All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[The Alexanderians]

by several times in the upper cost margins...

In retrospect, I don't think a 40% infrastructure cost is in any way reasonable. Since we're talking about the speed and such being GPS based - and precise enough for court - the units cost a lot more than a regular GPS unit would or even a cell phone would. This shifts a lot of the cost to the units themselves.

The infrastructure, by comparison, simply needs to receive and pass along this data. There's very little in the way of calculations. It still will require an impressive network of towers and lines, however.

Maybe 20%.

Which takes us from roughly 3 trillion dollars to 3.6 trillion dollars.

*looks at the 3.7 trillion dollar federal budget*

Ok, not quite. If I did 40%, it would exceed the federal budget, but I really don't think that's reasonable.

Oh I thought you meant WITH current costs.

[Galloism]

In retrospect, I don't think a 40% infrastructure cost is in any way reasonable. Since we're talking about the speed and such being GPS based - and precise enough for court - the units cost a lot more than a regular GPS unit would or even a cell phone would. This shifts a lot of the cost to the units themselves.

The infrastructure, by comparison, simply needs to receive and pass along this data. There's very little in the way of calculations. It still will require an impressive network of towers and lines, however.

Maybe 20%.

Which takes us from roughly 3 trillion dollars to 3.6 trillion dollars.

*looks at the 3.7 trillion dollar federal budget*

Ok, not quite. If I did 40%, it would exceed the federal budget, but I really don't think that's reasonable.

Oh I thought you meant WITH current costs.

No no no.

If we dismantled the entire federal government except for this program, we could probably pay for it.

... before the anarchy, that is.

[Kraylandia]

Guys, let's just ban cars.

[Infected Mushroom]

and I thought your cost estimates couldn't get more mind-bogglingly ridiculous

I mean, its as though you felt the line hadn't yet already been crossed when you said this would cost more than nationalized healthcare + the military

At least Gallo has a cost estimate.

so if I come up with a cost estimate it automatically makes my argument better? even if its completely problematic on a common-sense level? (really? its going to cost more than nationalised healthcare + military expenditures?)

[Immoren]

At least Gallo has a cost estimate.

so if I come up with a cost estimate it automatically makes my argument better? even if its completely problematic on a common-sense level? (really? its going to cost more than nationalised healthcare + military expenditures?)

Common sense is worthless.

[Ifreann]

To a point, this entire idea is far beyond that point and into the realms of pants on head stupidity.

Especially when you're willing to engage in nuclear war in the name of public safety.

That's like fucking for virginity.

If anything it's like engaging in nuclear war for virginity.

[Infected Mushroom]

Especially when you're willing to engage in nuclear war in the name of public safety.

That's like fucking for virginity.

If anything it's like engaging in nuclear war for virginity.

No its not, that's a completely ridiculous (not to mention inappropriate and very vulgar) analogy

[The Two Jerseys]

At least Gallo has a cost estimate.

so if I come up with a cost estimate it automatically makes my argument better? even if its completely problematic on a common-sense level? (really? its going to cost more than nationalised healthcare + military expenditures?)

Yes, it does automatically make your argument better.

You're the one claiming that Gallo's cost estimate is exaggerated, yet you have offered no hard data to back that up. Arguing that it's "common sense" doesn't cut it, because common sense also says that a large number multiplied by a large number gives you a very large number.

[Esternial]

Since we're talking unrealistically expensive measures, maybe you could install trackers in road markings that automatically register things like speed violations and automatically fine the owner of a particular car.

[Ifreann]

If anything it's like engaging in nuclear war for virginity.

No its not, that's a completely ridiculous (not to mention inappropriate and very vulgar) analogy

It's perfectly apt. If everyone dies in a nuclear holocaust then perfect public safety will be achieved. Nothing bad can befall you when you're dead. A nuclear war for virginity would similarly achieve its goals. If everyone is dead, no one can have sex.

Plus, that's not vulgar at all. Trust me.

[Immoren]

Since we're talking unrealistically expensive measures, maybe you could install trackers in road markings that automatically register things like speed violations and automatically fine the owner of a particular car.

???

[Infected Mushroom]

so if I come up with a cost estimate it automatically makes my argument better? even if its completely problematic on a common-sense level? (really? its going to cost more than nationalised healthcare + military expenditures?)

Yes, it does automatically make your argument better.

You're the one claiming that Gallo's cost estimate is exaggerated, yet you have offered no hard data to back that up. Arguing that it's "common sense" doesn't cut it, because common sense also says that a large number multiplied by a large number gives you a very large number.

No this is a logical fallacy. Just because he is the first to come up with a cost estimate and I have not, does not make his argument in any better standing. Why? Because his cost-estimate could be (and it clearly is) flat out wrong and over-exaggerated. Being the first or even only side in an argument to bring up a problematic cost estimate is nothing to brag about. If anything, its more prejudicial than it is probative.

[Immoren]

Yes, it does automatically make your argument better.

You're the one claiming that Gallo's cost estimate is exaggerated, yet you have offered no hard data to back that up. Arguing that it's "common sense" doesn't cut it, because common sense also says that a large number multiplied by a large number gives you a very large number.

No this is a logical fallacy. Just because he is the first to come up with a cost estimate and I have not, does not make his argument in any better standing. Why? Because his cost-estimate could be (and it clearly is) flat out wrong and over-exaggerated. Being the first or even only side in an argument to bring up a problematic cost estimate is nothing to brag about. If anything, its more prejudicial than it is probative.

So why don't you show yours?

[Galloism]

At least Gallo has a cost estimate.

so if I come up with a cost estimate it automatically makes my argument better? even if its completely problematic on a common-sense level? (really? its going to cost more than nationalised healthcare + military expenditures?)

You have yet to undermine any of my sourced figures or the math within. All you've done is scream "there's no way!"

The math has been provided.

[Infected Mushroom]

so if I come up with a cost estimate it automatically makes my argument better? even if its completely problematic on a common-sense level? (really? its going to cost more than nationalised healthcare + military expenditures?)

You have yet to undermine any of my sourced figures or the math within. All you've done is scream "there's no way!"

The math has been provided.

your math is an insult to the capabilities of the United States and it just makes no sense

according to you the cost of implementing this would be many times over the cost of providing absolutely free Scandinavian style healthcare to every single American citizen ON TOP OF the cost of maintaining the massive United States military deployments all over the world

its completely rooted in fantasy

the Soviet Union could have implemented this in their worst days in the 1980s

[Valystria]

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

[Esternial]

Since we're talking unrealistically expensive measures, maybe you could install trackers in road markings that automatically register things like speed violations and automatically fine the owner of a particular car.

???

I wasn't serious about this but for the sake of argument, how is that what I suggested? Firstly (and perhaps foremost) you can spot a traffic camera. Trackers hidden in/under the road? Less likely. You'd also be able to register cars violating a solid white line, for example, or cars that are parked in no-park zones.

This goes well with cars containing trackers, since we already have an unlimited budget in this hypothetical scenario.

[Beaucoup]

Or, we could like, you know, not give the government more methods of spying on us.

[Immoren]

You have yet to undermine any of my sourced figures or the math within. All you've done is scream "there's no way!"

The math has been provided.

your math is an insult to the capabilities of the United States and it just makes no sense

according to you the cost of implementing this would be many times over the cost of providing absolutely free Scandinavian style healthcare to every single American citizen ON TOP OF the cost of maintaining the massive United States military deployments all over the world

its completely rooted in fantasy

the Soviet Union could have implemented this in their worst days in the 1980s

Is it?

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

We should remove all drivers.

???

I wasn't serious about this but for the sake of argument, how is that what I suggested? Firstly (and perhaps foremost) you can spot a traffic camera. Trackers hidden in/under the road? Less likely.

This goes well with cars containing trackers, since we already have an unlimited budget in this hypothetical scenario.

I guess I misunderstood what you wrote.

[Gun Manufacturers]

You're probably thinking only of direct costs. There's also indirect costs when the system fails - economic losses from employees not being able to get to work because they don't own a heated garage, for instance.

and I thought your cost estimates couldn't get more mind-bogglingly ridiculous

I mean, its as though you felt the line hadn't yet already been crossed when you said this would cost more than nationalized healthcare + the military

WHAT'S YOUR NUMBERS? You haven't refuted Gallo's estimate, you only said "I don't think so".

[Esternial]

I guess I misunderstood what you wrote. :p

Yeah, it's the first time I went full IM so I can understand that :p

[Gauthier]

Perhaps it's best this thread is abandoned lest too many good posters end up like Radagast the Brown as Saruman noted to Gandalf.

[Esternial]

Perhaps it's best this thread is abandoned lest too many good posters end up like Radagast the Brown as Saruman noted to Gandalf.

Yeah but Saruman is dead and Radagast is not...I think.

[Galloism]

You have yet to undermine any of my sourced figures or the math within. All you've done is scream "there's no way!"

The math has been provided.

your math is an insult to the capabilities of the United States and it just makes no sense

according to you the cost of implementing this would be many times over the cost of providing absolutely free Scandinavian style healthcare to every single American citizen ON TOP OF the cost of maintaining the massive United States military deployments all over the world

probably yeah. Tracking two hundred fifty million vehicles in all places at all times with enough accuracy that speed and location data stands up in court beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT cheap.

its completely rooted in fantasy

It's rooted in basic mathematics using a currently available system that MIGHT be accurate enough to meet judicial demands.

All you've said is "nuh uh!" Ive provided sources facts and figures.

the Soviet Union could have implemented this in their worst days in the 1980s

No, they really couldn't, for economic and technological reasons, and because the GPS system wasn't fully operational until 1995.

[Esternial]

You have yet to undermine any of my sourced figures or the math within. All you've done is scream "there's no way!"

The math has been provided.

your math is an insult to the capabilities of the United States and it just makes no sense

according to you the cost of implementing this would be many times over the cost of providing absolutely free Scandinavian style healthcare to every single American citizen ON TOP OF the cost of maintaining the massive United States military deployments all over the world

its completely rooted in fantasy

the Soviet Union could have implemented this in their worst days in the 1980s

Let's be honest, hon, you're kinda going overboard with the hyperbole as a compensatory measure. It just won't fly, but you tried and the idea is sound-ish. It's just not realistic.