LocostUSA.com

Are you kidding?
In my experience a bad economy leads to an even worse environment!
Black market and underground manufacture tends to have very little regard for noxious byproducts as legit companies must.
Compare Bayer's residue to you local meth lab!
Look at the "Third World" (Or China!) and their utter lack of concern for "Preserving nature".
The worse OUR economy gets the less "Preservation" there will be.
Rich countries "Save the planet" , poor ones just trash it every day in order to survive.
Feel free to excoriate me all you like, I'm immune to it as I've seen the "Green" charade from the beginning.

The PC "Solar" and "Wind" schemes are already collapsing, new generation nuclear is still being blocked.
No nuclear means no significant "hydrogen economy".
So "Fossil fuel" is going to remain the primary mobile energy source far into the future.
The only real way to force us to cease using IC engines is to FORCE us to give up driving.
The self-driving cars are a start on that prohibition as Gov. Org. will then be able to disable your driving for any or no reason at all.

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!

_________________
-Justin

"Orville Wright did not have a pilots license." - Gordon MacKenzie

I've done my PSA duty, act on it or ignore as you see fit.
If you ignore you will have no legitimate right to complain if/when you are forced to take up stamp collecting or poetry reading instead of driving.

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!

Much fear in your beliefs, there is...





In my experience, I am probably right about people who use fear based depictions, assumptions, rhetoric and arguments, as subsequently not having a rational and fully informed point of view of their own...Even though they are often the most vocal arguers and attempt to pass off their opinions as fact. At that point, it becomes little more than the rambling half-truths of a fanatic*. This applies to both "sides" (equal and opposite) of the same manure minted coin, in regards to pretty much any hot-button topic.

For reference: The truth almost invariably lies somewhere in the middle...Well between, and as far as possible from, the diametrically opposed extremist points of view.




*One who can't change their mind, and won't change the subject.

_________________
-Justin

"Orville Wright did not have a pilots license." - Gordon MacKenzie

Yup, the world will shake us off like a dog with fleas if we mess it up too bad. I do tend to agree with Richard that the people in control are using fear to gradually tighten the reins on personal freedoms though. And it seems like people now are awfully eager to give up a lot of freedom either for the greater good, or for a temporary illusion of safety. There is a lot of fearmongering from all sides going on.
Kristian

_________________
V6 in a book frame build. Now registered.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=7587
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=18172

A great sage once said something to the effect of "Your right to swing your arms ends two inches from the end of my nose". Your right of "personal" freedoms ends when they negatively impact my life and well being. The sad fact is that your very existence negatively impacts my existence. That is without you spewing lead all over the landscape. If our existence is biologically compatible, the toxins of our life will be turned into compounds that are essential for our life. If our existence is not compatible, we will die in our toxins. Earth will continue on, preparing the way for a new form of life to erupt. One that is able to take advantage of our soup of toxins.

Its called "biology".

Bill

Agreed, Bill. The common misconception about "freedom" which goes completely (and conveniently) ignored by both sides in any argument, is that BOTH sides are actually infringing on the others so-called freedom. It is by no means a one way street, as each 'side' would so vocally try to get everybody else to believe.

So this whole notion of complete individual freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on another's freedom, is nothing more than a myth at best...And lie at worst. Every freedom expressed ultimately comes at the expense of another freedom. For people to actually think otherwise is naive.

It's not a question of simply losing or gaining specific freedoms, but rather is a question of which one freedom is more important (and/or more beneficial) than which other freedom to our civilization as a whole? The answer to which will continually change with time, since change is the only (non-mathematical) constant in this universe. Some people are able to readily accept, adapt to, and even embrace these inevitable changes. Others, unfortunately, are not.

_________________
-Justin

"Orville Wright did not have a pilots license." - Gordon MacKenzie

It's true, we live in a world where freedom for all isn't possible anymore. As the population continues to grow people will lose more and more freedoms, like the freedom to eat (already true for many), and eventually the freedom to breathe.

Mars, here we come, eh?

Cheers,

_________________
Damn! That front slip angle is way too large and the Ackerman is just a muddle.

Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5886

We are WAY off the original topic, now to the point of philosophy and dogma.
Retaining my original point, I called my congressman's office to ask how he voted.
The gal who answered did not know but will find out and email me.
If I'm the only one who cared enough to try to make a difference it will not be the first or last time.
Many of you might be shocked to learn how often bad legislation is approved only because NO ONE contacted their Rep's to object.

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!

No, we are dead on with the original post. You are still urging other to resist change, simply for your own pleasure, regardless of the impact on others.

As to dogma, speak for yourself. The science about life creating conditions that are toxic to that life is beyond question. If you doubt any of it, try tying a paper bag over you head for a few hours. Then report back, if you can.

Bill

I see my post as a PSA for enthusiast drivers, which is what I think most members here are, or will be when their project is completed.
Anyone who feels compelled to "Save the planet" and "Follow the PC herd" at the expense of others personal liberties may try to cancel me out via their own post, contacts to congress, etc.
That is a freedom they still have, at least for now!

There is an old saying, "Be careful what you wish for!"
And, "Beware the law of unintended consequences".

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!

Richard - I think that most here sympathize with the essence of your argument, it's just that you go so far with it that you start coming off as a zealot, which is a lot harder to relate to. For instance, earlier you mentioned that motorcycle helmets are good-except when they're not. Why even bring that up? I'm pretty certain that for every person hurt by a helmet, there's a whole heaping bunch that are saved by them.

I'm not at all comfortable with the prospect of assuming that a computer is going to make the right decision about whether to mow me down or not every time. But then, distracted driving is at an all-time high. I was in heavy traffic the other day and looked around me, only to see that four out of five drivers were doing something other than paying attention to the road. So the choice becomes one of which poison do you take? Well one poison comes with a bunch of benefits as well as room for improvement. The other, unfortunately appears to be worsening. I'm OK with self driving as long as two criteria are met - It's at least as safe as the alternative, and that I can turn it off when I want to. What I'm much less comfortable with are the Google cars that don't even have means of physical driver control. Time will come when those will go into production, but you won't see me in one.

The irony to me is that those who demand their freedoms the loudest are often the same ones who refuse to accept the responsibility for the consequences:

"I demand the right to not wear a motorcycle helmet" - but expects free hospital treatment for head trauma.

"I demand the right to race my dirt bike" - but complains about the $50,000 hospital bill for broken ribs is rediculous.

"I demand the right of free speech" - but think that comes with immunity for any and all consequences for those words.

"I demand the right to block off this stream for my own use" - but doesn't consider what would happen if this same right extended to everyone on that stream.

"I demand the right to text while driving because I'm a really good driver" - yeah, okay.

And on and on.

Back on topic, once the accident rate of self-driving cars drops below the accident rate of people-operated cars, the future is clear.

_________________
Midlana book: Build this mid-engine Locost!, http://midlana.com/stuff/book/
Kimini book: Designing mid-engine cars using FWD drivetrains
Both available from https://www.lulu.com/

May as well wrap this up, the "Self Driving Act" passed unanimously by "Voice Vote".
A voice vote is the tactic used when our reps want to avoid actually going on the record, so that they can still tell both sides of an issue they support their position.
Not sure I see the point of that when it is recorded as unanimous.

Fortunately my state of Nevada is unlikely to see full implementation of this feculence in my remaining lifetime.
I just feel sorry for the younger generation who will probably never even realize what has been done to them.

_________________
If I must be a one-man PC free zone, so be it!