Yes, I've heard great things about the trains in Europe, however they don't go where I want to, and quite frankly I like driving.
What I would not mind is an extension of what Germany does. There you can drive your car onto a train, and it will do the long boring slog for you (which currently I have to do on highways), and you can drive off at your destination.
However the above is only in Germany (And in Italy, but apparently it doesn't work that well there, and is horrendously expensive), and the high speed rail doesn't go to south/southeast Europe at the moment.
We will see what the future holds, but I am grateful that we actually have alternatives to flying, at least in the core EU.
No no no... this is the EU doing this, not the US. This means that, after twelve long years, we FINALLY have something about which WE can feel a smug sense of superiority over someone else's airline travel.
Actually, my description of the above is from the EU;-)
What, you thought we were better? Pretty much everyone here mimicked the US when they introduced their procedure, primarily because they insisted that anyone flying to the USA had to go through this, and it was cheaper to just subject everyone to it then make a whole separate line (and hire separate people) for those traveling to the US.
I pretty much avoid flying in Europe whenever I can. Driving is so much nicer (even if more expensive), plus I can take as much luggage and liquids as I want, without being fondled at the border!
At least we have the option of high speed trains, which I've heard work really well.
Between the long lines at security, stress, and being fondled and stripped before entry, the only nice thing that was left about flying was the lack of self-important people yakking on their phones throughout the flight... until now.
(hopefully the roaming charges will make absolutely sure nobody does voice calling, but that will depend on how much they charge).
Well... it has less to do with intelligence, then with the driving lessons and tests.
In Germany you tend to not have such incompetence at the wheel. Ditto in the Nordic countries (Finland is where I had a chance to directly observe).
What these countries have in common is a very thorough course in learning to drive, and a lot of time spent on theory (including things about distracted driving). They take driving with the seriousness it deserves.
Quite frankly, I am shocked for what passes for a driving test in the US. It is almost as if driving is a joke, or a game. It was really surprising, considering the US is seen as the worlds biggest Car enthusiast.
if we're so far along the process to colonizing the galaxy, why haven't one of the countless probable civilizations beaten us to it? Or if they had, why is there no trace of their colonies? That's at the core of the Fermi paradox.
Maybe they did, and maybe we are the evidence of it? I can imagine a robotic probe that seeds DNA to hospitable worlds is possible, but that would just be the seeding of life, not any society/culture (and evolutionary pressures may well make the resulting beings look very different to the original). I see no difference to claiming life was brought to this earth by comets, space dust or alien robotic spacecraft (except plausibility, but we will never really know)
I guess it depends on what your goals are as a species, an exact copy of your society (unlikely given the distances and opportunities for information exchange), or just knowing that you are seeding the universe with life that may well develop one day.
Remember, we are only getting started with exploration, only in the last 15 years have we started detecting exoplanets. For all we know some of these exoplanets may bear signs of life, we just can't detect it yet.
Heh, my Nokia n900 had an app that did the same thing. Fired off every single "power off" command in its database. Took about a minute and could turn off every electronic device in the vicinity with an IR port.
If it wasn't for the broken usb connector making it impossible to charge, I probably would still use it. Shame most new phones don't have CIR.
Yes, it could be the case that these things may need some time to recharge between blasts, but the advantage is you can have many up in the air at the same time. So one may only be able to fire every minute, but if you have 20 of them in the air targeting a missile, there is a good chance they will destroy their target. Unlike manned aircraft, these things have already proven to be able to loiter for hours, so having quite a few in the air at once is possible.
Besides, as energy storage improves, I see no reason why the recharge time won't decrease.
No, they would not need to go to war with Japan, all they would have to do is abandon them to the Chinese. Things like removing the nuclear umbrella over them, or cutting off military aid/support would be enough.
I ask you, why did we even fight the Cold War, and win it, if we were just going to embrace everything at a later time?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the cold war was fought between lovers of freedom, democracy and individual rights, vs totalitarian all controlling power hungry nut jobs.
Truth of the matter is, both sides were all controlling power-hungry nut jobs, and the cold war was a fight over who gets to be the all-controlling big-daddy of the world.
The problems with the Soviets is that they laid their system bare, they didn't bullshit. This is how life is, these are your rights, if you're a party member, or if you work to benefit the system, you will be rewarded with perks (Nicer houses, cushy jobs , nice car, sometimes even nice German/American ones).
If you don't work for the system, but not actively against it, you are pretty much left to your own devices, live and let live, and all that.
If you work against the system, directly or indirectly (or you piss off someone in power), then you can be arrested, tried, stuck in prison/work camp, or otherwise disappear.
Now the western system, that was far more subtle. They told you you were free, they gave you the impression you were, that you could choose who ruled you, but fundamentally I don't think the systems were different, like so:
If you work for the system, or to its benefits, you are rewarded with more tokens than most (currency) with which you can spend on bigger/nicer houses, or a nice foreign car, etc...
If you ignore the system and go about your daily life, you are pretty much left alone. You earn your keeps, pay your dues, and you live you life.
If you work against the system, directly or indirectly (or just piss off someone high up and well connected), you can be arrested, tried, put in a prison/work camp, or disappeared (via drone or otherwise). For minor misdemeanors they can just destroy you financially, which is another, less radical lever they have against you.
Turns out, when push comes to shove, people are more willing to serve you if you give them the illusion of freedom, choice and power. One ideology was in your face, the other was in the background. Turns out this worked well for a long time, until the internet came around and made knowledge dissipation so easy, that people began to realise what their world really looks like.
For some the revelations were not a surprise, for others it was a confirmation of what they suspected, but some are in shock about it all, and more are in denial about it.
What makes you think drug smugglers have not been doing this? Since the paparazzi autopilot came out in 03 (and got refined by 06), it has been perfectly possible to build a DIY drone good enough to move a few tens of kilo's across borders.
Considering the profit motive, and lucrative money for any nerds involved, it would not surprise me if they were one of the first non-military users of the tech.
Oh dear god no, I think he makes a lousy presenter.
I'm not sure if I fall into the "young people" segment as understood here, being in my mid-20's, but there are so many other science presenters that are better.
I really don't get why people like Brian Cox so much, but then, apart from the odd fanboy/girl, I don't know anyone who actually likes him. Maybe it is just the case for teenagers?
When I was growing up, my father seemed to have the complete opposite idea of almost everyone in society. He believed that those who just passed their license should drive fast and powerful cars. I sure didn't get it at the time, and I thought it was a crazy idea, even though I thought it would be cool if he meant it. And happen it did, after I passed my test he gave me a 82 Porsche, and now, I realise exactly what he meant.
To begin with, most kids go through a phase of not taking a car seriously. They throw it around, mess about, etc... like a toy. They take risks because they feel safe, and because they don't quite realise what they are operating. They are very insulated, surrounded by noise insulation, airbags, and all sorts of gadgets and computers "taking care of things". However, this car was different, completely different to the car I did my test and lessons in (which was a bog standard Ford hatchback from the driving school).
That car instilled a respect into me of what exactly a car is capable of. It has no airbags, no traction control, no ABS, no power steering. It had nothing to make you feel safe. You and you alone were in charge of what happened. The car did its best to connect you with the road, and it worked. I felt part of the car, and the road it was on when you were driving. I remember the first time as a new driver. Like most kids, I didn't take it seriously either. Once I floored it for kicks, and the car slammed my back into the seat as the body twisted and the car took off. That was the last time I did that for years. I had never felt that before, and the power actually scared me, as I didn't feel like I had the ability to control it. I realised that I would have to become a far better driver before I could attempt that again.
No ABS meant I had to learn how to brake properly, and keep enough distance to not hit things. It meant I had to pay attention to the road surface and how much grip it had at all times (which was surprisingly easy, as you could feel it through the steering wheel).
No traction control meant that I had to learn how to control the throttle and gear shifting, so as not to wheelspin, or not to lose traction in corners/rain/snow/ice/etc...
It also meant that I pay a lot of attention to the state of my tyres. When you don't have any ECU's managing the traction for you, you can feel when your tyres are getting worn out, or when they lose traction. I'm the only guy I know who does a pre-drive check before going anywhere.
All in all, when driving that car, you are driving it. It requires concentration on the act of driving, nothing less.
It never popped into my head to fiddle with my phone, or read a book/map, or anything else. I guess it is a similar thing to why some motorcyclists say everyone should ride a motorcycle for a year. You just don't get a chance to be distracted. I've had times when I can't even fiddle with the buttons on the radio, and that requires no looking away either.
I've now had that car for years, and I feel it made me a far better driver than if I had just continued driving modern cars.
Indeed when I do drive modern cars, I find myself hating the experience. So much is out of my control, so much "just happens". Initially this made me very on edge, I would even open the windows so I could hear what the car was doing with the road, as I had no other input. You are so isolated from the act of driving the car that you might as well put a blind fold on. I can see why people end up texting or doing other stuff when driving. Hell, even I found the experience mind numbingly boring, and I like driving! I also found it harder to keep awake/alert when doing long distance driving.
It seems modern cars are designed for people who hate driving, probably by people who hate driving. Everything is done to take the "driving" part away. I don't feel like a drive a modern car. I operate it instead. I have two pedals, stop and go, and I point it in the direction I want to go wit
Exactly. Tracks are enjoyable for those who like to race, to compete with each other, or otherwise hit the top speed of their cars.
There is far more to driving a car than going fast. I've taken my classic sports car many times round the winding coastal roads in Spain, France and Portugal, and the experience cannot be described. The views, the fun, the sheer exhilaration round corners, it is just amazing (plus you meet so many interesting people off the tourist trail, and you are forced to actually learn the language, as very few speak English).
Some of the time the roads are such that you can't even hit the speed limit on them, so quite often I'm below the posted limit while having fun.
Sometimes in life, I come across people I just cannot comprehend, such as those who want nothing else than to have to do nothing but live in their bubble, with others (be they robot or human) doing everything for them. Those with a massive hard-on for self-driving cars (and banning all manual driven ones) fall into this category.
Then again. I don't commute by car, it is just for visiting distant friends/family, fun, road trips, etc... I commute by public transport, and all shops/bars/entertainment are within walking distance, but that is something that I deliberately decided on when I was looking for a place to live and a job to do.
P.S. If you're near Europe, the roads on the northern coast of Spain, (Basque area) and the ones in the northern coastal tip of Portugal are pretty awesome (especially those that go near or through nature reserves), there are also some lovely roads winding round the Pyrenees (if you decide to not take the tunnels). I don't know if it is due to the recession, but Spain has miles of newly built and/or tarmac-ed road, and so few cars on it that it is crazy (generally the only people I've come across in cars are the locals, who are also having fun).
Ah! That would explain why US currency isn't accepted anywhere else on the planet.
Indeed, what he should have written:
"Governments are not going to allow an alternate form of currency to gain traction that they have no control over, unless coerced via threat of violence by a power with overwhelming military force".
That which applies to an individual and their taxes vis-a-vis government, applies in geopolitics as well:)
Bitcoin is not backed by anyone, so there is nobody to "force" its usage. We will just have to see if the sheer weight of people using it will accomplish the same thing without a central government.
Maybe so, but property here is expensive. I would probably not mind so much living in the same house as my parents if it was big enough for all of us to have "our space".
However to get that in a city (where the work is) in a country in Europe that is not in crises... you'll be looking at 1 million Euros at least, most likely more.
Way out of league of most people I know. The only ones who can do that are families that have lived in one spot for generations, so bought the place when it was cheap as chips. Then they inherited the place down the line, which nowadays is even difficult for them due to taxes on inheritance.
Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).
The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).
I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I cannot comment (I've been on the UK, French, Italian and Belgian public transport systems)
Either way, don't assume that magically building public transport would make your commute better, it could well make it worse (nothing like being stuck standing in a hot tin can with the smell of farts, urine and beer for 40 mins because a train broke down in the tunnel).
It would be far better to reduce this silly concept of "commuting", so that only those that have to be on premises to do their job commute, and make it so there are jobs that are withing walking/cycling distance to where you life. A more mixed zoning system, rather than massive tracts of residential zoning in one area linked to commercial/industrial ones would help with that.
Actually I thought you would just keep living at home until your parents died and then you would have a home.
It makes it somewhat tricky to have relationships, or generally socialise.
If I stayed with my parents, I'd have to share a room with my bro, and that would have made it a lot harder to bring a girl round.
Indeed a lot of us do still live with our parents, but being cooped up in a little room when you're in your thirties with your parents is just a recipie for arguments and family disputes (I know, because I have an older friend in this situation). From things like going out, to bringing people home, to being able to live your life on your terms, it just doesnt work to live at home. I had massive disputes with my parents because they didn't approve of my lifestyle, until I left, and things calmed down.
Especially now, as youth unemployment is really high. Of my friends only 2 of us have full time jobs. The others are either unemployed, or doing temp/part-time jobs for near minimum wage.
That is why we tend to socialise at each others places, going out has become a luxury, and things like your own pad, or a car, are just waaay out there. If you have a job and are lucky enough to have friends with jobs, you can get together and house-share.
Yes, I know very rich people who have like 5 bedroom houses, and yes, then those Gen-X'ers can just stay at home until they build up enough money to move out, or their parents die.
However, I don't know about others, but me waiting till my parents die for a place to live is not appealing (especially as thanks to medical advances, I could easily expect to live to my 50's before my parents are likely to die).
As a "Generation Y" person (according to their stats) who lives in the UK , I can tell you that most people of my generation (that I've known/met across Europe), and the one below it (born mid-late 90's), would love to own a car. However many just can't afford it, the costs, the fuel, the taxes, the insurance (espcially this) are just too high.
It isn't that they are not interested, just that they cannot do it. They are not stupid, they see what a money sink it has been turned into for them, and most just cycle, walk, take public transport, or use a car-sharing service if they really need a car (This is for those of us in the inner cities who have this alternative). Others have taken to using motorcycles as they are cheaper to run.
I have a car, but then, my income is above average for my age, and the place I live was built in the 80's, when it was assumed everyone would have a car, so they made off-street parking available. A lot of newly built properties are "car-free", where if you buy/rent there, not only do you not get your own parking, you are forbidden from owning a car parked/registered at that address. The local council will not let you.
Coolness has nothing to do with it. We are being forced away from them. Those old guys are telling us what kids think because it is those old guys who have made owning a car (or a home for that matter) impossible for us.
Next thing I'll hear is how "Generation Y" thinks its uncool to own a home, and we'd rather spend our lives renting due to the "flexibility" it offers us.
(Yes, I know this is somewhat UK/Europe centric, but I'm sure there are similar concerns across the pond as well).
T-mobile offers unlimited everything. I know because I have it, for £35 I get unlimited calls, texts and internet.
And when I moved house and had no broadband for 2 months (Due a problem with the copper line), they proved it, as I hit 35GB a month without even a peep from them about it, let alone a change to my monthly bill.
If there is a limit to their internet access, I've not hit it yet.
If Germany left the Euro, not only would the other countries start economically recovering, the New Deutschmark would jump up so high that Germany's exports would collapse, and take their economy with it (they would be like Japan).
Essentially, the rest of Europe is subsiding the German economy, and all its benefits (including such high wages, and good worker protection), at their expense. Which is why not only will Germany not leave the EU, it will keep bailing them out*. At least as long it is in their interest to do so.
*By "Germany" I mean the politicians, as they know exactly why Germany has been so successful. The populace not so much (AFAIK).
Well, at least in my case I completely missed it, so my apologies.
To me you made it sound like a lone person with an agenda can effect such change. My point was that you need a lot of big powers behind to actually take advantage of the situation, otherwise you just get a criminal action (or I guess in modern parlance, a "terrorist action", and the world moves on pretty much as normal).
My impression of fuel cells is that they aren't very energy efficient when you take into consideration the energy required to make them and/or the electrolyte they use
And how much energy is required to make the batteries for an EV? Will not even include the energy required to produce all the advanced electronics for the thing to work (because a fuel cell EV car will need those too).
Also, take into account that unlike a normal car, fixing the above will be pretty much impossible unless you are a specialist, and will probably involve just replacing things when they break (compared to a normal car, where any decently specced garage/machine shop can pretty much produce any part you need).
They are just compact and light weight for special applications, such as near earth space craft.
And cars/other vehicles. Trust me, weight is critical for cars as well. The lighter the car, the shorter the stopping distance, the better the fuel economy, the better the handling, the less kinetic energy == less deadly accidents.
For example, the energy required to produce the hydrogen needed for a hydrogen fuel cell, usually by breaking bonds in H2O, is much greater than the energy you get out of the fuel cell in using that hydrogen
Which is why I wasn't talking about hydrogen. It makes a lousy fuel, worse than batteries, because it is expensive to generate, and bloody impossible to store in a car-sized tank under any decent density.
I was referring to ethanol/methanol fuel cells, which are liquid (high density), can be used with existing infrastructure (sometimes with minor modification), and can be burned in IC cars as well as fuel EV's, allowing for a transition period and/or peaceful co-existence between piston-heads and the rest of the world who only want a car to get them from A to B.
Fuel cells have been around since the early 1800's. If they were such a great primary energy source, wouldn't they be in use everywhere after 175 years?
So were batteries, yet only now, 170+ years later, we have people trying to make them work for cars (note, people made electric cars back in the time before the Model-T, they never took off for the same reasons that we are dealing with now).
The world is primarily driven by economic factors, not technical excellence. Fossil fuels were so cheap that there was no point investing research effort into the alternatives (including man-made fuels, like butanol, which actually pre-dates the use of petrol in IC engines).
Except for the massive price shock in terms of how much less money the government would collect without that tax in place...
They worked that one out already, GPS tracking and black-boxes in every car, and you get get charged per mile driven. So once they switch us over we will just get taxed based on how far we drive.
They are already rolling out the above, by mandating all new cars from 2013 have said black boxes in them, with permanent internet connection.
Not that I like the idea, I find it abhorrent (I'd rather they just checked the odometer every year and charge you based on the difference traveled since the last measurement), but I can't fault them for not thinking ahead.
Hopefully my old car would be exempt, or I might just up and leave the EU to an area with more personal freedom, like Russia (irony of ironies that).
I don't think their performance was ever challenged. I mean, their torque curve alone shows that it would be faster off the mark then a IC car of the same curb weight.
Everything I've gathered about EV's not performing well had little to do with performance, but more to do with energy density, recharge time, exotic materials, and the fact the batteries wear out a lot faster than a fuel tank.
(incidentally, all of the above (minus exotic materials) would be solved by using fuel cells in an EV car, if they can get them to not gunk up after a while and bring down the cost).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I've heard great things about the trains in Europe, however they don't go where I want to, and quite frankly I like driving.
What I would not mind is an extension of what Germany does. There you can drive your car onto a train, and it will do the long boring slog for you (which currently I have to do on highways), and you can drive off at your destination.
However the above is only in Germany (And in Italy, but apparently it doesn't work that well there, and is horrendously expensive), and the high speed rail doesn't go to south/southeast Europe at the moment.
We will see what the future holds, but I am grateful that we actually have alternatives to flying, at least in the core EU.
No no no... this is the EU doing this, not the US. This means that, after twelve long years, we FINALLY have something about which WE can feel a smug sense of superiority over someone else's airline travel.
Actually, my description of the above is from the EU ;-)
What, you thought we were better? Pretty much everyone here mimicked the US when they introduced their procedure, primarily because they insisted that anyone flying to the USA had to go through this, and it was cheaper to just subject everyone to it then make a whole separate line (and hire separate people) for those traveling to the US.
I pretty much avoid flying in Europe whenever I can. Driving is so much nicer (even if more expensive), plus I can take as much luggage and liquids as I want, without being fondled at the border!
At least we have the option of high speed trains, which I've heard work really well.
Between the long lines at security, stress, and being fondled and stripped before entry, the only nice thing that was left about flying was the lack of self-important people yakking on their phones throughout the flight... until now.
(hopefully the roaming charges will make absolutely sure nobody does voice calling, but that will depend on how much they charge).
Well... it has less to do with intelligence, then with the driving lessons and tests.
In Germany you tend to not have such incompetence at the wheel. Ditto in the Nordic countries (Finland is where I had a chance to directly observe).
What these countries have in common is a very thorough course in learning to drive, and a lot of time spent on theory (including things about distracted driving). They take driving with the seriousness it deserves.
Quite frankly, I am shocked for what passes for a driving test in the US. It is almost as if driving is a joke, or a game. It was really surprising, considering the US is seen as the worlds biggest Car enthusiast.
if we're so far along the process to colonizing the galaxy, why haven't one of the countless probable civilizations beaten us to it? Or if they had, why is there no trace of their colonies? That's at the core of the Fermi paradox.
Maybe they did, and maybe we are the evidence of it? I can imagine a robotic probe that seeds DNA to hospitable worlds is possible, but that would just be the seeding of life, not any society/culture (and evolutionary pressures may well make the resulting beings look very different to the original). I see no difference to claiming life was brought to this earth by comets, space dust or alien robotic spacecraft (except plausibility, but we will never really know)
I guess it depends on what your goals are as a species, an exact copy of your society (unlikely given the distances and opportunities for information exchange), or just knowing that you are seeding the universe with life that may well develop one day.
Remember, we are only getting started with exploration, only in the last 15 years have we started detecting exoplanets. For all we know some of these exoplanets may bear signs of life, we just can't detect it yet.
Heh, my Nokia n900 had an app that did the same thing. Fired off every single "power off" command in its database. Took about a minute and could turn off every electronic device in the vicinity with an IR port.
If it wasn't for the broken usb connector making it impossible to charge, I probably would still use it. Shame most new phones don't have CIR.
Yes, it could be the case that these things may need some time to recharge between blasts, but the advantage is you can have many up in the air at the same time.
So one may only be able to fire every minute, but if you have 20 of them in the air targeting a missile, there is a good chance they will destroy their target.
Unlike manned aircraft, these things have already proven to be able to loiter for hours, so having quite a few in the air at once is possible.
Besides, as energy storage improves, I see no reason why the recharge time won't decrease.
No, they would not need to go to war with Japan, all they would have to do is abandon them to the Chinese. Things like removing the nuclear umbrella over them, or cutting off military aid/support would be enough.
I ask you, why did we even fight the Cold War, and win it, if we were just going to embrace everything at a later time?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the cold war was fought between lovers of freedom, democracy and individual rights, vs totalitarian all controlling power hungry nut jobs.
Truth of the matter is, both sides were all controlling power-hungry nut jobs, and the cold war was a fight over who gets to be the all-controlling big-daddy of the world.
The problems with the Soviets is that they laid their system bare, they didn't bullshit. This is how life is, these are your rights, if you're a party member, or if you work to benefit the system, you will be rewarded with perks (Nicer houses, cushy jobs , nice car, sometimes even nice German/American ones).
If you don't work for the system, but not actively against it, you are pretty much left to your own devices, live and let live, and all that.
If you work against the system, directly or indirectly (or you piss off someone in power), then you can be arrested, tried, stuck in prison/work camp, or otherwise disappear.
Now the western system, that was far more subtle. They told you you were free, they gave you the impression you were, that you could choose who ruled you, but fundamentally I don't think the systems were different, like so:
If you work for the system, or to its benefits, you are rewarded with more tokens than most (currency) with which you can spend on bigger/nicer houses, or a nice foreign car, etc...
If you ignore the system and go about your daily life, you are pretty much left alone. You earn your keeps, pay your dues, and you live you life.
If you work against the system, directly or indirectly (or just piss off someone high up and well connected), you can be arrested, tried, put in a prison/work camp, or disappeared (via drone or otherwise). For minor misdemeanors they can just destroy you financially, which is another, less radical lever they have against you.
Turns out, when push comes to shove, people are more willing to serve you if you give them the illusion of freedom, choice and power. One ideology was in your face, the other was in the background. Turns out this worked well for a long time, until the internet came around and made knowledge dissipation so easy, that people began to realise what their world really looks like.
For some the revelations were not a surprise, for others it was a confirmation of what they suspected, but some are in shock about it all, and more are in denial about it.
What makes you think drug smugglers have not been doing this? Since the paparazzi autopilot came out in 03 (and got refined by 06), it has been perfectly possible to build a DIY drone good enough to move a few tens of kilo's across borders.
Considering the profit motive, and lucrative money for any nerds involved, it would not surprise me if they were one of the first non-military users of the tech.
Oh dear god no, I think he makes a lousy presenter.
I'm not sure if I fall into the "young people" segment as understood here, being in my mid-20's, but there are so many other science presenters that are better.
I really don't get why people like Brian Cox so much, but then, apart from the odd fanboy/girl, I don't know anyone who actually likes him. Maybe it is just the case for teenagers?
Funny you should mention that.
When I was growing up, my father seemed to have the complete opposite idea of almost everyone in society. He believed that those who just passed their license should drive fast and powerful cars. I sure didn't get it at the time, and I thought it was a crazy idea, even though I thought it would be cool if he meant it. And happen it did, after I passed my test he gave me a 82 Porsche, and now, I realise exactly what he meant.
To begin with, most kids go through a phase of not taking a car seriously. They throw it around, mess about, etc... like a toy. They take risks because they feel safe, and because they don't quite realise what they are operating. They are very insulated, surrounded by noise insulation, airbags, and all sorts of gadgets and computers "taking care of things". However, this car was different, completely different to the car I did my test and lessons in (which was a bog standard Ford hatchback from the driving school).
That car instilled a respect into me of what exactly a car is capable of. It has no airbags, no traction control, no ABS, no power steering. It had nothing to make you feel safe. You and you alone were in charge of what happened. The car did its best to connect you with the road, and it worked. I felt part of the car, and the road it was on when you were driving. I remember the first time as a new driver. Like most kids, I didn't take it seriously either. Once I floored it for kicks, and the car slammed my back into the seat as the body twisted and the car took off. That was the last time I did that for years. I had never felt that before, and the power actually scared me, as I didn't feel like I had the ability to control it. I realised that I would have to become a far better driver before I could attempt that again.
No ABS meant I had to learn how to brake properly, and keep enough distance to not hit things. It meant I had to pay attention to the road surface and how much grip it had at all times (which was surprisingly easy, as you could feel it through the steering wheel).
No traction control meant that I had to learn how to control the throttle and gear shifting, so as not to wheelspin, or not to lose traction in corners/rain/snow/ice/etc...
It also meant that I pay a lot of attention to the state of my tyres. When you don't have any ECU's managing the traction for you, you can feel when your tyres are getting worn out, or when they lose traction. I'm the only guy I know who does a pre-drive check before going anywhere.
All in all, when driving that car, you are driving it. It requires concentration on the act of driving, nothing less.
It never popped into my head to fiddle with my phone, or read a book/map, or anything else. I guess it is a similar thing to why some motorcyclists say everyone should ride a motorcycle for a year. You just don't get a chance to be distracted. I've had times when I can't even fiddle with the buttons on the radio, and that requires no looking away either.
I've now had that car for years, and I feel it made me a far better driver than if I had just continued driving modern cars.
Indeed when I do drive modern cars, I find myself hating the experience. So much is out of my control, so much "just happens". Initially this made me very on edge, I would even open the windows so I could hear what the car was doing with the road, as I had no other input. You are so isolated from the act of driving the car that you might as well put a blind fold on. I can see why people end up texting or doing other stuff when driving. Hell, even I found the experience mind numbingly boring, and I like driving! I also found it harder to keep awake/alert when doing long distance driving.
It seems modern cars are designed for people who hate driving, probably by people who hate driving. Everything is done to take the "driving" part away. I don't feel like a drive a modern car. I operate it instead. I have two pedals, stop and go, and I point it in the direction I want to go wit
Exactly. Tracks are enjoyable for those who like to race, to compete with each other, or otherwise hit the top speed of their cars.
There is far more to driving a car than going fast. I've taken my classic sports car many times round the winding coastal roads in Spain, France and Portugal, and the experience cannot be described. The views, the fun, the sheer exhilaration round corners, it is just amazing (plus you meet so many interesting people off the tourist trail, and you are forced to actually learn the language, as very few speak English).
Some of the time the roads are such that you can't even hit the speed limit on them, so quite often I'm below the posted limit while having fun.
Sometimes in life, I come across people I just cannot comprehend, such as those who want nothing else than to have to do nothing but live in their bubble, with others (be they robot or human) doing everything for them. Those with a massive hard-on for self-driving cars (and banning all manual driven ones) fall into this category.
Then again. I don't commute by car, it is just for visiting distant friends/family, fun, road trips, etc... I commute by public transport, and all shops/bars/entertainment are within walking distance, but that is something that I deliberately decided on when I was looking for a place to live and a job to do.
P.S. If you're near Europe, the roads on the northern coast of Spain, (Basque area) and the ones in the northern coastal tip of Portugal are pretty awesome (especially those that go near or through nature reserves), there are also some lovely roads winding round the Pyrenees (if you decide to not take the tunnels). I don't know if it is due to the recession, but Spain has miles of newly built and/or tarmac-ed road, and so few cars on it that it is crazy (generally the only people I've come across in cars are the locals, who are also having fun).
Ah! That would explain why US currency isn't accepted anywhere else on the planet.
Indeed, what he should have written:
"Governments are not going to allow an alternate form of currency to gain traction that they have no control over, unless coerced via threat of violence by a power with overwhelming military force".
That which applies to an individual and their taxes vis-a-vis government, applies in geopolitics as well :)
Bitcoin is not backed by anyone, so there is nobody to "force" its usage. We will just have to see if the sheer weight of people using it will accomplish the same thing without a central government.
Maybe so, but property here is expensive. I would probably not mind so much living in the same house as my parents if it was big enough for all of us to have "our space".
However to get that in a city (where the work is) in a country in Europe that is not in crises... you'll be looking at 1 million Euros at least, most likely more.
Way out of league of most people I know. The only ones who can do that are families that have lived in one spot for generations, so bought the place when it was cheap as chips. Then they inherited the place down the line, which nowadays is even difficult for them due to taxes on inheritance.
Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).
The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).
I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I cannot comment (I've been on the UK, French, Italian and Belgian public transport systems)
Either way, don't assume that magically building public transport would make your commute better, it could well make it worse (nothing like being stuck standing in a hot tin can with the smell of farts, urine and beer for 40 mins because a train broke down in the tunnel).
It would be far better to reduce this silly concept of "commuting", so that only those that have to be on premises to do their job commute, and make it so there are jobs that are withing walking/cycling distance to where you life. A more mixed zoning system, rather than massive tracts of residential zoning in one area linked to commercial/industrial ones would help with that.
Actually I thought you would just keep living at home until your parents died and then you would have a home.
It makes it somewhat tricky to have relationships, or generally socialise.
If I stayed with my parents, I'd have to share a room with my bro, and that would have made it a lot harder to bring a girl round.
Indeed a lot of us do still live with our parents, but being cooped up in a little room when you're in your thirties with your parents is just a recipie for arguments and family disputes (I know, because I have an older friend in this situation). From things like going out, to bringing people home, to being able to live your life on your terms, it just doesnt work to live at home. I had massive disputes with my parents because they didn't approve of my lifestyle, until I left, and things calmed down.
Especially now, as youth unemployment is really high. Of my friends only 2 of us have full time jobs. The others are either unemployed, or doing temp/part-time jobs for near minimum wage.
That is why we tend to socialise at each others places, going out has become a luxury, and things like your own pad, or a car, are just waaay out there. If you have a job and are lucky enough to have friends with jobs, you can get together and house-share.
Yes, I know very rich people who have like 5 bedroom houses, and yes, then those Gen-X'ers can just stay at home until they build up enough money to move out, or their parents die.
However, I don't know about others, but me waiting till my parents die for a place to live is not appealing (especially as thanks to medical advances, I could easily expect to live to my 50's before my parents are likely to die).
As a "Generation Y" person (according to their stats) who lives in the UK , I can tell you that most people of my generation (that I've known/met across Europe), and the one below it (born mid-late 90's), would love to own a car. However many just can't afford it, the costs, the fuel, the taxes, the insurance (espcially this) are just too high.
It isn't that they are not interested, just that they cannot do it. They are not stupid, they see what a money sink it has been turned into for them, and most just cycle, walk, take public transport, or use a car-sharing service if they really need a car (This is for those of us in the inner cities who have this alternative). Others have taken to using motorcycles as they are cheaper to run.
I have a car, but then, my income is above average for my age, and the place I live was built in the 80's, when it was assumed everyone would have a car, so they made off-street parking available. A lot of newly built properties are "car-free", where if you buy/rent there, not only do you not get your own parking, you are forbidden from owning a car parked/registered at that address. The local council will not let you.
Coolness has nothing to do with it. We are being forced away from them. Those old guys are telling us what kids think because it is those old guys who have made owning a car (or a home for that matter) impossible for us.
Next thing I'll hear is how "Generation Y" thinks its uncool to own a home, and we'd rather spend our lives renting due to the "flexibility" it offers us.
(Yes, I know this is somewhat UK/Europe centric, but I'm sure there are similar concerns across the pond as well).
T-mobile offers unlimited everything. I know because I have it, for £35 I get unlimited calls, texts and internet.
And when I moved house and had no broadband for 2 months (Due a problem with the copper line), they proved it, as I hit 35GB a month without even a peep from them about it, let alone a change to my monthly bill.
If there is a limit to their internet access, I've not hit it yet.
If Germany left the Euro, not only would the other countries start economically recovering, the New Deutschmark would jump up so high that Germany's exports would collapse, and take their economy with it (they would be like Japan).
Essentially, the rest of Europe is subsiding the German economy, and all its benefits (including such high wages, and good worker protection), at their expense. Which is why not only will Germany not leave the EU, it will keep bailing them out*. At least as long it is in their interest to do so.
*By "Germany" I mean the politicians, as they know exactly why Germany has been so successful. The populace not so much (AFAIK).
Well, at least in my case I completely missed it, so my apologies.
To me you made it sound like a lone person with an agenda can effect such change. My point was that you need a lot of big powers behind to actually take advantage of the situation, otherwise you just get a criminal action (or I guess in modern parlance, a "terrorist action", and the world moves on pretty much as normal).
Two pistol shots, and the entire Eurasian continent with itchy trigger fingers just looking for an excuse.
Don't confuse the trigger for massive change with the actual causes. Sometimes the trigger is just a convenient excuse to execute already laid plans.
My impression of fuel cells is that they aren't very energy efficient when you take into consideration the energy required to make them and/or the electrolyte they use
And how much energy is required to make the batteries for an EV? Will not even include the energy required to produce all the advanced electronics for the thing to work (because a fuel cell EV car will need those too). Also, take into account that unlike a normal car, fixing the above will be pretty much impossible unless you are a specialist, and will probably involve just replacing things when they break (compared to a normal car, where any decently specced garage/machine shop can pretty much produce any part you need).
They are just compact and light weight for special applications, such as near earth space craft.
And cars/other vehicles. Trust me, weight is critical for cars as well. The lighter the car, the shorter the stopping distance, the better the fuel economy, the better the handling, the less kinetic energy == less deadly accidents.
For example, the energy required to produce the hydrogen needed for a hydrogen fuel cell, usually by breaking bonds in H2O, is much greater than the energy you get out of the fuel cell in using that hydrogen
Which is why I wasn't talking about hydrogen. It makes a lousy fuel, worse than batteries, because it is expensive to generate, and bloody impossible to store in a car-sized tank under any decent density. I was referring to ethanol/methanol fuel cells, which are liquid (high density), can be used with existing infrastructure (sometimes with minor modification), and can be burned in IC cars as well as fuel EV's, allowing for a transition period and/or peaceful co-existence between piston-heads and the rest of the world who only want a car to get them from A to B.
Fuel cells have been around since the early 1800's. If they were such a great primary energy source, wouldn't they be in use everywhere after 175 years?
So were batteries, yet only now, 170+ years later, we have people trying to make them work for cars (note, people made electric cars back in the time before the Model-T, they never took off for the same reasons that we are dealing with now). The world is primarily driven by economic factors, not technical excellence. Fossil fuels were so cheap that there was no point investing research effort into the alternatives (including man-made fuels, like butanol, which actually pre-dates the use of petrol in IC engines).
Except for the massive price shock in terms of how much less money the government would collect without that tax in place...
They worked that one out already, GPS tracking and black-boxes in every car, and you get get charged per mile driven. So once they switch us over we will just get taxed based on how far we drive.
They are already rolling out the above, by mandating all new cars from 2013 have said black boxes in them, with permanent internet connection.
Not that I like the idea, I find it abhorrent (I'd rather they just checked the odometer every year and charge you based on the difference traveled since the last measurement), but I can't fault them for not thinking ahead.
Hopefully my old car would be exempt, or I might just up and leave the EU to an area with more personal freedom, like Russia (irony of ironies that).
I don't think their performance was ever challenged. I mean, their torque curve alone shows that it would be faster off the mark then a IC car of the same curb weight.
Everything I've gathered about EV's not performing well had little to do with performance, but more to do with energy density, recharge time, exotic materials, and the fact the batteries wear out a lot faster than a fuel tank.
(incidentally, all of the above (minus exotic materials) would be solved by using fuel cells in an EV car, if they can get them to not gunk up after a while and bring down the cost).