<Quote>
Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they
could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to
be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today=92s
personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently
infected.
</Quote>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?hpw

nessuno wrote:
> <Quote>
> Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they
> could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to
> be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today’s
> personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently
> infected.
> </Quote>
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?hpw

Just the life saving potential should make this area of research top 
priority for government funding, researchers efforts, and general population 
attention.

Even just mandatory automatic deceleration/breaking to avoid collisions 
would be a great advance to reduce the MDK (Murder Death Kill) on the roads.

Regards.

Verily I say unto thee, that Lusotec spake thusly:
> nessuno wrote:
>> <Quote>
>> Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they
>> could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to
>> be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today’s
>> personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently
>> infected.
>> </Quote>
>> 
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?hpw
>
> Just the life saving potential should make this area of research top
> priority for government funding, researchers efforts, and general
> population attention.
>
> Even just mandatory automatic deceleration/breaking to avoid
> collisions would be a great advance to reduce the MDK (Murder Death
> Kill) on the roads.

Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on their 
bikes, which will:

.. Help save the environment
.. Help reduce coronary and respiratory illnesses and obesity
.. Reduce absenteeism due to illness
.. Improve companies' productivity
.. Improve companies' profit
.. Reduce road deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths)
.. Nearly eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes
.. Allow police to deal with /real/ crimes
.. Free up badly needed hospital beds
.. Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"

Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public 
transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should move to
non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail network as much 
as possible.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 01:26:05 up 12 days, 13:30,  1 user,  load average: 3.00, 2.68, 2.74

"Homer" <usenet@slated.org> wrote in message 
news:s72ao7-7ue.ln1@sky.matrix...
> Verily I say unto thee, that Lusotec spake thusly:
>> nessuno wrote:
>>> <Quote>
>>> Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they
>>> could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to
>>> be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today's
>>> personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently
>>> infected.
>>> </Quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?hpw
>>
>> Just the life saving potential should make this area of research top
>> priority for government funding, researchers efforts, and general
>> population attention.
>>
>> Even just mandatory automatic deceleration/breaking to avoid
>> collisions would be a great advance to reduce the MDK (Murder Death
>> Kill) on the roads.

cars have had automatic braking for years now einstein. get out of your moms 
basement a little more often and you'd know that.


> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back
> on their  bikes, which will:
>

BAWAWAWWAWAAA!!!

no wonder you like linux and the green screen CRT monitor. you are against 
progress and technology.

your stupid bikes dont work so great when you're taking a family of 4 to the 
store don't they retard.

your idiotic bikes don't work when it's pouring rain and you're wearing a 
suit to work.

your moronic idea of bikes doesn't work all that great when it's winter time 
and mom needs to take the kids to school does it asswipe.

this stupid bullshite idea falls on its face when its moms turn to pickup 
the kids from soccer practice does it shite for brains.



your dumb-ass idea shows just how fscking stupid linux has made you.

Homer wrote:
> Lusotec spake thusly:
> 
> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on
> their bikes, which will:
> 
> . Help save the environment . Help reduce coronary and respiratory
> illnesses and obesity . Reduce absenteeism due to illness . Improve
> companies' productivity . Improve companies' profit . Reduce road
> deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths) . Nearly
> eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes . Allow
> police to deal with /real/ crimes . Free up badly needed hospital
> beds . Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"
> 
> Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public
> transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should
> move to non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail
> network as much as possible.

This may be fine for those who live in close proximity of shopping 
services, with excellent public transportation to such and their place 
of employment.

However, those who are living in semi-rural communities in US, 
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Brasil, etc., where there is 
little resemblance of public transportation, it is impractical.

Ditto for battery operated and alternate fuel cars in such areas.

-- 
HPT

On 2010-10-11, One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Homer" <usenet@slated.org> wrote in message 
> news:s72ao7-7ue.ln1@sky.matrix...
>
>
>> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back
>> on their  bikes, which will:
>>
>
> BAWAWAWWAWAAA!!!
>
> no wonder you like linux and the green screen CRT monitor. you are against 
> progress and technology.

One snot, one shill doesn't believe that bicycles are part of progress
and technology. The troll probably has never seen a modern bicycle.

> this stupid bullshite idea falls on its face when its moms turn to pickup 
> the kids from soccer practice does it shite for brains.

The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
fuckers WALK to practice..

FFS..

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On 2010-10-11, High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Homer wrote:
>> Lusotec spake thusly:
>> 
>> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on
>> their bikes, which will:
>> 
>> . Help save the environment . Help reduce coronary and respiratory
>> illnesses and obesity . Reduce absenteeism due to illness . Improve
>> companies' productivity . Improve companies' profit . Reduce road
>> deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths) . Nearly
>> eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes . Allow
>> police to deal with /real/ crimes . Free up badly needed hospital
>> beds . Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"
>> 
>> Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public
>> transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should
>> move to non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail
>> network as much as possible.
>
> This may be fine for those who live in close proximity of shopping 
> services, with excellent public transportation to such and their place 
> of employment.
>
> However, those who are living in semi-rural communities in US, 
> Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Brasil, etc., where there is 
> little resemblance of public transportation, it is impractical.

Australia has one of the most urbanised populations on this Earth. It
would be no struggle at all for us all to use bicycles. The only
problems I can see are:

1) People are fucking lazy bastards.

2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:45:31 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Homer wrote:
>> Lusotec spake thusly:
>> 
>> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on
>> their bikes, which will:
>> 
>> . Help save the environment . Help reduce coronary and respiratory
>> illnesses and obesity . Reduce absenteeism due to illness . Improve
>> companies' productivity . Improve companies' profit . Reduce road
>> deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths) . Nearly
>> eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes . Allow
>> police to deal with /real/ crimes . Free up badly needed hospital beds
>> . Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"
>> 
>> Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public
>> transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should move
>> to non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail network as
>> much as possible.
> 
> This may be fine for those who live in close proximity of shopping
> services, with excellent public transportation to such and their place
> of employment.
> 
> However, those who are living in semi-rural communities in US,
> Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Brasil, etc., where there is
> little resemblance of public transportation, it is impractical.
> 
> Ditto for battery operated and alternate fuel cars in such areas.

"Semi-rural" like the Dallas-Fort Worth Metro area? It's about a hundred 
miles from southwest Fort Worth to northeast Dallas -- yet you're expected 
to travel all over what's called DFW when working. It's considered the 
same "community." There is nothing even close to the mass transit 
necessary to do this without a car. 

In Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska, where I've lived, the idea of 
mass transit is a joke -- the population is too sparse. People living in 
Twin Falls, Idaho, for example, often travel 50 to 60 miles one way to get 
to their work. 

This "getting rid of cars" is a pipe dream in the United States, as it as, 
no doubt, in most other countries of the world. Only people living in 
vertical cities, like New York, don't need automobiles. And I suspect 
those who live in those environments are the ones pushing for abolishing 
cars.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:47:47 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
> fuckers WALK to practice..

Ten or fifteen miles? Sure, brilliant idea.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".

"Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>
> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."

Never lived in Los Angeles, 'ave ye laddy?  :-)

-- 
<barneyfu> knghtbrd: crap, SDL sure makes DGA a helluva alot easier too
           doesn't it? :)
<knghtbrd> barneyfu: what DGA?
<barneyfu> mouse dga
<knghtbrd> barneyfu: (does that answer your question?)
<barneyfu> Hahahahaha YEAH! :)

RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:47:47 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
>> fuckers WALK to practice..
>
> Ten or fifteen miles? Sure, brilliant idea.

Indeed.  It will give them a hell of a work-rate on the pitch!

-- 
Fear and loathing, my man, fear and loathing.
		-- H. S. Thompson

On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>>
>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
>
> Never lived in Los Angeles, 'ave ye laddy?  :-)

Cars are a headache and a millstone around the neck. They need regular
care and massive gobbets of money. Mine spends most of its time in my
garage, as my work is only a 5 minute walk from my house. My wife and I
love jumping in the car for a drive up the road to some of the best
beaches and nature walks that this country can offer... But there's a
price to pay for the "convenience" and I certainly wouldn't call it
"freedom".

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:47:47 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
>>> fuckers WALK to practice..
>>
>> Ten or fifteen miles? Sure, brilliant idea.
>
> Indeed.  It will give them a hell of a work-rate on the pitch!

Indeed. I always had to walk to my soccer and rugby league training. If
people live more than 10 kilometers from a sports field then your city
or town is *very* sick. Tell your town planners to fix it.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

And verily, didst One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
> BAWAWAWWAWAAA!!!
> 
> no wonder you like linux and the green screen CRT monitor. you are against 
> progress and technology.
> 
> your stupid bikes dont work so great when you're taking a family of 4 to the 
> store don't they retard.

Stop being a negative nelly. They could have a trandem with sidecar for the
little one.
:-p
 
> your idiotic bikes don't work when it's pouring rain and you're wearing a 
> suit to work.

That's what waterproof oversuits are for, motorcyclists where them, why not
cyclists?
 
> your moronic idea of bikes doesn't work all that great when it's winter time 
> and mom needs to take the kids to school does it asswipe.

Cars get trapped much more often than bikes, idiot.
At least with a bike you can get off and push. Try pushing a car 5 miles
through snowdrifts.

-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|  Andrew Halliwell BSc    |Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

And verily, didst Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> hastily babble thusly:
> On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:47:47 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
>>>> fuckers WALK to practice..
>>>
>>> Ten or fifteen miles? Sure, brilliant idea.
>>
>> Indeed.  It will give them a hell of a work-rate on the pitch!
> 
> Indeed. I always had to walk to my soccer and rugby league training. If
> people live more than 10 kilometers from a sports field then your city
> or town is *very* sick. Tell your town planners to fix it.
 
Besides which, that's what public transport is for!
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:14ibo7-h9a.ln1@librarian.sky.com...
> And verily, didst One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> hastily babble 
> thusly:
>> BAWAWAWWAWAAA!!!
>>
>> no wonder you like linux and the green screen CRT monitor. you are 
>> against
>> progress and technology.
>>
>> your stupid bikes dont work so great when you're taking a family of 4 to 
>> the
>> store don't they retard.
>
> Stop being a negative nelly. They could have a trandem with sidecar for 
> the
> little one.
> :-p
>
>> your idiotic bikes don't work when it's pouring rain and you're wearing a
>> suit to work.
>
> That's what waterproof oversuits are for, motorcyclists where them, why 
> not
> cyclists?
>
>> your moronic idea of bikes doesn't work all that great when it's winter 
>> time
>> and mom needs to take the kids to school does it asswipe.
>
> Cars get trapped much more often than bikes, idiot.
> At least with a bike you can get off and push. Try pushing a car 5 miles
> through snowdrifts.


why stop at bikes you dumb ass. let's get rid of electricity, telephones and 
indoor plumbing too.

maybe people should carry 3 or 4 different devices IN CASE THEY GET MUGGED 
you stupid fool.

don't you and your boyfriend [M]oron every get tired of making a jackass out 
of yourselves?

Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>> Lusotec spake thusly:
>> 
>> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on 
>> their bikes
[...]
> This may be fine for those who live in close proximity of shopping 
> services, with excellent public transportation to such and their
> place of employment.
> 
> However, those who are living in semi-rural communities in US, 
> Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Brasil, etc., where there is
> little resemblance of public transportation, it is impractical.
> 
> Ditto for battery operated and alternate fuel cars in such areas.

Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it be
once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to finally do
something about it?

And even if that wasn't inevitable, I'm still in favour of encouraging
more autonomous communities, so people don't need to travel long
distances to get to work; or to go shopping; or to get to school; or to
play sports.

The commuter lifestyle is one of the worst aspects of modern life, from
many perspectives.

As for driving for pleasure (and I know you have a particular interest
in this), I wouldn't go so far as to ban motor-sports, provided an
alternative fuel-source could be found (and will be necessary eventually
anyway).

Then again, there's always horse riding :)

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights.
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 17:14:41 up 13 days,  5:19,  0 users,  load average: 2.65, 2.94, 3.18

Verily I say unto thee, that spike1@freenet.co.uk spake thusly:
> And verily, didst One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> hastily
> babble thusly:
>> BAWAWAWWAWAAA!!!
>> 
>> no wonder you like linux and the green screen CRT monitor. you are
>> against progress and technology.

No actually I'm against unnecessary distractions that reduce
productivity, of which Microsoft Windows is the prime example.

>> your stupid bikes dont work so great when you're taking a family of
>> 4 to the store don't they retard.
> 
> Stop being a negative nelly. They could have a trandem with sidecar
> for the little one. :-p

And their own bikes, when they're old enough.

Or better yet, why doesn't this family just shop online, like everyone
else, then they can spend the day doing something fun instead, like
cycling round the park and having a picnic?

>> your idiotic bikes don't work when it's pouring rain and you're
>> wearing a suit to work.
> 
> That's what waterproof oversuits are for, motorcyclists where them,
> why not cyclists?

I cycled to work for years, rain or shine. Beats me why people are
afraid of a bit of rain. Are they cats, or something?

>> your moronic idea of bikes doesn't work all that great when it's
>> winter time and mom needs to take the kids to school does it
>> asswipe.
> 
> Cars get trapped much more often than bikes, idiot. At least with a
> bike you can get off and push. Try pushing a car 5 miles through
> snowdrifts.

But then people are simply advised to stay at home anyway, in severe
weather conditions, so it seems "one-shot" is just flogging a dead car. :)

As for the rest, I think he's just a fat lazy git making excuses.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights.
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 17:25:49 up 13 days,  5:30,  0 users,  load average: 3.83, 3.65, 3.41

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:11:38 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>>
>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
> 
> Never lived in Los Angeles, 'ave ye laddy?  :-)

Close enough... Ventura.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:03 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are
>>>> too many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>>>
>>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
>>
>> Never lived in Los Angeles, 'ave ye laddy?  :-)
> 
> Cars are a headache and a millstone around the neck. They need regular
> care and massive gobbets of money. Mine spends most of its time in my
> garage, as my work is only a 5 minute walk from my house. My wife and I
> love jumping in the car for a drive up the road to some of the best
> beaches and nature walks that this country can offer... But there's a
> price to pay for the "convenience" and I certainly wouldn't call it
> "freedom".

It's nice that you, personally, live a five minute walk away from your 
work, but do you realize how rare that is? My wife is a doula/birth 
educator who teaches in the homes of her clients. Almost every day she is 
another part of the Dallas Metroplex. When I'm troubleshooting telephone 
switches, my work can be at all hours of the day on sudden notice, at many 
locations in DFW. There's no way I could depend on mass transit for 
something like this. 

The reality is, at least in the United States, that almost no one could do 
their work without a car.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:30:42 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> Indeed. I always had to walk to my soccer and rugby league training. If
> people live more than 10 kilometers from a sports field then your city
> or town is *very* sick. Tell your town planners to fix it.

Meanwhile... what? Pretend reality doesn't exist?

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:05:19 +0100, spike1 wrote:

> And verily, didst Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> hastily
> babble thusly:
>> On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>>> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:47:47 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
>>>>> fuckers WALK to practice..
>>>>
>>>> Ten or fifteen miles? Sure, brilliant idea.
>>>
>>> Indeed.  It will give them a hell of a work-rate on the pitch!
>> 
>> Indeed. I always had to walk to my soccer and rugby league training. If
>> people live more than 10 kilometers from a sports field then your city
>> or town is *very* sick. Tell your town planners to fix it.
>  
> Besides which, that's what public transport is for!

Obviously you have no clue what public transport amounts to in the United 
States.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:04:17 +0100, spike1 wrote:

> Cars get trapped much more often than bikes, idiot. At least with a bike
> you can get off and push. Try pushing a car 5 miles through snowdrifts.

Speaking of snowdrifts... let's see how well bikes work for a family of 
six in Minnesota in the winter. You're battling against reality here. No 
way can Americans "throw away" the car. It's a pipe dream.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it be
> once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to finally do
> something about it?

Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but the 
Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves are found. 
And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more of it. The 
"scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack the prices up. I 
don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.  

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:13 +0100, Homer wrote:

> But then people are simply advised to stay at home anyway, in severe
> weather conditions, so it seems "one-shot" is just flogging a dead car.
> 
> As for the rest, I think he's just a fat lazy git making excuses.

If you ever lived in Montana, or in most of the northern states in the 
winter, you would know that bikes simply wouldn't work in the winter. 
There's also the distances people have to travel. 

Again, reality intrudes into the pipe dream.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:59:40 +0000,  RonB wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> 
>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
> 
> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."

A bike - the muscle-powered kind - gives even greater freedom of 
movement. Pity about the range, though - I used to ride a little over 10 
km to work, comfortably - more would be OK in flat terrain. Unfortunately 
flat terrain is rare around here ...

Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it
>> be once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to
>> finally do something about it?
>
> Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but the
> Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves are
> found.  And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more of it.
> The "scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack the
> prices up. I don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.  

That may be true, and I'm sure oil companies will use any excuse to
inflate prices.

But what if it isn't?

Is it better to be prepared, or unprepared?

It's just like the IPv6 problem. The IPv4 address space /is/ running
out, but nobody seems to care, and nobody's doing anything about it.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 20:02:45 up 13 days,  8:07,  1 user,  load average: 0.09, 0.05, 0.06

Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:13 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> But then people are simply advised to stay at home anyway, in severe
>> weather conditions, so it seems "one-shot" is just flogging a dead car.
>> 
>> As for the rest, I think he's just a fat lazy git making excuses.
>
> If you ever lived in Montana, or in most of the northern states in the 
> winter, you would know that bikes simply wouldn't work in the winter. 
> There's also the distances people have to travel. 
>
> Again, reality intrudes into the pipe dream.

I lived most of my life in the North East if Scotland. The temperatures
last winter hit -40oC on some nights, and snowdrifts brought traffic to
a standstill. The council had /sold/ much of their snow clearing
equipment because we'd had a few mild winters, so they didn't think
they'd need it again! In the middle of all that, with no cars or public
transport moving anywhere, I got on my bike and cycled 20 miles to
attend a LUG meeting, and again a few days later to help a friend who'd
suffered flood damage because of a burst water pipe.

Now I don't seriously expect people to cycle to work under those
conditions (much less try to drive), but it seems to me that people's
expectations have changed for the worse, to a large extent, over the
years. Which is the polite way of saying people have gone soft.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 20:12:18 up 13 days,  8:16,  1 user,  load average: 0.18, 0.06, 0.05

RonB wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0100, Homer wrote:
> 
>> Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it be
>> once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to finally do
>> something about it?
> 
> Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but the
> Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves are found.
> And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more of it. The
> "scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack the prices up. I
> don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.
> 

No, that isn't true.
Yes, they *do* find new reserves all the time. But increasingly difficult to 
get at.

And, btw, buring that oil just ins't that smart.
You will release ancient CO2 into the atmosphere which was trapped for 
millions of years. And huge amounts of that.
Each car will release between 100-250 grams of CO2 for every kilometer driven.

Bad idea
-- 
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:11:38 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>>>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>>>
>>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
>> 
>> Never lived in Los Angeles, 'ave ye laddy?  :-)
>
> Close enough... Ventura.

Then you know that the "freedom of movement" can be a bit
restricted.

I liked living in L.A., though, lot's of stuff to do, a very
interesting atmosphere.  Better to live close to work, though :-)

-- 
Accordion, n.:
	A bagpipe with pleats.

RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:

> The reality is, at least in the United States, that almost no one could do 
> their work without a car.

What bugs me a lot is that I could do most of my work at home, and
have a lot less hassle from network access restrictions and silly
IT security initiatives.

I generally buy more/better equipment than they give me at work, too.

-- 
If you live in a country run by committee, be on the committee.
		-- Graham Summer

Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
> RonB wrote:
>> 
>> Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but
>> the Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves
>> are found.  And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more
>> of it. The "scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack
>> the prices up. I don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.
>
> No, that isn't true.
> Yes, they *do* find new reserves all the time. But increasingly
> difficult to get at.

I worked in the industry for 25 years, and even though I wasn't a
driller, I still have first hand experience of the problem.

During the last few years before I retired, the industry moved more and
more towards two methods of extraction called "under-balanced drilling"
and "HPHT (High Pressure High Temperature) drilling", both of which are
extremely expensive, extremely dangerous, and give a comparatively low
return on investment.

They did this because finding oil reserves is increasingly difficult,
both in terms of depth and geological obstructions. IOW they are now
literally scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

The primary dangers with these drilling methods is the increased risk of
blowout, and the tendency of deep wells to contain disproportionately
large quantities of H2S (Hydrogen Disulphide) gas (the gas traditionally
associated with coal mines and budgies), which kills instantly at
exposure levels greater than 1000 parts per million, and has been deemed
unsafe by the Health and Safety Executive at levels above 2 parts per
million.

On one contract, I (along with most of the rest of the crew) was
regularly evacuated ashore because of H2S exposure risk, on full pay and
additional living expenses for the duration. As much as I enjoyed the
free holiday, I'd much rather have been doing something (anything), and
it's not the most profitable, or safe, way to extract oil, that's for
sure.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 22:25:53 up 13 days, 10:30,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.02

RonB stated in post i8vfnq$a2u$10@news.eternal-september.org on 10/11/10
9:58 AM:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0100, Homer wrote:
> 
>> Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it be
>> once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to finally do
>> something about it?
> 
> Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but the
> Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves are found.
> And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more of it. The
> "scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack the prices up. I
> don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.

You really are just ignorant in every aspect of life, eh?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:15:11 +0200, Bjørn Steensrud wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:59:40 +0000,  RonB wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> 
>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>> 
>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
> 
> A bike - the muscle-powered kind - gives even greater freedom of
> movement. Pity about the range, though - I used to ride a little over 10
> km to work, comfortably - more would be OK in flat terrain.
> Unfortunately flat terrain is rare around here ...

When I was a kid I used to ride 24 miles into town. We'd load the bikes 
into the back of our Dad's International Scout for the return trip, 
however. I wouldn't suggest riding a bike 24 miles in DFW traffic, 
however. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:08:04 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it
>>> be once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to
>>> finally do something about it?
>>
>> Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but the
>> Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves are
>> found.  And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more of it.
>> The "scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack the prices
>> up. I don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.
> 
> That may be true, and I'm sure oil companies will use any excuse to
> inflate prices.
> 
> But what if it isn't?
> 
> Is it better to be prepared, or unprepared?
> 
> It's just like the IPv6 problem. The IPv4 address space /is/ running
> out, but nobody seems to care, and nobody's doing anything about it.

Unless I become an instant multi-trillionaire and can afford to rebuild 
our infrastructure, there's not a whole hell of a lot I can do about it. I 
have to live in the reality "as is." 

I know the oil companies are full of shit. Unfortunately a lot of their 
enemies are as full of shit as they are. The truth, as is so often the 
case, is somewhere in the middle.

Sure we should be working on non-oil powered vehicles, but not because oil 
is about to run out -- but because (for one) it's ridiculous to be held 
captive by a few oil conglomerates who collude to keep prices high.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:32:18 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:13 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>
>>> But then people are simply advised to stay at home anyway, in severe
>>> weather conditions, so it seems "one-shot" is just flogging a dead
>>> car.
>>> 
>>> As for the rest, I think he's just a fat lazy git making excuses.
>>
>> If you ever lived in Montana, or in most of the northern states in the
>> winter, you would know that bikes simply wouldn't work in the winter.
>> There's also the distances people have to travel.
>>
>> Again, reality intrudes into the pipe dream.
> 
> I lived most of my life in the North East if Scotland. The temperatures
> last winter hit -40oC on some nights, and snowdrifts brought traffic to
> a standstill. The council had /sold/ much of their snow clearing
> equipment because we'd had a few mild winters, so they didn't think
> they'd need it again! In the middle of all that, with no cars or public
> transport moving anywhere, I got on my bike and cycled 20 miles to
> attend a LUG meeting, and again a few days later to help a friend who'd
> suffered flood damage because of a burst water pipe.
> 
> Now I don't seriously expect people to cycle to work under those
> conditions (much less try to drive), but it seems to me that people's
> expectations have changed for the worse, to a large extent, over the
> years. Which is the polite way of saying people have gone soft.

The fact that people, at least in the United States, commonly drive 20, 
30, 40 miles (or even longer) distances to get to work might also have 
something to do with it. People used to live and work in their own 
communities but, thanks to bastard corporations like WalMart, who moved 
into towns, sucked up all the business while bankrupting local businessmen 
and then moved out of the little towns to centrally located "Super 
Walmarts" -- now you not only have to drive to work, you have to drive to 
shop. 

The cause is moot. The reality is that most people could not give up their 
cars and survive in the United States. We have to deal in reality, not 
happy little pipe dreams.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:02:07 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> RonB wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:15:06 +0100, Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> Naturally there are difficulties, but how much more difficult will it
>>> be once natural oil reserves are exhausted, and we're forced to
>>> finally do something about it?
>> 
>> Not that I don't think there are better alternatives than oil, but the
>> Earth seems to float on the stuff. Every year huge new reserves are
>> found. And it seems like everywhere they drill, they find more of it.
>> The "scarcity" of oil is just one more bullshit ploy to jack the prices
>> up. I don't even know why they bother pretending anymore.
>> 
>> 
> No, that isn't true.
> Yes, they *do* find new reserves all the time. But increasingly
> difficult to get at.

For political reasons, not because it's suddenly harder to drill. Iraq and 
Iran have oil reserves that dwarf Saudi Arabia's. They're a bit "touchy" 
about sharing, however.
 
> And, btw, buring that oil just ins't that smart. You will release
> ancient CO2 into the atmosphere which was trapped for millions of years.
> And huge amounts of that. Each car will release between 100-250 grams of
> CO2 for every kilometer driven.
> 
> Bad idea

"Huge amounts" -- i.e, less than 1% of the green house gasses emitted from 
the ocean, rotting vegetation and other natural causes (breathing being 
one of them). Less than the natural variable year to year. And plants will 
thank us for more CO2 by giving us more Oxygen. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:54:07 +0100, Homer wrote:

> They did this because finding oil reserves is increasingly difficult,
> both in terms of depth and geological obstructions. IOW they are now
> literally scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

In certain areas... maybe. But there's oil *everywhere.* Recently another 
huge field was found in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The main reason most wells are capped in the U.S. is because the oil here 
is "heavy crude." It costs more to pump than the light crude in Saudi 
Arabia and Iraq (and Iraq's oil is even lighter than Saudi Arabia's). I 
think the same goes for Iranian oil. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On 2010-10-11, One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> wrote:

One snot, one shill still believes that bicycles are old technology.
Modern bicycles are as high tech as any other modern product.

It's about what I'd expect from the microsoft shill.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On 2010-10-11, Bjørn Steensrud <bjornst+usenet@skogkatt.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:59:40 +0000,  RonB wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> 
>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are too
>>> many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>> 
>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
>
> A bike - the muscle-powered kind - gives even greater freedom of 
> movement. Pity about the range, though - I used to ride a little over 10 
> km to work, comfortably - more would be OK in flat terrain. Unfortunately 
> flat terrain is rare around here ...

The range of a bicycle is *greatly* extended by a train system with
bicycle storage, like we have here in my provincial Australian city. If
we can do it here, we can do it most places.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:14:43 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
> 
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:11:38 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:51:57 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2) There's no political will to get rid of private cars. There are
>>>>> too many industries involved in selling us the car "lifestyle".
>>>>
>>>> "Car lifestyle" -- in other words "freedom of movement."
>>> 
>>> Never lived in Los Angeles, 'ave ye laddy?  :-)
>>
>> Close enough... Ventura.
> 
> Then you know that the "freedom of movement" can be a bit restricted.

I ran sick/vacation vending routes and did their maintenance, everywhere 
from Goleta to Simi Valley (and also filled in up at San Luis Obispo). 
Found out I could get to just everywhere faster using the surface streets 
-- except when going to San Luis, but even then I used San Marcos Pass.  

> I liked living in L.A., though, lot's of stuff to do, a very interesting
> atmosphere.  Better to live close to work, though :-)

I got claustrophobic. Finally had to get back up to Montana.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:16:49 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
> 
>> The reality is, at least in the United States, that almost no one could
>> do their work without a car.
> 
> What bugs me a lot is that I could do most of my work at home, and have
> a lot less hassle from network access restrictions and silly IT security
> initiatives.
> 
> I generally buy more/better equipment than they give me at work, too.

True. When I sprained my knee and got a blood clot, I worked from home for 
about two months. There were a few things that required hands-on that I 
couldn't do, but I did probably 90% from home. 

Some businesses are actually figuring that out. My brother was able to 
work from home about four days out of five for two years -- until a new 
boss decided she wanted everyone to come in again. He's a support tech who 
works on PBX switches all over the country. What difference does it make 
where's he's physically located? (Except for the rare "hands-on" moves he 
does once a month at his "home" site.)

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On 2010-10-11, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> claimed:

> It's nice that you, personally, live a five minute walk away from your 
> work, but do you realize how rare that is? My wife is a doula/birth 
> educator who teaches in the homes of her clients. Almost every day she is 
> another part of the Dallas Metroplex. When I'm troubleshooting telephone 
> switches, my work can be at all hours of the day on sudden notice, at many 
> locations in DFW. There's no way I could depend on mass transit for 
> something like this. 
>
> The reality is, at least in the United States, that almost no one could do 
> their work without a car.

My work is located 15 minutes from home (on a good day), over an hour
by foot, and double that hour or more by mass transit. Plus I need to
be at work before mass transit is even running on some days. I'm
subject to being called in at night (it seldom happens, but it does)
when mass transit has stopped for the day in the area. Sometimes I need
to go out the other direction entirely, 45 minutes' drive away, no mass
transit at all. Once in awhile I need to go downtown, a 30 minute
drive. There's mass transit, subject to the time restrictions named
above. The need to change at least twice to go one direction adds
around an hour each way.

When I worked on the west side of St Louis and lived on the east side
of it in Illinois, mass transit was a 3 hour trip in the afternoon, and
4 hours in the morning. Plus it went through an area both ways that
wasn't a pleasant travel if you were driving and didn't have to stop
for anything (meaning, dangerous, highly dangerous). When I finally
moved closer to work, driving was a half hour and mass transit was 1.5
hours one way, and 1.75-2.5 hours the other way (depending on whether
or not the bus and/or train were on time).

I know all of those times from personal experience except one. All of
the ones I've personally done were at times I had a car break down. The
only one I haven't personally experienced is the one to downtown and
back here. A guy down the street from me works there and takes it 5
days a week. Those are times he's told me he spends riding and waiting.

I won't ever find timing like those acceptable. Necessary in
emergencies perhaps. But not something I'll live with as long as I have
a choice.

The only time I ever had a decent travel time was when I was stationed
in Texas (Austin). I lived a 5 minute walk from work. Every other place
I've lived would be at least a 30 minute walk, and most were well
beyond that.

If somebody can live without a car, more power to them. I did it for
years. I walked everywhere or used mass transit. When I was stationed
in New Mexico I rode a bicycle to work, even in bad weather. I didn't
even start driving regularly until I was in Illinois and my Air Firce
job at the time was 15 miles away and not on a mass transit route. But
since I retired from the Air Force I've never lived any place that any
form of travel other than car was practical to do.

Even here, where I don't live that far away from work, a bicycle will
get you killed. There are only 3 ways to get there, and two of those
ban bikes (interstate highways). The only other one is extremely narrow
and has a lot of accidents with cars. Bikes wouldn't stand a chance. I
considered a scooter and gave up on that idea as too dangerous.

-- 
Scrute the inscrutable, eff the ineffable.
Aspire One, Linux Mint 9 (Debian)
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> claimed:
> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>
>> The reality is, at least in the United States, that almost no one could do 
>> their work without a car.
>
> What bugs me a lot is that I could do most of my work at home, and
> have a lot less hassle from network access restrictions and silly
> IT security initiatives.

I wish I could. But I have to repair a lot of equipment, program
radios, replace bad gadgets, etc. You can't do that from a home.

> I generally buy more/better equipment than they give me at work, too.

That's definitely true. They buy cheap gatewyas to save money, then
spend all they save and more trying to keep the junk working.

-- 
Push the limit, and the limit will move away!
Aspire One, Linux Mint 9 (Debian)
Friends don't let friends use Windows

"Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:slrnib5pqi.66r.ZekeGregory@netscape.net...
> On 2010-10-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstrom@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 03:47:47 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> The troll believes children are precious crystal vases... make the
>>>> fuckers WALK to practice..
>>>
>>> Ten or fifteen miles? Sure, brilliant idea.
>>
>> Indeed.  It will give them a hell of a work-rate on the pitch!
>

> Indeed. I always had to walk to my soccer and rugby league training. If
> people live more than 10 kilometers from a sports field then your city
> or town is *very* sick. Tell your town planners to fix it.


you are trying very hard to be the dumbest fscking moron on the planet.

most cities and towns don't have enough money to hire teachers, cops and 
firefighters. but a stupid fscking idiot like you thinks that they are going 
to reorganize the entire town and move things around and why????   because 
some stupid fsck thinks that people should just give up their cars and ride 
bikes.

pull your head out of homers ass - the methane fumes are making you even 
more stupid than you already were.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:57:46 -0500, Sinister Midget III wrote:

> Even here, where I don't live that far away from work, a bicycle will
> get you killed. There are only 3 ways to get there, and two of those ban
> bikes (interstate highways). The only other one is extremely narrow and
> has a lot of accidents with cars. Bikes wouldn't stand a chance. I
> considered a scooter and gave up on that idea as too dangerous.

That's basically the case here. I used to ride motorcycles and wouldn't 
even consider it anymore. Everyone on these freeways around DFW think 
they're Dale Earnhardt reincarnated.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

Homer wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Just the life saving potential should make this area of research top
>> priority for government funding, researchers efforts, and general
>> population attention.
>>
>> Even just mandatory automatic deceleration/breaking to avoid
>> collisions would be a great advance to reduce the MDK (Murder Death
>> Kill) on the roads.
> 
> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on their
> bikes, which will:
> 
> . Help save the environment
> . Help reduce coronary and respiratory illnesses and obesity
> . Reduce absenteeism due to illness
> . Improve companies' productivity
> . Improve companies' profit
> . Reduce road deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths)
> . Nearly eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes
> . Allow police to deal with /real/ crimes
> . Free up badly needed hospital beds
> . Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"
> 
> Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public
> transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should move to
> non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail network as much
> as possible.

Simply banning personal cars would not be possible. Many societies have 
become dependent on the personal cars. Too many people now have their homes 
far from their work places, far from their shopping sites, far from schools, 
etc. The dissemination of the cars allowed city planners (and I'm using that 
term very loosely) to extend a person's /living/  /territory/ very widely. 
And they did. The result is that too many people now need to travel a great 
distance just for their normal daily activities.

In the urban area where I live, most of the year, public transports are 
adequate, and I used them frequently when I need to go to Lisbon. My home is 
near my office and most of what I need is also close by. So I usually walk 
to work, to shops, for socializing, or entertainment.

But the common case for people living in this area is about two hours 
commuting to and from their work places. For many the public transports are 
adequate, but the roads are still filled with cars with just the driver 
inside.

In rural area where I have a summer home, public transports are few and far 
between. Also, bikes are not really an option due to the mountainous 
terrain. Going down hill is a nice experience but the return trip is a real 
pain. :)

Regards.

RonB posted this message in ROT13 encoding:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:14:43 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Then you know that the "freedom of movement" can be a bit restricted.
>
> I ran sick/vacation vending routes and did their maintenance, everywhere 
> from Goleta to Simi Valley (and also filled in up at San Luis Obispo). 
> Found out I could get to just everywhere faster using the surface streets 
> -- except when going to San Luis, but even then I used San Marcos Pass.  
>
>> I liked living in L.A., though, lot's of stuff to do, a very interesting
>> atmosphere.  Better to live close to work, though :-)
>
> I got claustrophobic. Finally had to get back up to Montana.

I got claustrophobic after watching "Dances With Wolves" in L.A.
Always worried about a quake cutting me off from home.

-- 
If God had intended Man to Watch TV, He would have given him Rabbit Ears.

Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:32:18 +0100, Homer wrote:

> The fact that people, at least in the United States, commonly drive
> 20, 30, 40 miles (or even longer) distances to get to work might also
> have something to do with it. People used to live and work in their
> own communities but, thanks to bastard corporations like WalMart, who
> moved into towns, sucked up all the business while bankrupting local
> businessmen and then moved out of the little towns to centrally
> located "Super Walmarts" -- now you not only have to drive to work,
> you have to drive to shop. 
>
> The cause is moot. The reality is that most people could not give up
> their cars and survive in the United States. We have to deal in
> reality, not happy little pipe dreams.

My happy little pipe dream is for the Walmart-isation of communities to
be reversed some day, so there's less need for people to waste so much
of their time travelling (and thus have more time to spend with their
families - one of the biggest changes to society that commuter culture
has caused).

I'm allowed to hope ... and advocate for change, much like I advocate
for a change to the software industry, so that more people use Free
Software. With (what is ostensibly) a very small market share, one might
argue that is also a pipe dream, but that doesn't stop me hoping, or
advocating, for change.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 02:08:53 up 13 days, 14:13,  1 user,  load average: 0.08, 0.12, 0.14

Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:

> Sure we should be working on non-oil powered vehicles, but not because
> oil is about to run out -- but because (for one) it's ridiculous to be
> held captive by a few oil conglomerates who collude to keep prices
> high.

The problem is apathy, and the possibility that oil is not in imminent
danger of exhaustion only serves to feed that apathy. IOW it's used as
an excuse, regardless of whether or not it's true.

I don't have trillions in the bank either, but I do have the power of
persuasion. Add that to (potentially) millions of other voices, and you
don't actually need trillions of dollars to instigate change.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 02:18:06 up 13 days, 14:22,  1 user,  load average: 0.16, 0.18, 0.16

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:16:41 +0100, Homer wrote:

> My happy little pipe dream is for the Walmart-isation of communities to
> be reversed some day, so there's less need for people to waste so much
> of their time travelling (and thus have more time to spend with their
> families - one of the biggest changes to society that commuter culture
> has caused).

Everyone has dreams. It's just so many people want to impose their dreams 
on others -- like Gore. Advocating a green lifestyle, while jetting all 
over the world and maintaining two or three houses.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:24:03 +0100, Homer wrote:

> The problem is apathy, and the possibility that oil is not in imminent
> danger of exhaustion only serves to feed that apathy. IOW it's used as
> an excuse, regardless of whether or not it's true.
> 
> I don't have trillions in the bank either, but I do have the power of
> persuasion. Add that to (potentially) millions of other voices, and you
> don't actually need trillions of dollars to instigate change.

I kind of liked Pat Sajak's solution. Those who really believe in "global 
warming" or "global climate disruptions" (I don't, BTW -- not man made 
global warming, "climate disruptions" is a purposely vague term) should 
live what they preach for others. Why wait until the government enacts 
laws? -- live the lifestyle you advocate for others now. When I lived in 
Washougal Washington (just across the river from Portland, Oregon), they 
were talking about a light rail on a radio talk show. Most of the people 
who would call in and say they were against it, but those who favored it 
would inevitably say they wouldn't be able to use it -- that they had too 
many places they had to go each day. Unfortunately that seems to be the 
case with a lot of "green" advocates -- like Gore (for example). They're 
too important to be restricted in the way they want to restrict everyone 
else.   

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post i90k5v$spe$3@news.eternal-september.org on 10/11/10 8:20
PM:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:24:03 +0100, Homer wrote:
> 
>> The problem is apathy, and the possibility that oil is not in imminent
>> danger of exhaustion only serves to feed that apathy. IOW it's used as
>> an excuse, regardless of whether or not it's true.
>> 
>> I don't have trillions in the bank either, but I do have the power of
>> persuasion. Add that to (potentially) millions of other voices, and you
>> don't actually need trillions of dollars to instigate change.
> 
> I kind of liked Pat Sajak's solution. Those who really believe in "global
> warming" or "global climate disruptions" (I don't, BTW -- not man made
> global warming, "climate disruptions" is a purposely vague term) should
> live what they preach for others. Why wait until the government enacts
> laws? -- live the lifestyle you advocate for others now.

Because we, as people, need to change our systems - just having some small
number of people is not likely going to make that much of a difference.  And
it is not just you who ignores the data, it is many... so in order to stop
or slow environmental damage there must be legislation.  Sure, you do not
like that - just as many people have not liked many anti-pollution laws
through the years. 

Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins - and when you
pollute, your swinging arm is affecting many, many others.  There needs to
be some balance here, to be sure (I do not expect zero pollution!), but
given the data, we are clearly polluting too much.

> When I lived in Washougal Washington (just across the river from Portland,
> Oregon), they were talking about a light rail on a radio talk show. Most of
> the people who would call in and say they were against it, but those who
> favored it would inevitably say they wouldn't be able to use it -- that they
> had too many places they had to go each day. Unfortunately that seems to be
> the case with a lot of "green" advocates -- like Gore (for example). They're
> too important to be restricted in the way they want to restrict everyone else.

It is not about restrictions... it is about reducing pollution.  You sound
like Rush Limbaugh (or one of his herd of "Ditto Heads").


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:16:41 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> My happy little pipe dream is for the Walmart-isation of communities
>> to be reversed some day, so there's less need for people to waste so
>> much of their time travelling (and thus have more time to spend with
>> their families - one of the biggest changes to society that commuter
>> culture has caused).
>
> Everyone has dreams. It's just so many people want to impose their
> dreams on others -- like Gore. Advocating a green lifestyle, while
> jetting all over the world and maintaining two or three houses.

Well every condition is an imposition to /somebody/, and reversing that
condition will be an imposition to somebody /else/. And since few of us
ever get to choose what we're imposed by, or by whom, that means we're
all subjugated by somebody else's dreams, at one time or another, to one
extent or another.

The best one can do is choose a side, and fight for that cause, or stand
by idly and hope for the best. I believe they call this "politics".

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 05:13:35 up 13 days, 17:18,  1 user,  load average: 0.75, 0.73, 0.37

Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:24:03 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> The problem is apathy, and the possibility that oil is not in
>> imminent danger of exhaustion only serves to feed that apathy. IOW
>> it's used as an excuse, regardless of whether or not it's true.
>> 
>> I don't have trillions in the bank either, but I do have the power of
>> persuasion. Add that to (potentially) millions of other voices, and
>> you don't actually need trillions of dollars to instigate change.
>
> I kind of liked Pat Sajak's solution. Those who really believe in
> "global warming" or "global climate disruptions" (I don't, BTW -- not
> man made global warming, "climate disruptions" is a purposely vague
> term) should live what they preach for others. Why wait until the
> government enacts laws?

Well unlike global warming issues, the issue of law is much clearer,
since without law their would be anarchy. Some laws are more justifiable
than others, however, which is why we have a (ostensibly) democratic
system to decide which laws are enacted, and which are revoked.

> live the lifestyle you advocate for others now.

I do, and whenever I identify areas where I don't, I strive to change.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| GPL: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap.
|      I know my rights. 
|      I want my phone call.
| DRM: Tell me, what good is a phone call ...
|      if you're unable to speak?
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 05:25:49 up 13 days, 17:30,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.15

On Oct 10, 6:11=A0pm, nessuno <nessuno7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Quote>
> Because the robot cars would eventually be less likely to crash, they
> could be built lighter, reducing fuel consumption. But of course, to
> be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today=92s
> personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently
> infected.
> </Quote>

Google has always been a big Linux user, and knows how to set up
reliable Linux systems - thousands of them.

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?hpw

As bizarre as this might sound, it's actually not that new.  Truckers
have been using a number of "Autopilot" systems designed to help
trucks to run in convoys so that the human can be less stressed and
drive for longer periods.

The driver still has to sit in the driver's seat, and can override the
controls - much the same way they can override a cruise control.  The
trucks use both optical and radar to site special markings on the back
of the truck.  The truck can then maintain a constant distance from
the truck in front, with both steering and braking handled by the
truck's "auto-pilot".  The trucker can't leave the cab, nor can he get
completely out of the driver's seat, but he can do things like sitting
back in a more comfortable position - and since he doesn't have to
concentrate quite so hard, he can drive for longer periods.  He can
also get a meal, some coffee, and even fill the snapple bottle.

Of course, even truck drivers have their limits, so drivers usually do
drive in pairs, switching off at appropriate times while the other
driver gets some sleep in the living portion of the cab.

A "google-mobile" is a nice concept, but again, the "auto-pilot"
probably has it's limits.  For example, even on an airplane, the auto-
pilot can't actually land the plane without the guidance of the
pilot.  It can help the pilot know the best approach, and warn him of
problems, but the actual process of getting the wheels on the ground
safely, still requires the training and skills of the professional
pilot.

In the same way, a "google-mobile" can manage cruising down the
highway, and standard maneuvers, but when it comes to complex lane
changes, proper timing to take exits, and other complex negotiations -
the driver is still needed.  Where the "Google-Mobile" would make a
huge difference would be in managing a care during rush hour traffic.
We've all been in that situation where our right legs are about to
cramp up managing the brake and accelerator to try and keep the car
the right distance from the car in front of us - even when it's only
going 5 miles per hour - or just stop-and-go.

It's easy to see why Microsoft never did it, but I'm surprised that it
hasn't already been done by HP, IBM, or Texas Instruments, all of whom
know how to create highly reliable systems.

Homer stated in post nu4do7-9ab.ln1@sky.matrix on 10/11/10 9:31 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:24:03 +0100, Homer wrote:
>> 
>>> The problem is apathy, and the possibility that oil is not in
>>> imminent danger of exhaustion only serves to feed that apathy. IOW
>>> it's used as an excuse, regardless of whether or not it's true.
>>> 
>>> I don't have trillions in the bank either, but I do have the power of
>>> persuasion. Add that to (potentially) millions of other voices, and
>>> you don't actually need trillions of dollars to instigate change.
>> 
>> I kind of liked Pat Sajak's solution. Those who really believe in
>> "global warming" or "global climate disruptions" (I don't, BTW -- not
>> man made global warming, "climate disruptions" is a purposely vague
>> term) should live what they preach for others. Why wait until the
>> government enacts laws?
> 
> Well unlike global warming issues, the issue of law is much clearer,
> since without law their would be anarchy. Some laws are more justifiable
> than others, however, which is why we have a (ostensibly) democratic
> system to decide which laws are enacted, and which are revoked.
> 
>> live the lifestyle you advocate for others now.
> 
> I do, and whenever I identify areas where I don't, I strive to change.

Pretty much RonB wants others to reduce man-made pollution overall while he
does not have to change.  He chastises Gore for what he, RonB, is.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:24:57 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Well every condition is an imposition to /somebody/, and reversing that
> condition will be an imposition to somebody /else/. And since few of us
> ever get to choose what we're imposed by, or by whom, that means we're
> all subjugated by somebody else's dreams, at one time or another, to one
> extent or another.
> 
> The best one can do is choose a side, and fight for that cause, or stand
> by idly and hope for the best. I believe they call this "politics".

Only problem is, I don't buy into the "urgent need" to "do something now." 
Not at least in regards to "global climate disruptions." 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:31:51 +0100, Homer wrote:

> Well unlike global warming issues, the issue of law is much clearer,
> since without law their would be anarchy. Some laws are more justifiable
> than others, however, which is why we have a (ostensibly) democratic
> system to decide which laws are enacted, and which are revoked.

The point is, if you really believe that man-made global "whatever" it is 
they're calling it now, is about to destroy the earth (and if a third to 
half the world also believes it) it would make a huge impact if they just 
voluntarily quit living with cars and air conditioning, etc. Form the 
green communes, and do whatever it takes. That would be true advocacy.  

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On 2010-10-12, One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> wrote:

One snot, One shill believes oil will last forever...

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

Gregory Shearman wrote:
> One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> One snot, One shill believes oil will last forever...

One Size Too Little thinks people listen to its moronic drivel, which is 
insane.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper wrote:
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>> One Shot, One-Kill <fredie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> One snot, One shill believes oil will last forever...
> 
> One Size Too Little thinks people listen to its moronic drivel, which
> is insane.

Nym morphed, I see, to evade kill filters (note new "-").  Into the kill 
bin goes OSO-K.  *plinque*

-- 
HPT

Will some tell it that it's making a fool out of itself with the 
babble chatter.

--
posted with a Droid

RonB wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:32:18 +0100, Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that RonB spake thusly:
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:26:13 +0100, Homer wrote:
>>>
>>>> But then people are simply advised to stay at home anyway, in severe
>>>> weather conditions, so it seems "one-shot" is just flogging a dead
>>>> car.
>>>> 
>>>> As for the rest, I think he's just a fat lazy git making excuses.
>>>
>>> If you ever lived in Montana, or in most of the northern states in the
>>> winter, you would know that bikes simply wouldn't work in the winter.
>>> There's also the distances people have to travel.
>>>
>>> Again, reality intrudes into the pipe dream.
>> 
>> I lived most of my life in the North East if Scotland. The temperatures
>> last winter hit -40oC on some nights, and snowdrifts brought traffic to
>> a standstill. The council had /sold/ much of their snow clearing
>> equipment because we'd had a few mild winters, so they didn't think
>> they'd need it again! In the middle of all that, with no cars or public
>> transport moving anywhere, I got on my bike and cycled 20 miles to
>> attend a LUG meeting, and again a few days later to help a friend who'd
>> suffered flood damage because of a burst water pipe.
>> 
>> Now I don't seriously expect people to cycle to work under those
>> conditions (much less try to drive), but it seems to me that people's
>> expectations have changed for the worse, to a large extent, over the
>> years. Which is the polite way of saying people have gone soft.
>
> The fact that people, at least in the United States, commonly drive 20, 
> 30, 40 miles (or even longer) distances to get to work might also have 
> something to do with it. People used to live and work in their own 
> communities but, thanks to bastard corporations like WalMart, who moved 
> into towns, sucked up all the business while bankrupting local businessmen 
> and then moved out of the little towns to centrally located "Super 
> Walmarts" -- now you not only have to drive to work, you have to drive to 
> shop. 
>
> The cause is moot. The reality is that most people could not give up their 
> cars and survive in the United States. We have to deal in reality, not 
> happy little pipe dreams.

Knowing what it's like in western Kansas, I can sympathise with that. 
The small communities of towns/cities, are quite far apart (anywhere from
30 to 80 miles & there are NO rail links or bus routes, making a car a
*necessity*.

-- 
Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

RonB wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:45:31 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Homer wrote:
>>> Lusotec spake thusly:
>>> 
>>> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on
>>> their bikes, which will:
>>> 
>>> . Help save the environment . Help reduce coronary and respiratory
>>> illnesses and obesity . Reduce absenteeism due to illness . Improve
>>> companies' productivity . Improve companies' profit . Reduce road
>>> deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths) . Nearly
>>> eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes . Allow
>>> police to deal with /real/ crimes . Free up badly needed hospital beds
>>> . Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"
>>> 
>>> Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public
>>> transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should move
>>> to non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail network as
>>> much as possible.
>> 
>> This may be fine for those who live in close proximity of shopping
>> services, with excellent public transportation to such and their place
>> of employment.
>> 
>> However, those who are living in semi-rural communities in US,
>> Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Brasil, etc., where there is
>> little resemblance of public transportation, it is impractical.
>> 
>> Ditto for battery operated and alternate fuel cars in such areas.
>
> "Semi-rural" like the Dallas-Fort Worth Metro area? It's about a hundred 
> miles from southwest Fort Worth to northeast Dallas -- yet you're expected 
> to travel all over what's called DFW when working. It's considered the 
> same "community." There is nothing even close to the mass transit 
> necessary to do this without a car. 
>
> In Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska, where I've lived, the idea of 
> mass transit is a joke -- the population is too sparse. People living in 
> Twin Falls, Idaho, for example, often travel 50 to 60 miles one way to get 
> to their work. 

Yup, & you can add Western Kansas, Utah, Nevada, N & S Dakota, & NW Texas.

> This "getting rid of cars" is a pipe dream in the United States, as it as, 
> no doubt, in most other countries of the world. Only people living in 
> vertical cities, like New York, don't need automobiles. And I suspect 
> those who live in those environments are the ones pushing for abolishing 
> cars.

I would agree.

-- 
Linux: because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Homer wrote:
>> Lusotec spake thusly:
>> 
>> Just ban cars from the roads completely. Then get everyone back on
>> their bikes, which will:
>> 
>> . Help save the environment . Help reduce coronary and respiratory
>> illnesses and obesity . Reduce absenteeism due to illness . Improve
>> companies' productivity . Improve companies' profit . Reduce road
>> deaths (including a horrifying number of animal deaths) . Nearly
>> eliminate emergency call outs to traffic incidents and crimes . Allow
>> police to deal with /real/ crimes . Free up badly needed hospital
>> beds . Eliminate the social disorder of "joy riders" and "boy racers"
>> 
>> Of course there should exceptions for the emergency services, public
>> transport, and the military. Commercial haulage over land should
>> move to non-petrochemical based vehicles, and utilise the rail
>> network as much as possible.
>
> This may be fine for those who live in close proximity of shopping 
> services, with excellent public transportation to such and their place 
> of employment.
>
> However, those who are living in semi-rural communities in US, 
> Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, Brasil, etc., where there is 
> little resemblance of public transportation, it is impractical.

Agreed. In Western Kansas, Eastern Colorado, Nebraska, NW Texas
where I've travelled from my house in western Kansas, public transport
just wouldn't be a viable proposition.

As some guy from NW Texas remarked to me, most Europeans only see the
Eastern US as far as the Mississippi, or the West Coast cities. If they
actually travelled across the interior US, they might realise how sparsly
populated it is & how vast it is. I also found this map:
http://www.mapofusa.net/us-population-density-map.htm

> Ditto for battery operated and alternate fuel cars in such areas.


-- 
FireFox - Why, wtf did he do?
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit