scenario like 9/11 that the Generals would take some initiative and issue such an order themselves -- but it doesn't change the fact that neither SecDec nor VPOTUS could legally issue such an order.
Alaska is completely worthless besides the oil in the ANWR. Its huge, but worthless. Why else would it be the least populated state in the union? Why else would the purchase of Alaska be referred to as "Seward's folly?"
Actually there's are and have been other resources in Alaska besides oil. I suppose you never heard of this? Besides the resources it's also a very important strategic location -- the border between Asia and North America.
Besides -- you completely missed my point. My point was that the Russians already had a foothold on North America and doubtless would have expanded beyond that foothold if the Europeans hadn't already colonized the Americas.
The Donald runs this Pentagon. You need look no further than the Iraq war and its buildup. If you think different, you're living in a different decade from the one I'm posting to/. in.:)
If by runs the Pentagon you mean advises the President as to how the Pentagon should be run then you are correct. But he has no actual legal authority over DoD whatsoever. And if you are going to talk about Rumsfeld specifically then I would point out that a large part of DoD hates his guts -- even before the current clusterfuck and 9/11 when he was trying to get Bush and Congress to reshape the military in his image.
All Rumsfeld did was join the hawks (along with Cheney and others) to encourage the President to go to war. He had absolutely no authority to make that decision himself and even with the US at war he still can't do anything other then relay the decisions of the President. The President is also perfectly capable of issuing orders directly to the joint chiefs and bypassing SecDef as well.
Once you've been arrested for being a potential terrorist
Actually, merely wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama Rules" would not get you arrested for being a terrorist. It certainly wouldn't get you convicted for anything. And before you throw out the name Jose Padilla or anybody like that, I'd like to point out that there's a huge difference between wearing a t-shirt (arguably free speech) and planning a dirty bomb attack. Not that I wouldn't agree with you that he is being unfairly held without trial.
Wearing such a t-shirt at ground zero would likely paint a giant bull's-eye on your back and get the shit beaten out of you. In fact wearing such a t-shirt anywhere in New York City would probably ensure that you got an ass-whooping. But that's just fine -- free speech doesn't mean you get to escape the consequences of your speech. It only means that you get to say it in the first place. And I rather suspect if I wore a Nazi armband to certain places in Europe that I would get the shit beaten out of me too:)
Passing out the recruitment leaflets could be another matter. That would probably be considered supporting a terrorist organization. But you were passing out leaflets telling Al Qaida's side of the story (infidels in the Holy Land, Israel, etc, etc) you wouldn't be breaking any laws. Think I can pass out leaflets in some European countries telling Hitler's side of the story?
The point here is that Americans, at least in this respect, are no more or less free than Europeans; the USA simply has a different boogeyman.
I disagree. I think I've made my point in the paragraphs above:)
Actually, didn't you revolve so that you wouldn't need to pay taxes to England ? And now you pay them to Washington instead. The more things change;)...
Actually it wasn't the fact that we were being taxed by the UK. It was the fact that we were being taxed by them and no representation in Parliment. Leading to the rallying cry of "No Taxation without Representation".
Of course down in modern Mexico you had the Maya, Aztec, Olmec and many others who built great cities, in fact the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan rivialed the greatest cities of Europe and the Ottoman Empire in size and ecilpsed them in architecture and organization according to the Europeans who saw them.
And then the Europeans completely annihilated their civilization and race. Funny how you never hear about that but you always hear about all the evils that the United States pulled back in the day with regards to our own natives. Tell me, what's worse? Attempted assimilation and forced moves or genocide?
Without the wealth of the New World, it's not too much of a stretch to postulate that Europe would have ground itself into a nub against the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th Centuries, unable to afford trade with India and China and unable to modernize the militaries which gave it the edge over the Ottomans and other European Nations who didn't modernize and lost in wars against Western Europe. Whose to say the Web wouldn't have been Chinese or Indian or even Ottoman had the New World not been colonized by Europe?
Or Russian for that matter. The Russians had Alaska and doubtless would have eventually colonized the rest of the New World had Europe not beaten them to it. If they had held onto it and history played out mostly the same way -- think of the power of the Soviet Union if it included the Americas.
You have the.xxx backwards - it was actually a good idea
The only way.xxx is a good idea is if you require all pornography sites to move there. Otherwise it's alleged purpose (making it easy to filter porn) becomes moot. Without that as a reason to deploy it then it becomes a red light district that exists for no other reason then to make it easier to find porn. The US Government would have be overwhelmingly behind it if you could have sold it to them as a way to make filters easier and more effective.
And even if you could sell it like that -- what's pornography? Does a site advocating Topfreedom need to register in.xxx if they include pictures? You and I would probably say they don't.... but many prudes (in the US and Europe -- don't pretend it's only an American thing) would say they should.
Funny how that flamebaiting garbage get's an insightful mod. Think a similar post that had said "Take that you whining pieces of Eurotrash" would have gotten modded up? Fat chance in hell.
And yes, this post of mine is completely offtopic and will probably get modded down. Oh well! Hope the champ who modded up the parent pays for it in M2.
If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US,
Last time I checked I had the right to be a neo-Nazi and try to convert others to my viewpoint in the United States. Last time I checked I still had the right to wear religious clothing to public school in the United States.
We fought a revolution for those ideas. People left Europe and came over to North America for religious freedom even before there was a United States of America.
Do the US vote who gets to be Secretary of State? Defence? DHS ? Didn't think so.
SecDef has absolutely no power over American citizens or American Armed Forces. He doesn't even have the authority to tell a private in the Army to drive him somewhere. He certainly can't launch nuclear weapons. What he can do is relay the President's orders to the Armed Forces, act as the second voice of approval in a nuclear launch (two-man system), and advise the President on matters relating to defense.
In the American system of Government that's what the cabinet does. It advises the President. The only cabinet member that you could make a case for needing to be an elected official would be the Attorney General. And there would be disadvantages of having him elected as well -- he could be open to political pressure -- which is the reason why we don't elect Federal judges and they have lifetime appointments. Of course having him appointed by the President is a conflict as well (if he needs to investigate the Executive Branch) -- but that's what Special Prosecutors and Grand Juries are for.
Nobody said it was a perfect system but it seems to have worked well enough for the last 200 years:)
Furthermore, New York State would have fallen into the Bush column but for NYC
I beg to differ. Subtract New York City and Kerry/Edwards has 2,486,265 votes (including the Working Families Party) to Bush/Cheney's 2,375,033 (including the Conservative Party). That's a margin of 111,232 votes. Subtract Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk counties) and it's still 1,847,286 Kerry to 1,776,729 Bush. A margin of 70,557 votes. Either way it would have made us quite the battleground state but Bush still loses.
You underestimate the Democratic Party in Upstate New York (mostly urban but also rural) and the fact that New York Republicans are typically fiscally conservative Republicans -- not religious right Republicans -- and they probably had a hard time voting for Bush.
(it's blocked by crap stacked in front of it the other 0.00001%
Only 0.00001% of the time? What office environment have you been working in? My co-workers tell me that there's a desk and a filing cabinet under all this paperwork -- I still think it's just a rumor.
Because such a post of course prevents such activity, not unlike a drug dealer asking someone who is buying "Hey man, are you a cop" or putting a sign that reads "officers of the law and all those reporting to them are bared from buying here" above a crack house.
Well duh. I was pointing out the futility of trying to use an EULA clause to the same affect.
What we need is a law that makes research a defence to copyright infringement. It's important that malware authors can't use the force of the law to hide. Hopefully a judge will do the right thing an establish case law in this area that defends us from this scum.
Why should we change the law? If an EULA is truly enforceable like this then I should be able to trade all the mp3s I want by modifying my p2p software to send an EULA to anybody who downloads from me. Recall the old days of the BBS movement when warez BBSes had MOTDs prohibiting law enforcement officers from connecting?
Bet big business would think twice about it if they looked at it that way.
New York included (we're signing up for hydro/wind power for my Brooklyn apartment)
In New York your utility is required to give you the option of buying wind power. NYSEG (the upstate utility) offers it in 100kWh blocks. Plus everybody in NYS gets a hydroelectric power savings credit (your utility is supposed to itemize this on your bill) because of the hydro power we get from the New York State Power Authority projects (Niagara Falls, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc.). I don't know how ConEd does it but you should have all the options that I do:)
And personally, as much as I like fusion, I'm big on fuel cell power plants for electric and heat energy. Though admittedly I haven't been paying attention to recent developments with it.
I'm big on anything that doesn't involve fossil fuels. I would advocate a return to fission based power for the next 20-50 years until fusion is ready. This is technology that hasn't been researched in the US in decades -- the French have reactors that run off the waste products of ours. One of my big dreams would be to see New York State give the NYS Power Authority a mandate to build nuclear power plants and sell the resulting electric in a non-profit manner. Combine that with our hydro resources and form a coalition with Quebec and Ontario (similarly blessed with hydro and also in a position to leverage nuclear power) and we could become virtually energy independent -- at least as far as electricity is concerned.
The NYS Power Authority already has experience running nuclear power in a non-profit manner -- Indian Point. In one of the most disgusting acts in the history of our state the PSC and Albany forced the Power Authority to sell it (after they paid for it's completion) to a for-profit out of state energy company. *Sigh*
In any case the problem with my nice little dream is that it would never happen. A combination of Republicans looking out for big business interests, Democrats being knee-jerk environmentalists and general NIMBY would doubtless sabotage it -- and any politician brave enough to suggest it. But I can still dream.
Exactly what I went through too. I eventually sold the house for a decent profit and now have an actual credit rating, but my interest rate sucked and the loan company was always hoping I would default (low end predatry lending). It makes me glad you stuck it to Cap1. I tip my hat to you for that.
The predatory leading is what irks the hell out of me. You should see how many credit card offers I've gotten since I filed bankruptcy. Why? They know you can't file for another seven (now eight?) years and they will have their hooks into you that entire time. The even more disgusting part is that if you stop paying your bills they won't come after you right away (other then the usual phone calls). They will wait a few years so your account accrues that 24.9% penalty rate and then they will get a judgment against you. If you live in a state that allows wage garnishments then your only real option once they have the judgment is bankruptcy. Don't even try to talk to them -- I couldn't even get my creditors to agree to take the original amounts even if I paid them right now. They all wanted their interest which had accrued to more the original loan amounts by the time I was in a position to pay them. So fuck them. I filed Chapter 7 because I was in a position in my life where I didn't own any non-exempt property. They got nothing because they wouldn't be reasonable. It was the best thing I ever did.
I don't hate the entire lending industry. I just hate the Capital Ones of the world that have no interest in you other then seeing you run up a massive debt ratio (at 0.75 debt to annual income you will be paying the interest for the rest of your life) so they can live off the interest forever. I do have respect for my local banks (not a lot of them left) and credit union. It's those loans to other members that are paying the dividends on my share certificates now that I've abandoned credit:)
The sad thing is that with nobody using cash these days he probably thought you were into something illegal;) If you have the discipline to pull it off it can be amusing to take them up on their offer and stick the cash into a CD for the length of time that your loan has no interest and payments. A $4,000 six month CD at 4.33% (from Bankrate) would earn over $80 in interest. Of course this requires the discipline to pay it off right away when that CD matures and you also need to look over the contract and make sure you aren't screwing yourself (early payoff fees and the like).
Except that inductive charging means that you loose about an additional 40% of your energy. It's simply nowhere near as efficient as a direct electrical connection.
You sure about that? I thought it was just a transformer with the same number of windings (i.e: no voltage change)? High quality AC transformers (the kinds hanging off poles) attain 98% efficieny. Inductive charging causes a 40% loss? That blows my mind.
Of course, the question of why they can't just use a dryer type socket begs questions, but still. That socket is rated for both 220 and high amperage.
240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....
Why is down transformation a problem? Because step-down transformers are not 100% efficient, and it happens in every neighborhood.
Last time I checked AC transformers were over 98% efficient. And "every neighborhood"? Quite the deceptive statement, that. Let's see..... Power Plant -> Step-up -> transmission lines -> sub station/step-down -> neighborhood/step-down to 120/240.
In any case, I challenge you to prove that a gasoline motor is more efficient then a high-quality three phase electric one. It's not even a close contest. And the electric motor has other advantages (torque without moving, rapid startup, less waste heat, less routine maintenance) that a internal combustion engine will never match. The only thing stopping it is the energy density between petrol and current battery technology.
Hell. Let's get more mundane. I suspect that my rather cheap single phase electric lawn mower (~1,200 watts) is loads more efficient then the comparable gas model. 1.2KwH per hour to run vs how much gas? It's clearly a winner on an economic front alone as I rather suspect that gas mower would cost more then $0.15/hr to run. Not to mention the fact that when I take the electric mower out of storage after winter it doesn't require dicking around with for an hour to get started.
Factories shut down for the night? I didn't think so.
Actually many do. As does the commercial sector. In fact the amount of electric used by just fluorescent lighting in office buildings would probably surprise you. Back when I worked for a rather small insurance agency I computed that it was over half of our electric bill -- more then A/C in the summer as a matter of fact.
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek there. The point was that stand-alone gas stations would be largely unnecessary, and would therefore have a hard time surviving without a second function, e.g. a convenience store. The reason for this is that literally any business at that point could provide the same service because the cost to enter the market would be so low. Lower cost of entry -> greater competition -> lower prices
Hmmm. The barrier to entry point is a good one. It would be a lot easier to buy a few battery chargers then it would be to get a contract with an oil company to sell gasoline.
I wonder if the gas stations would survive? From what I understand most of the local gas stations make their bread and butter on the convenience store products. I've heard (though unconfirmed) that they only make a few cents/gal on the gasoline itself. Though I gotta wonder if the convenience store function would survive without the requirement of buying gasoline to bring in customers.
Actually if you had bothered to read my posts you would have found most all of your points addressed. Allow me to respond again:
inefficiencies of the electric power distribution grid
They don't approach the waste of a gasoline engine. They don't even come close. A properly designed power grid loses less then 5% of the energy to transmission line/transformer losses.
the inefficiencies of generating said power in some non-nuke plants
Even the oldest coal fired power plant still attains nearly 40% efficiency at converting chemical/heat energy into electricity. Newer combined cycle natural gas plants approach 80%. Think your internal combustion engine comes close to either of those figures?
the various down-transformations the power goes through in the distribution of said power
And that's a problem, why?
and the fact that whole of the current grid could not possibly handle the load of even most people having electric cars
Actually it probably could -- assuming most people charged their cars at night when the factories are shut/idled down. Most electricity is consumed by industry. But even without that consideration it stands to reason that electric cars would not take over the market overnight. As the number of electric cars on the road increased the utilities would invest money in upgrading their infrastructure to support the new load.
I'm sorry, but unless you think big picture you're not helping.
I was thinking big picture. In a positive light. Do you have anything to offer but nay-saying?
The emissions from a modern, efficient engine are incredibly low.
Except for that CO2 that is probably altering our climate every day. You'll never get away from that fact no matter how good your catalytic converter is.
Furthermore, how are you going to heat a car that only has an electric power source? Just dump current through a coil? Bad idea.
Electric resistance heating is a bad idea? Tell me, what sounds better -- electric resistance heating during the winter or waste heat from an inefficient gasoline engine year round?
Slashdot Mirror
In some (warm) parts of the world alternative fuel cars may be just fine, but where I'm from you can experience a 120hr period where the temperature never goes much above -40F (not including windchill), and nothing but petrol seems to work very well.
Yeah, a BEV might not be your best bet in that environment. But in a normal winter environment (Northeast US) it would probably work just fine, albeit with reduced range due to the need to use electricity to heat the passenger cabin.
Another complication is again is the fragile power grid. One ice storm brought the whole grid for a quarter of the state down, and it was weeks until all areas had power back. New York had a bit of a problem a ways back too as I recall.
I don't see that as being a showstopper. If the power grid goes down then you aren't buying gasoline either -- they need electric for their pumps. If the outage is widespread enough then the few stations that still have gas will rapidly run out of it because everybody will rush down to top off their tanks. The only way you'd get screwed with your BEV is if your battery charge was low and you couldn't drive it somewhere that had power for a recharge. But, likewise, with a low gas tank, you might be equally screwed in your gasoline powered car.
On top of all that it seems like styling and mechanical engineers for electric cars are always asked to use a diaper clad toddler as the inspiration for both the look and the performance (not talking about efficiency here) of the electric car.
There's no excuse for styling them bad other then Detroit's vested interest in not seeing them sell well. As for the performance a well designed BEV should (in theory) kick the shit out of a gasoline engine. Electric motors can provide torque without being in motion -- when you floor an electric motor the torque IS THERE RIGHT NOW as opposed to a gasoline motor that needs to spin up. There doesn't need to be a torque converter/clutch eating your power. There also doesn't need to be a transmission (although it is possible to include one -- it's not a requirement). You could even design it so each wheel had it's own motor. Think about that for offroading -- that would beat all but the best 4x4 designs. The only one that would come close would be a four wheel drive with four wheel drive positraction.
I'll simply say this: From my perspective electric cars blow goats, but they may be great for you.
I would disagree with the blow goats statement but to each their own. My whole point was that I should have the option of buying one if it will suit my needs. Likewise you should have the option of buying something else. And think about how much cheaper your gasoline would be if electric cars were on the road. After all, if you listen to the oil cartels the only reason that gas is expensive is because of supply and demand.
ook at your right to be a Moslim fundamentalist advocating (but not taking part in) terrorist activities against the U.S. or advocating the assassination of the president
Advocating the assassination of the President is not free speech and has been illegal for quite some time. Advocating terrorist activities is a big fat gray area. It certainly isn't illegal in the United States to try and tell Al-Qaida's side of the story. It wouldn't be illegal to form a political party with Al-Qaida's goals -- such as ending support for Israel or withdrawing from Saudi Arabia.
Contrast that to Europe where the Nazi Party is outlawed in many areas.
You're absolutely wrong. The first thing we learned in Army basic training was our chain of command. Guess who was right up there in it? A certain guy named "Rumsfeld"... wonder who he could be!
Yes, he is in the chain of command. He can relay orders from POTUS to the armed forces. But he can not legally issue those orders himself. I recall reading on 9/11 that both Rumsfeld and Cheney tried to give the military the authority to shoot down suspected hijacked flights before Bush was able to do so. Neither one of them had the authority to issue this order and the military was under no obligation to follow it. Of course one would hope that in a scenario like 9/11 that the Generals would take some initiative and issue such an order themselves -- but it doesn't change the fact that neither SecDec nor VPOTUS could legally issue such an order.
Alaska is completely worthless besides the oil in the ANWR. Its huge, but worthless. Why else would it be the least populated state in the union? Why else would the purchase of Alaska be referred to as "Seward's folly?"
Actually there's are and have been other resources in Alaska besides oil. I suppose you never heard of this? Besides the resources it's also a very important strategic location -- the border between Asia and North America.
Besides -- you completely missed my point. My point was that the Russians already had a foothold on North America and doubtless would have expanded beyond that foothold if the Europeans hadn't already colonized the Americas.
The Donald runs this Pentagon. You need look no further than the Iraq war and its buildup. If you think different, you're living in a different decade from the one I'm posting to /. in. :)
If by runs the Pentagon you mean advises the President as to how the Pentagon should be run then you are correct. But he has no actual legal authority over DoD whatsoever. And if you are going to talk about Rumsfeld specifically then I would point out that a large part of DoD hates his guts -- even before the current clusterfuck and 9/11 when he was trying to get Bush and Congress to reshape the military in his image.
All Rumsfeld did was join the hawks (along with Cheney and others) to encourage the President to go to war. He had absolutely no authority to make that decision himself and even with the US at war he still can't do anything other then relay the decisions of the President. The President is also perfectly capable of issuing orders directly to the joint chiefs and bypassing SecDef as well.
{in best Jon Stewart voice):
Actually, the Jon Stewart reference probably ensures that it gets modded up. At least Funny, probably one Insightful in there.
I guess it's all about knowing how to appeal to the /. groupthink ;) Ah, the irony.
Once you've been arrested for being a potential terrorist
Actually, merely wearing a t-shirt that says "Osama Rules" would not get you arrested for being a terrorist. It certainly wouldn't get you convicted for anything. And before you throw out the name Jose Padilla or anybody like that, I'd like to point out that there's a huge difference between wearing a t-shirt (arguably free speech) and planning a dirty bomb attack. Not that I wouldn't agree with you that he is being unfairly held without trial.
Wearing such a t-shirt at ground zero would likely paint a giant bull's-eye on your back and get the shit beaten out of you. In fact wearing such a t-shirt anywhere in New York City would probably ensure that you got an ass-whooping. But that's just fine -- free speech doesn't mean you get to escape the consequences of your speech. It only means that you get to say it in the first place. And I rather suspect if I wore a Nazi armband to certain places in Europe that I would get the shit beaten out of me too :)
Passing out the recruitment leaflets could be another matter. That would probably be considered supporting a terrorist organization. But you were passing out leaflets telling Al Qaida's side of the story (infidels in the Holy Land, Israel, etc, etc) you wouldn't be breaking any laws. Think I can pass out leaflets in some European countries telling Hitler's side of the story?
The point here is that Americans, at least in this respect, are no more or less free than Europeans; the USA simply has a different boogeyman.
I disagree. I think I've made my point in the paragraphs above :)
Actually, didn't you revolve so that you wouldn't need to pay taxes to England ? And now you pay them to Washington instead. The more things change ;)...
Actually it wasn't the fact that we were being taxed by the UK. It was the fact that we were being taxed by them and no representation in Parliment. Leading to the rallying cry of "No Taxation without Representation".
Of course down in modern Mexico you had the Maya, Aztec, Olmec and many others who built great cities, in fact the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan rivialed the greatest cities of Europe and the Ottoman Empire in size and ecilpsed them in architecture and organization according to the Europeans who saw them.
And then the Europeans completely annihilated their civilization and race. Funny how you never hear about that but you always hear about all the evils that the United States pulled back in the day with regards to our own natives. Tell me, what's worse? Attempted assimilation and forced moves or genocide?
Without the wealth of the New World, it's not too much of a stretch to postulate that Europe would have ground itself into a nub against the Ottoman Empire in the 16th and 17th Centuries, unable to afford trade with India and China and unable to modernize the militaries which gave it the edge over the Ottomans and other European Nations who didn't modernize and lost in wars against Western Europe. Whose to say the Web wouldn't have been Chinese or Indian or even Ottoman had the New World not been colonized by Europe?
Or Russian for that matter. The Russians had Alaska and doubtless would have eventually colonized the rest of the New World had Europe not beaten them to it. If they had held onto it and history played out mostly the same way -- think of the power of the Soviet Union if it included the Americas.
You have the .xxx backwards - it was actually a good idea
The only way .xxx is a good idea is if you require all pornography sites to move there. Otherwise it's alleged purpose (making it easy to filter porn) becomes moot. Without that as a reason to deploy it then it becomes a red light district that exists for no other reason then to make it easier to find porn. The US Government would have be overwhelmingly behind it if you could have sold it to them as a way to make filters easier and more effective.
And even if you could sell it like that -- what's pornography? Does a site advocating Topfreedom need to register in .xxx if they include pictures? You and I would probably say they don't.... but many prudes (in the US and Europe -- don't pretend it's only an American thing) would say they should.
.xxx was a disaster waiting to happen.
Damned US imperialists!
Funny how that flamebaiting garbage get's an insightful mod. Think a similar post that had said "Take that you whining pieces of Eurotrash" would have gotten modded up? Fat chance in hell.
And yes, this post of mine is completely offtopic and will probably get modded down. Oh well! Hope the champ who modded up the parent pays for it in M2.
If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US,
Last time I checked I had the right to be a neo-Nazi and try to convert others to my viewpoint in the United States. Last time I checked I still had the right to wear religious clothing to public school in the United States.
We fought a revolution for those ideas. People left Europe and came over to North America for religious freedom even before there was a United States of America.
Do the US vote who gets to be Secretary of State? Defence? DHS ? Didn't think so.
SecDef has absolutely no power over American citizens or American Armed Forces. He doesn't even have the authority to tell a private in the Army to drive him somewhere. He certainly can't launch nuclear weapons. What he can do is relay the President's orders to the Armed Forces, act as the second voice of approval in a nuclear launch (two-man system), and advise the President on matters relating to defense.
In the American system of Government that's what the cabinet does. It advises the President. The only cabinet member that you could make a case for needing to be an elected official would be the Attorney General. And there would be disadvantages of having him elected as well -- he could be open to political pressure -- which is the reason why we don't elect Federal judges and they have lifetime appointments. Of course having him appointed by the President is a conflict as well (if he needs to investigate the Executive Branch) -- but that's what Special Prosecutors and Grand Juries are for.
Nobody said it was a perfect system but it seems to have worked well enough for the last 200 years :)
Furthermore, New York State would have fallen into the Bush column but for NYC
I beg to differ. Subtract New York City and Kerry/Edwards has 2,486,265 votes (including the Working Families Party) to Bush/Cheney's 2,375,033 (including the Conservative Party). That's a margin of 111,232 votes. Subtract Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk counties) and it's still 1,847,286 Kerry to 1,776,729 Bush. A margin of 70,557 votes. Either way it would have made us quite the battleground state but Bush still loses.
You underestimate the Democratic Party in Upstate New York (mostly urban but also rural) and the fact that New York Republicans are typically fiscally conservative Republicans -- not religious right Republicans -- and they probably had a hard time voting for Bush.
(it's blocked by crap stacked in front of it the other 0.00001%
Only 0.00001% of the time? What office environment have you been working in? My co-workers tell me that there's a desk and a filing cabinet under all this paperwork -- I still think it's just a rumor.
Because such a post of course prevents such activity, not unlike a drug dealer asking someone who is buying "Hey man, are you a cop" or putting a sign that reads "officers of the law and all those reporting to them are bared from buying here" above a crack house.
Well duh. I was pointing out the futility of trying to use an EULA clause to the same affect.
What we need is a law that makes research a defence to copyright infringement. It's important that malware authors can't use the force of the law to hide. Hopefully a judge will do the right thing an establish case law in this area that defends us from this scum.
Why should we change the law? If an EULA is truly enforceable like this then I should be able to trade all the mp3s I want by modifying my p2p software to send an EULA to anybody who downloads from me. Recall the old days of the BBS movement when warez BBSes had MOTDs prohibiting law enforcement officers from connecting?
Bet big business would think twice about it if they looked at it that way.
New York included (we're signing up for hydro/wind power for my Brooklyn apartment)
In New York your utility is required to give you the option of buying wind power. NYSEG (the upstate utility) offers it in 100kWh blocks. Plus everybody in NYS gets a hydroelectric power savings credit (your utility is supposed to itemize this on your bill) because of the hydro power we get from the New York State Power Authority projects (Niagara Falls, St. Lawrence Seaway, etc.). I don't know how ConEd does it but you should have all the options that I do :)
And personally, as much as I like fusion, I'm big on fuel cell power plants for electric and heat energy. Though admittedly I haven't been paying attention to recent developments with it.
I'm big on anything that doesn't involve fossil fuels. I would advocate a return to fission based power for the next 20-50 years until fusion is ready. This is technology that hasn't been researched in the US in decades -- the French have reactors that run off the waste products of ours. One of my big dreams would be to see New York State give the NYS Power Authority a mandate to build nuclear power plants and sell the resulting electric in a non-profit manner. Combine that with our hydro resources and form a coalition with Quebec and Ontario (similarly blessed with hydro and also in a position to leverage nuclear power) and we could become virtually energy independent -- at least as far as electricity is concerned.
The NYS Power Authority already has experience running nuclear power in a non-profit manner -- Indian Point. In one of the most disgusting acts in the history of our state the PSC and Albany forced the Power Authority to sell it (after they paid for it's completion) to a for-profit out of state energy company. *Sigh*
In any case the problem with my nice little dream is that it would never happen. A combination of Republicans looking out for big business interests, Democrats being knee-jerk environmentalists and general NIMBY would doubtless sabotage it -- and any politician brave enough to suggest it. But I can still dream.
Exactly what I went through too. I eventually sold the house for a decent profit and now have an actual credit rating, but my interest rate sucked and the loan company was always hoping I would default (low end predatry lending). It makes me glad you stuck it to Cap1. I tip my hat to you for that.
The predatory leading is what irks the hell out of me. You should see how many credit card offers I've gotten since I filed bankruptcy. Why? They know you can't file for another seven (now eight?) years and they will have their hooks into you that entire time. The even more disgusting part is that if you stop paying your bills they won't come after you right away (other then the usual phone calls). They will wait a few years so your account accrues that 24.9% penalty rate and then they will get a judgment against you. If you live in a state that allows wage garnishments then your only real option once they have the judgment is bankruptcy. Don't even try to talk to them -- I couldn't even get my creditors to agree to take the original amounts even if I paid them right now. They all wanted their interest which had accrued to more the original loan amounts by the time I was in a position to pay them. So fuck them. I filed Chapter 7 because I was in a position in my life where I didn't own any non-exempt property. They got nothing because they wouldn't be reasonable. It was the best thing I ever did.
I don't hate the entire lending industry. I just hate the Capital Ones of the world that have no interest in you other then seeing you run up a massive debt ratio (at 0.75 debt to annual income you will be paying the interest for the rest of your life) so they can live off the interest forever. I do have respect for my local banks (not a lot of them left) and credit union. It's those loans to other members that are paying the dividends on my share certificates now that I've abandoned credit :)
The sad thing is that with nobody using cash these days he probably thought you were into something illegal ;) If you have the discipline to pull it off it can be amusing to take them up on their offer and stick the cash into a CD for the length of time that your loan has no interest and payments. A $4,000 six month CD at 4.33% (from Bankrate) would earn over $80 in interest. Of course this requires the discipline to pay it off right away when that CD matures and you also need to look over the contract and make sure you aren't screwing yourself (early payoff fees and the like).
Except that inductive charging means that you loose about an additional 40% of your energy. It's simply nowhere near as efficient as a direct electrical connection.
You sure about that? I thought it was just a transformer with the same number of windings (i.e: no voltage change)? High quality AC transformers (the kinds hanging off poles) attain 98% efficieny. Inductive charging causes a 40% loss? That blows my mind.
Of course, the question of why they can't just use a dryer type socket begs questions, but still. That socket is rated for both 220 and high amperage.
240 volts x 30 amps = 7,200 watts. I really don't see why you couldn't either. Unless you are a complete dumbass about it 240 volt electric out of a dryer/range socket is no more dangerous then 120 out of a household one. Hell, it's good enough for Europe....
Why is down transformation a problem? Because step-down transformers are not 100% efficient, and it happens in every neighborhood.
Last time I checked AC transformers were over 98% efficient. And "every neighborhood"? Quite the deceptive statement, that. Let's see..... Power Plant -> Step-up -> transmission lines -> sub station/step-down -> neighborhood/step-down to 120/240.
In any case, I challenge you to prove that a gasoline motor is more efficient then a high-quality three phase electric one. It's not even a close contest. And the electric motor has other advantages (torque without moving, rapid startup, less waste heat, less routine maintenance) that a internal combustion engine will never match. The only thing stopping it is the energy density between petrol and current battery technology.
Hell. Let's get more mundane. I suspect that my rather cheap single phase electric lawn mower (~1,200 watts) is loads more efficient then the comparable gas model. 1.2KwH per hour to run vs how much gas? It's clearly a winner on an economic front alone as I rather suspect that gas mower would cost more then $0.15/hr to run. Not to mention the fact that when I take the electric mower out of storage after winter it doesn't require dicking around with for an hour to get started.
Factories shut down for the night? I didn't think so.
Actually many do. As does the commercial sector. In fact the amount of electric used by just fluorescent lighting in office buildings would probably surprise you. Back when I worked for a rather small insurance agency I computed that it was over half of our electric bill -- more then A/C in the summer as a matter of fact.
In any case my point is still valid.
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek there. The point was that stand-alone gas stations would be largely unnecessary, and would therefore have a hard time surviving without a second function, e.g. a convenience store. The reason for this is that literally any business at that point could provide the same service because the cost to enter the market would be so low. Lower cost of entry -> greater competition -> lower prices
Hmmm. The barrier to entry point is a good one. It would be a lot easier to buy a few battery chargers then it would be to get a contract with an oil company to sell gasoline.
I wonder if the gas stations would survive? From what I understand most of the local gas stations make their bread and butter on the convenience store products. I've heard (though unconfirmed) that they only make a few cents/gal on the gasoline itself. Though I gotta wonder if the convenience store function would survive without the requirement of buying gasoline to bring in customers.
Time will tell!
Actually if you had bothered to read my posts you would have found most all of your points addressed. Allow me to respond again:
inefficiencies of the electric power distribution grid
They don't approach the waste of a gasoline engine. They don't even come close. A properly designed power grid loses less then 5% of the energy to transmission line/transformer losses.
the inefficiencies of generating said power in some non-nuke plants
Even the oldest coal fired power plant still attains nearly 40% efficiency at converting chemical/heat energy into electricity. Newer combined cycle natural gas plants approach 80%. Think your internal combustion engine comes close to either of those figures?
the various down-transformations the power goes through in the distribution of said power
And that's a problem, why?
and the fact that whole of the current grid could not possibly handle the load of even most people having electric cars
Actually it probably could -- assuming most people charged their cars at night when the factories are shut/idled down. Most electricity is consumed by industry. But even without that consideration it stands to reason that electric cars would not take over the market overnight. As the number of electric cars on the road increased the utilities would invest money in upgrading their infrastructure to support the new load.
I'm sorry, but unless you think big picture you're not helping.
I was thinking big picture. In a positive light. Do you have anything to offer but nay-saying?
The emissions from a modern, efficient engine are incredibly low.
Except for that CO2 that is probably altering our climate every day. You'll never get away from that fact no matter how good your catalytic converter is.
Furthermore, how are you going to heat a car that only has an electric power source? Just dump current through a coil? Bad idea.
Electric resistance heating is a bad idea? Tell me, what sounds better -- electric resistance heating during the winter or waste heat from an inefficient gasoline engine year round?