The market for cars is obviously totally different. Cars are independent objects, and so not have to be "compatible" with any other car that comes before or after it. And the market for them has been hashed out for almost 100 years. They have basically one function, and there is no sense in which cars will evolve functionality like an operating system such as Windows. I can put a Model T and a Maserati on the same road and in the same garage. Does it bother you that your analogy is entirely without meaning?
Anyway, your assumption is totally false. No one company has a monopoly on "one aspect of the Great Free Market". What on earth are you talking about? Some company has a monopoly on electric car technology? That's utterly ridiculous. The automobile manufacturers have tried to sell electric cars for at least a couple of decades, and they are just now drawing some real interest. Also, the barriers to entry in the car market are not high at all. There are thousands of companies that have the cash or credit to start such a company. Where do you think new car companies come from? You sound as clueless as a troll, but seem sincere in your ignorance.
It would be interesting to see the details of Tesla's nifty car. But anybody can make a car that goes 60. There are only about a hundred other factors to consider, like acceleration, safety, reliability, servicability, cost, etc. One thing's for sure - Tesla was a genius.
There are points for and against all of these different mechanisms, but you don't have enough faith in the market to determine the winner. If you can build a better car, then go for it. Lot's of people buy them. All the conspiracy theories you are implying about Reagan, the oil companies, and automobile manufacturers just don't have any substance. This is not an Oliver Stone movie.
But your silliest comment is that it is a mistake to design more than what is needed. This same sort of argument would have all of our clothes the same style and color, and our products indistinguishable. On the other hand, it would have saved us from bell-bottoms.:-)
If you don't accept the usefulness of computers in car engines, then choose another automobile. But if you asked an automotive engineer, they would explain all the little adjustments and efficiencies that can be obtained, giving you a more reliable, less-polluting car.
By the way, many of us to change elevation through the life of the car. My dad drives up a couple thousand feet to get to work. But there are a lot of other adjustemnts besides those related to Oxygen. And Oxygen can decreade for other reasons. Old air filters or faulty hoses, driving through tunnels, being in and out of traffic, driving in and out of the city, and yes, changing elevation.
I read about a hybrid design that used the brakes to recharge the battery. I doubt it could be used exclusively. That would violate a law of thermodynamics.
Everybody says "it is postulated," but I wonder why it is postulated? Like so much in astrophysics and cosmology, it seems to be a bunch of fancy built on quite a set of presumption, like the descriptions of what the universe was like at age 10E-37 seconds. Does anybody know where this 90% figure comes from that one sees all the time? Sometimes I wish that in my branch (solid state) we had the privelege of having no experimentalists to make fun of our models - ha!
I've heard Reagan blamed for a lot of hilarious things before, but this one should win an award. What on earth did he have to do with the lack of electric cars? Maybe he tried to cut some DOE research funds. I would applaud such a decision. There's no reason for me to pay for the car-maker's research.
The reason we aren't driving electric cars is because gas is cheaper than bottled water, and because they had (and have) pitiful acceleration. Also, it takes me a minute to fill my tank with gas, but hours to recharge batteries. Perhaps Reagan had the good sense to trust the market for them to open up on it's own accord.
So, to answer your question, no, we would not be driving electric cars if Reagan hadn't succeeded in his evil conspiracy with the oil lobbyists. Do you have any evidence that would prove otherwise? As an aside, what makes you think Reagan would be more influenced by oil companies than by the electric companies and battery makers that would have benefitted? And what evidence to you have that he even talked to any lobbyists for eight years?
I didn't say the electoral college always follows the popular vote. I said the electoral college always elects the person who "won the electoral vote" on Election Day. There's nothing sacred about a small plurality, and there is nothing wrong with Wyoming getting three electoral votes instead of the slightly more democratic one electoral vote.
Many good and popular laws are, directly or indirectly, the expression of some morality? Thou shalt not steal or murder. Where do you think laws come from?
Under the Constitution, homosexuals are not a protected group. Nor are they under Federal law. The Commander-in-Chief can, unless proscribed from doing so by Congress, employ anybody he wants to in the military.
However it is the responsibility of the President to fight wars (under the Constitution), and if he thinks open homosexuality in military units will degrade military preparedness, then he is perhaps obligated to do forbid it, since homosexuality is not Constitutionally protected behavior. The military exists to fight wars. All other consideration are secondary. It's nice to see Keyes understands that.
Nader is a ripe suck. He is the trial lawyers' best friend. I hate lawyers. Who cares if he is angry with MS? So is Orrin Hatch. But Hatch is actually electable.
Yes, I read that. It was pretty immature. He came of sounding like a spoiled frat-boy. On the other hand, the woman in question axed an innocent person to death for drug money. It was not a murder that inspired much compassion for the killer.
my freedom to...to wish for his early demise does not have limits.
On a related note, I had an acquaintance during the 92 campaign who was interviewed on the street by a radio station, and he said "I wish (Candidate X) was dead!" It was a stupid thing to say, especially with an audience, and he got a three-hour interview with the Secret Service for his trouble. It was intense and unpleasant. And this was eight months before the election, when Candidate X wasn't even being taken seriously.
My "juvenille dissertation" was in repsonse to your completely context-free nonsense. What could be more juvenille than posting on Slashdot that you will accept no limits on your freedom? There are juvenilles posting nonsense like that here every day. Oh, and Mr. Mature Adult, tell me, when I'm all grown up, can I "look forward to the day" a man is dead whenever he says something silly?
Parody is protected but it's not clear that the governor was aware of the context or nature of the site when he said that. He obviously has not had a record of trying to silence criticism of his administration. Get a clue.
It's really unfair to say the CDA is an example of the Republicans trying to dictate "their very conservative morals on everybody." First of all, the legislation enjoyed bipartisan support, with many Democratic co-sponsors. Secondly, the values encompassed by CDA are quite popular among American citizens, Dem. or Rep.
This has nothing to do with whether the legislation is sound.
This is silly. Of course there should be limits to freedom. Should I be free to stab you with toothpicks and pee on your dog? Should you be free to play your Neil Diamond CDs at concert volume in a crowded neighborhood with the windows open? Should I be free to publish a newspaper that prints lies about the sex lives of public figures, and all of your grandparents, too? Should you have the freedom to shoot all the critters in Yellowstone with your pellet gun? Do I have the freedom to use your computer any time I want, sleep in your jammies, and eat all your nachos?
Are you aware that almost every law limits your freedom in some way? Are you opposed to all of them? It's difficult to maximize freedom, but it will defintely involve limiting the freedoms of others.
Are you talking about non-official websites, like if I set up a site on my own in support of, say, Bugs Bunny for President? I may be wrong, but the FEC decided recently that any such pages were classified as volunteer work, not contributions, and were therefore not covered by the $1000 limit.
Do you remember in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the guy who ran the galactic government lived in a small hut with his cat on a desolate rainy planet - and he had no idea he was the leader? I think they chose him because he was calculated to be the precisely the last person in the universe who would want the job.
1) If SS is dead why does it eat up over 16% of my income in taxes? If it's dead, can I stop paying the tax?
2) You assert that spcae exploration is cooler than pizza, but why? I know it sounds cool, but what about it is actually beneficial? Be specific.
3) Do you really think there would be no personal computers without Nasa? Are you an idiot, or are you high on crack? Can you offer even the flimsiest of justifications for that assertion? Moreover, can you name three modern devices that wouldn't be here without the space program? (I am not impressed by Tang).
Easy to spot the Mac folk. You'll insist the sky is green when we're both sitting outside.
If you think you can get the same functionality out of a one-button mouse that I can get out of a four button mouse with a scroll wheel, then you can't count to four. The point you are missing is that we may not need that funtionality, but we like it and it saves time. Using a one button mouse is like crippling yourself. You'll spin through a window with the handy wheel and OH! -it's not there.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, your assumption is totally false. No one company has a monopoly on "one aspect of the Great Free Market". What on earth are you talking about? Some company has a monopoly on electric car technology? That's utterly ridiculous. The automobile manufacturers have tried to sell electric cars for at least a couple of decades, and they are just now drawing some real interest. Also, the barriers to entry in the car market are not high at all. There are thousands of companies that have the cash or credit to start such a company. Where do you think new car companies come from? You sound as clueless as a troll, but seem sincere in your ignorance.
Hope not.
Maybe. But he still might be the best candidate.
There are points for and against all of these different mechanisms, but you don't have enough faith in the market to determine the winner. If you can build a better car, then go for it. Lot's of people buy them. All the conspiracy theories you are implying about Reagan, the oil companies, and automobile manufacturers just don't have any substance. This is not an Oliver Stone movie.
But your silliest comment is that it is a mistake to design more than what is needed. This same sort of argument would have all of our clothes the same style and color, and our products indistinguishable. On the other hand, it would have saved us from bell-bottoms. :-)
If you don't accept the usefulness of computers in car engines, then choose another automobile. But if you asked an automotive engineer, they would explain all the little adjustments and efficiencies that can be obtained, giving you a more reliable, less-polluting car.
By the way, many of us to change elevation through the life of the car. My dad drives up a couple thousand feet to get to work. But there are a lot of other adjustemnts besides those related to Oxygen. And Oxygen can decreade for other reasons. Old air filters or faulty hoses, driving through tunnels, being in and out of traffic, driving in and out of the city, and yes, changing elevation.
I read about a hybrid design that used the brakes to recharge the battery. I doubt it could be used exclusively. That would violate a law of thermodynamics.
Everybody says "it is postulated," but I wonder why it is postulated? Like so much in astrophysics and cosmology, it seems to be a bunch of fancy built on quite a set of presumption, like the descriptions of what the universe was like at age 10E-37 seconds. Does anybody know where this 90% figure comes from that one sees all the time? Sometimes I wish that in my branch (solid state) we had the privelege of having no experimentalists to make fun of our models - ha!
I've heard Reagan blamed for a lot of hilarious things before, but this one should win an award. What on earth did he have to do with the lack of electric cars? Maybe he tried to cut some DOE research funds. I would applaud such a decision. There's no reason for me to pay for the car-maker's research.
The reason we aren't driving electric cars is because gas is cheaper than bottled water, and because they had (and have) pitiful acceleration. Also, it takes me a minute to fill my tank with gas, but hours to recharge batteries. Perhaps Reagan had the good sense to trust the market for them to open up on it's own accord.
So, to answer your question, no, we would not be driving electric cars if Reagan hadn't succeeded in his evil conspiracy with the oil lobbyists. Do you have any evidence that would prove otherwise? As an aside, what makes you think Reagan would be more influenced by oil companies than by the electric companies and battery makers that would have benefitted? And what evidence to you have that he even talked to any lobbyists for eight years?
But what about my treasured Mr. T action figure? And my Jesse "The Demogogue" Ventura?
I didn't say the electoral college always follows the popular vote. I said the electoral college always elects the person who "won the electoral vote" on Election Day. There's nothing sacred about a small plurality, and there is nothing wrong with Wyoming getting three electoral votes instead of the slightly more democratic one electoral vote.
Why are you so worked up at something so harmless? It's like railing against the numbers on your license plate.
Many good and popular laws are, directly or indirectly, the expression of some morality? Thou shalt not steal or murder. Where do you think laws come from?
However it is the responsibility of the President to fight wars (under the Constitution), and if he thinks open homosexuality in military units will degrade military preparedness, then he is perhaps obligated to do forbid it, since homosexuality is not Constitutionally protected behavior. The military exists to fight wars. All other consideration are secondary. It's nice to see Keyes understands that.
Nader is a ripe suck. He is the trial lawyers' best friend. I hate lawyers. Who cares if he is angry with MS? So is Orrin Hatch. But Hatch is actually electable.
Yes, I read that. It was pretty immature. He came of sounding like a spoiled frat-boy. On the other hand, the woman in question axed an innocent person to death for drug money. It was not a murder that inspired much compassion for the killer.
On a related note, I had an acquaintance during the 92 campaign who was interviewed on the street by a radio station, and he said "I wish (Candidate X) was dead!" It was a stupid thing to say, especially with an audience, and he got a three-hour interview with the Secret Service for his trouble. It was intense and unpleasant. And this was eight months before the election, when Candidate X wasn't even being taken seriously.
Parody is protected but it's not clear that the governor was aware of the context or nature of the site when he said that. He obviously has not had a record of trying to silence criticism of his administration. Get a clue.
This has nothing to do with whether the legislation is sound.
Are you aware that almost every law limits your freedom in some way? Are you opposed to all of them? It's difficult to maximize freedom, but it will defintely involve limiting the freedoms of others.
Are you talking about non-official websites, like if I set up a site on my own in support of, say, Bugs Bunny for President? I may be wrong, but the FEC decided recently that any such pages were classified as volunteer work, not contributions, and were therefore not covered by the $1000 limit.
Do you remember in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the guy who ran the galactic government lived in a small hut with his cat on a desolate rainy planet - and he had no idea he was the leader? I think they chose him because he was calculated to be the precisely the last person in the universe who would want the job.
Maybe. But I think he was just ... umm... grasping for clichés.
If I'm not mistaken, the US is leaving the 20th century.
1) If SS is dead why does it eat up over 16% of my income in taxes? If it's dead, can I stop paying the tax?
2) You assert that spcae exploration is cooler than pizza, but why? I know it sounds cool, but what about it is actually beneficial? Be specific.
3) Do you really think there would be no personal computers without Nasa? Are you an idiot, or are you high on crack? Can you offer even the flimsiest of justifications for that assertion? Moreover, can you name three modern devices that wouldn't be here without the space program? (I am not impressed by Tang).
If you think you can get the same functionality out of a one-button mouse that I can get out of a four button mouse with a scroll wheel, then you can't count to four. The point you are missing is that we may not need that funtionality, but we like it and it saves time. Using a one button mouse is like crippling yourself. You'll spin through a window with the handy wheel and OH! -it's not there.
Have you considered counseling?