Exactly. Tracks are enjoyable for those who like to race, to compete with each other, or otherwise hit the top speed of their cars.

There is far more to driving a car than going fast. I've taken my classic sports car many times round the winding coastal roads in Spain, France and Portugal, and the experience cannot be described. The views, the fun, the sheer exhilaration round corners, it is just amazing (plus you meet so many interesting people off the tourist trail, and you are forced to actually learn the language, as very few speak English).

Some of the time the roads are such that you can't even hit the speed limit on them, so quite often I'm below the posted limit while having fun.

Sometimes in life, I come across people I just cannot comprehend, such as those who want nothing else than to have to do nothing but live in their bubble, with others (be they robot or human) doing everything for them. Those with a massive hard-on for self-driving cars (and banning all manual driven ones) fall into this category.

Then again. I don't commute by car, it is just for visiting distant friends/family, fun, road trips, etc... I commute by public transport, and all shops/bars/entertainment are within walking distance, but that is something that I deliberately decided on when I was looking for a place to live and a job to do.

P.S. If you're near Europe, the roads on the northern coast of Spain, (Basque area) and the ones in the northern coastal tip of Portugal are pretty awesome (especially those that go near or through nature reserves), there are also some lovely roads winding round the Pyrenees (if you decide to not take the tunnels). I don't know if it is due to the recession, but Spain has miles of newly built and/or tarmac-ed road, and so few cars on it that it is crazy (generally the only people I've come across in cars are the locals, who are also having fun).

Indeed, what he should have written:

"Governments are not going to allow an alternate form of currency to gain traction that they have no control over, unless coerced via threat of violence by a power with overwhelming military force".

That which applies to an individual and their taxes vis-a-vis government, applies in geopolitics as well :)

Bitcoin is not backed by anyone, so there is nobody to "force" its usage. We will just have to see if the sheer weight of people using it will accomplish the same thing without a central government.

Maybe so, but property here is expensive. I would probably not mind so much living in the same house as my parents if it was big enough for all of us to have "our space".

However to get that in a city (where the work is) in a country in Europe that is not in crises... you'll be looking at 1 million Euros at least, most likely more.

Way out of league of most people I know. The only ones who can do that are families that have lived in one spot for generations, so bought the place when it was cheap as chips. Then they inherited the place down the line, which nowadays is even difficult for them due to taxes on inheritance.

Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).

The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).

I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I cannot comment (I've been on the UK, French, Italian and Belgian public transport systems)

Either way, don't assume that magically building public transport would make your commute better, it could well make it worse (nothing like being stuck standing in a hot tin can with the smell of farts, urine and beer for 40 mins because a train broke down in the tunnel).

It would be far better to reduce this silly concept of "commuting", so that only those that have to be on premises to do their job commute, and make it so there are jobs that are withing walking/cycling distance to where you life. A more mixed zoning system, rather than massive tracts of residential zoning in one area linked to commercial/industrial ones would help with that.

It makes it somewhat tricky to have relationships, or generally socialise.

If I stayed with my parents, I'd have to share a room with my bro, and that would have made it a lot harder to bring a girl round.

Indeed a lot of us do still live with our parents, but being cooped up in a little room when you're in your thirties with your parents is just a recipie for arguments and family disputes (I know, because I have an older friend in this situation). From things like going out, to bringing people home, to being able to live your life on your terms, it just doesnt work to live at home. I had massive disputes with my parents because they didn't approve of my lifestyle, until I left, and things calmed down.

Especially now, as youth unemployment is really high. Of my friends only 2 of us have full time jobs. The others are either unemployed, or doing temp/part-time jobs for near minimum wage.

That is why we tend to socialise at each others places, going out has become a luxury, and things like your own pad, or a car, are just waaay out there. If you have a job and are lucky enough to have friends with jobs, you can get together and house-share.

Yes, I know very rich people who have like 5 bedroom houses, and yes, then those Gen-X'ers can just stay at home until they build up enough money to move out, or their parents die.

However, I don't know about others, but me waiting till my parents die for a place to live is not appealing (especially as thanks to medical advances, I could easily expect to live to my 50's before my parents are likely to die).

As a "Generation Y" person (according to their stats) who lives in the UK , I can tell you that most people of my generation (that I've known/met across Europe), and the one below it (born mid-late 90's), would love to own a car. However many just can't afford it, the costs, the fuel, the taxes, the insurance (espcially this) are just too high.

It isn't that they are not interested, just that they cannot do it. They are not stupid, they see what a money sink it has been turned into for them, and most just cycle, walk, take public transport, or use a car-sharing service if they really need a car (This is for those of us in the inner cities who have this alternative). Others have taken to using motorcycles as they are cheaper to run.

I have a car, but then, my income is above average for my age, and the place I live was built in the 80's, when it was assumed everyone would have a car, so they made off-street parking available. A lot of newly built properties are "car-free", where if you buy/rent there, not only do you not get your own parking, you are forbidden from owning a car parked/registered at that address. The local council will not let you.

Coolness has nothing to do with it. We are being forced away from them. Those old guys are telling us what kids think because it is those old guys who have made owning a car (or a home for that matter) impossible for us.

Next thing I'll hear is how "Generation Y" thinks its uncool to own a home, and we'd rather spend our lives renting due to the "flexibility" it offers us.

(Yes, I know this is somewhat UK/Europe centric, but I'm sure there are similar concerns across the pond as well).

T-mobile offers unlimited everything. I know because I have it, for £35 I get unlimited calls, texts and internet.

And when I moved house and had no broadband for 2 months (Due a problem with the copper line), they proved it, as I hit 35GB a month without even a peep from them about it, let alone a change to my monthly bill.

If there is a limit to their internet access, I've not hit it yet.

If Germany left the Euro, not only would the other countries start economically recovering, the New Deutschmark would jump up so high that Germany's exports would collapse, and take their economy with it (they would be like Japan).

Essentially, the rest of Europe is subsiding the German economy, and all its benefits (including such high wages, and good worker protection), at their expense. Which is why not only will Germany not leave the EU, it will keep bailing them out*. At least as long it is in their interest to do so.

*By "Germany" I mean the politicians, as they know exactly why Germany has been so successful. The populace not so much (AFAIK).

Well, at least in my case I completely missed it, so my apologies.

To me you made it sound like a lone person with an agenda can effect such change. My point was that you need a lot of big powers behind to actually take advantage of the situation, otherwise you just get a criminal action (or I guess in modern parlance, a "terrorist action", and the world moves on pretty much as normal).

Two pistol shots, and the entire Eurasian continent with itchy trigger fingers just looking for an excuse.

Don't confuse the trigger for massive change with the actual causes. Sometimes the trigger is just a convenient excuse to execute already laid plans.

And how much energy is required to make the batteries for an EV? Will not even include the energy required to produce all the advanced electronics for the thing to work (because a fuel cell EV car will need those too). Also, take into account that unlike a normal car, fixing the above will be pretty much impossible unless you are a specialist, and will probably involve just replacing things when they break (compared to a normal car, where any decently specced garage/machine shop can pretty much produce any part you need).

And cars/other vehicles. Trust me, weight is critical for cars as well. The lighter the car, the shorter the stopping distance, the better the fuel economy, the better the handling, the less kinetic energy == less deadly accidents.

Which is why I wasn't talking about hydrogen. It makes a lousy fuel, worse than batteries, because it is expensive to generate, and bloody impossible to store in a car-sized tank under any decent density. I was referring to ethanol/methanol fuel cells, which are liquid (high density), can be used with existing infrastructure (sometimes with minor modification), and can be burned in IC cars as well as fuel EV's, allowing for a transition period and/or peaceful co-existence between piston-heads and the rest of the world who only want a car to get them from A to B.

So were batteries, yet only now, 170+ years later, we have people trying to make them work for cars (note, people made electric cars back in the time before the Model-T, they never took off for the same reasons that we are dealing with now). The world is primarily driven by economic factors, not technical excellence. Fossil fuels were so cheap that there was no point investing research effort into the alternatives (including man-made fuels, like butanol, which actually pre-dates the use of petrol in IC engines).

They worked that one out already, GPS tracking and black-boxes in every car, and you get get charged per mile driven. So once they switch us over we will just get taxed based on how far we drive.

They are already rolling out the above, by mandating all new cars from 2013 have said black boxes in them, with permanent internet connection.

Not that I like the idea, I find it abhorrent (I'd rather they just checked the odometer every year and charge you based on the difference traveled since the last measurement), but I can't fault them for not thinking ahead.

Hopefully my old car would be exempt, or I might just up and leave the EU to an area with more personal freedom, like Russia (irony of ironies that).

I don't think their performance was ever challenged. I mean, their torque curve alone shows that it would be faster off the mark then a IC car of the same curb weight.

Everything I've gathered about EV's not performing well had little to do with performance, but more to do with energy density, recharge time, exotic materials, and the fact the batteries wear out a lot faster than a fuel tank.

(incidentally, all of the above (minus exotic materials) would be solved by using fuel cells in an EV car, if they can get them to not gunk up after a while and bring down the cost).

I don't get this at all, in what way? Viable according to whose standards? in what way? I mean, cars nowadays pretty much only output CO2, which is the same thing we output.

Also, cars are bigger than people, we won't be able to fit enough cars into a dense enough city space to make them unviable in that sense.

You can manufacture as much oil as you like, we've done it for a long time, the problem is that it is expensive compared to what you can get out of the ground, that it is limited to specialty areas (e.g. synthetic car oil). For Fuel we can manufacture hydrocarbons, although not (yet) in the amounts necessary to totally replace what is drilled out world wide.

In Europe, fuel costs are so high (due to taxes) that they are almost reaching parity with manufactured fuel in cost, which I suspect may well be the long term politicians goal (i.e. they can switch us all over and it would not cause a massive price shock).

In fact, from the point of view of alternatives, I still think *biofuels are better than EV, at least in the short/medium term. Batteries wear out quickly, are expensive, and have no reached density parity with chemical fuels.

Of course, you don't have to burn said fuels, perhaps fuel cells with electric traction would be the most efficient.

*I don't mean the ass-backwards thing in the US where you use corn to make fuel, but sugar cane, algae, grasses, hemp and others, which are far better suited to this without affecting the food supply.