That, my friend, sounds like a challenge!

clearly you don't drive.

nice theory, but I think it doesn't quite hold up. Specifically cheap doesn't mean better for the environment.
eg. http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/china/environmental_problems_china/
unfortunately much of what is cheap today is only on loan from future clean-up-costs. That is not factored in the costs now. Not even a bit.

However, cheap is better in other ways.
Drink water from a creek.
Cool off by sweating.
Sit on the ground.

I also suspect that the longevity of an electric car (besides the battery) can outlast a conventional one by a long time given there are so many fewer parts. So quality plays into it. I think it is a simplification that electric cars are more expensive. They probably will not remain that way from a price point either. I think that it is foolish to think that batteries are equivalent to consumable like gasoline. There are similarities, of course, but they are very different.

Even with rough calculations of other technologies, take something recent that has changed quite a bit, like plasma tvs - 10 years ago, they were $10k or more - now, a much better one is available for $1k. If electric cars follow that trend, they will be $5k-$10k in 10 years, and they will be better. The people today buying these are allowing that technology to develop. The people who aren't are possibly Luddites.

I think that it has been revised a few times in the last year and projections are higher than what was hoped - and no decline in the next century (although a slowing is expected).
There is a nice chart here: http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm

power consumption
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=united+states+power+use+%2F+population+of+united+states
1.39 kilowatt hr / year per person in the USA
If everyone globally uses the same (similar) amount, which is reasonable, it will require about 5x more power that currently used globally. That assumes a lot of things, of course.
Projections are fun!

Just think how dumb they'd be without the internet!

People are a lot 'smarter' than before. There is no doubt. "Just google it" first requires the person to acknowledge they don't know something, and forming a question about that something. Then reading about it. Comprehension may be weak, but there is something more there than before. All of these traits are what we used to call 'smart'.

I'm certain beyond a doubt that computers have given people (those that have them) a HUGE advantage.

I'm remembering people who couldn't read, others who wouldn't admit they don't know something, and people who spouted nonsense. All of those people still exist. But now-a-days only the spouting of nonsense has increased. And the nonsense can be quickly - on the spot - fact checked.

I used to read all sorts of magazines and it was a great way to learn about things that I wouldn't normally find depth in elsewhere. However, the content began to be simplified, and eventually dumbed down so much that reading them became pointless. The internet now carries everything, but to be fair, it usually is poorly written, or for attention spans of 2 minutes or less. And there's the assumption that you will dig around for clarity or depth.

My biggest disappointment is Scientific American. I remember looking forward to it coming to my door - but since the early 90s, it slowly became toilet paper. I remember first learning about fractals from it, for example, and could build my own algorithms from the article alone. Now, if you get anything from it, it would merely be a mention of something interesting and a broken paragraph on what it might be.

All the magazines have fallen victim to this same kind of editing. I'm not really sure who the target audience is either. I suppose people who want to pretend to read words, but not really have any connection between them. It's sad when the 6 o'clock news has more depth in their 'reporting' than is afforded in magazines. I hope there are some that are good out there, but I've lost interest in trying to find them.

The education level across the board seems to be in steady decline here as well (Canada). It was, at one time too, my opinion that the training was the problem, but every so often there has been amazing people come through it as well. Thinking back to when I was in University, there were plenty of 1/2 quality people then too. And to be fair, we had a lot less to work with back then.

Now that I hire people, I'm looking for those 'gems', which tend to be rare. Then there are the 'experienced' people that don't have the current skills required to do the demanded work, and many have the attitude that they do not have things to learn, or are not going to bother. And they still expect top dollar. Then there are the young ones who don't have a clue and think they do. And expect 'roll-your-eyes' top dollar.

This brings me to a different but effectively similar conclusion:
1) The education system has always been mediocre, so when you are looking, it shows
2) Society has shifted toward people feeling more entitled than ever... Maybe it skipped a generation. Yes, that's actually it.
3) My perspective has changed, therefore scrutinizing others' abilities to a degree I've never done before. (This is major)

Since there are more people now (physical numbers, not ratio) that can't/won't do anything worth while, it is both daunting and depressing.

To touch on the idea that classes "lower the level of difficulty" is probably true in a way. I've heard that parents confront university and college professors regularly about their child's performance in classes and demand higher grades from them for their adult children. This is anecdotal evidence, but it would be interesting to find out if this is common-place. I can't imagine my parents becoming involved in my incompetence at that age... but, perhaps that's another story.

I think that it would be a better education system where students are permitted to enter and continue based on merit, not money. It is increasingly the other way around, it seems.

Even though I despise DST or whatever I live in a northern country. Yes, even at 49 degrees north, the daylight is significantly affected over the year.

2 times a year, I see the sun rise at 6 am and set at 6pm... one of them is in 3 days... but since we use DST, it will be 7am to 7pm... (roll eyes).
in December, rises 8 AM and sets 4 PM -- dim for about 1 hour on each end like from 8AM to 9AM and 3PM to 4PM
in June, rises 5 AM and sets 9 PM -- bright outside these times for 1-2 hours each way, so from 3AM to 5AM and 9PM to 11PM even though the sun is basically set.

For me, it takes me 3 weeks to adjust to a 1 hour change. It has to be the most horrible period in the spring dealing with it. If it were a 2 or 3 hour change, it would take a day or two to adjust.

DST is stupid - I'm not a child who needs to be told when to go work and when to go eat, but I barely follow these conventions for the convenience of others. It is obvious that businesses that live and die by these rules are mostly obsolete. Being at work when others are working is not a DST issue... having a common opening time is beyond moronic, for example, why would a bank only open from 10-3 during the week when everyone is working? That's convenient. Or worse, a clothing store? Who would go?

I love the fact that computers get updated timezone files all the time. It demonstrates how incredibly arbitrary and useless DST really is.

I think your math is wrong FTFY:
500e6 bit/sec x 1/8,589,934,592 GB/bit [google.com] x 169 min x 60 sec/min = 590.2 GB
still huge

Could this be the year of the flying car?

I couldn't agree more. This proposal is the most ridiculous idea I've ever imagined coming from Oregon.

I can think of 4 stupid laws/proposals that would make more sense.
1) tax vehicles by weight via insurance premiums
2) raise taxes at the pump to compensate
3) raise income taxes
4) tax families with more than 1 car

and just a throw in, expand the MAX in Portland out to Vancouver WA

Punishing those who are trying to be better for the environment seems so absurd it must be coming from someone on crack.

Arguably, the legions of Mormons knocking on doors do more damage than anything Scientology does. Then there's Jehovah's Witness which are in the same damaged goods camp.

Not a Mormon, I grew up with plenty around. They have mind boggling beliefs and are decidedly self interested and encourage exclusionary practices. There is little difference between Mormonism and Scientology. Both wrote a book to follow. Both are insidious. Both make ridiculous claims.

Arguing that one is 'better' than another is like arguing which shit does more good instead of which shit is stinkier.

If you have ever flown, you've been on board a plane with dozens of cell phones that have -not- been turned off, electronics in luggage that haven't been turned off, an the list goes on -- on every flight for the last 20 years, and probably much more.

Stupid regulations are stupid. If you really spend more that a second actually thinking about it, aircraft would be dropping out of the sky every second because of electronic interference. And if electronic interference caused problems like that, we'd be really wondering what kind of lame ass testing they do with their electronics on their plane. No shielding, open air, hand soldered, flimsy electronics, usually put together by a high-school-enthusiast-intern. It would be dropping like paper each time radar shined on them.

Other places have done it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7334372.stm

human brain simulation mostly be like this:
'what am I going to wear to the party?'
'I hope they like me.'
'Is someone hearing my thoughts?'
'who did this to me?'

That was the tech of the last century. Unfortunately, the off-hours have proven to be too costly, especially when they get injured or need time off.

Sorry, our common sense is copyrighted and only available in Canada. For more information about Common Sense international availability, please contact our lawyers. They will be watching you carefully for any infringement, intentional or accidental.