What a waste of time and money! There are already procedures in place to assist those people that physically have problems filling out their ballots. The people that are too stupid to read a ballot and color in the appropriate circle should just stay home on election day.
First there was the war against poverty. Then came the wars against drugs and terrorism. Soon we'll have the war against P2P. Can I be the first P2P Czar?
Don't forget the ultimate enablers, the glass and aluminum manufacturers. It's hard to get drunk without cans and bottles to carry the alcohol. Since alcohol comes from grain, let's sue the farmers too.
Citizens of Utah, PLEASE vote Orrin Hatch out of office.
This has been studied before. Do you know why farmers use diesel and not ethanol to produce ethanol? It costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline (diesel production costs are similar to gasoline). The numbers at the time of the study were $1.74 for ethanol and $0.95 for gasoline. If you burned ethanol as part of the ethanol production process the $1.74 figure would increase. Here's one study on the topic:
Ethanol Study
I'll be happy when we can finally flip off the OPEC nations and supply our own fuel. The reason it hasn't happened yet is that fossil fuels are still the most cost effective form or energy production.
As I recall they were going to have each wheel driven by its own electric motor. The whole package would be connected to a sophisticated traction control system.
When they finally produce a consumer model they'll probably have to add some noise generation technology to reduce vehicle/pedestrian accidents.
My 1999 Ford Expedition is also classified as an LEV. The results of my latest emission test has backed that up. The CO and hydrocarbon levels were below measurable limits. However it only averages 13.2 mpg.
Performance, price, and convenience are going to be the big hurdles the hybrids, and newer technologies, will have to overcome. It's hard to convince someone to give up their Dodge Ram SRT for the current batch of hybrids.
You're still talking about burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine. It doesn't matter if you're also using electricity. The process of burning hydrocarbons is what produces pollution, not what you do with the energy output of the engine. Your point only holds true if there's a significant difference in the emissions of the vehicles (i.e. ZEV vs. 10 year old smoker).
It's likely that Honda is feeding you some marketing hype.
If the Microsoft PR machine is smart they'll withhold security updates from pirated copies. Then they can blame the spread of viruses and worms on the evil software pirates who are running the insecure systems.
Where are the millions of people that are dying to protect my right to drive a huge SUV? Last time I checked my SUV ran on gas, not liquified humans. The roads I drive on are made of concrete/asphalt/dirt, not ground up people. I'm not depriving anyone of food, water or oxygen by driving it.
If you have an intelligent argument that can link my SUV, or anyone's SUV, to the death of millions
then let's hear it.
The cause of the current global warming trend won't be definitively determined until long after we're all dead. People might be causing it, we might not be. You can choose to lessen your personal impact on the problem. Give up driving. Don't use electricity. Plant some trees. But don't tell me millions are dying so I can drive a huge SUV unless you have some proof.
The key point of an aircraft mounted laser is its mobility. The system wouldn't necessarliy be used just to defend the US. Most rogue nations (China and N. Korea excepted) wouldn't be foolish enough to launch a missile at the US, but may be willing to launch one against a strategic ally of the US.
A more interesting prospect would be a modification that would allow a 747 flying at high altitude to shoot down satellites with the laser.
Radiation detectors would be a great thing in Manhattan, but they could be very easily bypassed. Imagine a standard nuke, or a dirty nuke, being placed on a small, fast boat. The process would be very much like a car bomb. Sail up to the target point as quickly as possible and detonate the bomb. For terror purposes it wouldn't have to do much physical damage, the detonation alone would cause the desired effect.
It's easy to criticize the Bush Administration on their plan for defending the country from potential terrorist attacks. Aside from radiation detectors in Manhattan, what would you do as president to prevent future terrorist attacks? Could you come up with a plan to prevent a suitcase nuke from finding its way into a major US city?
Yes I am! The current evidence doesn't warrant dramatically changing my lifestyle. It definitely doesn't warrant my accepting your idea of how I should live to help allay your fears of impending doom.
Live by example. Convert your home to 100% renewable energy, compost, recycle, bicycle to work. If the evidence shows that man-made climate change is a real concern, you can remind us all that you were right.
Slashdot Mirror
What a waste of time and money! There are already procedures in place to assist those people that physically have problems filling out their ballots.
The people that are too stupid to read a ballot and color in the appropriate circle should just stay home on election day.
First there was the war against poverty. Then came the wars against drugs and terrorism. Soon we'll have the war against P2P. Can I be the first P2P Czar?
Don't forget the ultimate enablers, the glass and aluminum manufacturers. It's hard to get drunk without cans and bottles to carry the alcohol. Since alcohol comes from grain, let's sue the farmers too.
Citizens of Utah, PLEASE vote Orrin Hatch out of office.
I believe the intent of the message was "I hate Bush and will bitch about anything he does."
I'll be happy when we can finally flip off the OPEC nations and supply our own fuel. The reason it hasn't happened yet is that fossil fuels are still the most cost effective form or energy production.
That suggestion smacks of common sense, which is exactly why no federal agency would ever implement it.
When they finally produce a consumer model they'll probably have to add some noise generation technology to reduce vehicle/pedestrian accidents.
Performance, price, and convenience are going to be the big hurdles the hybrids, and newer technologies, will have to overcome. It's hard to convince someone to give up their Dodge Ram SRT for the current batch of hybrids.
You're still talking about burning gasoline in an internal combustion engine. It doesn't matter if you're also using electricity. The process of burning hydrocarbons is what produces pollution, not what you do with the energy output of the engine. Your point only holds true if there's a significant difference in the emissions of the vehicles (i.e. ZEV vs. 10 year old smoker).
It's likely that Honda is feeding you some marketing hype.
AMD will be too busy reworking all of its model numbers.
If the Microsoft PR machine is smart they'll withhold security updates from pirated copies. Then they can blame the spread of viruses and worms on the evil software pirates who are running the insecure systems.
Everclear from the ears, and gasahol from the rest. MADD will hate corn plants before this is all over.
Where are the millions of people that are dying to protect my right to drive a huge SUV? Last time I checked my SUV ran on gas, not liquified humans. The roads I drive on are made of concrete/asphalt/dirt, not ground up people. I'm not depriving anyone of food, water or oxygen by driving it. If you have an intelligent argument that can link my SUV, or anyone's SUV, to the death of millions then let's hear it. The cause of the current global warming trend won't be definitively determined until long after we're all dead. People might be causing it, we might not be. You can choose to lessen your personal impact on the problem. Give up driving. Don't use electricity. Plant some trees. But don't tell me millions are dying so I can drive a huge SUV unless you have some proof.
The key point of an aircraft mounted laser is its mobility. The system wouldn't necessarliy be used just to defend the US. Most rogue nations (China and N. Korea excepted) wouldn't be foolish enough to launch a missile at the US, but may be willing to launch one against a strategic ally of the US. A more interesting prospect would be a modification that would allow a 747 flying at high altitude to shoot down satellites with the laser. Radiation detectors would be a great thing in Manhattan, but they could be very easily bypassed. Imagine a standard nuke, or a dirty nuke, being placed on a small, fast boat. The process would be very much like a car bomb. Sail up to the target point as quickly as possible and detonate the bomb. For terror purposes it wouldn't have to do much physical damage, the detonation alone would cause the desired effect. It's easy to criticize the Bush Administration on their plan for defending the country from potential terrorist attacks. Aside from radiation detectors in Manhattan, what would you do as president to prevent future terrorist attacks? Could you come up with a plan to prevent a suitcase nuke from finding its way into a major US city?
Yes I am! The current evidence doesn't warrant dramatically changing my lifestyle. It definitely doesn't warrant my accepting your idea of how I should live to help allay your fears of impending doom.
Live by example. Convert your home to 100% renewable energy, compost, recycle, bicycle to work. If the evidence shows that man-made climate change is a real concern, you can remind us all that you were right.