LOL, you've never heard of civil forfeiture, have you?
I was in a Comcast office trying to trade in a set-top box for a CableCard (which is a whole separate pile of bullshit by itself). As you might expect, this inevitably resulted in the rent-a-deputy (not just a security guard, but a damn officer of the state!) that Comcast had hired to deal with irate customers (i.e. all of them) taking notice of the situation. First he told me to leave for "disturbing the peace." Then, he followed me out the door and stopped me, which is when I asked "am I being detained?" After waffling on the question, he told me to go back in the store and deal with the customer service rep because otherwise they wouldn't count the set-top-box I'd put on the counter as "returned" and keep charging me for it (as if Comcast's incompetence is his problem).
I almost should have suggested that if Comcast did fail to log the return then I could just cite him as a witness to prove it and then left anyway, but -- like I said -- I genuinely wasn't sure if he would have arrested me if I tried.
Congratulations, you've just described fixed-point arithmetic.
Am I being detained?
The last time I asked a sheriff's deputy that (which incidentally was yesterday -- not to imply that it happens often), his answer was "you're about to be!"
So, is that a "yes" or a "no?" 'Cause I wasn't sure.
Apparently, law enforcement officers are trained to be tricky bastards.
The state should lose a couple million dollars in nice fat settlements to everyone pulled over. It's the only way they ever learn.
The state should lose the same amount of money, but it should only be distributed the citizens who refused to take the $50. It's the only way they will ever learn!
A thermostat is a bimetallic spring attached to a switch. If that's a robot, everything is.
Beef for burgers is $3+ per pound (usually more like $4+ if you don't want mechanically-separated). Fresh vegetables tend to be $1-$3 per pound, unless you want to buy something weird out of season (e.g. asparagus in September). Not to mention, frozen vegetables -- either store-bought or frozen yourself -- "keep" and retain most/all of their nutritional value (unlike canned).
(By the way, if you're on a budget, switch to chicken instead of beef. Whole chickens cost less than $1 per pound.)
I know, right? My fluorine & chlorine tap is totally contaminated with the stuff, and the city utility department refuses to do anything about it!
Perhaps new laws should sunset once or twice, and then become permanent if renewed.
Put the main thermostat near the TRV-less radiator, but turn down that radiator's valve so that it's only open a little bit and heats up slowly?
You make the implicit assumption that government creates more good laws than bad ones. I suspect that the person who proposed expanded use of sunset laws doesn't believe that to be the case.
(Personally, I agree with him -- the goal of the government should be to have the minimum amount of laws and regulation necessary.)
US diesel fuel has been "low sulfur" (500 PPM) for quite a while now. Recently -- and by "recently" I mean since 2006, not "a few years" -- the US switched from "low sulfur" to "ultra-low sulfur" (15 PPM).
By the way, you know biodiesel? 0 PPM sulfur.
No, you won't be breaking any 0-60 records, which might make it difficult for the MURKA! FUCK YEAH! crowd to accept
Dude, the "MURKA! FUCK YEAH!" crowd does 11-second quarter mile drag races in their 1000+ HP Cummins Dodge Rams.
This isn't the '80s; diesels are not like those old shitty Oldsmobiles anymore. Even my lightly-modded MK4 Volkswagen diesel can beat a stock Mk4 GTI in a drag race. (And before you say "but that's modded" keep in mind that a new VW diesel has 140 HP, which is the same as a Civic, but has way more torque.)
In principle, I agree with the sentiment that trying something out, realizing that it doesn't work and stopping it is good.
However, the underlying problem is that they set themselves up for failure because they didn't just say "we want ethanol fuel, and we'll let industry figure out the most efficient way to produce it," they said "we want ethanol, and we're going to subsidize a stupid way of producing it."
Now the question is, will they understand that they failed at regulation, or will they (mistakenly) think biofuels failed as a solution?
Oh, I know. I only really said it in the "even if I accept your premise and give your argument every advantage possible, you're still wrong" sense.
I haven't bothered to give it enough thought to decide whether I'd actually believe it (although I now default to extreme skepticism for any NSA claims).