That goes directly to the video; you will want to prepare to adjust speaker volume and your blood pressure as you watch.
The woman was breaking the law. She was driving with a suspended license. She ignored repeated instructions from the officer to hang up her cell phone and step out of her SUV. She was being deliberately belligerent and obstinate. The officers had no choice but to use some degree of force to remove her from the vehicle and get her to comply.
That said, did they make the right choice in selecting the Taser? It was two large, male officers versus one small woman, perhaps they could have easily subdued her physically. Maybe pepper spray would have been a better choice. Its hard for us to say, watching the tape after the fact, with 20/20 hindsight. Cops have to make judgement calls like this all the time, every shift, day in and day out. Personally, I do think that they're becoming a little too quick to resort to the Taser, knowing what we know about how dangerous it can be. It's supposed to be a "non-lethal" weapon, yet people are dying from it. Nobody's out there dying from pepper spray, so why is Taser still enjoying the same "non-lethal" categorization?
In the end, the woman wasn't a helpless, innocent victim. All she had to do was cooperate. She knew she was breaking the law, and she thought she didn't have to listen to the police. She could have prevented the whole thing.
I'm just not sure if it would be legal here, as a defense of "the cop who pulled me over wrote 90 km/h on the ticket. Why are you charging me with 100 km/h?". Perhaps make the penalty to discourage challenging be part of the law instead of a workaround?
Both speeds are on the ticket. The officer documents what he actually saw, then has the discretion of charging you with whatever he wants. Here's a scan of one of my speeding tickets, with the two different speeds highlighted. He radared me actually going 107 km/h in an 80 zone (The code "R 107" highlighted in section "B"), but he only charged me for going 95 km/h (Section "A"). If I'd chosen to fight it, they'd have charged me with the original speed instead, and I'd probably have lost anyway. As it was, it was a relatively small fine, and no demerit points on my license.
yeah, going 90km/h because my cruise control was set for the 90km/h zone that I just left, because it simply slipped my mind as I passed the 80km/h sign, which I could still see from the spot the cop pulled me over
I find it very difficult to believe that a cop would pull you over for doing 10 km/h over the limit. You're quoting km/h, so I'll assume you're in Canada or Europe, not the US. Here in Ontario, a cop won't even blink unless you go by him at at least 20 km/h over the limit. They always knock the ticket down to the next lower level anyway, to discourage you from fighting it (if you fight it in court, they go back to charging you with the actual speed, rather than the reduced one, and if you lose, you get the corresponding increased fine and demerit points). If you were actually only going 10 km/h over the limit, then he'd likely only write you up for going 5 km/h over the limit, which is about a $15 fine and no demerit points. It's not worth the time and paperwork to do it. It'd cost them more in paying the cops time and the courts paperwork than the fine even costs.
Can you post a link to a scan of the ticket that says you were going 90 km/h in an 80 zone?
Do a google search for a car named "Atom". It's not your ordinary sedan (purely a sports car, but road legal). But it will kick an Enzo's butt,
Maybe, but it still loses out to the Porsche, which the original posters specifically referenced in his claim that it's easy to make cheap cars faster than exotics. Try again.
The vast ineffeciency of ICEs in cars makes all the difference.
Sorry, but aren't batteries even less efficient? If you spend 5000 joules of energy charging up an automobile battery, how many of those joules will you get back when you put them to the road?
Careful there, bub. I saw the same show you did on the Atom, and if you'll recall, it wasn't the "fastest." The Porsche Carerra GT was faster. Granted, it was the only car they'd tested that was faster than the Atom, but there you are. The Porsche was faster. The original poster said it's "not hard" to make these cheap cars as fast as a Porsche. You point to the Atom, which, as it turns out, is not as fast as the Porsche. I stand by my point.
Put a gas engine on board and hook it to a generator. Output the generator to the electric motor. For 400% more torque, why not?
Congratulations. You just figured out what diesel locomotive manufacturers knew 60 years ago. Every diesel locomotive on the rails everywhere in the world works in exactly this way. The diesel engine actually drives a generator, and the wheels are actually powered by massive electric motors.
They even use dynamic braking to re-capture the electricity when slowing down, turning the motors into generators.
In fact one of your examples is blatently wrong, a Focus is a car that is commonly upgraded to handling and performance specs that match exotics.
You may be right, but I'm still very skeptical. Show me a Ford Focus that can hit 0-60 in 3.3 seconds (Ferrari Enzo) or pull 0.99 G on the skidpad (Porsche Carrera GT).
Considering the article was talking specifically about drivetrain, you're talking about nothing more than linear performance, not handling anyway.
Whoa, hang on, I disagree. The grandparent asserted that "Its not hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari, Porsche or other neo-exotic." I took that to mean the general sense, including handling. You can strap a solid-fuel booster to the roof of anything with 4 wheels and make it faster than any street-legal car in a straight line. It's meaningless. Porshes aren't $200,000 because they go fast in a straight line. When people make that comparison, they're talking about the whole package.
In either case 12 seconds is *commonly* beat on drag strips in pleanty of cars.
Are we talking about cars that have had everything replaced but the license-plate holder, or cars that have been only slightly modified? Again, I quote the original poster:
Its not hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari, Porsche or other neo-exotic.
When he said "not hard," I took that to mean a couple, cheap, street-legal mods. You seem to be saying that just because it "can be done" with $50,000 in upgrades means the grandparent's point stands. I disagree. If you're replacing the engine, drivetrain, wheels, suspension, and whatever else, I don't think you can say that you've proven it's "not hard" to make the vehicle as fast as a stock, street-legal Ferarri. Indeed, it was quite hard. It took hundreds of hours of work and tens of thousands of dollars to do it. Let's be reasonable here.
So while it may be possible to make the frame and body from a Ford Focus (after replacing virtually everything else) lap the track as fast as a Ferrari, I don't think you can say it was "not hard." Mainly because to do it, you'd have to replace every major system of the car, to the point where I don't think you can even still call it a "Focus."
* Uses absolutely no energy when stopped in heavy traffic
I don't think this is a realistic requirement. Real drivers will have their headlights on (daytime running lights are pretty much standard everywhere now), not to mention the radio, the Air Conditioning, and GPS navigation system. The A/C is the real killer there, but all of those things combined will suck the life out of any battery faster than you can say "zero emission baby!"
Also, I just want to point out that I don't think electric cars are the silver bullet panacea that they are being marketed as. It still takes x Newtons of energy to move y kilograms of mass over a distance of z kilometers. Utilising electric energy to perform the work isn't somehow "free." That electricity still has to come from somewhere. And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.
I'm proud to live in a jurisdiction that is actually quite forward-thinking in this respect. Ontario derives less than half (42%) of its electricity from fossil fuel sources. But more than a quarter of our power is nuclear, and the US is still pretty resistant to dipping their toes back into that pool. California, for example, only uses nuclear for about 13% of their power, relying on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for almost 62% of their power (source).
For laughs, I looked up some info on Texas. I found that Texas derives only 7% of its electricity from "green" sources (I'm including nuclear in that number), with the remaining coming from coal, natural gas, petroleum (61%), and "dual fired" (what's that? Is that "green?") (32%). Source.
So until we address the root problems (most energy is still derived from fossil fuels, rampant overconsumption is a way of life in North America), all we're doing is moving the pollution from the highways to the power plants. We're not saving anything, it's not helping the environment, we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for buying an electric car... we should pat ourselves on the back for taking the bus, carpooling, telecommuniting, or just plain driving less.
Its not hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari, Porsche or other neo-exotic.
I call shenanigans. There is nothing you can do to a Toyota Echo, a Ford Explorer, a Ford Focus, or virtually any mass-produced, mainstream general-use vehicle to put it in the same performance realm as either a Ferrari Enzo or a Porsche Carerra GT. By the time you've replaced the engine with the requisite twin-turbocharged, gargantuan 10-cylinder beast (necessary to get a comparable acceleration and top speed) and extended the frame and bodywork to accomodate the massive engine, then changed the entire drivetrain to accomodate the leap from 150 hp (stock of the old vehicle) to 500 hp (the necessary amount to even approach the performance characteristics of the target cars), it is no longer even close to the "same car."
Of course, that doesn't even consider that you'll need to replace the brakes, exhaust, and suspension, then do some physics contortions to get the center of balance somewhere where you won't automatically roll or spin the vehicle the first time you try to turn, and I don't think you could still call the car a "Sunfire" in good faith anymore.
So yes, it is very hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari or Porsche. That's why Ferraris and Porsches have the reputation that they do. Anyone can make an "expensive" car, but to make a car that actually performs like these examples is a very challenging engineering feat.
What the hell is going on with our so called democracies?
I just want to point out that I don't think any true "democracies" exist in the world. A true, direct democracy would mean that all government decisions would be made by a referendum. I forget the exact terminology, but I believe the US is some sort of "Republic," and Canada is a "Social Democracy" (meaning democracy be representatives). I'm not a political scientist, so please feel free to correct me.
"Democracy" simply means "majority rules." All decisions would be made by voting, and regardless of how nonsensical, racist, or unethical the result, the outcome would become law.
A true democracy would eventually devolve (not a typo) into an oppressive communist regime. Minority rights would be non-existent (remember that Lincoln was very unpopular due to his anti-slavery stance. If you'd left it up to the people, we'd still have slavery today), and the wealthy and innovative would leave in droves, since the "majority" (the middle and lower class) would decide that the rich (the minority) should be the only ones paying all the taxes. Once all the entrepreneurs and medium- to large-sized business owners have left, the government would have to take over to ensure that the services continued to be provided, resulting in a communist society.
Oh yeah, and I'd hope the nation never got into a war, because they'd probably vote to draft all the minorities into the (poorly funded) military, effectively resulting in ethnic cleansing.
But once the parents are gone, the money represents an unearned windfall for the kid, just like winning the lottery. Should lottery winnings also go untaxed?
YES!! I realize you were asking it rhetorically, expecting the answer to be an obvious "no," but I'm sorry, the answer is not an obvious "no." Indeed, in Canada, it's a common-sense "yes." In Canada, lottery winnings are tax-free. You pay absolutely no tax at all on any lottery winnings. Not one red cent.
And it gets even better. When you win a $20 million jackpot, you actually win the whole $20 million. There's none of this bullshit about "we're going to pay it out to you over the next 50 years, or you can settle for half of it right now as a lump sum." You get the whole $20 million, right now, tax free.
When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. The US system is the one that's screwed up. If I buy $100 worth of lottery tickets and lose, can I write that off as a tax deduction? No? Then why should I pay tax on the money if I happen to win? Doesn't that seem kind of unfair to you? Don't you see how that's a one-way transfer of wealth to the government?
You are looking at it from the parents' point of view, when you should be looking at it from the kid's point of view.
I disagree. Since it is the parents' money we're talking about, why would you look at it from any perspective other than the parents'? The kids have nothing to do with it, they are merely one potential target for this money. Why would you pick their point of view, as opposed to say, a charity, or the government? It's the parents' money. Talk about it from their perspective. They should have the final say of where it goes.
It is (unearned) income for the kid, and it is unfair to the rest of us not to have it taxed while we pay taxes on our (hard-earned) income.
Well, not in Canada, it isn't. Why shouldn't that be one of the benefits of being a parent? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to give their kids generous gifts? What you're saying is ludicrous. You're saying a parent shouldn't be allowed to give their kid anything unless they give the same thing to everyone else's kid, too.
Look at what you said: "it is unfair to the rest of us not to have it taxed while we pay taxes on our (hard-earned) income." You're saying it's unfair that they get something you don't. Well, what if those same parents want to send their kid to private school, but your parents can't afford to do the same for you? Isn't that unfair? Is it unfair that Timmy's parents can send him to pony-riding lessons every Saturday, but yours can't? Should Timmy's parents be forced to pay for YOUR private school and pony lessons, too?
Life isn't fair. And parents must be allowed to give preferential treatment to their own kids. To suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous. Indeed, I would say that in a truly "free" society, anybody would be free to give preferential treatment to anyone else they want. If I walk down the street, pick out a homeless guy and give him $1000, is that fair to the other homeless guys? Should he be forced to split that money evenly among all of them? Or should I simply be forbidden from giving the homeless guy any money in the first place? Where does this madness end?
You act like there's some gigantic pool of magical wealth
You're right, there isn't a "magical" pool of wealth, but practically speaking, there is just one pool of money. It's just not magical.:) If I have $5, and use it to buy a $4 item from you, the government taxes it $1, and I've spent my whole $5, and you now have $4, and the government got $1. Now, if you take that same $4 and buy something back from me for $3, the government adds another $1 in tax. You and I haven't really traded much of anything, but the entire pool of money is slowly transferring to the government. This is why over-taxation kills commerce.
Why are used cars taxed? When I buy a brand new car, say $25,000, it is taxed at 15%, netting the government $3,750. After a few years, if I sell it for $10,000, they charge tax again, but only 7% (I'm in Canada, there's no PST on private-sale used cars - only GST), getting the government another $700. Then that guy sells it again a few years later for $6,500, resulting in another 7% ($455) for the government. This can happen over and over again. Why is the same car taxed over and over again? The $25,000 I used to buy the car in the first place was already taxed. It started out as $40,000, but the government took $15,000 of that in income tax, leaving me with $25,000. Then, I spent that $25,000 on a car that was taxed, resulting in me paying another $3,750. Then when I sell it, they stick their greedy hand in there again. Don't you see how unfair all this is? How can you not be furious that we're taxed to the teeth at every turn? How can you possibly defend a system that taxes people who want to take the last little scraps what the government allowed them to keep, and give them to their kids?
Back to the inheritance thing. If I bequeath $1 million to my children, that money actually started out as $2 million when I earned it. The government taxed it, and took half of it, leaving me with $1 million to call my own. If I spend that money myself, whatever I spend it on will be taxed. Now, if I leave it to my kids, it is useless to them unless they spend it. And they cannot spend it without paying tax. THAT is what I'm trying to say. So it is unfair to tax them simply for receiving the money, since the money is really just what's left over after I've already paid tax on the real amount ($2 million). And in order to really benefit from the inheritance, they have to spend it. And whatever they spend it on will be taxed. What's the hurry? Why can't you just wait and get the tax when they actually spend that money?
Greed and resentment, that's why. And I'm not talking specifically about you, I'm referring to society in general, the left-wing crybabies who hate to see people getting things that they can't have. They resent that some people get to inherit money just because their parents happened to be smart investors or diligent planners. Well I'm sorry, but that's just luck, and we have to suck it up. Life isn't always fair, and it shouldn't be our goal to make it a completely level playing field at all costs. Some people will win the lottery. Some people will luck out in the gene pool. Some people will be born in better neighborhoods, or to a teenage crack-addict mom. That's life. We shouldn't drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator, just to make everything "fair."
Individuals in some countries have more personal freedom (they can smoke pot), but less abstract, essential freedom (like freedom of the press).
Strawman argument. Some countries have all those freedoms. They are not mutually exclusive.
That said, why is it so fundamental that people have the right to accumulate arbitrary huge economic power at the expense of others?
Why did you add "at the expense of others?" It's at nobody's expense. They just lucked out or worked hard or were very smart. Whatever the case, why do you automatically assume
Doesn't account for the difference in impact money has depending on how wealthy you are.
Why should it? What kind of cynical, defeatest mentality has lead to this belief that we must punish success? Is it envy? Resentment? The desire to continue ignoring the reality that our own apathy is the reason we're not as successful as we could be, as individuals?
I would say $22,500 is a lot closer to "practically nothing" for someone
What could you possibly be basing that on? The truth is, you have no idea. You can't understand what it's like to have that kind of money, yet you'll happily spout off here about what it "must be like." How do you know if $22,500 is a lot of money to someone with $150,000 or not? You don't.
Now please give me a good rationale for abolishing inheritance tax.
Sure. It's the same rationale for abolishing capital gains tax. The money has already been taxed. Once I've paid tax on my money, why can't I spend it however I want? If I want to invest it, why am I punished if I guess correctly, and pick a stock that happens to go up? Why can't I give my money away? How come, if I give that money to a stranger (charity), then I get back the income tax I paid on that money, but if I give it to a relative (inheritance tax), I not only don't get anything back, but even worse, I'm taxed again!?!
Why should rich kids get a free ride just because they were born to rich parents?
They shouldn't, but shouldn't that be up to the parents to decide? Shouldn't it be up to the parents to choose whether or not they want to teach their kids the value of money, or if they would prefer instead to give them the future that they didn't have? Look at it from the other side. Instead of asking, "why should the kids get this," instead ask, "why shouldn't the parents be allowed to give their money to their kids?" They've sacrificed and worked hard all their lives, and if it's still a free country (is it?), why shouldn't they be "free" to give their money to their kids, if that's what they want to do? The fact that you're jealous doesn't change the fact that it's their money.
If you punish success with these "progressive" tax structures, and stifling laws like the AMT, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax, what motivation do people have to succeed and excel?
It's grossly unfair for the top n% of taxpayers to pay >n% of total taxes, and even these flat tax proposals going around don't adequately address this grotesque injustice. I suggest that instead of our current "progressive" system or any of these half-assed flat tax rate schemes, we just charge everyone a flat amount.
The ideal solution would be to completely abolish all income/inheritance/capital gains taxes completely, and move to an entirely consumption-based tax model. It shouldn't matter how much you earned or won or inherited, if you don't spend the money. Why not just have a 15% sales tax on everything? Houses, cars, clothing, everything. 15%. Then the super-rich, when they buy their $150,000 Ferraris, will pay 15%, which is a huge pile of tax money, while the low income family buying a used beater car for $2000 will pay practically nothing in tax.
It's a radical shift in mindsets, but the more you think about it, the more sense it makes.
everyone on that plane will die, bcos the plane will depressurise.
Bzzt! Airplanes have masks that drop down automatically on depressurization.
The ones who survive total instant depressurisation
"Total, instant depressurization?" There's no such thing, save for the plane completely exploding. The air must bleed out a hole of some sort, and that will take at least several seconds, probably several minutes. It will not be "instantaneous."
at 60k feet
Holy crap, what airline are you flying on? "Air SR-71?" Airlines don't fly that high. Try cutting that number in half.
bcos no-one's flying the plane.
Except for the pilots, who are strapped into their seats and breathing through their oxygen masks, like everyone else.
Small nit: 36,000 ft is 7 miles, not 6. 1 mile is 5080 feet.
There was one where the wrong screw sizes were used in a window in the cockpit.
I saw a special on that accident. Interestingly, the pilot actually survived. His legs remaind inside the cockpit below the knees (his ankles actually caught on the control column, forcing it forward, and thus forcing the plane into a steep nosedive), and he was pinned to the outside of the fuselage. I saw it on "Mayday," on Discovery.
However, this was not due to rapid depressurization. When the cockpit window blew out, air was rushing directly into the cockpit at over 600 mph. Given that the cockpit is a closed environment, this caused a tremendous whirlwind effect in the tiny, closed space. The captain wasn't "sucked" out so much as "blown out."
A similar opening in the cabin, where the window is parallel to the airflow rather than perpendicular, wouldn't have nearly the same effect. Besides, Mythbusters broke this myth.:)
but if a bullet did pierce the body of the plane, it would be very uncomfortable breathing until the plane descends to a lower altitude.
Good point. If only all modern airplanes were required to carry some sort of mask and breathing apparatus for each passenger... something that could maybe fall down from the ceiling, right in front of their face, when a loss of cabin pressure was detected... nah, that could never work.
Well, seeing as how the Star Wars franchise is the most successful film franchise in history, that seems very unlikely. For one thing, it's his baby, so he's not going to let it go. For another thing, he clearly knows how to make more money off films than anyone else ever, so why would they hand the reins over to someone new and unproven?
The Star Wars franchise has reportedly generated around $20 BILLION in ticket sales, DVD sales and rentals, merchandising, sponsorship, marketing, spinoffs, theme parks, and everything else. The bar has been set quite high by Mr. Lucas.
And when Anakin cuts Mace Windu arm and Darth Sith kills him, and "suddenly" Anakin says "ok, I am on your knees, at your service" WTF! it didnt took to much time for him.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine after the movie, and I concluded that I don't think there's any problem at all with the speed with which Anakin turns to the dark side. The explanation is simple, and you've heard it before: "You underestimate the power of the dark side." Once Anakin started to turn, the dark side drew him in faster than anyone could have expected (except Yoda, he's the one who was always warning us about it in the first place). Also, don't forget that Palpatine wasn't just a smooth-talking politician. He was the surpreme overlord of the Sith. The ultimate manifestation of the dark side. It's not inconceivable that he was exercising mind control to help push Anakin over to the dark side.
I just saw Episode III last night and it was just as I thought: plain, without any originality or feelings. Bad.
Wow. You were so sure you'd hate it, that you rushed out during its first week in theatres and couldn't wait to stand in line and pay full price to see it, eh?
People like you really annoy me. You try so hard to come off as sarcastic and cynical (yes, I'm well aware of the irony in my own post, get over it), so you can feel accepted by the "we hate everything that's popular" crowd.
Part of the services the municipality provides in exchange for paying taxes is enforcing rules that the neighborhood, as a democracy, has agreed they want everyone to abide by, in order to preserve each others' property values. If you don't like it, simply leave. But if I'm paying taxes, I expect the city to make sure my neighbors aren't adversely affecting my own home's resale value. People who resent these restrictions are "free" to buy somewhere else, where such rules don't exist. But they are not "free" to come into my neighborhood and flaunt the rules which my neighbors and I have decided (through a free and open process) that we want enforced, to keep our neighborhood clean, safe, and stable.
Am I the only one who's sick of deliberately provocative and inflammatory rhetoric like "weaponization of space" and "militarization of space?" When navys first started developing seagoing military vessels, did partisan pundits of the day describe it as the "weaponization of the seas?" When governments first recognized the military potential of flight, did people cry how it was the "weaponization of the skies?"
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I'm sick of double-standards. Weapons on land, sea, and air: OK. Weapons in space: end of civilized mankind. I don't buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
In my part of Canada, they (almost certainly) don't write the actual speed on the ticket, just whatever you're being charged with.
It's from Ontario, and you're right, each province handles traffic offences their own way. I think Ontario's method is pretty reasonable.
That goes directly to the video; you will want to prepare to adjust speaker volume and your blood pressure as you watch.
The woman was breaking the law. She was driving with a suspended license. She ignored repeated instructions from the officer to hang up her cell phone and step out of her SUV. She was being deliberately belligerent and obstinate. The officers had no choice but to use some degree of force to remove her from the vehicle and get her to comply.
That said, did they make the right choice in selecting the Taser? It was two large, male officers versus one small woman, perhaps they could have easily subdued her physically. Maybe pepper spray would have been a better choice. Its hard for us to say, watching the tape after the fact, with 20/20 hindsight. Cops have to make judgement calls like this all the time, every shift, day in and day out. Personally, I do think that they're becoming a little too quick to resort to the Taser, knowing what we know about how dangerous it can be. It's supposed to be a "non-lethal" weapon, yet people are dying from it. Nobody's out there dying from pepper spray, so why is Taser still enjoying the same "non-lethal" categorization?
In the end, the woman wasn't a helpless, innocent victim. All she had to do was cooperate. She knew she was breaking the law, and she thought she didn't have to listen to the police. She could have prevented the whole thing.
I'm just not sure if it would be legal here, as a defense of "the cop who pulled me over wrote 90 km/h on the ticket. Why are you charging me with 100 km/h?". Perhaps make the penalty to discourage challenging be part of the law instead of a workaround?
Both speeds are on the ticket. The officer documents what he actually saw, then has the discretion of charging you with whatever he wants. Here's a scan of one of my speeding tickets, with the two different speeds highlighted. He radared me actually going 107 km/h in an 80 zone (The code "R 107" highlighted in section "B"), but he only charged me for going 95 km/h (Section "A"). If I'd chosen to fight it, they'd have charged me with the original speed instead, and I'd probably have lost anyway. As it was, it was a relatively small fine, and no demerit points on my license.
yeah, going 90km/h because my cruise control was set for the 90km/h zone that I just left, because it simply slipped my mind as I passed the 80km/h sign, which I could still see from the spot the cop pulled me over
I find it very difficult to believe that a cop would pull you over for doing 10 km/h over the limit. You're quoting km/h, so I'll assume you're in Canada or Europe, not the US. Here in Ontario, a cop won't even blink unless you go by him at at least 20 km/h over the limit. They always knock the ticket down to the next lower level anyway, to discourage you from fighting it (if you fight it in court, they go back to charging you with the actual speed, rather than the reduced one, and if you lose, you get the corresponding increased fine and demerit points). If you were actually only going 10 km/h over the limit, then he'd likely only write you up for going 5 km/h over the limit, which is about a $15 fine and no demerit points. It's not worth the time and paperwork to do it. It'd cost them more in paying the cops time and the courts paperwork than the fine even costs.
Can you post a link to a scan of the ticket that says you were going 90 km/h in an 80 zone?
Do a google search for a car named "Atom". It's not your ordinary sedan (purely a sports car, but road legal). But it will kick an Enzo's butt,
Maybe, but it still loses out to the Porsche, which the original posters specifically referenced in his claim that it's easy to make cheap cars faster than exotics. Try again.
The vast ineffeciency of ICEs in cars makes all the difference.
Sorry, but aren't batteries even less efficient? If you spend 5000 joules of energy charging up an automobile battery, how many of those joules will you get back when you put them to the road?
You havn't a clue.
Google for kit cars, eg the Ariel Atom
Careful there, bub. I saw the same show you did on the Atom, and if you'll recall, it wasn't the "fastest." The Porsche Carerra GT was faster. Granted, it was the only car they'd tested that was faster than the Atom, but there you are. The Porsche was faster. The original poster said it's "not hard" to make these cheap cars as fast as a Porsche. You point to the Atom, which, as it turns out, is not as fast as the Porsche. I stand by my point.
Put a gas engine on board and hook it to a generator. Output the generator to the electric motor. For 400% more torque, why not?
Congratulations. You just figured out what diesel locomotive manufacturers knew 60 years ago. Every diesel locomotive on the rails everywhere in the world works in exactly this way. The diesel engine actually drives a generator, and the wheels are actually powered by massive electric motors.
They even use dynamic braking to re-capture the electricity when slowing down, turning the motors into generators.
In fact one of your examples is blatently wrong, a Focus is a car that is commonly upgraded to handling and performance specs that match exotics.
You may be right, but I'm still very skeptical. Show me a Ford Focus that can hit 0-60 in 3.3 seconds (Ferrari Enzo) or pull 0.99 G on the skidpad (Porsche Carrera GT).
Considering the article was talking specifically about drivetrain, you're talking about nothing more than linear performance, not handling anyway.
Whoa, hang on, I disagree. The grandparent asserted that "Its not hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari, Porsche or other neo-exotic." I took that to mean the general sense, including handling. You can strap a solid-fuel booster to the roof of anything with 4 wheels and make it faster than any street-legal car in a straight line. It's meaningless. Porshes aren't $200,000 because they go fast in a straight line. When people make that comparison, they're talking about the whole package.
In either case 12 seconds is *commonly* beat on drag strips in pleanty of cars.
Are we talking about cars that have had everything replaced but the license-plate holder, or cars that have been only slightly modified? Again, I quote the original poster:
Its not hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari, Porsche or other neo-exotic.
When he said "not hard," I took that to mean a couple, cheap, street-legal mods. You seem to be saying that just because it "can be done" with $50,000 in upgrades means the grandparent's point stands. I disagree. If you're replacing the engine, drivetrain, wheels, suspension, and whatever else, I don't think you can say that you've proven it's "not hard" to make the vehicle as fast as a stock, street-legal Ferarri. Indeed, it was quite hard. It took hundreds of hours of work and tens of thousands of dollars to do it. Let's be reasonable here.
So while it may be possible to make the frame and body from a Ford Focus (after replacing virtually everything else) lap the track as fast as a Ferrari, I don't think you can say it was "not hard." Mainly because to do it, you'd have to replace every major system of the car, to the point where I don't think you can even still call it a "Focus."
How about a car which:
* Uses absolutely no energy when stopped in heavy traffic
I don't think this is a realistic requirement. Real drivers will have their headlights on (daytime running lights are pretty much standard everywhere now), not to mention the radio, the Air Conditioning, and GPS navigation system. The A/C is the real killer there, but all of those things combined will suck the life out of any battery faster than you can say "zero emission baby!"
Also, I just want to point out that I don't think electric cars are the silver bullet panacea that they are being marketed as. It still takes x Newtons of energy to move y kilograms of mass over a distance of z kilometers. Utilising electric energy to perform the work isn't somehow "free." That electricity still has to come from somewhere. And if that source happens to be the existing power grid (i.e., you plug you car in while you're at home, or parked somewhere), then that power is still most likely coming from fossil fuels. It doesn't buy you anything.
I'm proud to live in a jurisdiction that is actually quite forward-thinking in this respect. Ontario derives less than half (42%) of its electricity from fossil fuel sources. But more than a quarter of our power is nuclear, and the US is still pretty resistant to dipping their toes back into that pool. California, for example, only uses nuclear for about 13% of their power, relying on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for almost 62% of their power (source).
For laughs, I looked up some info on Texas. I found that Texas derives only 7% of its electricity from "green" sources (I'm including nuclear in that number), with the remaining coming from coal, natural gas, petroleum (61%), and "dual fired" (what's that? Is that "green?") (32%). Source.
So until we address the root problems (most energy is still derived from fossil fuels, rampant overconsumption is a way of life in North America), all we're doing is moving the pollution from the highways to the power plants. We're not saving anything, it's not helping the environment, we shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for buying an electric car... we should pat ourselves on the back for taking the bus, carpooling, telecommuniting, or just plain driving less.
Its not hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari, Porsche or other neo-exotic.
I call shenanigans. There is nothing you can do to a Toyota Echo, a Ford Explorer, a Ford Focus, or virtually any mass-produced, mainstream general-use vehicle to put it in the same performance realm as either a Ferrari Enzo or a Porsche Carerra GT. By the time you've replaced the engine with the requisite twin-turbocharged, gargantuan 10-cylinder beast (necessary to get a comparable acceleration and top speed) and extended the frame and bodywork to accomodate the massive engine, then changed the entire drivetrain to accomodate the leap from 150 hp (stock of the old vehicle) to 500 hp (the necessary amount to even approach the performance characteristics of the target cars), it is no longer even close to the "same car."
Of course, that doesn't even consider that you'll need to replace the brakes, exhaust, and suspension, then do some physics contortions to get the center of balance somewhere where you won't automatically roll or spin the vehicle the first time you try to turn, and I don't think you could still call the car a "Sunfire" in good faith anymore.
So yes, it is very hard to make most cars as fast as a Ferrari or Porsche. That's why Ferraris and Porsches have the reputation that they do. Anyone can make an "expensive" car, but to make a car that actually performs like these examples is a very challenging engineering feat.
What the hell is going on with our so called democracies?
I just want to point out that I don't think any true "democracies" exist in the world. A true, direct democracy would mean that all government decisions would be made by a referendum. I forget the exact terminology, but I believe the US is some sort of "Republic," and Canada is a "Social Democracy" (meaning democracy be representatives). I'm not a political scientist, so please feel free to correct me.
"Democracy" simply means "majority rules." All decisions would be made by voting, and regardless of how nonsensical, racist, or unethical the result, the outcome would become law.
A true democracy would eventually devolve (not a typo) into an oppressive communist regime. Minority rights would be non-existent (remember that Lincoln was very unpopular due to his anti-slavery stance. If you'd left it up to the people, we'd still have slavery today), and the wealthy and innovative would leave in droves, since the "majority" (the middle and lower class) would decide that the rich (the minority) should be the only ones paying all the taxes. Once all the entrepreneurs and medium- to large-sized business owners have left, the government would have to take over to ensure that the services continued to be provided, resulting in a communist society.
Oh yeah, and I'd hope the nation never got into a war, because they'd probably vote to draft all the minorities into the (poorly funded) military, effectively resulting in ethnic cleansing.
But once the parents are gone, the money represents an unearned windfall for the kid, just like winning the lottery. Should lottery winnings also go untaxed?
YES!! I realize you were asking it rhetorically, expecting the answer to be an obvious "no," but I'm sorry, the answer is not an obvious "no." Indeed, in Canada, it's a common-sense "yes." In Canada, lottery winnings are tax-free. You pay absolutely no tax at all on any lottery winnings. Not one red cent.
And it gets even better. When you win a $20 million jackpot, you actually win the whole $20 million. There's none of this bullshit about "we're going to pay it out to you over the next 50 years, or you can settle for half of it right now as a lump sum." You get the whole $20 million, right now, tax free.
When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. The US system is the one that's screwed up. If I buy $100 worth of lottery tickets and lose, can I write that off as a tax deduction? No? Then why should I pay tax on the money if I happen to win? Doesn't that seem kind of unfair to you? Don't you see how that's a one-way transfer of wealth to the government?
You are looking at it from the parents' point of view, when you should be looking at it from the kid's point of view.
I disagree. Since it is the parents' money we're talking about, why would you look at it from any perspective other than the parents'? The kids have nothing to do with it, they are merely one potential target for this money. Why would you pick their point of view, as opposed to say, a charity, or the government? It's the parents' money. Talk about it from their perspective. They should have the final say of where it goes.
It is (unearned) income for the kid, and it is unfair to the rest of us not to have it taxed while we pay taxes on our (hard-earned) income.
Well, not in Canada, it isn't. Why shouldn't that be one of the benefits of being a parent? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to give their kids generous gifts? What you're saying is ludicrous. You're saying a parent shouldn't be allowed to give their kid anything unless they give the same thing to everyone else's kid, too.
Look at what you said: "it is unfair to the rest of us not to have it taxed while we pay taxes on our (hard-earned) income." You're saying it's unfair that they get something you don't. Well, what if those same parents want to send their kid to private school, but your parents can't afford to do the same for you? Isn't that unfair? Is it unfair that Timmy's parents can send him to pony-riding lessons every Saturday, but yours can't? Should Timmy's parents be forced to pay for YOUR private school and pony lessons, too?
Life isn't fair. And parents must be allowed to give preferential treatment to their own kids. To suggest otherwise is simply ludicrous. Indeed, I would say that in a truly "free" society, anybody would be free to give preferential treatment to anyone else they want. If I walk down the street, pick out a homeless guy and give him $1000, is that fair to the other homeless guys? Should he be forced to split that money evenly among all of them? Or should I simply be forbidden from giving the homeless guy any money in the first place? Where does this madness end?
You act like there's some gigantic pool of magical wealth
:) If I have $5, and use it to buy a $4 item from you, the government taxes it $1, and I've spent my whole $5, and you now have $4, and the government got $1. Now, if you take that same $4 and buy something back from me for $3, the government adds another $1 in tax. You and I haven't really traded much of anything, but the entire pool of money is slowly transferring to the government. This is why over-taxation kills commerce.
You're right, there isn't a "magical" pool of wealth, but practically speaking, there is just one pool of money. It's just not magical.
Why are used cars taxed? When I buy a brand new car, say $25,000, it is taxed at 15%, netting the government $3,750. After a few years, if I sell it for $10,000, they charge tax again, but only 7% (I'm in Canada, there's no PST on private-sale used cars - only GST), getting the government another $700. Then that guy sells it again a few years later for $6,500, resulting in another 7% ($455) for the government. This can happen over and over again. Why is the same car taxed over and over again? The $25,000 I used to buy the car in the first place was already taxed. It started out as $40,000, but the government took $15,000 of that in income tax, leaving me with $25,000. Then, I spent that $25,000 on a car that was taxed, resulting in me paying another $3,750. Then when I sell it, they stick their greedy hand in there again. Don't you see how unfair all this is? How can you not be furious that we're taxed to the teeth at every turn? How can you possibly defend a system that taxes people who want to take the last little scraps what the government allowed them to keep, and give them to their kids?
Back to the inheritance thing. If I bequeath $1 million to my children, that money actually started out as $2 million when I earned it. The government taxed it, and took half of it, leaving me with $1 million to call my own. If I spend that money myself, whatever I spend it on will be taxed. Now, if I leave it to my kids, it is useless to them unless they spend it. And they cannot spend it without paying tax. THAT is what I'm trying to say. So it is unfair to tax them simply for receiving the money, since the money is really just what's left over after I've already paid tax on the real amount ($2 million). And in order to really benefit from the inheritance, they have to spend it. And whatever they spend it on will be taxed. What's the hurry? Why can't you just wait and get the tax when they actually spend that money?
Greed and resentment, that's why. And I'm not talking specifically about you, I'm referring to society in general, the left-wing crybabies who hate to see people getting things that they can't have. They resent that some people get to inherit money just because their parents happened to be smart investors or diligent planners. Well I'm sorry, but that's just luck, and we have to suck it up. Life isn't always fair, and it shouldn't be our goal to make it a completely level playing field at all costs. Some people will win the lottery. Some people will luck out in the gene pool. Some people will be born in better neighborhoods, or to a teenage crack-addict mom. That's life. We shouldn't drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator, just to make everything "fair."
Individuals in some countries have more personal freedom (they can smoke pot), but less abstract, essential freedom (like freedom of the press).
Strawman argument. Some countries have all those freedoms. They are not mutually exclusive.
That said, why is it so fundamental that people have the right to accumulate arbitrary huge economic power at the expense of others?
Why did you add "at the expense of others?" It's at nobody's expense. They just lucked out or worked hard or were very smart. Whatever the case, why do you automatically assume
Doesn't account for the difference in impact money has depending on how wealthy you are.
Why should it? What kind of cynical, defeatest mentality has lead to this belief that we must punish success? Is it envy? Resentment? The desire to continue ignoring the reality that our own apathy is the reason we're not as successful as we could be, as individuals?
I would say $22,500 is a lot closer to "practically nothing" for someone
What could you possibly be basing that on? The truth is, you have no idea. You can't understand what it's like to have that kind of money, yet you'll happily spout off here about what it "must be like." How do you know if $22,500 is a lot of money to someone with $150,000 or not? You don't.
Now please give me a good rationale for abolishing inheritance tax.
Sure. It's the same rationale for abolishing capital gains tax. The money has already been taxed. Once I've paid tax on my money, why can't I spend it however I want? If I want to invest it, why am I punished if I guess correctly, and pick a stock that happens to go up? Why can't I give my money away? How come, if I give that money to a stranger (charity), then I get back the income tax I paid on that money, but if I give it to a relative (inheritance tax), I not only don't get anything back, but even worse, I'm taxed again!?!
Why should rich kids get a free ride just because they were born to rich parents?
They shouldn't, but shouldn't that be up to the parents to decide? Shouldn't it be up to the parents to choose whether or not they want to teach their kids the value of money, or if they would prefer instead to give them the future that they didn't have? Look at it from the other side. Instead of asking, "why should the kids get this," instead ask, "why shouldn't the parents be allowed to give their money to their kids?" They've sacrificed and worked hard all their lives, and if it's still a free country (is it?), why shouldn't they be "free" to give their money to their kids, if that's what they want to do? The fact that you're jealous doesn't change the fact that it's their money.
If you punish success with these "progressive" tax structures, and stifling laws like the AMT, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax, what motivation do people have to succeed and excel?
It's grossly unfair for the top n% of taxpayers to pay >n% of total taxes, and even these flat tax proposals going around don't adequately address this grotesque injustice. I suggest that instead of our current "progressive" system or any of these half-assed flat tax rate schemes, we just charge everyone a flat amount.
The ideal solution would be to completely abolish all income/inheritance/capital gains taxes completely, and move to an entirely consumption-based tax model. It shouldn't matter how much you earned or won or inherited, if you don't spend the money. Why not just have a 15% sales tax on everything? Houses, cars, clothing, everything. 15%. Then the super-rich, when they buy their $150,000 Ferraris, will pay 15%, which is a huge pile of tax money, while the low income family buying a used beater car for $2000 will pay practically nothing in tax.
It's a radical shift in mindsets, but the more you think about it, the more sense it makes.
everyone on that plane will die, bcos the plane will depressurise.
Bzzt! Airplanes have masks that drop down automatically on depressurization.
The ones who survive total instant depressurisation
"Total, instant depressurization?" There's no such thing, save for the plane completely exploding. The air must bleed out a hole of some sort, and that will take at least several seconds, probably several minutes. It will not be "instantaneous."
at 60k feet
Holy crap, what airline are you flying on? "Air SR-71?" Airlines don't fly that high. Try cutting that number in half.
bcos no-one's flying the plane.
Except for the pilots, who are strapped into their seats and breathing through their oxygen masks, like everyone else.
at 36k feet, 6 miles up
:)
Small nit: 36,000 ft is 7 miles, not 6. 1 mile is 5080 feet.
There was one where the wrong screw sizes were used in a window in the cockpit.
I saw a special on that accident. Interestingly, the pilot actually survived. His legs remaind inside the cockpit below the knees (his ankles actually caught on the control column, forcing it forward, and thus forcing the plane into a steep nosedive), and he was pinned to the outside of the fuselage. I saw it on "Mayday," on Discovery.
However, this was not due to rapid depressurization. When the cockpit window blew out, air was rushing directly into the cockpit at over 600 mph. Given that the cockpit is a closed environment, this caused a tremendous whirlwind effect in the tiny, closed space. The captain wasn't "sucked" out so much as "blown out."
A similar opening in the cabin, where the window is parallel to the airflow rather than perpendicular, wouldn't have nearly the same effect. Besides, Mythbusters broke this myth.
but if a bullet did pierce the body of the plane, it would be very uncomfortable breathing until the plane descends to a lower altitude.
... nah, that could never work.
Good point. If only all modern airplanes were required to carry some sort of mask and breathing apparatus for each passenger... something that could maybe fall down from the ceiling, right in front of their face, when a loss of cabin pressure was detected
Because you could NEVER stick a ceramic knife between your butt cheeks, right?
You probably could, but for Heaven's sake, make sure the sharp edge is pointing out, and don't sit down!
Lucas needs to let someone else make his films.
Well, seeing as how the Star Wars franchise is the most successful film franchise in history, that seems very unlikely. For one thing, it's his baby, so he's not going to let it go. For another thing, he clearly knows how to make more money off films than anyone else ever, so why would they hand the reins over to someone new and unproven?
The Star Wars franchise has reportedly generated around $20 BILLION in ticket sales, DVD sales and rentals, merchandising, sponsorship, marketing, spinoffs, theme parks, and everything else. The bar has been set quite high by Mr. Lucas.
And when Anakin cuts Mace Windu arm and Darth Sith kills him, and "suddenly" Anakin says "ok, I am on your knees, at your service" WTF! it didnt took to much time for him.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine after the movie, and I concluded that I don't think there's any problem at all with the speed with which Anakin turns to the dark side. The explanation is simple, and you've heard it before: "You underestimate the power of the dark side." Once Anakin started to turn, the dark side drew him in faster than anyone could have expected (except Yoda, he's the one who was always warning us about it in the first place). Also, don't forget that Palpatine wasn't just a smooth-talking politician. He was the surpreme overlord of the Sith. The ultimate manifestation of the dark side. It's not inconceivable that he was exercising mind control to help push Anakin over to the dark side.
I just saw Episode III last night and it was just as I thought: plain, without any originality or feelings. Bad.
Wow. You were so sure you'd hate it, that you rushed out during its first week in theatres and couldn't wait to stand in line and pay full price to see it, eh?
People like you really annoy me. You try so hard to come off as sarcastic and cynical (yes, I'm well aware of the irony in my own post, get over it), so you can feel accepted by the "we hate everything that's popular" crowd.
You've lost all credibility with me.
Your property value is your problem.
Part of the services the municipality provides in exchange for paying taxes is enforcing rules that the neighborhood, as a democracy, has agreed they want everyone to abide by, in order to preserve each others' property values. If you don't like it, simply leave. But if I'm paying taxes, I expect the city to make sure my neighbors aren't adversely affecting my own home's resale value. People who resent these restrictions are "free" to buy somewhere else, where such rules don't exist. But they are not "free" to come into my neighborhood and flaunt the rules which my neighbors and I have decided (through a free and open process) that we want enforced, to keep our neighborhood clean, safe, and stable.
Its sad to see that the 'militarization' of space
Am I the only one who's sick of deliberately provocative and inflammatory rhetoric like "weaponization of space" and "militarization of space?" When navys first started developing seagoing military vessels, did partisan pundits of the day describe it as the "weaponization of the seas?" When governments first recognized the military potential of flight, did people cry how it was the "weaponization of the skies?"
Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I'm sick of double-standards. Weapons on land, sea, and air: OK. Weapons in space: end of civilized mankind. I don't buy it.