| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Database, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41430 Activity:kinda low |
1/19 Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_hi_te/google_records
\_ That's definitely seems to be overreaching. I hope
Google can win that one.
\_ Note that it isn't a specific case they're prosecuting, but a
desire to find out how often Americans search for (child) porn.
Also note that AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have already rolled
over, accepting this child porn explanation; however, the data
can be used for other purposes ...
Also note that AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have already rolled over.
If the stated purpose is to go after pedophiles, I can understand
their rolling over, but the data can be used for other purposes ...
They originally asked for a complete list of all search terms and
returnable URLs over a two-month period, but now they've "limited"
this to a 1-million-count random sample of queries and returnable
returned URLs over a two-month period, but now they've "limited"
this to a 1-million-count random sample of queries and returned
URLs for a one-day period.
\_ Are they going to pay for an engineer's time to do this?
If not, pound sand no matter the reason.
\_ Whatever about this case but generally speaking, if the
request is legal, the business doesn't get expenses. The
alternative is the FBI comes in and confiscates everything
in sight and extracts what they need on their own time.
Anyway, even if the childish "pay up or pound sand" thing
was realistic, the cost would be about 10 minutes since
they should have this data easily accessible anyway. Knowing
what is in their logs *is* their business model.
\_ While they should have a good database of search queries
turning that into a list in the format the gov't wants
may be non-trivial. I could easily see it taking someone
A few days if their database is really not set up for this
type of thing. And it does seem like a the sort of thing
that cannot be subpoenaed because it's not in reference
to a particular crime, or even for investigating a crime.
It's basically saying "we demand you do free research for
our legal case".
\_ By the way, the URL above shows it would take a
"disproportionate amount of engineering time and
resources" to comply.
\_ Exactly. If the FBI wants to send people in (with
court orders) to look at the data then feel free,
but don't waste my time. Google is not a party to
any case, so they shouldn't have to spend time
and money on this. They can dump the entire database
and let the FBI sort it out on their own time.
\_ No, you don't understand. They don't look at it
onsite. They *take the computers* and look at it
later.
\_ They wouldn't even know what to take. Dump
all the data to a RAID and they can have at it.
If it's too much data to fit then you ask
them where they want it dumped. They are
entitled to the data, not the hardware.
\_ Still not getting it. I'll make it simple for
you: the FBI can and would *take the
computers*. *All* of the computers if they
felt it necessary. FBI >>>>>>>>> google. If
google loses in court, they'll have no choice
but to hand over everything the Feds want and
no they don't get to bill the government for
the 5 minutes it will take some geek to write
an sql query. |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41431 Activity:low |
1/19 Ron Paul, the only Congresscritter to tell the truth? Truth most
Americans don't want to hear ... (http://www.house.gov
http://tinyurl.com/d6g7y
\_ I'd vote for him.
\_ What's your favorite federal program? Ready to have it slashed
or eliminated?
\_ Please please don't cut the massive farm subsidies to ADM!
\_ Someone hasn't read the article. Come back when you have.
\_ I posted the article. See:
11. Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign
aid, international NGOs, defense contractors,
the military industrial complex, and rich
corporate farmers before cutting welfare
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the poor at home;
\_ I'd vote for him too. --PeterM
\_ Uh, wow. Did you actually read the whole thing? The guy's a
libertarian radical.
\_ I thought the article was great not because of his
proposed "solutions" but for his summary of the problems.
I agree with him that the Abramoff scandal is just a symptom
of Congress & the Executive branch selling out to the
highest bidder.
highest bidder. -- not PeterM
\_ That's no reason to vote for an optimistic anarchist
\_ A libertarian radical wouldn't say "cut corporate welfare
before you cut benefits to the poor"
\_ He's just prioritizing. |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:41432 Activity:nil |
1/18 Wait til Pamela Anderson hears about THIS:
http://csua.org/u/eoq (boston.com)
\_ eh?
\_ For those who don't speak Japanese, "gohan" mean meal.
\_ Yes, that in article.
\_ What does this have to do with Pamela? |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Finance/Investment] UID:41433 Activity:moderate |
1/20 http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/060117/13793.html 4/10 Playboy models outperform 11705/11739 equity mutual fund managers for picking out better stocks. \_ All that says is that the companies that Playboy models know are doing well at the moment. Let's continue the experiment for 10 years and see who's ahead. (Not that I'm a fan of fund managers, but the conclusions here are silly.) \_ Mutual fund managers are not free to choose whatever companies they think will do best. Fund manager can only choose companies within the fund's sector. A real estate fund can't buy MSFT, for example. The playboy models don't have this limitation. \_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blonde. The Playboy models don't have this limitation. \_ If you thought about this a little bit, you'd realize how silly this theory is. \_ Care to explain? \_ From a description of Magellan's strategy: "Normally invests primarily in common stocks of domestic and foreign issuers. Invests in either 'growth' stocks or 'value' stocks or both." I guess the bunnies can invest in non-growth, over-priced stocks and Magellan might not. Even not knowing any specific example, you should realize that if picking whatever from wherever is a superior way to invest, then there would be funds to exploit that. \_ Morningstar categorizes FMAGX as large blend. "While the investment objective stated in a fund's prospectus may or may not reflect how the fund actually invests, the Morningstar category is assigned based on the underlying securities in each portfolio." \_ The category is descriptive rather prescriptive, \_ The category is descriptive rather than prescriptive, which is exactly what Morningstar said. \_ Even not knowing any specific example, you should realize that if the Playboy models really can do better than the mutual fund managers out there, they would all become mutual fund managers. \_ Yes. However, the original claim was not that the bunnies were necessarily better pickers but that they had more freedom in choosing stocks. Therefore, your point, while valid, does not apply. Whereas showing that non-specifically targeted mutual funds should and do exist does apply. \_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blond. \_ I don't think the all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have \_ Almost none of them are. Hair dye. \_ I guess dyeing blond doesn't make one stupid, unlike natural blond. \_ I don't think all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have Harvard MBAs. \_ Long-term everyone reverts to the mean, unless you have insider information. \_ The fund contestants are "all funds listed on Morningstar". How are the model contestands picked? |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41434 Activity:kinda low |
1/19 http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml The initial CAFE fuel standards were set by Carter, then lowered later by Reagan. \_ I can't back this claim up, but I think fuel efficiency would be helped tremendously by ending welfare for the U.S. auto manufacturers. The public wants higher mileage. As long as the executives at U.S. auto manufacturers continue to live on the public dole, they have no motivation to give a shit about what the public wants, and shareholders and union workers have no motivation to revolt against the cockroaches who run their companies. I find it both sickening and amusing that so many so-called conservative republicans support welfare for auto manufacturers. \_ Oops, even the 1978 standards weren't set by Carter but by Congress: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/docs/162944_web.pdf "Conress itself set the standards for passenger cars, which rose from 18 miles per gallon in automobile model year (MY) 1978 to 27.5 mpg in MY 1985. As authorized by the act, the Department of Transportation (DOT) set standards for light trucks for model years 1979 through [munged by pdf->html, year lost, sorry]. The standards are current 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks". Light trucks includes SUVs, etc, as we know. Report issued in 2001. \_ Garbage. I dismissed this link since it provides no facts or details. I restored the discussion below about this which has links with actual facts. Good effort though. CAFE predates Carter. \_ http://csua.org/u/eox "The rules for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards, were first set for automobiles during the Carter years." I am waiting for your mea culpa. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-11.htm "As the administration of President Jimmy Carter was winding down, Claybrook advanced a NHTSA notice that called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995." \_ Mea this: http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html The Energy Policy Conservation Act, [EPCA] was enacted into law by Congress in 1975, and established Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The Act was passed in response to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo. The stated near-term goal was to double new car fuel economy by model year 1985. \_ http://www.energybulletin.net/9657.html "Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter." You are wrong, but too stupid to realize it. \_ So the Ford admin created it and passed it but Carter should get credit for it and you think I'm the dumb one here. Okey dokey! Go Jimmy! Woot! You *can* credit him with saying "nucular" all the time. That's good for 15 minutes. good for 15 minutes. Your own quote backs what I'm saying: CAFE wasn't Carter's. \_ The law was passed before Carter, but Carter set the initial stringent standards, which were then raised during his adminstration. If we had followed those standards, we would use 25-35% less oil today. Reagan lowered those standards. If you bothered to actually read up on the topic, you would see that I am correct. \_ Correct about what exactly? The initial standards were pathetic. They were later ping ponged around and today it's 27.5 for cars and 20.5 for light trucks including most SUVs. I'd like to see a link for that 25% number you keep bandying about. And yeah, I've only got about a dozen links and pdfs open for this idiotic topic, most of them .gov sites. My research skills suck. If only I could have found some quality links from a Kennedy clansman. \_ Hey, are you dissing http://frugalmarketing.com? \_ If by ping ponging, you mean raised by Carter and then lowered by Reagan, you are correct. I think it was raised by 1 MPG by Bush I. Sierra club guy says we could have saved 3 to 4 M BBL/day, which is 15-20%, but I think it would be higher if we had the 48 MPG fleet average proposed by Carter and no SUV exemption, instead of our current 23 MPG. 2/3 our oil is spent on transportation, double fuel economy would mean that we would use half as much fuel on transportation, hence 25%. I need to get back to work, but you can be sure that I have researched this before. \_ Researched this at more high quality sites like http://frugalmarketing.com? Do you have quotes from <DEAD>spiffyliving.com<DEAD> too? \_ no, that is what google pulled up in a hurry. I have spent a lot longer researching this that you and you have not really bothered to actually bothered to. Read up on it and we can talk some more later. You just don't know what you are talking about. The vast majority of our oil today is burned in cars and SUVs. \_ And did you learn that from <DEAD>shinyobjects.com<DEAD>? How much of your heavy research did it take to figure out it takes more energy to move big, heavy objects? \_ The "holier than thou" thing is a really distasteful way to walk away. If you don't have the time and can't prove what you're saying when the links start flying, just step out and try again when you're prepared. "I'm smarter than you and know more than you but I'm too busy to prove it with links worth clicking on" isn't flying. Carter: bad President. And frankly even if CAFE was his idea and he chose extremely high standards and demonstrated the leadership required to make those standards stick, he would still have sucked as President, but at least then he'd have *one* positive thing to lay claim to for his 4 years. \_ Then you can save me the trouble and find something that says Carter wanted 48 and the current is 23. Sierra Club? They say a lot of things but aren't exactly an unbiased source. How about a .gov url instead of some axe grinders? \_ Sorry have to work. Later. \_ Or how about this? http://feinstein.senate.gov/booklets/CAFE_booklet.pdf "In 1975, Congress mandated separate Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)... [These] requirements where passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Gerald Ford." A search for Carter in that pdf yields nothing. \_ Carter invented the internet.. \_ Pshaw! We all know Gore did that. \_ No, Al Gore invented the algorithm. It even bares his name, AlGore-ithm. \_ Carter invented the carts. He named his family after his invention. \_ I somehow doubt the current president will ever claim to have invented the bush, however. \_ Actually, Nixon did. The first IMPs were deployed in 1969. So what exactly did Carter do that was useful and noteworthy? |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Compilers] UID:41435 Activity:nil |
1/19 Political talk is boring, let's talk about the Linux kernel and
Java compilers! Viva la technology!
\_ OK: If I build a reasonably large website using Apache SSIs in
every page, will I want to shoot myself later?
And if I enable MultiViews, what could go wrong? |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:41436 Activity:moderate |
1/19 How do I configure apache so that all the files in certain
directories are executed as PHP without the ugly .php extension?
\_ Turn on MultiViews; you can leave the files with the .php
extension, but just access them without using the extension. -tom
\_ Oh goodie, someone talking about MultiViews. Are there any
potential problems with turning them on I should be aware of?
- !op
\_ I suppose it makes it marginally easier for someone to
guess one of your URLs. There is some potential confusion
if you have two files with the same base name in the
same directory. But I don't think there are significant
issues. Our site has been that way for several months:
http://ls.berkeley.edu/lscr. -tom
\_ MultiViews are not the rigut solution for that. They use content
negotiation, IIRC and that causes problems with validation and
old browsers. I'd recommend using URL rewriting. in your
.htaccess put something like:
Options -MultiViews
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI}.php -f
RewriteRule .* %{REQUEST_URI}.php
\_ How does MultiViews cause problems with validation or
old browsers? It's transparent to the client unless
the client asks for something specific in content
negotiation. -tom
\_ I thought it used to. Apparently I was wrong.
By the way http://ls.berkeley.edu/lscr does not
pass validation at http://validator.w3.org
\_ It validates in HTML Tidy. I'll look at the
issues http://w3.org brings up. -tom
\_ Update for those who care: It looks like HTML
Tidy only validates against HTML 1.0 Transitional,
even if the DOCTYPE is HTML 1.1 Strict.
The 1.1 Strict warnings include stuff for
backwards compatibility with not-very-old
browsers (IE 5.5), so we may look at falling
back to 1.0 Transitional. -tom
\_ Do you mean XHTML rather than HTML?
also there is no "XHTML 1.1 Strict."
just XHTML 1.1 fwiw.
\_ Yes, I mean XTHML. -tom
\_ Do your files have an extension now? If it's, e.g. ".html", you
could just toss this into your .htaccess:
AddType application/x-httpd-php .html
--dbushong |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41437 Activity:nil |
1/19 Can someone provide a URL for: "the NSA was basically wiretapping
everyone, not just suspected terrorists, and running a massive data
mining operation on it." All I'm getting is Russell Tice saying
"could be in the millions [of Americans] if the full range of secret
NSA programs is used", and the key word is "if".
\_ This was given as the reason for why FISA wouldn't work; because
they were following from Al Qaeda guy to everyone he called to
everyone they called to everyone they called, etc. I mean, with
guilt-by-association, everyone's a suspected terrorist.
\_ url please. I want to understand what "basically" means.
\_ Do people understand that the issue is not rather government
can wire citizens or not, but rather, a check-n-balance
procedure is in place to prevent abuse and provide a channel
for those who are wrongly accused?
\_ http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/24/nsas_domestic_datami.html
(original NYT article costs money now)
\_ Thanks, full article: http://tinyurl.com/bb2f4 (chicagotrib)
I think the source for the NYT article is Tice.
\_ Admittedly, there is a bit of conjecture in my statement... |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41438 Activity:nil |
1/19 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561226/posts "Asked whether the president 'should have the power to authorize the NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the U.S.?' - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes. ... Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for blowing the NSA's cover 'traitors,' while just 27 percent agreed with media claims that the leakers were 'whistleblowers.'" \_ those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither. \_ misquote. \_ This is the year I finally break down and buy a gun. \_ Good luck if you live in SF... \_ Where I'm moving, it's practically illegal to not own a gun. The apocalypse is coming, and I'm gonna be ready. \_ Americans don't mind sacrificing the freedom of "suspected terrorists", as long as they're not one or a close friend of one. \_ "...a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found...." Try harder, young freeper_troll. |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Computer/Rants] UID:41439 Activity:nil |
1/20 http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/2237 India and China to enjoy prosperity for the next few decades. \_ Possibly. Or possibly not. Especially in China's case. They have some serious issues with food supply/arable land. *SEVERE* water pollution and a few zillion less than entirely happy peasants in a constant state of low level revolt. India is a better bet now that they appear to have resolved their issues with Pakistan such that nuclear war isn't very likely and they're working on modernising their internal structure, legal system and education system. They are still a third world country by any measure but are working on it. \_ Just OOC, not disagreeing with you, what would pessimists have said in a similar vein about the prospects for the US in, say, 1940? (and _why_ would they have ended up being wrong) \- IMHO, the india-pak threat was never both of them going to nuclear war, it was pakistan having a meltdown. and that is still possible and that is a problem for more than india. \_ The US became a power because of its natural resources. While China and India also have lots of natural resources, their populations are much larger. |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Academia, Academia/GradSchool] UID:41440 Activity:nil |
1/20 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_ot/literacy_college_students Most new college grads cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food. One more reason why I would never hire fresh out of college kids these days. \_ How old are you? \_ Umm, yeah. And "Overall, the average literacy of college students is significantly higher than that of adults across the nation." So, then Mr. Adult, you're saying that would be you? |
| 2006/1/19-20 [Recreation/Dating] UID:41441 Activity:high 86%like:41450 |
1/19 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060119/cm_usatoday/blondeisbeautifulmystique King Kong the movie is racist!!! They should have had a Caucasian King Kong falling in love with an African American woman. \_ So, the article has some good points, but it vacilitates between reason and abject stupidity. \_ So, most of the article is fairly reasonable, but, as usual, the lead in ruins the article by being stupid. between reason and abject stupidly. \_ stupidity |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Recreation/Dating, Recreation/Humor] UID:41442 Activity:high Cat_by:auto |
1/19 Marketing at its best:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6685078570737229515
\_ Thank God for creating cute Asian girls. Now I need to go to
the bathroom to relieve myself.
\_ It wasn't God, it was evolution!
\_ whatever it was, intelligent design was at work.
\_ She could've been green for all I care. By the way, what
was the commercial about? ;) (Maybe not *too* good marketing.)
\_ "She couldn've been been green..." meaning you find her
unattractive? Or you don't care about looks?
\_ Chocolate candy, FWIW. I wonder if there is anything one
cannot successfully sell with boobs.
\_ Anyone happen to know Japanese? What did she say after
she looked down?
\_ I think having boobs upstage your product is not
such a good thing. What did you say the commercial
was about again?
\_ Brain transplants for the intellectually feeble.
Are you the same person who was so bothered by the
"naked news" post a few days ago?
\_ You can't sell breast reduction surgery with these, I
guess.
guess. http://rallosnobr.afreeserver.com
\_ I think it was "brand reinforcement" style; not targetted
at actually being informative. Look at Nike ads.. would
you ever know what they're actually for?
\_ Cute Japanes girls to be specific. In other Asian countries it
would be politically incorrect and frowned upon by flat-chested
women and hypocrites.
\_ If you want to save the .wmv for off-line relief, go to
http://www.jengajam.com/r/Choco-Party-Good
\_ Another funny one:http://hpbimg.rydell.nl/Map-Movies/Boob-Popper.wmv |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:41443 Activity:nil |
1/19 Anyone know of a good neighborhood website? Like a sort of discussion/
photos/party planner/for sale site etc. specific to a fairly small
area (few blocks?). I'd love something like that. And before anyone
says "just walk next door you geek", this is impractical for all sorts
of time-logistical reasons.
\_ In other words, you're just a lazy, fat geek, AKA The Comic Book
Guy.
\_ Yahoo Groups was practically designed for this. I built one to
accommodate our apartment block. Getting people to actually use it
is another matter....
\_ http://www.meettheneighbors.org
the guy who runs it is a dweeb ... but this is exactly what
you want |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:41444 Activity:nil |
1/19 The CD player in my car is skipping everytime i hit a bump even a
a tiny one. It's really annoying, and I want to get it fixed,
does anyone know of a good place to have this done? It might
just need to be cleaned, but I'm not sure how to do that with the
slot type player. Any suggestions? --jwm
\_ Is your CD player designed to handle vibrations (by buffering data)?
Some CD players are not designed to do that. It's not a defect.
\_ It's a new behavior, the car's an '01, and it just started doing
it a few months ago. It's now so bad that it happens a few
times a min. on the freeway. --jwm
\_ New CD players are cheap nowadays. Buy a new & better one.
\_ It sounds like it is built in to his dash and not easily
replaced.
\_ I may replace it, but it's the factory stereo, and it looks
better than an aftermarket unit will. If it costs too much
then I'll pull it out. --jwm |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41445 Activity:low |
1/19 Current US fleet average MPG is 21
<DEAD>www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s05001.htm<DEAD>
John Claybrook issued a NHTSA directive
requiring a CAFE fleet average of 48 MPG in 1981:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-11.htm
(Yes, the source is Ralph Nader but it is still accurate)
US oil consumption is 21M BBL/day:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_7.pdf
Imports at 9.5 M BBL/day:
http://csua.org/u/ep1 (DOE)
Gasoline consumption at 400 M gal/day:
http://csua.org/u/ep0 (Conoco Phillips)
400 M gal/day = 9.5 M BBL/day
21/48 * 9.5 M BBL/day = 4.1 M BBL/day
(9.5-4.1)/21 = 26% of US overall oil consumption or
5.4/9.9 = 55% of US overall oil imports
Here is a single URL that pulls all this together, but without
references:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
They claim that 40% of US oil is used by cars and trucks, so they
get a 20% reduction instead of my 26%, but the number is similar
either way. I don't know how you can seriously dispute all this.
You can quibble about the exact numbers, but not the overall result.
\_ "requiring a CAFE fleet average of 48 MPG in 1981". You mean
when Reagan was president? Ronnie's da man! Now what does this
have to do with Carter setting Cafe standard? Sounds like you
should be a Reaganite.
\_ Do you look as stupid as you are?
\_ Be careful doing simplistic math like this. You're talking about
human behavior which is dynamic and not easily predicted. If gas
prices were to skyrocket to $15/gallon over night, you'd see the
total miles driven drop to the baseline driving people *must* do
to survive (work, buy food, etc). If gas dropped to 5 cents/gal,
people would be driving more than they do now. Same thing with
mpg. If I got 500 mpg, I'd be doing a lot more driving for fun
than if I got 5mpg. Increasing average mpg isn't necessarily going
to reduce overall gas consumption by that amount. It won't and it
can't. People aren't like that. Also, taking a single giant
number like "current fleet average" is going to change as people's
tastes change. Since light trucks, SUVs, etc, get lower mpg, that
has had an impact on SUV sales causing more people to buy lighter
vehicles and push up the average over time as those vehicles are
phased out. Also, there is another cost to lighter vehicles no
one has mentioned yet, which is the estimated 1300-2600 additional
fatalities per year (I couldn't find injury stats, only death) due
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 _/
uhh, no. Look at those numbers. The safest cars FOR THE DRIVERS have
little to no relation to the size of the car.
to CAFE standards forcing more light vehicles on the road. Nothing
good comes free in life. More traffic deaths is one of the trade
offs for having CAFE. Note that I'm not disputing any of the
original raw data you're providing but the interpretation of that
data which says we'll save x% of gas if we increase mpg average
by y% is not realistic.
\_ Okay, I will not argue with any of this. Perhaps increased
fuel economy would encourage people to drive more, etc. The
main point is that there was and *is* still a relatively
effective tool we could use to massively decrease our dependence
on foreign oil, we just refuse to use it.
\_ Could you provide a reference which shows that people whose
cars get better mileage drive more? Because observationally
that's definitely not true. And it's certainly not true that
vehicles which get better gas mileage have more fatalities;
SUVs cause more fatalities than smaller cars. -tom
\_ The death #s are in one of the pdf links I posted earlier
from a government CAFE study published in 2001. Do you have
a link showing SUVs cause more fatalities? I believe the
same study also have a lengthy bit about driving habits, but
common sense should convince one that higher $/mile will
reduce driving by some amount X, and lower $/mile will
increase driving by some other amount Y. If gas was free do
you honestly believe people wouldn't drive more? If gas
cost $25/gallon do you honestly believe they wouldn't drive
less? It's late, I'm going home. The 2001 CAFE study link
is on the motd somewhere.
\_ If gas was significantly more expensive I would drive
a lot less, however if it was significantly less
expensive I wouldn't drive any more than I do now.
I don't take public transportation for money, I take
it for quality of life.
\_ So your driving habits are directly changed by the
price of gas, which is exactly what I was saying.
Pricing is relative, there is only a sliding scale.
\_
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
Besides the object lesson, the stats there show that SUVs
kill more non-occupants than smaller cars, and that the
likelihood of occupant fatality is related to the quality,
not the size of the vehicle.
I think you can go to the 580/680 interchange and count SUVs
headed to San Francisco in the morning if you want proof that
people's gas mileage isn't a major factor in their decision
to drive. -tom
\_ The CAFE thing was originally a minor side point about
Carter. I'm satisfied that we hashed that one out
pretty much. I don't see a point in discussing fatality
and usage statistics or anything else with anyone who
uses "go to the 580/680 interchange and count SUVs" as a
way to determine nationwide behaviour re: gas usage, SUV
sales numbers and pricing, yet who starts off asking for
links in the same post they say something like, "because
observationally that's definitely not true". The CAFE
thing was heated but mostly civil (especially for the motd).
I don't see this headed that way. You "win" if you want
to think of it that way.
\_ translation: "I have no evidence for my position."
OK, thanks for letting us know. -tom
\_ The link is there. You choose not to read it.
Talking with others has been interesting and
educational. That's so rarely the case with you
that there's no point. "YOU WIN! YAY! CONGRATS!"
\_ If cars actually produced energy, there were no traffic
ever so I could drive at 100 miles an hour all the time,
and they gave orgasms to all the women one passed, I'd
still ride my bike. I will never drive. I believe slightly
more people of our generation feel this way than our
parents' generation, and that this trend will continue.
\_ You're a very silly person.
\_ You can call my silly all day long--just don't make
\_ You can call me silly all day long--just don't make
me drive to work.
\_ LOL, okay, fair enough. :P |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41446 Activity:nil |
1/19 Original documents on the govt request and the Google lawyer's response
http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6028780-1.html
You'll be proud of the latter (starts on page 5).
You, too, can defend GOOG with a B.S. in Economics from Cal
http://www.kvn.com/attorneys_bio.php?id=33
(as long as you graduate cum laude from Harvard law too ...)
On the flip side, you can be a fully tenured professor at Cal and work
for Dubya (ob John Yoo reference)
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/stark
\- stark used to traffic with then had a nasty breakup with
a sloda user. --your black muslim gossipmonger |
| 11/22 |