Car Glass Rules Could Impair Cell, GPS and Radio Signals In CA 762
An anonymous reader writes "The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning. The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also block lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves. That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded. Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.'"
! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be new to bureaucracies.
You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... people will have problems using cell phones while driving?
Oh darn. That's just horrible.
Who owns the patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to California. Really. Expecting something to come out of the California government to make sense?
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, instead of meaning people will stop using their phone, they'll probably just fumble around with it more instead to restart their calls.
Or they'll resort to texting which (supposedly) doesn't require as strong of a signal as voice calls.
CARB, necessary evil (Score:5, Insightful)
The CARB should be barred from mandating equipment, and simply mandate emissions standards. Who cares why your car gets good or shitty mileage? Let's just see them have mandated emissions and, if necessary, mileage; we already have both, of course. But at the same time, the CARB has done amazing things for California's air quality; there's more Chinese pollution in LA now than the local stuff. Which highlights the NEXT phase of the problem... but we're not done here, yet.
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I don't know about you, but I like to listen to the radio while driving.
Every car radio I have ever seen had an EXTERNAL antanna.
Re:You mean ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they'll just plug into an external cell antenna.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:2, Insightful)
>Who cares why your car gets good or shitty mileage?
Er, everyone who has any sense at all?
Re:! surprising (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, driving with the windows down increases fuel consumption. So if the new glass reduces the need to do this it could still be a good thing for cars without air conditioning.
If the glass is expensive, manufacturers might provide an option for 'aftermarket' air conditioning in order to take advantage of the loophole allowing people to use cheap glass on non air conditioned cars. If it isn't expensive, what's not to like. The radio/telephone issue is minor in comparison.
Most cars have the radio aerial installed outside for starters, and many cars have plastic panelling or fenders that the antennae could be installed behind.
For most people, this is probably a good thing. But legislation is always a blunt tool - if the car companies had taken meaningful steps to increase fuel efficiency of their own accord, perhaps this law wouldn't have been necessary.
Fuel Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
I must be an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
I must be an idiot but my radio antenna is outside my car connected with a cable to my radio. Why would glazed glass be an issue. not only that but unless your car is made of plastic isn't the frame of the car in fact a passive antenna since it isn't grounded? (I could be wrong here, too many years since school). Feel free to correct me but since the windows are not contigious isn't this an issue of weaker cell phone signals and with more states passive anti-cell phone while driving laws isn't this a moot issue?
I must be old and cranky or just plain stupid but how is this a bad idea? A cooler car, less gas burned in AC, and potential to stop an alien laser weapon long enough to duck before it melts through the glass seems like a good idea. While we are at it can we require bulletproof glass to boot in the wind shield and rear windows since they always seem to get shot up in the movies but no one ever takes a shot from the side...
Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring back vent windows! They were very effective in the days before AC, and I miss them.
I guess this article had its intended effect... (Score:5, Insightful)
It has everyone complaining about the stoopid government but did you notice that this was printed in a Detroit newspaper? Gee, I wonder why people in Detroit would care about a new type of glass in a car window that adds extra cost to a vehicle? You just got played due to your knee-jerk anti-government attitude. Regardless of whether you agree with the manufacturers or the government you should realize when you are being manipulated by the media.
Re:Welcome to California... (Score:5, Insightful)
More spending: they vote YES.
Raise taxes to pay for that spending: the vote NO
Have a windfall in tax revenues? Got to spend it! Can't save it for future budgetary shortfalls!
California is the most democratic state in the Union and look what happens. There's a reason why we're set up as a Republic.
Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
> Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even
> for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and
> no air conditioning.
The alternative would be to leave a loophole in a rule intended to be followed by automotive corporations. Historically, that hasn't worked out so well.
c.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people? That being said, why do some people think it's a great idea vote people into office who will tax us to come up with these half-witted "solutions" that don't even make any noticeable difference?
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:4, Insightful)
But should be up to the customer.
If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.
Same with a 50 mpg car. Who cares how it gets there, as long as it meets all emission regulations and safety standards. When people who know nothing about automobile technology mandate what needs to be used, they'll be no better off than the software industry - beholden to marketing, lobbying and politics, and ... never mind
Re:You mean ... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a bit sensationalist; your car's radio has an outdoor antenna, and guess what? If you put a boom box in a car (say, its radio broke, happened to me once) you're not going to get very good reception anyway. The car's radio has an antenna OUTSIDE THE CAR so its reception won't be affected. Unless this glass cuts 100% of radiation, your garage door opener will work, and in any case most cars these days have an opener built in (presumably connected to the car's outside antenna).
The only thing that should be affected is cell phones, and I, for one, could do with a lot fewer idiots paying attention to their phone call than to the road.
Attention People of California (Score:4, Insightful)
Your government is defective. Huge budget deficits, stealing from local cities and counties and flawed regulations being rammed through the legislative process.
Living here, I vote we rip up the state's constitution and start fresh. The first step is ousting the assholes currently in charge.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, what your car emits, I have to breathe.
Secondly, the reason they're mandating this is because the EPA doesn't take into account the energy to cool down a car that's been sitting in the sun when it assigns MPG ratings, so manufacturers have little incentive to reduce that problem, even though you have to burn a lot of extra energy to cool the car down when you get in.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
>But should be up to the customer.
No. It should be up to society. Some people are just too thick at act responsibly. And car manufacturers are hardly going to build cars for 'a few stupid idiots' - they will design a car and market it hard, and try to sell as many as possible. Regulating will take away the option to make cars suitable for the dumb.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to live in Phoenix, Arizona. There's no feasible amount of tint or blocking the sunlight that's going to stop those poor bastards that lack AC from rolling the windows down in the summer. Keeping the windows might have hot air blowing in your face but it's stopping the air in your car from turning into an oven.
It can honestly get up to 150 degrees in a car with the windows rolled up very fast (15 minutes). I would see stories all the time about people that were new to the area leaving their dogs (or lord forbid their kids) in the car only to come out to find their loved one needing to go to the emergency room or dead.
Granted this is about CA but there are plenty of areas that get really hot in CA as well (some even more-so)
Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (Score:1, Insightful)
[citation needed]
Re:If I lived in Cali... (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't allow you to do that here in California - you can't just bring a 49 state car here. This state is run by egomaniacs who have no concept of finance.
I bet that they didn't even think about whether the cost of the glazed glass pays for the fuel it saves.
California really does feel like a separate country. They place zero value on personal freedom here.
Re:We can only hope California goes out of busines (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in California, Sacramento no less, and one of two things is going to happen eventually. Taxes are going to have to be raised, or massive cuts to services will happen. The problem is that there is no political will to do either because people want the government to do all this wonderful stuff for them, but they don't want to pay for it. There's an incredible entitlement complex in California but there's also this idea that no matter how much money you make it should always be the MORE wealthy who should have to pay for everything.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite. Why, exactly, should I care WHY my car gets good mileage?
If I get a car that gets 100 mpg, does it really matter to me just why it gets that kind of mileage? Likewise for a car that gets 10 mpg...
Re:Welcome to California... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is absurd. We also voted to require that chickens have enough room to walk around when they're being raised to be killed and eaten, but we voted against allowing same sex marriage. We care more about animals than gay people, strangely enough.
It's amazing that the problems of having the population vote directly for tax increases and spending wasn't immediately apparent. The average person is pretty ignorant and shouldn't be allowed that much direct control.
I almost always vote for raising taxes and against spending increases, but I can't do much against the masses of idiots who think the money will just appear from somewhere else.
Re:You mean ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, haven't you ever pulled over after hearing the phone ring to take an important call? Haven't you ever used a hands-free set? (My car has built-in Bluetooth.) Haven't you ever tethered your phone to your laptop as a passenger and gotten work done on a long road trip? How many people's lives have been saved after they were able to cell 911 while trapped inside a car after an accident?
We can talk about banning the use of cell phones while driving, but cheering measures that effectively jam all cell phones is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You might as well ban cell phones entirely because someone, somewhere might talk on one while driving.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Or any committee (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, does anybody really think that government is made up of the country's smartest people?
The private sector could easily do something this stupid. It's just that, we have only one government, and in the private sector, stupid businesses are supposed to fail, unless they happen to be banks.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. I'm all for environmental regulations, but they have be structured correctly. Mandate results, not particular technologies.
Remember the ban on incandescent light bulbs? It wasn't a ban on a particular technology, but a mandate for a certain level of efficiency. Manufacturers stepped up to the plate [slashdot.org] and did what nobody expected: gave us improved incandescent bulbs that met the specifications! That's how it should work.
It'd be really easy to quantify the benefit that's expected from Low-E glass, too: just mandate minimum reflective over certain frequency ranges and let manufacturers figure out how to achieve it.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You mean ... (Score:5, Insightful)
OR they'll roll down the window to make the call, heating up the car in the process, then run the AC on full blast to level it out afterwards.
Re:! surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It should be up to society
No. It should be up to the customer. The alternative breeds what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing.
Re:Or any committee (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it'd be easier for him to understand the question phrased:
Provided that my car achieves some regulated minimum standard of gas mileage, why should I care which methods are used to achieve that standard?
The basic idea being, if you are going to have regulation, it should be scoped so that you are setting a goal, not mandating every step of one particular method of achieving that goal. The former encourages innovation while the latter stifles it.
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think it would have any impact on fuel consumption at all? I mean seriously, we do not have thermostatic regulators on cars that vary the work of the compressors. They simply charge to a certain amount, release once the pressure it there and the AC in the car runs. With the aerodynamics of modern cars, it's actually cheaper-more fuel efficient to keep the windows rolled up and run the AC instead of rolling them down.
Nothing in modern car technology suggests that there would be any fuel savings from a measure like this. The only benefit might be the seats not being hot when you get into a car. However, less need for AC only means that the venting controls will mix less or more fresh air across the diffuser/exchanger in order to maintain a comfortable temperature. It's not like in a house when the AC simply won't run as much.
And no, no one needs to travel into the future to know it wouldn't create any fuel savings. In fact, it's probably going to create a situation where more fuel is used with the creation and transport of the filtering material. But we already have technology like this in place with no noticeable fuel consumption improvements. Some of the more expensive luxury cars already place films like this on the windows and it's basically the same concept as extremely tinted windows which is pretty much outlawed in most states. The simplest cursory look would have already shown these lawmakers how futile their effort is in this regard. I suspect the regulation is either someone taking a payoff from a company attempting to profit from this or some gullible idiot in California government bought into the marketing hype, couldn't tell the difference between how cars and homes operate, and decided to push it in the same manner that Blind CEOs attempt to implement the more costly solutions that do not work because the marketing had shiny bells and whistles. And yes, I have seen CEOs and CIOs spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on software packages that do nothing but duplicate existing functionality with no benefit other then some sales presentation and a stake dinner the rep took him out for. I'm almost to the impression that the CA government are rejects considered too extreme for a Dilbert cartoon.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're a scientist or engineer doing reasearch and development on the topic, it really doesn't matter. You get 100mpg and have low emissions, that's good enough for the lay-person.
The mileage and the emissions should be the goals set by the government, rather than pegging it to a specific technology. What happens when an improved technology is developed that is better for mileage and emissions but no longer fits within this law? Surprise, it's suddenly illegal to put in more efficient glass!
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:0, Insightful)
Did the 1908 Model T have:
Satellite Navigation
Air Conditioning
Electric Start
AntiLock Brakes
Disc Brakes
Automatic 6 speed transmission
Power Windows
Power Locks
Power Steering
Crumple Zones
Airbags
AM/FM/CD player with 8 speaker surround sound
Satellite Radio
Carpeted trunk and passenger space
Low E glazed safety glass
Halogen headlights with foglights and high beams
No? It didn't have any of those thing? Well then, why would it surprise you that with all of the extra WEIGHT that a modern vehicle could struggle to get significantly higher fuel mileage?
There's no conspiracy surrounding fuel economy in today's cars, just the laws of physics and the occasional bureaucratic idiocy (I'm referring to diesel here).
Re:! surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:2, Insightful)
And they wonder why their economy is in the toilet (Score:3, Insightful)
If the state of California believes they need to regulate negative externalities resulting from the operation of internal combustion engines, then they should tax the operation of internal combustion engines across the board.
Instead, we have an authoritarian government telling us what light bulbs we can screw in, what size of televisions we can own, and now the brand of auto glass we use.
What we have here is government singling out specific groups, behaviors, and industries with coercive power in a manner that is anathema to individual liberty.
Economic liberty is a civil liberty.
Re:! surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mixed standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree, because there are powers invested in government that aren't invested in any other organization. The government may make my actions illegal, imprison, and/or kill me. Other organizations can't, unless the government gives them the allowance to do so. Therefore, the government is the group that most critically requires limitation.
(By the way, I just metamoded, and your comment popped up. I gave it a thumbs up.)
Re:Welcome to California... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes voter control of taxation and spending is a horrible idea, it's ALMOST as bad as politicians controlling spending and taxation.
For reference see: Federal Government, United States
Re:If I lived in Cali... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ever move to California, do exactly that. Then try to register it as a resident.
I've never lived in California, but I have a hard time believing they would allow such a loophole. I expect the conversation would go something like this:
You: "Hi, I just bought a car and I'd like to register it, please."
DMV: "Great. Congrats. So let's see the paperwork, please." (shuffles paperwork). "Hmm, you a resident of California?"
You: "Yes"
DMV: "OK, you are aware that you needed to buy the California package as a resident of California for a car you intend to use here, right?"
You: "Yes, that's why I drove across state lines, to avoid that and California's use tax on vehicles."
DMV: "Ah, I think we have the problem sorted! OK, great, we can register that for you. Just take it to a local shop and pay the extra $250 for the gear we require, plus of course $1000 labor to install it, and please be aware this probably voids your warranty, though that's between you and the auto manufacturer. Then, remit the California use taxes that a California dealer would have been aware of and withheld for you, as opposed to the Nevada use taxes you paid which I'm sure Nevada is thrilled for the donation you just gave them."
All you'd be doing is driving across state lines and, in effect, donating a second dose use tax to another state and upgrading the vaseline with expensive sand.
When I moved from Tax-Free New Hampshire to Kentucky some years back, I had to pay use tax on the Kelly Blue Book value of all of the cars I "imported" into Kentucky, even though the cars were purchased BEFORE I WAS A RESIDENT and I had paid all of the fees (only none of them were called "use tax") when I purchased the vehicles originally. The total came to well over two thousand dollars for a 4-year-old car and a 2-year-old car.
When I moved to Maine, I had to show proof of payment of that use tax to Kentucky and, as a new resident, I was allowed a one-time exemption for my two vehicles since I had paid Use Tax in another state whose rate was as high as or higher than Maine's. If Kentucky's had been lower, I would have been on the hook for the difference. I was also informed that if I purchased a car outside the state once I became a resident, I'd have to pay full Maine use tax. Fortunately, Kentucky and Maine have "reciprocal agreements" in place, because if I'd moved to some states I would have owed use taxes all over again.
Neither of my cars had the California Package, which Maine requires, but I was still allowed to import them because they were not purchased in Maine and I was not a resident at the time of purchase, so the law did not apply to me. However, I would have trouble registering a new car purchased in another state if it lacked that package.
Better option: Don't move to California. Or declare your legal residence as Florida and register your cars there, then buy a mailstop address there. IANAL, so that may or may not be technically legal in your state.
Re:Or any committee (Score:5, Insightful)
The private sector is already doing something much more stupid - namely, failing to use this glass for the 99% of car windows for which it makes sense. By comparison, requiring it in the 1% of cases (Jeep windows!) where it's not necessary is a little unfortunate but insignificant.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:1, Insightful)
No. It should be up to the customer.
Sure, as long as what the customer chooses doesn't affect anybody else. Feel free to use a car that only gives 1 MPG, as long as you not only pay for the gas, but also clean up all the air you'll be polluting.
We have laws and regulations to protect people from other people. The alternative breeds what we call "Anarchy." That's a Bad Thing.
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
We're forced to purchase car insurance with no government-provided option, BY LAW.
The answer is obviously not, because nobody will shoot the fuckers responsible and send a clear message that this bullshit will not be tolerated.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:3, Insightful)
No. It should be up to society
No. It should be up to the customer. The alternative breeds what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing.
Nanny state is such a funny term. Libertarians use it to describe unwelcome economic regulation while liberals use it to describe unwelcome social regulation.
A regulation like this is trying to prevent a tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org], specifically with our air. At first glance I thought it was specious also, but in a warm place like California where the AC is running probably a good portion of the time, I wouldn't be surprised if the AC is the weakest link in the chain of efficiency.
I don't really know if this is a bad idea or not; I see merits but I also see drawbacks.
I have a couple misgivings about the article too. Beyond the interesting fact that it's an Auto Insider article:
Major automakers, led by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, argued for a different standard that would "absorb" rather than "reflect" energy and wouldn't risk wireless signals. "It achieves about 85 percent of the benefit at about 10 percent of the cost, and it doesn't have any of the complications of reflective glazings," said the alliance's Steve Douglas.
I don't see how absorption could provide the same benefit because that would generate heat. There must be a lot more to the whole thing than this article is letting on.
How is this going to affect ezpass toll systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if this is going to affect ezpass toll systems, which use battery powered RFID transponders: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass [wikipedia.org]
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:2, Insightful)
It should be up to the consumer. Why do you think you are important enough to tell me what I can buy. If everyone did everything "in the best interest of society" all fun and creativity in the world would be destroyed. Painting, sky diving, water skiing, snowboarding the list goes on forever of things that harm the environment and society and provide no directly measurable benefit. So unless you are going to ban EVERYTHING that society as a whole deems worthless, there is absolutely no reason to ban this one. I for one don't want to live in a future world where the sole purpose of cars is to "efficiently transport a person from one location to another". Under this definition you no longer need a radio, cup holder, adjustable seats, etc. In other words, if you are going to pull the "its irresponsible" thing think about what you are saying first. You are claiming that a car has a sole, defined by the government, purpose and anything that gets in the way of that purpose should be banned.
The overarching effects of what you propose are gigantic and would result in a brain-dead communist nation of zombies... hopefully I will have a hummer and a shotgun to survive the ensuing zombieland of dumbfucks that will only be allowed to buy what the nation deems suitable for them (which is so much better than being convinced by commercials don't you think?)
Re:I've developed a new type of air conditioning (Score:5, Insightful)
However, often the mythbusters' methodology is shaky, and from this short synopsis (I haven't seen that episode) this was one of those cases.
At 45 mph you will indeed get better mileage with the windows down (on most cars, YMMV). That's the first methodology fault. The faster you go, the more pronounced the drag. Under 40 you're better with the windows down, over 50 you're better off with them up. Nobody drives 45 on the interstate -- in fact, that's the minimum speed on most highways.
The second is, you have two different drivers with two different driving styles. The one who is able to keep closer to a steady speed is going to get the best mileage. If they had set the cruise control to 70mph and done the test, the computer would have matched the results.
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
We're forced to purchase car insurance with no government-provided option, BY LAW.
How is that a bad thing? You might feel differently when your car is totaled by an uninsured driver, who has no money to pay for your medical bills even if you sue him.
Re:CARB, necessary evil (Score:5, Insightful)
"what we call a "Nanny State." That's a Bad Thing."
Why? A political catchphrase is not an argument, nor is it a description of an actually-existing thing. It's just a shout with no verbal content.
Think about this: real nannies exist for a reason. Real states also exist for a reason. There are certain situations where people collectively come to the decision that they don't *want* to tolerate certain types of destructive behaviour, because they cost us all. Any healthy group does this, because normal healthy humans are social creatures. We *like* to modify our behaviour so that it doesn't have stupid outcomes for the group. We call this "learning to socialise". The only people who think that a human must be an absolutely self-sufficient, take-nothing, give-nothing, hardcore screw-my-neighbour loner, are psychologically damaged individuals who haven't learned how to live with others.
It's one thing that such a syndrome exists. It's another that this psychological dysfunction has become a hugely powerful political movement. We don't need to bow down to this false idea of the heroic egotist fighting the mass of zombie sheeple trying to crush his freedom. Instead, look at each case on its merits and realise that collective problems do exist, society is not a bad thing, and that centralised responses sometimes are the right response and sometimes aren't.
So instead of just throwing a content-free slogan around, how about arguing why in *this* specific case, *this* kind of regulation is the wrong response to a serious societal problem?
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that you're trimming the fuel consumption there when there's other places to go looking for wastage that'd be more effective. But, noo...we're going to worry about a roughly 2-5Hp drag on the engine that's not on all the time with any of the class of cars they're doing it to in the first place.
Can use an external antenna (Score:3, Insightful)
The glass blocks cell signals? Cell phone antennas are weak anyway. You can buy external antennas that mount on your card (like police use) and either re-broadcast inside the vehicle or plug directly in (if your phone has a plug).
Wilson Electronics is one manufacturer of this kind of equipment. (My company is a dealer.)
Honestly I'd like to see vehicle manufacturers give an option to have this kind of equipment built in to a vehicle.
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Public universities are quite good in this country too, don't forget. Tons of foreign students come here just to go to our public universities. Of course, how "public" they are is debatable: unlike high school, you have to pay to go to University of or State University. They also don't take just anyone: you have to have certain ACT or SAT test scores, high school grades, etc. to get in.
So, it seems that a government-affiliated institution can actually do pretty well when it's selective about its enrollment. I suspect the same would be true of elementary and high schools if they didn't have to waste time and effort on kids that don't want to learn, and whose parents don't care. "Mainstreaming" simply doesn't work.
Re:! surprising (Score:1, Insightful)
Sounds pretty good to me. And on a national level, social security is broke, medicare is broke. Hmmm, I got it! Let's put the government in charge of HEALTH CARE too!
I don't understand the mind of anyone who doesn't instinctively grasp the fact that government is the absolute worst way to accomplish a goal. Anything you do will be late, over budget and operate on the wrong principles due to the simple fact that everything is subject to political pressure. There is nothing government can accomplish that can't be done better by private entities subject to healthy free market pressures.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I see your burglary and raise you an armed robbery.
I was robbed at gunpoint several years ago. Within 15 seconds of the asshole leaving, I called 911 and was immediately connected to a 911 operator. Within 90 seconds there was a police officer on the scene. Within 3 minutes the place was swarming with cops. Within 6 minutes the asshole was sitting in the back of a car in handcuffs. Did I mention this was in the middle of a snowstorm. With 10 inches already on the ground?
Having said that I have been harassed by the police on multiple occasions because I looked like someone who might have drugs on them.
People are people, and they will always act like people, even if we give them special titles like Police Officer. Just don't confuse people being people with THE GUBBERMINT IS INCOMPETENT, because only people can be incompetent.
Re:! surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing government can accomplish that can't be done better by private entities subject to healthy free market pressures.
Even the most die-hard supporters of Hayek would disagree with you there. Any sort of good or service that suffers from positive externalities will be a good candidate for government support. For example, take roads. We realize that there are positive externalities from having a free flow of goods and services. This externality would largely disappear if roads were privatized, because the tolls would be high enough to impose a significant burden on new ventures. Therefore, the government builds the roads, because the benefits to society from having free roads outweighs the costs.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, because roads, schools, and police aren't beneficial at all. grow up.
Hmmmm? Why is "OMG ROADS" the grown-up response to "Government in general does a lot of terrible, wasteful things?"
At the Federal level, very little goes to roads, schools, and police. At the local level (at least where I live) those are the first things cut because cutting them scares up support for new taxes.
So, yes, roads, schools, and police are beneficial. Nobody said that they weren't, and that doesn't explain how anything coming out of California makes a lick of sense.
Re:You mean ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're honestly in a situation where you need to do work, via cell phone, during your commute, then do the world a favour and either take the bus, or get a chauffeur. Either option would allow you to work on a laptop computer while you commute, too, which would be much more productive, don't you think?
Having a cell phone in your car is a good thing, in that you can call service or help when you need it, and you can call for directions. But pull over and park the car when you're in such a situation, so that you can focus all of your attention on driving when the vehicle is in motion. I spend enough of my energy while driving on reacting to the stupid things other people do when they aren't paying attention, and I don't need you adding to the situation, thanks.
Re:! surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
omfg the man is totally out to get you dude.
Heres a hint: If you were robbed and the total loss was $50, I'm going to be fucking pissed if they spend $15k investigating it using my tax dollars rather than doing more important things.
How do you know the prints were bigger? Seems to me like they'd have to look all over the house and dust for them for you to know they were bigger. Of course, the reality of it is they were probably a friends, and the cops really only need to check specific places, where the criminals come in.
They don't dust your piano for prints when they check the glass on the broken window glass and find them there.
I too have been a victim, while I thought the cop and detectives that investigated were being very lax, after talking with them about what they were doing it became clear real quick that they had a good 20 years EACH more experience than I, and knew where to not waste time doing stupid shit. They caught the guy during one of the times it happened to me, with my help, people are far more likely to talk to a neighbor than a cop, its amazing how much YOU CAN HELP YOURSELF. The other instance resulted in a leather jacket and ~$30 taken from my unlocked car. It would have been a complete waste of time AND money to investigate it, however they are aware of it so if a string of break-ins occur they can work with the pattern.
You can report police who violate traffic laws, of course you'll probably end up reporting an officer that was going to a crime and didn't have his sirens on so he/she didn't alert the person he was coming or a hundred other reasons that you know nothing about since you obviously aren't a cop.
Cops don't investigate ponzi schemes, its not their arena, try the FBI or your SBI instead, those are the people who handle that sort of thing. Again however, I'd rather have them going after real criminal organizations rather than some ponzi scheme taking advantage of idiots like yourself. Truth be told, it probably wasn't a ponzi scheme, judging by the way you are using the word I'm betting you actually don't know what it means.
People who whine like yourself are the kind of people that make the rest of the world think people from California are complete morons who expect someone else to take care of them, sadly, I do think someone else needs to take care of you, at least until you get out of high school.
As the GP said, grow the hell up, the man isn't out to get you.
Re:Non US Governments (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I'm just going by current examples. Medicare is broke, Social security is broke. You can not ignore the fact that in the US the big public welfare programs have all been horribly mismanaged. Yet for some reason people want to do try the same thing again insanely expecting a different result. What can be accomplished with a public option that can't be done through legislation and regulation? At least that way the government won't be stuck with the bill. What's wrong with people paying for their own insurance, making their own choices? The US has a long tradition of letting the private sector lead and I'd say that in general this approach has served us rather well.
The insurance market in the US is very segmented and it's hard for companies to compete nationwide. I would point out that in Schweiz people are forced by law to all pay the same monthly premium for the same coverage. It's a very regressive system that burdens the poor far worse than the wealthy. We need regulation that increases competition, opens markets and allows nonprofits to compete. No public option is necessary. We also need tort reform to rein in malpractice costs. People can choose limited tort auto insurance which reduces their rates if they agree on limits to liability suits. No reason this can't be done for medicine except for political pressure from lawyers.
When I was a kid, we went to the doctor and he charged a minimal fee for the visit. Insurance companies got into the act and fees went through the roof. Then they forced unfavorable contracts on the doctors where we now have to pay a minimal fee directly to the doctor for the visit...AND a huge monthly premium to the insurance company. I would point out however that the insurance companies are by and large solvent - not to say I necessarily agree with their business practices. Open up the markets, increase transparency and let people make their own choices and the private sector takes care of itself.
The US is a FAR larger and more diverse market than these small European countries. The political climate also seems to be less dynamic and less responsive to the public good. Both major political parties are essentially fronts for large special interest groups. There is no rational reason to assume that a negotiation between one party beholden to the insurance industry and the other party beholden to the law lobby will agree on anything that is in the public good or even remotely workable. A public "option" that has it's hand perpetually in the taxpayer's pocket will forever crush consumer choice and control over the quality of their insurance and health care.
Re:Welcome to the US (Score:3, Insightful)
The lobbyist that got this written (or wrote it himself) did not work for society, he worked for a specialty glass corporation. Why would he want rules for the betterment of society when instead he could have rules for the betterment of his patron? And of course, he'll still use the betterment of society as his argument.
I totally understand that. My argument is that it obviously shouldn't be the way it works, even if it is the status quo.
You aren't, of course, advocating that they should run the country, are you?