And your point being? Most people who travelled by horse rode ON the horse because carraiges were fucking expensive for your average peasent.
But your average peasant could afford a horseless-carriage quite easily!
The problem here is that you apparently think that modern vehicles were available back when almost everyone still depended on horses, at a price that they could actually afford. Everything you've said depends on that faulty assumption. As soon as you realize that cars back then were so shit that even a half-dead mule was preferable, your entire rant ceases to make any sense whatsoever.
I said "Have you seen an early car?". A vehicle made 150 years after the invention of the automobile doesn't exactly qualify. In another 150 years, I'm sure the average fridge will look rather different than today.
"The Karl Benz Patent-Motorwagen (or motorcar), built in 1885, is widely regarded as the first automobile, that is, a vehicle designed to be propelled by a motor."
"Benz later built more models of the Motorwagen, model number 2 boasting 1.5 hp (1.1 kW), and model number 3 with 2 hp (1.5 kW), allowing the vehicle to reach a maximum speed of approximately 10 miles per hour (16 km/h)."
Correction: You can be too smart to be a police officer in New London. If that particular municipality wants retards patrolling their streets, that's their problem; don't make the mistake of thinking that their policy is the norm elsewhere. I scored quite a bit better than that when I applied to be a cop, and they were quite happy to take me. When I decided to drop out of the latter phases of the application process in order to pursue a different career, the recruiters were quite persistent in trying to get me to change my mind.
The Taliban randomly selects travellers for full-body x-ray scans?
How in the fuck is this "insightful"?? Call me back when the TSA shoots your wife for not wearing a full-body potato sack, and whip you into a bloody mess for shaving your beard.
You have three times the population density that they do?
Here in Canada our service is far worse than in the US, and the population density is even lower. Meanwhile Japan, with the highest population density, has the best service. Now, I'm no statistician, but I'm sensing a trend here.
If horses could already do 70mph , run for hours without a stop and be refilled in minutes they wouldn't have done. If you've already got something that works fine why replace it with something that is more complicated, probably more expensive and doesn't do a better job?
WTF? Have you SEEN an early car? You'd be lucky to get them up to 15 km/h, let alone 70 mph. They were loud, inconvenient, overly complex contraptions which spent more time in the shop than they did on the road. A horse was a thousand times better. If we had stuck with your mentality nobody would have ever bothered developing the automobile to the point where they're actually useful. Luckily for man-kind, there have always been geeks who are willing to put up with all sorts of inconveniences and headaches just so they can play with the newest gadget. Without them we'd still be sitting in a cave eating our meat raw, because it's "good enough".
There's this awesome website called "google"... instead of asking strangers to answer your questions, you can just type them in to a "search box" and get millions of matching hits! For instance, here's the answer to YOUR question:
That's a silly definition of capitalism. Every dollar any government spends is a social service. Defense? Social service. Police? Social service. Etc.
Pure nonsense. We already have a term for "everything that the government does" - it's called the public sector. If you expand the meaning of "social service" to include all of that, it becomes redundant, and loses it's original meaning. If you had a valid point to make, you wouldn't need to redefine words.
Seeing as how there is no type of income in the United States that is taxed greater than 50%, you'd be hard pressed to refer to the economy as socialist.
Seeing as how spending seems to have no relation to taxation, it would be retarded to base the assessment purely on the tax rate. When the government is spending twice as much money as it collects, the tax rate means dick-all. To use an analogy - this is like saying that I'm a millionaire because I've got 10,000 credit cards and a job that pays $10 an hour.
And, as it turns out, pretty much every country in the world is a capitalist-socialist hybrid lying on the strong-capitalist side.
I'm sure Somalia would be quite happy to take all your major corporations, and the people who make them work. Then we can watch as the US dollar reaches parity with Zaire currency, and the global economy goes down the tubes.
It's not wrong for me to expect gorgeous women to randomly walk up and offer fellatio. Getting it to happen with any consistency is a whole different matter.
The other guy gave you a more detailed answer, so I figured I'd go for succinct.
And if it damages the US government's image or makes the US look bad, whose fault is that? Do we not have a right to know when our government lies to us, commits crimes, and is involved in cover-ups?
If you never want to come out on the winning side of a war again, then sure, you have that right. Otherwise, bury your head in the sand and let us do the job you hired us to do. War is not a pretty thing - if you're going to get all bitchy and puke on us every time something bad happens, you may as well just disband the military. Spend the money on hookers, booze, and blow, while we wait to be overrun.
The Pentagon and the US government get to spread their probaganda to a much, much larger degree than Afghan rebels, Taliban, Al Quaida or whoever else "we" are fighting at the moment.
Riiiight. In what world are you living, exactly? The only time we hear anything about the military in the news is when there's a fuckup. Meanwhile, every time Osama puts out a video or some bunch of assholes decide to behead a hostage, it goes straight to air.
Where? You're not talking about the US, are you? Sorry, but when more than half of your federal budget goes towards social services, you no longer get to call yourself a capitalist country. I'm not sure that there ARE any more capitalist countries, except for maybe Somalia:p
Meh. The battery pack will need replacing or reconditioning, which alone sucks up enough money to make up for the reduction in other maintenance costs. And there WILL be a lot of costs that are similar to normal vehicles, like, for instance, tire changes, balancing, alignment, suspension, control-arms, wipers, lights, glass, etc. At best you can hope to save maybe $1,800 over the life of the vehicle by eliminating oil changes and air-filter changes. Assuming you reduce brake and rotor changes by 75%, you could save another $1200 - $2400, but somehow I can’t see one set of pads and rotors lasting for 200,000 km’s, regardless of how much the regenerative breaking might help.
I accept your point as valid for the moment, but it's worth noting that the costs associated with EV ownership are just a guess at this point. Some of the most expensive repairs I've seen have been "electrical issues", because they're a pain to diagnose and can involve replacing large runs of wiring. I think that the overall difference in maintenance / repair costs will turn out to be minimal, but it would be nice to be proven wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Pirates create junk media for the honest people.
Wha?
If you disagree, please post your Credit Card and Bank numbers
with security codes.
Disagree with WHAT?
It is just electrons for all to see.
I knew you would not. Pirates are hypocrites.
WTF? Were you stoned when you wrote that comment?
Do I think what Anon is doing is "right"? Nope.
Do I think that they should keep doing it? Absolutely.
Sounds like you don't actually understand what the words "wrong" and "right" mean. Either that or you're some sort of sociopath.
Sure. And Rwanda, at #29 in the list, has dialup. Obviously population density isn't the only factor - it's just an important one.
And your point being? Most people who travelled by horse rode ON the horse because carraiges were fucking expensive for your average peasent.
But your average peasant could afford a horseless-carriage quite easily!
The problem here is that you apparently think that modern vehicles were available back when almost everyone still depended on horses, at a price that they could actually afford. Everything you've said depends on that faulty assumption. As soon as you realize that cars back then were so shit that even a half-dead mule was preferable, your entire rant ceases to make any sense whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile "The history of the automobile begins as early as 1769, with the creation of steam-powered automobiles capable of human transport.[1]"
I said "Have you seen an early car?". A vehicle made 150 years after the invention of the automobile doesn't exactly qualify. In another 150 years, I'm sure the average fridge will look rather different than today.
Here's a better example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz_Patent_Motorwagen
"The Karl Benz Patent-Motorwagen (or motorcar), built in 1885, is widely regarded as the first automobile, that is, a vehicle designed to be propelled by a motor."
"Benz later built more models of the Motorwagen, model number 2 boasting 1.5 hp (1.1 kW), and model number 3 with 2 hp (1.5 kW), allowing the vehicle to reach a maximum speed of approximately 10 miles per hour (16 km/h)."
You can be too smart to be a police officer.
Correction: You can be too smart to be a police officer in New London. If that particular municipality wants retards patrolling their streets, that's their problem; don't make the mistake of thinking that their policy is the norm elsewhere. I scored quite a bit better than that when I applied to be a cop, and they were quite happy to take me. When I decided to drop out of the latter phases of the application process in order to pursue a different career, the recruiters were quite persistent in trying to get me to change my mind.
The Taliban randomly selects travellers for full-body x-ray scans?
How in the fuck is this "insightful"?? Call me back when the TSA shoots your wife for not wearing a full-body potato sack, and whip you into a bloody mess for shaving your beard.
What's your excuse now USA ?
You have three times the population density that they do?
Here in Canada our service is far worse than in the US, and the population density is even lower. Meanwhile Japan, with the highest population density, has the best service. Now, I'm no statistician, but I'm sensing a trend here.
Right. Overcharge one area so you can make another cheaper. Damn socialists. ;)
Horses need to be fed and watered often
Cars need to be refuelled and maintained often.
tire relatively quickly, tend to shit everywhere
overheat, pollute
arn't particularly comfortable to sit on and generally can only take a max of 2 people.
You know, there's a reason that cars were called "horseless carriages", Einstein. The name implies the existence of a carriage WITH a horse.
If horses could already do 70mph , run for hours without a stop and be refilled in minutes they wouldn't have done. If you've already got something that works fine why replace it with something that is more complicated, probably more expensive and doesn't do a better job?
WTF? Have you SEEN an early car? You'd be lucky to get them up to 15 km/h, let alone 70 mph. They were loud, inconvenient, overly complex contraptions which spent more time in the shop than they did on the road. A horse was a thousand times better. If we had stuck with your mentality nobody would have ever bothered developing the automobile to the point where they're actually useful. Luckily for man-kind, there have always been geeks who are willing to put up with all sorts of inconveniences and headaches just so they can play with the newest gadget. Without them we'd still be sitting in a cave eating our meat raw, because it's "good enough".
There's this awesome website called "google" ... instead of asking strangers to answer your questions, you can just type them in to a "search box" and get millions of matching hits! For instance, here's the answer to YOUR question:
http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=interview%20with%20an%20Afghan%20rebel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Awesome, eh?
That's a silly definition of capitalism. Every dollar any government spends is a social service. Defense? Social service. Police? Social service. Etc.
Pure nonsense. We already have a term for "everything that the government does" - it's called the public sector. If you expand the meaning of "social service" to include all of that, it becomes redundant, and loses it's original meaning. If you had a valid point to make, you wouldn't need to redefine words.
Seeing as how there is no type of income in the United States that is taxed greater than 50%, you'd be hard pressed to refer to the economy as socialist.
Seeing as how spending seems to have no relation to taxation, it would be retarded to base the assessment purely on the tax rate. When the government is spending twice as much money as it collects, the tax rate means dick-all. To use an analogy - this is like saying that I'm a millionaire because I've got 10,000 credit cards and a job that pays $10 an hour.
And, as it turns out, pretty much every country in the world is a capitalist-socialist hybrid lying on the strong-capitalist side.
Slashdot really needs some eye-rolling emoticons.
I'm sure Somalia would be quite happy to take all your major corporations, and the people who make them work. Then we can watch as the US dollar reaches parity with Zaire currency, and the global economy goes down the tubes.
So anything that someone in the military does is by definition acceptable?
If you say so.
Unfortunately for you, we've had the Nuremberg Trials since then.
We've also had the OJ Simpson trial. Both have about the same applicability in this situation.
It's not wrong for me to expect gorgeous women to randomly walk up and offer fellatio. Getting it to happen with any consistency is a whole different matter.
The other guy gave you a more detailed answer, so I figured I'd go for succinct.
I rest my case.
Regardless of what their agenda is, the exposure of ANY truth is beneficial.
New rule: anyone who makes that statement from now on has to type out their full credit-card number at the bottom of the comment.
And if it damages the US government's image or makes the US look bad, whose fault is that? Do we not have a right to know when our government lies to us, commits crimes, and is involved in cover-ups?
If you never want to come out on the winning side of a war again, then sure, you have that right. Otherwise, bury your head in the sand and let us do the job you hired us to do. War is not a pretty thing - if you're going to get all bitchy and puke on us every time something bad happens, you may as well just disband the military. Spend the money on hookers, booze, and blow, while we wait to be overrun.
The Pentagon and the US government get to spread their probaganda to a much, much larger degree than Afghan rebels, Taliban, Al Quaida or whoever else "we" are fighting at the moment.
Riiiight. In what world are you living, exactly? The only time we hear anything about the military in the news is when there's a fuckup. Meanwhile, every time Osama puts out a video or some bunch of assholes decide to behead a hostage, it goes straight to air.
I think your definition of "embarrassingly large" is embarrassingly small.
Where? You're not talking about the US, are you? Sorry, but when more than half of your federal budget goes towards social services, you no longer get to call yourself a capitalist country. I'm not sure that there ARE any more capitalist countries, except for maybe Somalia :p
In the future, RickRolling is going to be a whole new game ....
Around here they don't charge for it. You just drive up, load up as much as you can carry, and drive away.
Meh. The battery pack will need replacing or reconditioning, which alone sucks up enough money to make up for the reduction in other maintenance costs. And there WILL be a lot of costs that are similar to normal vehicles, like, for instance, tire changes, balancing, alignment, suspension, control-arms, wipers, lights, glass, etc. At best you can hope to save maybe $1,800 over the life of the vehicle by eliminating oil changes and air-filter changes. Assuming you reduce brake and rotor changes by 75%, you could save another $1200 - $2400, but somehow I can’t see one set of pads and rotors lasting for 200,000 km’s, regardless of how much the regenerative breaking might help.
I accept your point as valid for the moment, but it's worth noting that the costs associated with EV ownership are just a guess at this point. Some of the most expensive repairs I've seen have been "electrical issues", because they're a pain to diagnose and can involve replacing large runs of wiring. I think that the overall difference in maintenance / repair costs will turn out to be minimal, but it would be nice to be proven wrong.