In all honestly, unless you are getting your news via radio or over the air broadcast, YOU did pay for the news.
Cable and satellite owners pay for programming via their extremely high subscription rates whereby the service provider then turns around and collects fees to place commercials. They are double dipping - only you have absolutely no say in what you receive in exchange for your subscription fees.
this is the apex of copyright bullshit, and it is a serious issue. "humming a song ? you need to pay us !"
Why is that? Most artists originally made their income from performing. Largely, that's still true even today. In this case, they are being denied income for their intellectual property and by an usurped performance. So really, its a double whammy on their income.
What you're really arguing is that creative people should not be compensated for their work. Someone I doubt you would agree you should not be compensated for YOUR income. I honestly can not understand how anyone can come to that concussion. Oddly enough, to date, I've never met anyone willing to give up THEIR income to validate their point of view. Which seems to loudly argue, your position is a lot of hypocritical, loud air.
Seriously, think about this. If its such a big deal, why not simply create your own music to perform. Then, you don't owe anyone anything and you're free to allow or disallow anyone from using your work.
Now if you want to argue you're not a hypocrite, let me know and we'll make arrangements so you can starting sending my your paychecks from now on.
Actually, for police its not confusing at all. Its almost universally agreed, if you wear your uniform [badge], you are absolutely acting as a government representative. This is why its illegal for uniformed police to endorse political candidates on camera; as doing so means the government is endorsing a political candidate.
Assange is well documented to be a hypocritical person in his world views. My personal opinion is he's an anarchist and very likely a sociopath to boot, given his, "Killing people is fun", comment.
He's become so extreme, even Wikileaks wishes to distance themselves from Assanage; as has been widely reported. Furthermore, many of the original Wikileak grunts have more or less said the exact same thing I'm saying and have made it publicly known they wish to create a new "leak" organization which actually functions like a media group with journalistic integrity rather than Assange's unethical and hypocritical, "do as I say, not as I do", approach to running Wikileaks.
Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden,
Which is extremely hypocritical of Assange given that when questioned about releasing private informant information in their first major war log release, his comment was basically, the ends justify the means. He further comments after additional questioning that what if people were killed because of his release and he more or less re-iterates the ends justify the means because people need to know. So basically, if what he does violates other's privacy or worse, gets people killed, its all okay because the public needs to know. Where as when anyone else does exactly what he's doing, its absolutely wrong and must be exposed.
You can see more, including Assange's quote, "Killing people is fun." Where he asserts the only reason people might be killed in a war zone is that playing video games is fun. War is much like playing a video game. Therefore, killing people is fun. So according to his own world view, "Killing people is fun." Assange is a hypocritical sociopath.
ICEs all work more or less the same way. Obviously there are some variations in output but over all, an engine which produces X-output of CO2 is going to produce some like ratio of other greenhouse gases. Therefore, you need only rationalize the single metric to provide a benefit across the board.
Granted, new engine technologies really shake the above assumption up. But generally speaking, for older vehicles, which looks to be the real target here, close enough probably is good enough.
Healthy food costs much more than high carb low nutrition food.
Sorry, but that's a well established myth.
The facts are, people would rather eat a twinky than beans and rice. People would rather drink a Coke than water or tea.
Anyone who believes the poor are condemned to low nutrition food are completely uneducated on the foods which are generally available. Largely this is an issue of education. By in large, most Americans really have no concept of nutrition. Made worse is the fact that the poor tend to be uneducated and the uneducated tend to be more attracted to cheap, advertised products. This in turn leads them to high card, low nutrition food. That, however, is not the same thing as insisting only high carb, low nutrition foods are available for purchase and consumption in their price range.
I grew up poor, $250 in food stamps would not provide healthy food for 5 people for a month even back in the 80s.
I did too, and in a fairly small town, though we never had food stamps. Just the same, the food my mother purchased was frequently, far, far less expensive than those who purchased with food stamps and there are never a need for nutritional dense comparisons. Then again, our shopping cart didn't have tobacco, soda, chips, and other crap food (all of which are low nutrition, expensive, and generally bad for your long term health) which so many consider necessities.
Contrary to your assertion, many high carb, nutritionally dense foods, with name brand packaging, are actually very expensive when you bother to break it down. Many people on food stamps have historically insisted on name brand products. Furthermore, given a choice, they consistently prefer "garbage food" (high carb, nutritionally challenged) over nutritionally dense foods.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's your case. I don't know you're case. Just the same, statistically speaking, if I did not describe you, then you are by far the exception rather than the rule.
But, I DO NOT think that that requires the government to regulate people's weight.
Whoosh. Saying you're not covered for a well established, self destructive behavior is not "regulating." Regulating is saying, you must do x - else. This is saying, if you do x, then you suffer the consequences - its not fair for everyone else to pay for your willful and destructive behavior. Because your entire argument is based on an obviously and horribly flawed falacy, there really isn't a point to directly engage your meaningless counter points.
Just the same, a great example is air travel. The FAA deems the average passenger to be 180 pounds for males. These days, its common for them to have passengers twice that weight, plus some change. The impact of carrying that extra weight is extra fuel burn. Expensive fuel these days. There is a very real cost (fuel burn and pollution) for carrying that extra weight. Society attempts to punish airlines for charging reasonable fees for their unjust punishment of carrying lots of fat people. As a result, everyone pays extra. As fuel prices have risen, airlines hoped to recoup some of their fuel costs by charging more for passengers who carry more, and as a result, cause yet more expensive fuel to be burned. The public almost rioted as fair and reasonable fees.
So what you're saying is that its unjust if it happens to you, no matter how equitable it is for the rest of the world. Ya...right...
The reality is, fat people negatively effect almost every aspect of everyone's lives, including their own; via costs, happiness, etc., to some degree or another. And in exchange for that, society is insisting they get a free lunch. You can get angry all you like, but it doesn't change the fact they are largely free loading on society - which actually is unjust.
As a side note, why have the moderators become so absolutely fucking stupid these days? Not a single negative moderation of my comments in this thread are the least bit accurate. Why is it so hard to moderators to understand that disagreement and negative moderation is censorship. If you disagree, post. But this wonderfully typifies just how stupid the slashdot masses have become these days. Okay, so THIS post is negative moderation worthy, but considering my other posts have been troll moderated by absolutely stupid fucking moderators, to fair this post should be moderated up or at least left alone. Otherwise, moderators are endorsing troll moderation and validating my entire point about the fall of slashdot - that moderators these days are completely fucking useless idiots.
You took my line. But the fact is, the article is about slow adoption because US standards don't account for the inclusion of the technology. So while I absolutely agree the US != the world, the fact remains the article is largely about American consumers.
US is automatic and customary automatic and unless you put it into Neutral at the red lights it is not true unloaded idle. There is load on the engine which causes it burn WAY more fuel than an average EU manual car (especially a diesel).
This is absolutely true. But even at true idle, pollution in-efficiencies tend to be highest toward idle; regardless of "idle" or "true-idle" state. In fact, "idle" is more likely to provide less "more bad" pollutants than "true idle".
So the figures for consumption are not surprising. No need to stop it by the way. Just fully separating the clutch when break is pressed even if the car is not in neutral should do the job.
Except that in markets where stop and go traffic is likely to be the highest, manual transmission sales are likely to be their lowest. As a US driver who has literally sat in some of the worst stop and go traffic the US has to offer (in multiple states and cities), I can authoritatively say, use of a manual transmission in these conditions absolutely sucks and borders on the stupid. Furthermore, with the rapid increase in automatic transmission efficiencies, except when at idle, its hard to argue for manual transmissions any more. The difference these days is frequently only a couple percentile; excluding excessive stop and go traffic.
manages to not DIE in the end ANYWAY, then you can have that argument back.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong in every way anyone can possibly be wrong. Please go learn about the almost endless list of costly health issues which is directly and indirectly associated with obesity. The FACTS are, we all pay extra in taxes and health insurance to cover this self destructive lot. On a per person basis, its likely not a lot but the facts are, its money which could be spent on other things.
And that's ignoring other government services which also fuel the insanity above. Have you ever see food stamps being used? Some regulations have helped limit some of the insanity, but its still common. Its crazy how much assistance dollars are used on processed foods, sugary drinks, and just generally poor nutrition. All too often these dollars are used to fuel a diet which directly feeds higher taxes and higher insurance rates.
Which is why politicians constantly attempt to include more and more uneducated masses into the equation. They are, by far, easier to manipulate and are directly responsible to the steady erosion of the US government and the rights of the people. Uneducated, ignorant masses, are exactly why so many people suffer around the world and why so many are easily manipulated by the government and the press.
Hell, most Americans don't seem to even understand the first and second amendment - or worse, have bought into the bullshit that its hard to understand at best, and ambiguous at worst. Anyone who says that is truly ignorant or attempting to pull one over on the American population.
And as the US education system is steadily destroyed, the number of ignorant, easily manipulated masses, grows on a daily basis. Ignorance and lack of education is the first ring of power.
The government is telling us what we can't eat now.
So its agreed then! All of your health problems, be it directly or indirectly related to your obesity absolutely should not be covered by health insurance.
For those who don't understand the connection, its government reclassification of obesity as a desease which mandated coverage of self destructive behavior which we all now pay for - both in taxes and health insurance.
So now a government representative says, you might want to consider stop eating stuff which only an idiot constantly eats on a regular basis...and your response is...the gubberment, which is funding my stupidity, wants to control me...Ahhhh.....
Back when slashdot was largely populated by people who were subject matter experts and were willing to discuss and independently research at the behest of their peers. Back then moderation even had a propensity to reflect technical merit and accuracy. And meta moderation commonly combated trolls. Back then, "citation needed", would have been laughed at for the inappropriate stupidity it is. Largely because people back then actually understood the difference between research papers and casual discourse and debate.
These days its largely a popularity content. Ignorance and half truth is commonly moderated up. Troll moderation happens daily and without bounds. Moderators seem completely unable to read simple instructions and follow them. Meta moderation seems to be almost completely useless because of the scale of poor and troll moderations. And its extremely common for moderation to be used for censorship rather than to focus or expand dialog. Basically slashdot became popular and most of the people which made slashdot worthy have long since left. What you're left with today is largely American Idol where re-enforcement of the mass' ignorance is the objective of the day - every day.
Slashdot absolutely has changed - and for the worse, by far. Slashdot is a former shell of what it once was - largely because of the low quality of people it now attracts.
Of course, you have a video with a guy on a power trip practically begging over the radio to let him open fire on some guys down below
Again - ignorance.
Do you want to kill people you love? Or might you kill people you've de-humanized? Its all part of the same mental defense process. You comment also seems to re-write history a bit, but ignoring that, you're also seemingly ignorant of the fact that children are not uncommonly in combat in that part of the world. So an indifference toward the death of yet more children in a war zone is not surprising at all. The fact they specifically dismiss it as they do, in indicative of exactly what I'm talking about.
The rest of your post wonderfully highlights the stupidity of the masses and how stupid people like you go out of their way to remain blissfully stupid. Had you actually wanted to stop being stupid, you might have bothered to go research a bit. But nope, remaining stupid is your priority - and seemingly at all costs. And you, yourself, are the poster child of exactly why the military wanted to keep that video hidden of stupid eyes.
People like you don't want to know the truth. People like you don't want to know humanity. People like you want to remain in your fairytale world, as you wonderfully illustrate via your projection. The simple fact is, humans are complex. And sadly, when it comes to war, completely rational, well meaning people, exactly as you, are the ones doing the things you point a finger at and condemn. While you'll never admit it, you are damning yourself. That's you in the video. Its not hard to see why you're unwilling to yield - because it means coming to terms with the fact you're human rather than "human" as you've built up in your imaginary world.
Start/Stop causes extra wear and tear on the engine block.
The majority of all engine wear comes during start/warming of an engine, but only because its when oil pressure doesn't exist and lubrication has gone elsewhere.
In this situation, it doesn't apply because the engine has been freshly lubricated and oil lines are likely still highly pressurized. So unless you have extensive and conclusive studies, your comment completely flies in the face of all established ICE doctrine.
Additionally, you need to ensure that the engine block retains heat longer which in most cases means bigger and heavier engine block
No you don't. That's only true for diesel engines which require a thermal element to start. I looks like we're talking about gasoline engines. So your comment seemingly has absolutely no merit.
Similarly, you may need some extra work on the cat and emission control to keep the entire system warm and ensure you stay within pollution limits.
The catalytic converter does need to maintain a specific temperature range to properly function. This, however, can be addressed by the use of a heating elements (to maintain a temp - even perhaps outside of limits) and/or periodic engine starts (to maintain limits).
On top of that you need a beefier starter motor and a beefier battery
Thus far, this appears to be your first legitimate complaint. Having said that, starter technology has progressed significantly over the last two decades. Starters can now be roughly a quarter the size they were only two or three decades ago and with much higher reliability. So lets say they add an extra ten pounds of weight in starter/battery. That's comparable to roughly 1.2 gallons of automotive fuel. If the technology can save 10%, for most vehicles, that alone more than offsets the weight penalty associated with the added technology.
to ensure you get the cranking current for it so that the engine starts up straight away.
Wrong. This is seemingly like a pattern here.
They specifically stop the engine at a specific position so that it need only spark to initiate combustion, rotation, starting, and charging of the battery. So basically, nothing really new needs to take place. The only caveat is one needs to properly monitor the battery's health to ensure the engine starts, to recharge the battery and/or maintain catalytic converter efficiency.
A good engine especially diesel eats nearly nothing in idle
I no longer remember the exact number, but idle consumption in the US alone is a considerable amount of fuel. So reduction of this consumption is a worthy goal and should not be hand waved and ignored.
All in all you get worse pollution (and nastier - particles and unburned/partially burned hydrocarbons),
Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong. In fact, its extremely likely to dramatically reduce pollution as idle is typically the lowest point of efficiency for ICE and catalytic converters. By almost entirely doing away with the phase which creates a disproportionate amount of pollution, the increase in air quality is likely to be disproportionately profound.
worse economy and worse performance than an smaller and "weaker" normal engine with an electric boost similar to the one on the Honda, Mercedes and a few others.
Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong.
Frankly, I'm not sure anything you said is even remotely grounded in fact.
And I don't believe you've ever had a talk with a military before.
I have. I have lots of friends and family who are in the military. I have researched some of the psychology involved in the topic at hand. Comments like yours only highlight your general ignorance; which is seemingly without bounds.
I have a friend in here, that belongs to the military branch of the police
Not even comparable. The fact you believe it is, only further validates my original comment about how completely ignorant you are on the subject matter. "Power tripping" is hardly the same thing as living, fighting, and surviving in a war zone. They are not at all comparable. The only thing you've confirmed is that you're friend is a serious dick.
When morale people are made to kill others, serious conflicts in the mind begin to crop up. Basically, what you are seeing is the manifestations of those conflicts and an effort to resolve them so as to avoid mental pain and long term damage. Those who are unable to do so frequently have very long term mental health issues.
This is why soldiers frequently have irrational and impassioned out breaks of bravado and those with you are frequently in full support. To do other means you are entertaining the thought of one's self being a murderer. Morale people who constantly condemn themselves as murderers eventually have a mental break and are unable to function as a soldier.
The reality is, what you saw absolutely was not blood lust. What you saw was soldiers attempting to maintain their mental health in an extremely high stress environment while trying to convince themselves that their actions are not immoral despite a life time of experience which has told them the fundamentals of their jobs make them murderers.
If you watch realistic war movies, you constantly see this behavior. Only in movies, they way tone it down because the ignorant masses of civilians don't understand what they are seeing. This is especially important to tone it down for hero characters because otherwise the ignorant masses won't be able to identify with the character. Regardless, the point remains, even in realistic war movies, much of this is presented to viewers, albeit in a watered down persona.
And the fact that the masses are most definitely completely ignorant, and go out of their way to remain so, is exactly why the military goes out of their way to hide the harsh realities of war and humanity. The reasoning is simple. You can't fix stupid. And when stupid people see stuff like this, they have absolutely no context, nor a desire to establish a context, and the result can only do harm. No good can come of such video. Case in point, look how stupid the masses are here. Look how they go out of their way to censor this information and topic every time it comes up.
The simple fact is, people are stupid animals and ignorance such as yours only serve to completely validate that the military absolutely did the right thing in attempting to hide the video in question.
And to be absolutely clear, several of their leaked videos should be leaked. They do depict war crimes and are not readily explained as above. Just the same, the video which gets most of the attention, only gets attention by the mass of stupidity and ignorant humanity who don't even know what it means to be human.
All too often people on slashdot conflate so many issues. This is one of them.
Ethanol is not the same thing as corn!!! We current get ethanol from corn because of bribed politicians. The reality is, ethanol is absolutely a viable fuel source - just not from corn!
Hemp is currently illegal in the US despite not having THC (active ingredient in pot). Please note, hemp IS NOT POT. There are literally zero THC strains of hemp available now. And smoking even the low THC strains of hemp (almost all hemps) will not get you high; but will provide for a killer headache. Hemp uses a fraction of the water (which is quickly becoming a significantly source resource - even in the US) corn does. Hemp is naturally drought resistant (unlike corn). Hemp is naturally pest resistant (unlike corn - which has not been genetically engineers - and showing it is now toxic to mammals). And yet, per acre, hemp can produce 2x-3x more ethanol than corn. Hemp provides nutritious food, clothes (directly competes with cotton and wool), and even industrial lubrication. Best of all, hemp grows in many zones where corn absolutely refuses to grow.
Many countries, even including Canada, have starting working to shift (on a small, experimental basis) parts of their agro economies onto hemp. The fact that hemp isn't even legal to grow in the US (last legalized to support WWII - which is "ditch weed" - which can not get you high - contrary to the ignorance spewed by law enforcement*) wonderfully hints at corruption in the US government.
The vast majority of "ditch weed" is from WWII efforts to grow. It is possible to find ditch weed which can get you high, but that's because its wild pot, and not wild hemp.
The only bad thing about hemp is that it directly competes with cotton, wool, corn farmers, energy and chemical companies. Not hard to see why its illegal in the US.
I know if I want to, I can have a party every week and build up a good amount of friends.
Those are acquaintances, not friends. Time and time again, the people who I've met who are social butterflies never have friends; despite believing otherwise. Their life is one social event after another and yet never have friends. Every couple of years, they are surrounded by an ever changing sea of faces. Using your own example, chances are, those "friends" were gone once the parties were.
There's an old cliche about friendship which basically boils down to, an acquaintance is who you call to bail you out of jail because your friend is in the cell with you.
Do not confuse socialization with friendship. Socialization is an activity. Friendship is a bond. Both are important.
Personally, IMOHO, if you don't have a friendship (excluding family) which has lasted at least half your life, or at least a sizable chunk of your lifetime, chances are you're broken on the inside. And no amount of socialization is likely to fix it.
Personally, I like the 'flat tax' idea, but with a graduated income tax for the top 25% of people, so 75% of people don't even have to file paperwork. Basically, tax the top quarter to help lower the national sales tax on the rest of us.
This is something I'm constantly telling people. The problem with flat tax is how ignorant people are because of dip shit politicians telling people its a bad idea. When in reality, politicians are telling people this because it shits the tax burden to consumers; which is largely the rich.
As you right point out, a flat tax need not abolish the IRS - as is most commonly and incorrectly perceived. This who require government assistance (food stamps, etc.) would still be able to qualify. Because of so many lies, many believe these problems would completely go away and as a result, force a disproportionate burden on the poor - when the reality is exactly the opposite.
The math becomes very simple for the vast majority of people and best of all, the system becomes extremely equitable. Not to mention, refunds and assistance programs become much, much easier to manage and largely means a smaller, more efficient IRS.
To date, I've never read an anti-flat tax comment which made sense or was even largely based on reality.
They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal.
And security is so tight, it seems anyone can walk right into a secured airport, right up to a large, commercial airplane, and crawl right inside. But good thing we're spending our tax dollars where its assured to prevent absolutely nothing. If a sixteen year old kid can completely circumvent airport security, I'm sure less determined terrorists will give it a second thought. Just think how trivial it would have been to have placed pipe bombs into those landing gear bays. I guess better not to think of that and to simply harass pilots who fly the damn things, while ignoring everyone else who have direct aircraft access; and less likely to die as the result of terrorist action.
but it really seems to me that our government is becoming more and more openly aggressive in showing that corporations are in complete control of our system.
There is absolutely nothing here which indicates what you're saying. That's just pro-piracy hyperbole. Like it or not, IP is a significant contributor to much of the world's economy. Protecting jobs and by extension the economy is actually an excellent idea. The benefactors of such efforts include both small and large companies - and even individual artists, musicians, programmers, and inventors.
What you're really saying is the government is more openly aggressive, in the face of efforts to undermine the world's economy, showing that individual artists, musicians, programmers, and inventors are receiving help from the government to protect their sources of income. And at the end of the day, that's one of the primary functions of government. So contrary to the pro-piracy propaganda which is all too often ignorantly spewed here on slashdot, its actually a very, very, very good thing - unless you have a socialist agenda.
Contrary to popular myth? I thought that's exactly what the popular myth was: US prisons are university for career criminals.
The polls I've seen over the years say the average American honestly believes the prison systems are intended to punish while rehabilitating. The reality is, the entire system is designed to punish and then punish again. Rehabilitation is by far the exception rather than the rule.
You really need to learn what those words mean before you use them in big-boy conversations. Your irrelevant and meaningless example only further proves the point.
I personally know multiple people with varying criminal records who spent time in Federal penitentiaries.
As prisons go, the federal prisons are by far, better. The minimum security prisons really are, almost like vacations. But a minority are actually help in federal prison. Most are in state prisons.
Their stays ranged from a year or two in a minimum security prison to multiple years in a maximum security prison where all the really bad criminals go. The stories I hear do not corroborate your claim: perhaps you have links to journalistic investigations, government statistics, etc.?
I'm not sure what "stories" you've been hearing, but it doesn't jive with study after study nor does it agree with the experiences of the people I personally know who have gone to prison; which includes both federal and state levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Voice Recognition works perfectly!
In all honestly, unless you are getting your news via radio or over the air broadcast, YOU did pay for the news.
Cable and satellite owners pay for programming via their extremely high subscription rates whereby the service provider then turns around and collects fees to place commercials. They are double dipping - only you have absolutely no say in what you receive in exchange for your subscription fees.
this is the apex of copyright bullshit, and it is a serious issue. "humming a song ? you need to pay us !"
Why is that? Most artists originally made their income from performing. Largely, that's still true even today. In this case, they are being denied income for their intellectual property and by an usurped performance. So really, its a double whammy on their income.
What you're really arguing is that creative people should not be compensated for their work. Someone I doubt you would agree you should not be compensated for YOUR income. I honestly can not understand how anyone can come to that concussion. Oddly enough, to date, I've never met anyone willing to give up THEIR income to validate their point of view. Which seems to loudly argue, your position is a lot of hypocritical, loud air.
Seriously, think about this. If its such a big deal, why not simply create your own music to perform. Then, you don't owe anyone anything and you're free to allow or disallow anyone from using your work.
Now if you want to argue you're not a hypocrite, let me know and we'll make arrangements so you can starting sending my your paychecks from now on.
Actually, for police its not confusing at all. Its almost universally agreed, if you wear your uniform [badge], you are absolutely acting as a government representative. This is why its illegal for uniformed police to endorse political candidates on camera; as doing so means the government is endorsing a political candidate.
Assange is well documented to be a hypocritical person in his world views. My personal opinion is he's an anarchist and very likely a sociopath to boot, given his, "Killing people is fun", comment.
He's become so extreme, even Wikileaks wishes to distance themselves from Assanage; as has been widely reported. Furthermore, many of the original Wikileak grunts have more or less said the exact same thing I'm saying and have made it publicly known they wish to create a new "leak" organization which actually functions like a media group with journalistic integrity rather than Assange's unethical and hypocritical, "do as I say, not as I do", approach to running Wikileaks.
Similarly, when Assange complained that journalists were violating his privacy by reporting the details of rape and molestation allegations against him in Sweden,
Which is extremely hypocritical of Assange given that when questioned about releasing private informant information in their first major war log release, his comment was basically, the ends justify the means. He further comments after additional questioning that what if people were killed because of his release and he more or less re-iterates the ends justify the means because people need to know. So basically, if what he does violates other's privacy or worse, gets people killed, its all okay because the public needs to know. Where as when anyone else does exactly what he's doing, its absolutely wrong and must be exposed.
You can see more, including Assange's quote, "Killing people is fun." Where he asserts the only reason people might be killed in a war zone is that playing video games is fun. War is much like playing a video game. Therefore, killing people is fun. So according to his own world view, "Killing people is fun." Assange is a hypocritical sociopath.
ICEs all work more or less the same way. Obviously there are some variations in output but over all, an engine which produces X-output of CO2 is going to produce some like ratio of other greenhouse gases. Therefore, you need only rationalize the single metric to provide a benefit across the board.
Granted, new engine technologies really shake the above assumption up. But generally speaking, for older vehicles, which looks to be the real target here, close enough probably is good enough.
Healthy food costs much more than high carb low nutrition food.
Sorry, but that's a well established myth.
The facts are, people would rather eat a twinky than beans and rice. People would rather drink a Coke than water or tea.
Anyone who believes the poor are condemned to low nutrition food are completely uneducated on the foods which are generally available. Largely this is an issue of education. By in large, most Americans really have no concept of nutrition. Made worse is the fact that the poor tend to be uneducated and the uneducated tend to be more attracted to cheap, advertised products. This in turn leads them to high card, low nutrition food. That, however, is not the same thing as insisting only high carb, low nutrition foods are available for purchase and consumption in their price range.
I grew up poor, $250 in food stamps would not provide healthy food for 5 people for a month even back in the 80s.
I did too, and in a fairly small town, though we never had food stamps. Just the same, the food my mother purchased was frequently, far, far less expensive than those who purchased with food stamps and there are never a need for nutritional dense comparisons. Then again, our shopping cart didn't have tobacco, soda, chips, and other crap food (all of which are low nutrition, expensive, and generally bad for your long term health) which so many consider necessities.
Contrary to your assertion, many high carb, nutritionally dense foods, with name brand packaging, are actually very expensive when you bother to break it down. Many people on food stamps have historically insisted on name brand products. Furthermore, given a choice, they consistently prefer "garbage food" (high carb, nutritionally challenged) over nutritionally dense foods.
To be clear, I'm not saying that's your case. I don't know you're case. Just the same, statistically speaking, if I did not describe you, then you are by far the exception rather than the rule.
But, I DO NOT think that that requires the government to regulate people's weight.
Whoosh. Saying you're not covered for a well established, self destructive behavior is not "regulating." Regulating is saying, you must do x - else. This is saying, if you do x, then you suffer the consequences - its not fair for everyone else to pay for your willful and destructive behavior. Because your entire argument is based on an obviously and horribly flawed falacy, there really isn't a point to directly engage your meaningless counter points.
Just the same, a great example is air travel. The FAA deems the average passenger to be 180 pounds for males. These days, its common for them to have passengers twice that weight, plus some change. The impact of carrying that extra weight is extra fuel burn. Expensive fuel these days. There is a very real cost (fuel burn and pollution) for carrying that extra weight. Society attempts to punish airlines for charging reasonable fees for their unjust punishment of carrying lots of fat people. As a result, everyone pays extra. As fuel prices have risen, airlines hoped to recoup some of their fuel costs by charging more for passengers who carry more, and as a result, cause yet more expensive fuel to be burned. The public almost rioted as fair and reasonable fees.
So what you're saying is that its unjust if it happens to you, no matter how equitable it is for the rest of the world. Ya...right...
The reality is, fat people negatively effect almost every aspect of everyone's lives, including their own; via costs, happiness, etc., to some degree or another. And in exchange for that, society is insisting they get a free lunch. You can get angry all you like, but it doesn't change the fact they are largely free loading on society - which actually is unjust.
As a side note, why have the moderators become so absolutely fucking stupid these days? Not a single negative moderation of my comments in this thread are the least bit accurate. Why is it so hard to moderators to understand that disagreement and negative moderation is censorship. If you disagree, post. But this wonderfully typifies just how stupid the slashdot masses have become these days. Okay, so THIS post is negative moderation worthy, but considering my other posts have been troll moderated by absolutely stupid fucking moderators, to fair this post should be moderated up or at least left alone. Otherwise, moderators are endorsing troll moderation and validating my entire point about the fall of slashdot - that moderators these days are completely fucking useless idiots.
US != the rest of the world and vice versa
You took my line. But the fact is, the article is about slow adoption because US standards don't account for the inclusion of the technology. So while I absolutely agree the US != the world, the fact remains the article is largely about American consumers.
US is automatic and customary automatic and unless you put it into Neutral at the red lights it is not true unloaded idle. There is load on the engine which causes it burn WAY more fuel than an average EU manual car (especially a diesel).
This is absolutely true. But even at true idle, pollution in-efficiencies tend to be highest toward idle; regardless of "idle" or "true-idle" state. In fact, "idle" is more likely to provide less "more bad" pollutants than "true idle".
So the figures for consumption are not surprising. No need to stop it by the way. Just fully separating the clutch when break is pressed even if the car is not in neutral should do the job.
Except that in markets where stop and go traffic is likely to be the highest, manual transmission sales are likely to be their lowest. As a US driver who has literally sat in some of the worst stop and go traffic the US has to offer (in multiple states and cities), I can authoritatively say, use of a manual transmission in these conditions absolutely sucks and borders on the stupid. Furthermore, with the rapid increase in automatic transmission efficiencies, except when at idle, its hard to argue for manual transmissions any more. The difference these days is frequently only a couple percentile; excluding excessive stop and go traffic.
manages to not DIE in the end ANYWAY, then you can have that argument back.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Absolutely wrong in every way anyone can possibly be wrong. Please go learn about the almost endless list of costly health issues which is directly and indirectly associated with obesity. The FACTS are, we all pay extra in taxes and health insurance to cover this self destructive lot. On a per person basis, its likely not a lot but the facts are, its money which could be spent on other things.
And that's ignoring other government services which also fuel the insanity above. Have you ever see food stamps being used? Some regulations have helped limit some of the insanity, but its still common. Its crazy how much assistance dollars are used on processed foods, sugary drinks, and just generally poor nutrition. All too often these dollars are used to fuel a diet which directly feeds higher taxes and higher insurance rates.
Which is why politicians constantly attempt to include more and more uneducated masses into the equation. They are, by far, easier to manipulate and are directly responsible to the steady erosion of the US government and the rights of the people. Uneducated, ignorant masses, are exactly why so many people suffer around the world and why so many are easily manipulated by the government and the press.
Hell, most Americans don't seem to even understand the first and second amendment - or worse, have bought into the bullshit that its hard to understand at best, and ambiguous at worst. Anyone who says that is truly ignorant or attempting to pull one over on the American population.
And as the US education system is steadily destroyed, the number of ignorant, easily manipulated masses, grows on a daily basis. Ignorance and lack of education is the first ring of power.
The government is telling us what we can't eat now.
So its agreed then! All of your health problems, be it directly or indirectly related to your obesity absolutely should not be covered by health insurance.
For those who don't understand the connection, its government reclassification of obesity as a desease which mandated coverage of self destructive behavior which we all now pay for - both in taxes and health insurance.
So now a government representative says, you might want to consider stop eating stuff which only an idiot constantly eats on a regular basis...and your response is...the gubberment, which is funding my stupidity, wants to control me...Ahhhh.....
Riiight....
When did this exist?
Back when slashdot was largely populated by people who were subject matter experts and were willing to discuss and independently research at the behest of their peers. Back then moderation even had a propensity to reflect technical merit and accuracy. And meta moderation commonly combated trolls. Back then, "citation needed", would have been laughed at for the inappropriate stupidity it is. Largely because people back then actually understood the difference between research papers and casual discourse and debate.
These days its largely a popularity content. Ignorance and half truth is commonly moderated up. Troll moderation happens daily and without bounds. Moderators seem completely unable to read simple instructions and follow them. Meta moderation seems to be almost completely useless because of the scale of poor and troll moderations. And its extremely common for moderation to be used for censorship rather than to focus or expand dialog. Basically slashdot became popular and most of the people which made slashdot worthy have long since left. What you're left with today is largely American Idol where re-enforcement of the mass' ignorance is the objective of the day - every day.
Slashdot absolutely has changed - and for the worse, by far. Slashdot is a former shell of what it once was - largely because of the low quality of people it now attracts.
Of course, you have a video with a guy on a power trip practically begging over the radio to let him open fire on some guys down below
Again - ignorance.
Do you want to kill people you love? Or might you kill people you've de-humanized? Its all part of the same mental defense process. You comment also seems to re-write history a bit, but ignoring that, you're also seemingly ignorant of the fact that children are not uncommonly in combat in that part of the world. So an indifference toward the death of yet more children in a war zone is not surprising at all. The fact they specifically dismiss it as they do, in indicative of exactly what I'm talking about.
The rest of your post wonderfully highlights the stupidity of the masses and how stupid people like you go out of their way to remain blissfully stupid. Had you actually wanted to stop being stupid, you might have bothered to go research a bit. But nope, remaining stupid is your priority - and seemingly at all costs. And you, yourself, are the poster child of exactly why the military wanted to keep that video hidden of stupid eyes.
People like you don't want to know the truth. People like you don't want to know humanity. People like you want to remain in your fairytale world, as you wonderfully illustrate via your projection. The simple fact is, humans are complex. And sadly, when it comes to war, completely rational, well meaning people, exactly as you, are the ones doing the things you point a finger at and condemn. While you'll never admit it, you are damning yourself. That's you in the video. Its not hard to see why you're unwilling to yield - because it means coming to terms with the fact you're human rather than "human" as you've built up in your imaginary world.
_WRONG_. It costs in performance.
Not true.
Start/Stop causes extra wear and tear on the engine block.
The majority of all engine wear comes during start/warming of an engine, but only because its when oil pressure doesn't exist and lubrication has gone elsewhere.
In this situation, it doesn't apply because the engine has been freshly lubricated and oil lines are likely still highly pressurized. So unless you have extensive and conclusive studies, your comment completely flies in the face of all established ICE doctrine.
Additionally, you need to ensure that the engine block retains heat longer which in most cases means bigger and heavier engine block
No you don't. That's only true for diesel engines which require a thermal element to start. I looks like we're talking about gasoline engines. So your comment seemingly has absolutely no merit.
Similarly, you may need some extra work on the cat and emission control to keep the entire system warm and ensure you stay within pollution limits.
The catalytic converter does need to maintain a specific temperature range to properly function. This, however, can be addressed by the use of a heating elements (to maintain a temp - even perhaps outside of limits) and/or periodic engine starts (to maintain limits).
On top of that you need a beefier starter motor and a beefier battery
Thus far, this appears to be your first legitimate complaint. Having said that, starter technology has progressed significantly over the last two decades. Starters can now be roughly a quarter the size they were only two or three decades ago and with much higher reliability. So lets say they add an extra ten pounds of weight in starter/battery. That's comparable to roughly 1.2 gallons of automotive fuel. If the technology can save 10%, for most vehicles, that alone more than offsets the weight penalty associated with the added technology.
to ensure you get the cranking current for it so that the engine starts up straight away.
Wrong. This is seemingly like a pattern here.
They specifically stop the engine at a specific position so that it need only spark to initiate combustion, rotation, starting, and charging of the battery. So basically, nothing really new needs to take place. The only caveat is one needs to properly monitor the battery's health to ensure the engine starts, to recharge the battery and/or maintain catalytic converter efficiency.
A good engine especially diesel eats nearly nothing in idle
I no longer remember the exact number, but idle consumption in the US alone is a considerable amount of fuel. So reduction of this consumption is a worthy goal and should not be hand waved and ignored.
All in all you get worse pollution (and nastier - particles and unburned/partially burned hydrocarbons),
Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong. In fact, its extremely likely to dramatically reduce pollution as idle is typically the lowest point of efficiency for ICE and catalytic converters. By almost entirely doing away with the phase which creates a disproportionate amount of pollution, the increase in air quality is likely to be disproportionately profound.
worse economy and worse performance than an smaller and "weaker" normal engine with an electric boost similar to the one on the Honda, Mercedes and a few others.
Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong.
Frankly, I'm not sure anything you said is even remotely grounded in fact.
And I don't believe you've ever had a talk with a military before.
I have. I have lots of friends and family who are in the military. I have researched some of the psychology involved in the topic at hand. Comments like yours only highlight your general ignorance; which is seemingly without bounds.
I have a friend in here, that belongs to the military branch of the police
Not even comparable. The fact you believe it is, only further validates my original comment about how completely ignorant you are on the subject matter. "Power tripping" is hardly the same thing as living, fighting, and surviving in a war zone. They are not at all comparable. The only thing you've confirmed is that you're friend is a serious dick.
When morale people are made to kill others, serious conflicts in the mind begin to crop up. Basically, what you are seeing is the manifestations of those conflicts and an effort to resolve them so as to avoid mental pain and long term damage. Those who are unable to do so frequently have very long term mental health issues.
This is why soldiers frequently have irrational and impassioned out breaks of bravado and those with you are frequently in full support. To do other means you are entertaining the thought of one's self being a murderer. Morale people who constantly condemn themselves as murderers eventually have a mental break and are unable to function as a soldier.
The reality is, what you saw absolutely was not blood lust. What you saw was soldiers attempting to maintain their mental health in an extremely high stress environment while trying to convince themselves that their actions are not immoral despite a life time of experience which has told them the fundamentals of their jobs make them murderers.
If you watch realistic war movies, you constantly see this behavior. Only in movies, they way tone it down because the ignorant masses of civilians don't understand what they are seeing. This is especially important to tone it down for hero characters because otherwise the ignorant masses won't be able to identify with the character. Regardless, the point remains, even in realistic war movies, much of this is presented to viewers, albeit in a watered down persona.
And the fact that the masses are most definitely completely ignorant, and go out of their way to remain so, is exactly why the military goes out of their way to hide the harsh realities of war and humanity. The reasoning is simple. You can't fix stupid. And when stupid people see stuff like this, they have absolutely no context, nor a desire to establish a context, and the result can only do harm. No good can come of such video. Case in point, look how stupid the masses are here. Look how they go out of their way to censor this information and topic every time it comes up.
The simple fact is, people are stupid animals and ignorance such as yours only serve to completely validate that the military absolutely did the right thing in attempting to hide the video in question.
And to be absolutely clear, several of their leaked videos should be leaked. They do depict war crimes and are not readily explained as above. Just the same, the video which gets most of the attention, only gets attention by the mass of stupidity and ignorant humanity who don't even know what it means to be human.
All too often people on slashdot conflate so many issues. This is one of them.
Ethanol is not the same thing as corn!!! We current get ethanol from corn because of bribed politicians. The reality is, ethanol is absolutely a viable fuel source - just not from corn!
Hemp is currently illegal in the US despite not having THC (active ingredient in pot). Please note, hemp IS NOT POT. There are literally zero THC strains of hemp available now. And smoking even the low THC strains of hemp (almost all hemps) will not get you high; but will provide for a killer headache. Hemp uses a fraction of the water (which is quickly becoming a significantly source resource - even in the US) corn does. Hemp is naturally drought resistant (unlike corn). Hemp is naturally pest resistant (unlike corn - which has not been genetically engineers - and showing it is now toxic to mammals). And yet, per acre, hemp can produce 2x-3x more ethanol than corn. Hemp provides nutritious food, clothes (directly competes with cotton and wool), and even industrial lubrication. Best of all, hemp grows in many zones where corn absolutely refuses to grow.
Many countries, even including Canada, have starting working to shift (on a small, experimental basis) parts of their agro economies onto hemp. The fact that hemp isn't even legal to grow in the US (last legalized to support WWII - which is "ditch weed" - which can not get you high - contrary to the ignorance spewed by law enforcement*) wonderfully hints at corruption in the US government.
The vast majority of "ditch weed" is from WWII efforts to grow. It is possible to find ditch weed which can get you high, but that's because its wild pot, and not wild hemp.
The only bad thing about hemp is that it directly competes with cotton, wool, corn farmers, energy and chemical companies. Not hard to see why its illegal in the US.
I know if I want to, I can have a party every week and build up a good amount of friends.
Those are acquaintances, not friends. Time and time again, the people who I've met who are social butterflies never have friends; despite believing otherwise. Their life is one social event after another and yet never have friends. Every couple of years, they are surrounded by an ever changing sea of faces. Using your own example, chances are, those "friends" were gone once the parties were.
There's an old cliche about friendship which basically boils down to, an acquaintance is who you call to bail you out of jail because your friend is in the cell with you.
Do not confuse socialization with friendship. Socialization is an activity. Friendship is a bond. Both are important.
Personally, IMOHO, if you don't have a friendship (excluding family) which has lasted at least half your life, or at least a sizable chunk of your lifetime, chances are you're broken on the inside. And no amount of socialization is likely to fix it.
Personally, I like the 'flat tax' idea, but with a graduated income tax for the top 25% of people, so 75% of people don't even have to file paperwork. Basically, tax the top quarter to help lower the national sales tax on the rest of us.
This is something I'm constantly telling people. The problem with flat tax is how ignorant people are because of dip shit politicians telling people its a bad idea. When in reality, politicians are telling people this because it shits the tax burden to consumers; which is largely the rich.
As you right point out, a flat tax need not abolish the IRS - as is most commonly and incorrectly perceived. This who require government assistance (food stamps, etc.) would still be able to qualify. Because of so many lies, many believe these problems would completely go away and as a result, force a disproportionate burden on the poor - when the reality is exactly the opposite.
The math becomes very simple for the vast majority of people and best of all, the system becomes extremely equitable. Not to mention, refunds and assistance programs become much, much easier to manage and largely means a smaller, more efficient IRS.
To date, I've never read an anti-flat tax comment which made sense or was even largely based on reality.
They are searching a guy in a uniform walking into a terminal.
And security is so tight, it seems anyone can walk right into a secured airport, right up to a large, commercial airplane, and crawl right inside. But good thing we're spending our tax dollars where its assured to prevent absolutely nothing. If a sixteen year old kid can completely circumvent airport security, I'm sure less determined terrorists will give it a second thought. Just think how trivial it would have been to have placed pipe bombs into those landing gear bays. I guess better not to think of that and to simply harass pilots who fly the damn things, while ignoring everyone else who have direct aircraft access; and less likely to die as the result of terrorist action.
but it really seems to me that our government is becoming more and more openly aggressive in showing that corporations are in complete control of our system.
There is absolutely nothing here which indicates what you're saying. That's just pro-piracy hyperbole. Like it or not, IP is a significant contributor to much of the world's economy. Protecting jobs and by extension the economy is actually an excellent idea. The benefactors of such efforts include both small and large companies - and even individual artists, musicians, programmers, and inventors.
What you're really saying is the government is more openly aggressive, in the face of efforts to undermine the world's economy, showing that individual artists, musicians, programmers, and inventors are receiving help from the government to protect their sources of income. And at the end of the day, that's one of the primary functions of government. So contrary to the pro-piracy propaganda which is all too often ignorantly spewed here on slashdot, its actually a very, very, very good thing - unless you have a socialist agenda.
Contrary to popular myth? I thought that's exactly what the popular myth was: US prisons are university for career criminals.
The polls I've seen over the years say the average American honestly believes the prison systems are intended to punish while rehabilitating. The reality is, the entire system is designed to punish and then punish again. Rehabilitation is by far the exception rather than the rule.
irrelevant and meaningless
You really need to learn what those words mean before you use them in big-boy conversations. Your irrelevant and meaningless example only further proves the point.
I personally know multiple people with varying criminal records who spent time in Federal penitentiaries.
As prisons go, the federal prisons are by far, better. The minimum security prisons really are, almost like vacations. But a minority are actually help in federal prison. Most are in state prisons.
Their stays ranged from a year or two in a minimum security prison to multiple years in a maximum security prison where all the really bad criminals go. The stories I hear do not corroborate your claim: perhaps you have links to journalistic investigations, government statistics, etc.?
I'm not sure what "stories" you've been hearing, but it doesn't jive with study after study nor does it agree with the experiences of the people I personally know who have gone to prison; which includes both federal and state levels.