Dangers of Global Warming

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:40:00 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:29:31 +0000 (UTC), John Savard
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:11:35 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future of
personal transportation.

Oh, nonsense. They represent a mere stopgap response to current pollution
problems.

The *future* of personal transportation is the flying car!

I'm hoping for transporters.

Riding a transporter --- DEATH!!!

It destroys the original and creates a clone.

OK for transporting inanimate objects, livestock and -maybe- pets.....

(If peterson rode the transporter he would be gone. However, the clone would be every bit as unpleasant as the original. Even a transporter can't fix stupid.)

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:42:33 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:59:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car.

Most of the world's current population does not and most never will.

Irrelevant.

You wrote earlier:

"The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future
of personal transportation."

My comments:

"Most of the world's current population does not and most never will."

and

"Most of the world's population doesn't own a bicycle, much less a car of any sort and that is unlikely to change. You are speaking from a very narrow and very self-centered perspective."

are quite true and quite relevant to the discussion.

The fact is that personal transportation will continue to involve walking for most, biking for fewer, and driving a car for fewer still.

As I said, you have a very narrow perspective, peterson.

You are profoundly stupid. As noted, your comment is irrelevant to my
observation. Of course, the majority of your comments are.

Electric vehicles represent the future of personal transportation. And
personal transportation is common to most humans (even those who don't
happen to own their own vehicle).


One notable feature of "personal transportation" vehicles is that they spend most of their time parked. Another is that they are immediately available to the owner, not sitting on a charger.

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:40:00 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:29:31 +0000 (UTC), John Savard
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:11:35 -0600, Chris L Peterson wrote:

The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future of
personal transportation.

Oh, nonsense. They represent a mere stopgap response to current pollution
problems.

The *future* of personal transportation is the flying car!

I'm hoping for transporters.

For a particularly gruesome story about transporters read Rogue Moon!

wrote:
On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:42:28 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:57:39 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 5:42:33 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:20:25 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 9:59:04 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

A large, significant, and growing percentage of the world's population
owns a car.

Most of the world's current population does not and most never will.

Irrelevant.

You wrote earlier:

"The important point, I think, is that these cars represent the future
of personal transportation."

My comments:

"Most of the world's current population does not and most never will."

and

"Most of the world's population doesn't own a bicycle, much less a car
of any sort and that is unlikely to change. You are speaking from a
very narrow and very self-centered perspective."

are quite true and quite relevant to the discussion.

The fact is that personal transportation will continue to involve
walking for most, biking for fewer, and driving a car for fewer still.

As I said, you have a very narrow perspective, peterson.

You are profoundly stupid. As noted, your comment is irrelevant to my
observation. Of course, the majority of your comments are.

Electric vehicles represent the future of personal transportation. And
personal transportation is common to most humans (even those who don't
happen to own their own vehicle).


One notable feature of "personal transportation" vehicles is that they
spend most of their time parked. Another is that they are immediately
available to the owner, not sitting on a charger.


So it makes sense to use that parked time for charging.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 6:07:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Riding a transporter --- DEATH!!!

It destroys the original and creates a clone.

Generally speaking, I agree. However, there may be exceptions depending on the
specific details of the technology used.

Since in the transporters used on The Next Generation and afterwards, people
can move and talk while being transported, if indeed they're moving and talking
the same way at their destinations (they don't vanish completely at the
transporter end before beginning to materialize at the other end) then a
sufficient connection exists between the individuals at the two end that a true
transfer is taking place.

But as far as the Original Series transporter is concerned, that is entirely
possible.

John Savard

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:13:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Electric vehicles represent the future of personal transportation. And
personal transportation is common to most humans (even those who don't
happen to own their own vehicle).

One notable feature of "personal transportation" vehicles is that they
spend most of their time parked. Another is that they are immediately
available to the owner, not sitting on a charger.

Not sure of your point. Electric vehicles are as available to their
owners as other types.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:07:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I'm hoping for transporters.

Riding a transporter --- DEATH!!!

It destroys the original and creates a clone.

"You" are destroyed every fraction of a second and a new you comes
into existence. You don't need a transporter for that.

(Also, there are two types of transporters. One type copies the
original and recreates it elsewhere, and the other physically sends
the original particles.)

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 13:35:47 UTC+2, wrote:

I make only short, truthful comments here whereas you post PAGES full of crap.

But, as I post much less regularly and always say nice things about [most] people here, your truncated, acerbic bloviation is [arguably] just as much of a bore. Just be eternally grateful that you don't have to endure endless pages of my handwriting!

Mr Verynonprecisbutnice. :ø))

On Friday, 16 October 2015 15:44:49 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 05:13:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Electric vehicles represent the future of personal transportation. And
personal transportation is common to most humans (even those who don't
happen to own their own vehicle).

One notable feature of "personal transportation" vehicles is that they
spend most of their time parked. Another is that they are immediately
available to the owner, not sitting on a charger.

Not sure of your point. Electric vehicles are as available to their
owners as other types.

Vehicle ownership has been sold as a convenience.
Though an expensive and wasteful one.
Even if you don't drive the damned thing regularly it has cost a will continue to cost you serious money.
Sharing vehicles makes a lot of sense if the convenience can be maintained at lower cost:
To represent the more limited personal use and manufacturing costs per person.
Dare I suggest that self-driving cars will eventually break the link between ownership and pride in ownership of any particular make or model?

On an earlier point: If all drugs were legalized..
Who would inadequate policemen shoot then?
Women? People of Asian/Arabic appearance? Babies?
People with moustaches? Just in case they might be predatory AND gay AND running away?

Booze is readily available and does not lead to 100% drunks amongst the global population.
Smoking has broken its hold on well educated populations.
Would legalizing drugs really result in 100% take-up of dangerous narcotics?
Drugs are readily available now and prices must be falling through oversupply and stiff competition for market share.
The cost in dealing with dealers must be crippling for countries with huge, poverty-stricken populations like the US.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

Vehicle ownership has been sold as a convenience.
Though an expensive and wasteful one.
Even if you don't drive the damned thing regularly it has cost a will continue to cost you serious money.
Sharing vehicles makes a lot of sense if the convenience can be maintained at lower cost:

Certainly. If you live in an urban environment, it makes sense to not
own a car at all. Cabs and rentals are far cheaper. Certainly, that's
a poor option for rural residents, but they represent a small (and
shrinking) percentage of the total population.

Snell equates "personal transportation" with "personally owned
automobile", which of course isn't what I said, but then he always
filters everything he hears through his dogma filters. Obviously, a
fleet of shared vehicles is just as much personal transportation as a
fleet of personally owned vehicles.