Surprise...surprise.....the Volt's a total communist piece of ****..

[The-Joker]

The only problem with the whole situation is that the auto industry blocks seemingly effective and clean technology such as cars that run on natural gas, because of the kickback they get on oil sales, and they promote pipe-dream and very inefficient technology such as hydrogen cars, hybrid cars, electric cars, and ethanol, to keep up their "oil kickbacks". The way I see it is the government should start letting the auto industry deflate (because they own most of it) and start pursuing short term, a middle term, and a long term approach to beating the foreign oil dependency.
For short term (5-10 years), I would shoot for a goal of 25 mpg's for every "personal" car to enter the market, and a progression of a small number of miles per gallon every year, so like 25 MPG's in 2012, 26 in 2013 and so on.
For middle term (15-20 years) start working on developing engines that can use natural/clean gas NOW, and hope to implement in the near future.
For long term- (25+) start the nuclear car revolution, same strategy as natural gas, start working on it now.

But i'm not the president... yet.

 

[Scat]

It won't be the major manufacturers that solve the problem. It's going to be a small, independent manufacturer that starts building revolutionary vehicles that incorporate new technology that changes the way we drive.

 

[One Brow]

For middle term (15-20 years) start working on developing engines that can use natural/clean gas NOW, and hope to implement in the near future.

Natural gas still emits greenhouse gases, and it is still primarily a fossil fuel.

For long term- (25+) start the nuclear car revolution, same strategy as natural gas, start working on it now.

The sheilding on a truly nuclear car would be prohibitively heavy. Naval vessels are already huge, but who wants to dive a care as large as three tanks?

It won't be the major manufacturers that solve the problem. It's going to be a small, independent manufacturer that starts building revolutionary vehicles that incorporate new technology that changes the way we drive.

To make a long-term impact, the small independent will eventually need to rely on the distribution channels of the major manufacturer. Organically growing such a chain in the face of competition would be a very slow prospect.

 

[Scat]

The sheilding on a truly nuclear car would be prohibitively heavy. Naval vessels are already huge, but who wants to dive a care as large as three tanks?

Mr. Fusion

 

[One Brow]

If anyone can do it, it's Dr. Emmet Brown.

 

[sirkickyass]

And you're actually proud that you purchased one of these things. And I thought Archie was gay.

It's for my girlfriend and she loves it. Who isn't proud of getting someone a gift that they enjoy? Now would I buy one for myself? Probably not, but largely because I drive other people around too frequently for a two-seater to be practical.

What a gay concept. If they want to reward me for driving efficiently have the car spit out $5 bill every time I do well. Digital flowers on the dash? Seriously?!

Personally, I'm more entranced with it's buttons that change modes between "econ" "normal" and "sport" (which is less fuel efficient but decidedly peppy). When I drove it I kept mashing those buttons to listen to the engine change sounds and pretending I was in Speed Racer.

Also, to both you and Trout "gay" isn't a perjorative. Knock it off.

For short term (5-10 years), I would shoot for a goal of 25 mpg's for every "personal" car to enter the market, and a progression of a small number of miles per gallon every year, so like 25 MPG's in 2012, 26 in 2013 and so on.

This law and program already exists and has for 30 years. Thanks for playing. We all have been so impressed by your deep knowledge of the industry.

It won't be the major manufacturers that solve the problem. It's going to be a small, independent manufacturer that starts building revolutionary vehicles that incorporate new technology that changes the way we drive.

You mean Tesla?

 

[TroutBum]

Personally, I'm more entranced with it's buttons that change modes between "econ" "normal" and "sport" (which is less fuel efficient but decidedly peppy). When I drove it I kept mashing those buttons to listen to the engine change sounds and pretending I was in Speed Racer.

Also, to both you and Trout "gay" isn't a perjorative. Knock it off.

I assume you meant 'pejorative', in which case my comment wasn't. Gays are known for liking feminine things, and a flower-rated system is certainly feminine. The fact that Archie likes boys was just a happy chance.

 

[Scat]

Also, to both you and Trout "gay" isn't a perjorative. Knock it off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so it can be used, for example, to refer to an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves.

Sounds like a pejorative to me.

Let me ask this. In the 19th century gay simply meant happy. Over time it morphed into a word associated with homosexuality. Why can it not morph again into a word that simply means something akin to stupid or lame? In fact, lame is another great example of a word that has morphed over time.

You mean Tesla?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SzTVnSMlF0&feature=related

 

[C l u t c H 385]

It won't be the major manufacturers that solve the problem. It's going to be a small, independent manufacturer that starts building revolutionary vehicles that incorporate new technology that changes the way we drive.

 

[sirkickyass]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay

Sounds like a pejorative to me.

The same wiki also has this segment:

When used with a derisive attitude (e.g. "that was so gay"), the word gay is pejorative. While retaining its other meanings, it has also acquired "a widespread current usage" amongst young people, as a general term of disparagement.[26][27] This pejorative usage has its origins in the late 1970s. Beginning in the 1980s and especially in the late 1990s, the usage as a generic insult became common among young people.[27]

This usage of the word has been criticized as homophobic.

But who's cherry picking?

Let me ask this. In the 19th century gay simply meant happy. Over time it morphed into a word associated with homosexuality. Why can it not morph again into a word that simply means something akin to stupid or lame? In fact, lame is another great example of a word that has morphed over time.

You have resisted that exact argument with respect to the word marriage.

 

[Scat]

But who's cherry picking?

Apparently, both of us.

 

[sirkickyass]

Apparently, both of us.

If I could +3 for this, I would.