Dangers of Global Warming

Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.


Self driving cars will be better suited to multiple ownership or short
term hire when they are available.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 7:30:15 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Self driving cars will be better suited to multiple ownership or short
term hire when they are available.

Self-driving cars will not be able to cope with the tunnel problem.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 6:09:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.

Incorrect.

Certainly, that's
a poor option for rural residents, but they represent a small (and
shrinking) percentage of the total population.

Irrelevant.



Snell equates "personal transportation" with "personally owned
automobile",

Do not presume to say such a thing, you liar.


which of course isn't what I said

It wasn't what I said either.

but then he always
filters everything he hears through his dogma filters.

You need to get that words "filter" and "dogma" out of your vocabulary since you have failed to learn their meanings.

Obviously, a
fleet of shared vehicles is just as much personal transportation as a
fleet of personally owned vehicles.

Incorrect.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 8:30:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

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

IF you happen to be parked at a charging station.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 9:44:49 AM UTC-4, 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.

Not when they are nearly discharged and require some considerable time to recharge.

I considered converting an old car to electric but the result would have been impractical and not cost effective. The current crop of "store-bought" electrics are absolutely no better, in fact worse.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 9:47:44 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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.)

peterson, you are truly insane. There aren't "two types of transporters"... there aren't ANY transporters, they are pure fantasy not even science fiction.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 9:18:05 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
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.


In the episode where the transporter coughed up two Captain Kirks, one good and one evil, one cannot posit that either of them was the original; they were two entirely separate, self aware individuals, yet initially they did not know of each other's existence. The original Captain no longer existed, ie he was dead.

When the two were recombined by the transporter they each ceased to exist.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-4, 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.

That isn't not always true. Certain models are a great value if bought used. The flexibility of being able to change your route on a whim leads to incredible savings at times. In the US even a poor family can make a spur of the moment trip to the mountains or beach.



Sharing vehicles makes a lot of sense if the convenience can be maintained at lower cost:



That would be a good trick.

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:45:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 6:09:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

but then he always
filters everything he hears through his dogma filters.

You need to get that words "filter" and "dogma" out of your vocabulary since you have failed to learn their meanings.

Obviously, a
fleet of shared vehicles is just as much personal transportation as a
fleet of personally owned vehicles.

Incorrect.

If the word "incorrect" was removed from YOUR vocabulary, you would have almost nothing to say... which would be a good thing, Dick...

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:57:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 9:44:49 AM UTC-4, 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.

Not when they are nearly discharged and require some considerable time to recharge.

Of course, your limited intellect is unable to see beyond the current
capability. There is no doubt at all that in 10 years electric cars
will be charged as quickly as we now put gas in tanks. We are in a
period of transitional technology. No technological advance hasn't
gone through one.