Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Cheapest Car Goes On Sale In India

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the wish-it-had-a-monorail-socket-too dept.

Transportation 571

Frankie70 writes "The Tata Nano — the car that caught the world's imagination as the cheapest ever — will finally be rolled out commercially on Monday in Mumbai in a mega event organised by Tata Motors. Ben Oliver, contributing editor, Car Magazine, London test drove the car in December, 08. These were his first impressions. This was his verdict: 'CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini, because this car's importance is immeasurably greater. It won't compete on dynamics or quality with European or Japanese city cars, but it doesn't have to. What Tata has achieved at an unprecedented price is astonishing, although we'd guess it will cost Indian consumers closer to £1700 when it finally goes on sale, six months late, in March 2009.'"

cancel ×

571 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obama Bankrupting the USA Tsarkon Reports (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296479)

Barack Obama - put simply - he and his cabal of authoritarian statists are hell bent on bankrupting the USA once and for all.

- Chairman Barack Hussein "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption, Rahm Emanuel (Radical authoritarian Statist-Zionist whose father was part of the Murderous Civilian Killing Israeli Terrorist Organization known as IRGUN), Connected to Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat), Connected to Ayers, a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom, Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a black-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer, 31 million on food stamps, more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist."
- Obama: Racist, AIPAC-Zionist, Corrupted and a Traitor and a Liar who can't even produce a valid birth certificate (which is not a certificate of live birth)
- Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon
- Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury.
- Cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
- The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
- Lied about no lobbyists
- Lied about having a new degree of accountability and a SUNSHINE period of new laws, he has signed bills with little or no review at whitehouse.gov as promised.
- Appointed a second amendment violating Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, the top cop of the USA, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice.
- Has not put a dime in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads to promote more driving.
- Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a LOT to hide. They literally lived next to each other, Rahm had (until being Chairman Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped Chairman "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama DID owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away.
- Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Chairman "The Teleprompter" Hussein Obama is so corrupted its a joke.
- Fools and "useful idiots" twist the pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA [wikimedia.org]
2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA [wikimedia.org]
- Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and change you can believe in will strap you and your grandkids with more debt. No taxation without representation? Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born.
- An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state).
- The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that Year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstates, the US could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is STILL unfunded, and without massive poll-taxes and far more aggressive progressive taxes, could NEVER be funded.
- The budgeting being done today were recently reported by a non-partisan auditing commission will lead to about 10 TRILLION in new debt over the next 10 years. Obama is going to double the national debt while doing nothing to address the unfunded debt obligations of Social Security.
- Clinton appointed David Walker of the GAO, he quit, the unfunded debt obligations have rendered the USA insolvent according to accounting standards.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion [usatoday.com]
US Public Debt Unfunded Debt Obligations [wikipedia.org]
- Most of the world population gets NOTHING from their governments, or a very bare minimum or services that benefit only the upper echelons of society. However, the liar Chairman Obama says we need his universal "state-hospital" rationed health care to be competitive. Bull. China and India give nothing, and they are the biggest threat to the American worker. By forcing healthcare and higher taxes, Americans will be less competitive.
- If you think 60% tax rates end to end (income, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, excise tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, misc internet sales tax and many more taxes that I can't recall at the moment) will make the US competitive, along with compulsory programs to provide everyone with health care is going to make the US competitive in the age of India and China, you are a joke.
- As the US nationalizes (read: rations healthcare) to the least common denominator of affordability without regard to efficacy, people with money will simply look into medical tourism so those with money can go to medical parks in India and get real health care. Those who have lived in Canada or in the UK can tell you "free" healthcare is NOT a panacea. If you think this, you are again, a useful idiot. The NHS in the UK has given bad blood and Hepatitis and AIDS blood to people, and Jade Goody who just died was misdiagnosed twice resulting in her death (She was all cleared twice of cervical cancer which she just died of). The NHS in the UK is not able to be sued or held accountable. Neither will Chairman Obama's rationed health care service for America.
- Sorry to bust the socialist bubble-lie, but support of these types of policies will simply lower the standard of living in the USA, particularly for the middle class. At least at the end of the Eisenhower projects the USA got roads to show for the spending, and with this new spending, the USA could have built power plants that get the USA out of the middle east, but the age of government for the sake of government is upon us, and the useful idiots line up and believe empty promises.
The pentagon (and Bechtel, Kroll, Bluewater, Halliburton, etc) could get less than half of what they get today, but that will fix nothing fundamental in terms of government spending. It is simply not enough to make a difference when compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security entitlements.
See: YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy [youtube.com]
- If Obama thinks its ok to lie to 300 million people about being able to "take care of them" without even being honest about what that care would look like, then being an idiot and believing in Obama is for you.
- The US Government already have over 50% of the budget on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security. Socialists: Good job on that one, its working great. Solution to the current near-collapse-due-to-over-spending: add more unfunded entitlements!
- You Socialist-liars can break my spirit and my financial back to force me to "need" a federal government that is turning this country into a police state and turn it into a quasi-socialist lie, but I will, I must put up a fight. I have kids to educate and feed, and the stuff you sell (which is failing to various degrees everywhere else as implemented) is simply forcing a culture of failure on a once great, libertarian free country.
- I will not be complacent with your "change," and there will be a point where civil war will become an option. See how hard you can push before you get it. How much more than half can the truly productive workers in this country afford to pay. Keep pushing to find out how to start a civil war.
- The socialist-lie of a plan will not work, its not fundable, it WILL destroy the currency to fund it, and its really as simple as this: if this insanity is funded by borrowing from the US's economic and military adversaries then Obama and his socialist cabal is NOT fit to administrate society. Rome fell. Kings who mis-manged their treasuries all fell. Every example of unhinged spending leads to the same result: systemic collapse.
- Obama and his sycophantic lunatics would want to have a civil war to get Chairman Obama's way and force the socialist-lie system on my already tax paying law abiding ass. And as far as "no new taxes" for those under 250k, its a lie, the tax is called inflation, which is set to begin just about now that the Chinese wont want the USA's worthless treasuries to fund the socialist-lie fantasy (one that COMMUNIST China doesn't even try and sell to its people!)
- Chairman Obama's numbers don't add up. There is a $59 trillion dollar hole (UFDO) in social security alone. AIG $150 billion here, TARP $350 billion there. $800 billion for a highly dubious stimulus package. Another one on the way. $59 trillion hole in the balance sheet IGNORED. China saying they aren't going to buy treasuries, Clinton clamoring to find buyers now. $3.6 trillion dollar budget, potential military action on Mexico, Iran still a "terrorist state" at the behest of the AIPAC, spending up, dollar about to fall, inflation over time since Breton Woods extremely easy to document, yet, the socialist-liars question when the numbers (the Federal Government numbers) simply don't add up to the point where if the US-GOV was a company it would be insolvent.
  -How dare the taxpayers question what Chairman Obama's drastic spending increases are going to do to the purchasing power of our savings because Chairman Obama wants to recklessly spend and try to maintain and American empire AND guarantee a standard of living, and Chairman Obama doesn't even want to build a single nuclear power plant to do it? Chairman Obama must be a complete and total lunatic moron.
- Obama is either a negligent idiot or an unhinged maniac with delusional fantasies. Meanwhile, Chainman Obama's tax dodging Treasury Secretary has 17 unfilled positions, the Treasury Dept. isn't even functioning at this point.
- "General welfare" in the constitution was, according to the man who wrote it, Madison, meant to be extremely limited in scope. The federal government per the constitution doesn't even have the enumerated POWER to deal with economic messes. A lot of these "POWERS" were created while there is a crisis to dupe the public into accepting an un-constitutional authoritarian regime as the government and to usurp authority over the people.
- The USA is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to eat a sheep. Also a constitutional republic isn't about using a barely-majority or a plurality to stuff your (un-fundable disastrous) crap down the disenfranchised other-half's throat.
- With Obama's authoritarian corrupted criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal in flight of prosecution, Rich case) Eric Holder in charge, we won't have our inalienable and enumerated rights to firearms much longer. For a constitutional law expert, Obama must have never read the federalist papers or he would simply hand himself as a traitor.
- The arbitrary expansion of "general welfare" is not only unconstitutional, it may very well lead to a serious conflict on the issue.
- Here is a debate on general welfare and how stuff like this came to pass, but was clearly no intended by the authors of the document of root law.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (In reference to the general welfare clause)
So strongly did the founders believe that "general welfare" wouldn't be expanded as written:
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison's point. (That the "general welfare" clause was "clearly" nota free pass for government)
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law a relief act, for instance wasn't covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional.
"why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton goes on to argue that making Amendments (e.g., enumerating Free speech, press and assembly) and enumerating the 'right' would have the following effect:
(A bill of rights) "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. "
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison [The US Supreme Court has found the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution to be much more elastic than did Mr. Madison. But as the "author of the Constitution," what does he know?]
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...--The Declaration of Independence
- Wrong, monetizing failures causes more. Japan showed us this for decades. But hey, Chairman Obama thinks you can fix a problem DECADES in the making with a quick fixer-upper, he is screwed in the head.
- The complaints are with the Federal government (in general) since Breton Woods. The Federal Government and Obama's minions STILL didn't listen to David Walker, a Clinton appointee and former head of the GAO. This isn't about political parties anymore morons!
- Show me a single federal budget that was less than the previous. If this $3.6T budget goes, its never coming back barring systemic collapse.
- The United States Federal Government, The United States Federal Reserve, and the banks which were enabled to continue down reckless paths by a quasi government agency known as the Federal Reserve whose actions are not subject to congress and whose members are unelected. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.
- Every inflationary road taken in history ends in collapse. Keynesian policies are widely regarded as no longer workable.
- Inflation is a tax: What ignorant tax and spenders don't take into account here is the relative percentages of people's wealth (both net and gross) and the costs of owning and maintaining houses, cars, standards of living.
- Inflation via deficit spending is going to make it such that you will be paying a lot more by percentage of your income to maintain a given standard of living. Obama's arguments are so poorly thought out and seek to blame "Republicans" for the mess, its really simply laughable - the needs cleanup now, not worsening.
- You can't spend your way out of a hole if the creditors (e.g. China) start telling the USA they won't buy. It is that simple. Now America starts to have to collateralize the debt with assets. The USA will be selling off chunks of American assets to back the new debt. One day, it may even be necessary to sell Alaska back to Russia because no one will take greenbacks to prop up a failing version of a modern Rome.
- Ah, here we go with the Matthew Lesko arguments. [lesko.com]
Interest rates were on the rise before the government stepped in with free money for everyone (the fine print of course indicate massive strings attached).
Other economies, for example, India, have the central rates set to far more reasonable/realistic rates (at the moment ~ 8+%), which is still tends to be too low, but shows that if you need someone else capital you need to pay a premium for it, and given that capital is in short supply, it would stand to reason that a premium must be charged for it.
The problem is the unrealistic growth rates of mature economies don't allow for profiting via growth projections (rather than simply earning money). So the government steps in, turns on the free money spigot, gets the interest rates for savings down in the 1-2% range while diluting the value of the whole currency in order to prop up dying companies that ran the business like a Madhoff Ponzi scheme.
- The Republicans aren't solely responsible for the crisis as Obama's minions would have you believe, congress is (no particular congress), the Executive of the US government (no particular one) and the US Federal Reserve System are all at fault.
- Fundamentally, the government is trying to fix the prices of various things to "make it all work." This pulling on the invisible hand is a fools venture. It was predicted long ago the housing collapse (and those, such as myself, in the know, wished while realizing the housing collapse coming that we were wrong for everyone's sake - but the truth is the truth) . It may be that the Austrian (von Mises) economists will ultimately be proven right.
- We are a nation of partially educated whiney grabby idiots, and we got the government that represents this. The Chinese, India and other up and coming nations will show no mercy for this arrogant abuse of our status as the world's forex reserves.
- War and asset sales will continue to be the only option for this scheme until it is corrected at the core. And to say that the government has already averted a depression by doing what they did (most of the monies injected wont be "felt" for some time), is just arrogance and stupidity. Price fixing prolonged the Great Depression. Price-fixing (or attempting to) houses will do the same, but probably worse.
- Obama's minions simply don't care if the US is bankrupted and rendered insolvent, they just want a say in how its done, presumably to "feel safe." Rather selfish.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." AND "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (Possibly Richard Jackson)

- Everyone better realize that inflation will pay a major role in funding un-fundable fantasies, wiping the savers and the middle class out. The problem is, that other countries are growing tired of making our Federal Reserve notes worth something by buying our debt as treasuries. Obama's minions talk about spending, but in order to "get what YOU want" you will sell debt to potential economic and military adversaries? Real bright. What's really sad is that despite David Walker being an authority on these issues, people refuse to even watch him and listen to what he is saying.
- On the success of Canada and its form of Socialism: A huge country like Canada with massive amounts of uranium and tar sands and natural resources and a huge land mass with a scant 30 million people is an order of magnitude less of a problem to manage than a country with 10x its population, a serious leaky southern border, backfiring aggressive foreign policy, particularly with Iran, and the US is competing with countries like India and China whose middle classes are larger than the US's entire population. The top 5 students in every Indian and Chinese primary school out numbers all the kids in primary school in the US. Canada is a idyllic island, the USA is front and center in an all out economic and political clash of ideologies.
- Cap and trade (and pollution control for solving global problems) will never work unless the top 10 countries in the world (in terms of both GDP and manufacturing capacity and population) are on board. Period end. If the world doesn't quickly move to nuclear now and fusion shortly, it is OVER possibly not if every home on the planet gets a wind vane, but that seems unlikely to happen (since its possible now).
- Keynes calls it "the paradox of thrift" and suggested that policies forcing people not to save is a "good idea." The guy wanted people spending all the time, or if he didn't, he never conveyed that to his protégés well enough for them to not do what they are doing. Right now the plebeians in the US are actually stashing cash, and everyone from Obama to the media is trying to get people to spend spend spend. The best thing for the long term is for people to prepare for the coming hell, not set out with no reserves.
- I have seen Keynes invoked to justify nearly every bad move in the past decade, and its warming up to be a potential currency collapse, the collapse of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve notes, and a collapse of the NYSE. And then they invoke Keynes to suggest the best way out of the mess is to spend out of an already near-critically debt massed black hole.
- A house is run like a town is run like a country or business is run like a state is run like a government. If there are things the government is doing that would either force your home into bankruptcy or into jail via fraud charges, then the government and banks shouldn't be operating in that fashion. A certain degree of stretchy liquidity is in order, but in terms of percent of GDP, there is no way of justifying what they US has now.
- Iceland failed at 850 percent debt to GDP. The US is at 350 and rising. It is not a good thing at all.
- What is happening to the dollar as a forex standard. [youtube.com]
- March 19, 2009 C-SPAN - "Let's Quit Destroying Our Dollar!" [youtube.com]
- HR 1207 (A bill to make the Fed more accountable and to answer questions regarding the dollar policy) [loc.gov]

Title: Obama sidetracked by fiscal mess, but presses on [yahoo.com]
"Being heard above the din may prove difficult. Lawmakers are wrangling over taxing people who got big bonuses and worrying the president's budget could generate $9.3 trillion in red ink over the next decade."
- Kremlin to pitch new global currency [infowars.com]
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency

Holy crap, even the Russians and Chinese get it. Strange days are here.

Barbra Streisand: Jewish American Princess or Subh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296487)

Physiology

Barbra, or "Babs" to her closest friends, in addition to having the longest nose on record, has a singing range of about 70 octaves, well beyond human hearing range. Thus, her earliest records are most popular amongst dogs, especially gay male dogs. It has been said that her voice, at its peak loudness, could theoretically destroy all buildings in a radius of 246.7 square miles.

Barbra is descended from an ancient race of horses known as termites. The termites were once a mighty and powerful warrior race of predators which were created by Matt Groening and Unitinu. Over the millenia, these termites devastated the earth and were at one point the last multicellular organisms in existence. They thawed out humans and mated with Barbara Walters to produce Tom Brokaw. Brokaw became intoxicated with highly poisonous marijuana and consequently died of quicksilver poisoning but not before he begat the entire human race around 100000 BC. As humans evolved, they died off and created humans and mutant humans. However, humans decided that they should live and started to fight the mutant humans. Once the mutant humans were killed off, life continued.

A few mutant humans survived, and in -273.15 AD, Chinese alchemists thawed Barbra from the ice. She was the final survivor of the proto-postmutant race (as in, the early successors of the mutants) and applied for a job at ABC. Interviewers were baffled at the size of her specialized nasal cavity which had evolved during the mutant humans' conquest to sniff out cocaine deposits in subterranean Moroccan caves. Since it would have been discrimination to hire her, the HR department solemnly decided to hire her as a nose anchor.

Fame

As noted by Lando Calrissian in one of the chapter introductions in his famous programming book, Learn Jabba in 21 days, Barbra was interviewed as an E! Exclusive star. During the 1950s, she was purportedly auditioning to be the fifth Chipmunk in the 1959 LP release, "Strung Up Gonads." At the time, the four chipmunks were actually balding human male crooners singing in largo tempo and sped up about 200% on tape. However, shortly after the recording session, the chipmunks were attacked by Muslims yielding a magic genie bottle. The Muslims told the chipmunks to rub one out and make a wish and then uncorked the genie bottle. Thin green smoke emerged from the bottle, and the Muslims and chipmunks died from nerve gas poisoning. (The WMDs were really hidden inside a shipment of toy genie bottles destined for the USA, but they were "lost" by the fudgepacking USPS and are probably still sitting on a truck that ran off the side of the road, just waiting to be uncovered by an escaped post-apocalyptic Kevin Costner lookalike.) As the chipmunks were dead and due to it being impossible to slow down the tape because Keanu Reeves was the studio assistant (idiot was recording at 55ips!!) and screamed that the studio would explode if he did, Barbra was hired to impersonate the chipmunks with a voice not to have any spectral components below 3kHz.

Doctors broke open a bunch of gas lasers and forced Barbra to huff a combination of helium and neon gasses. She breathed enough in three days to surpass eight large black men in the amount of gas that could be possibly expelled. In doing so, she gained a super-variable voice which allowed her to shatter glass and create any frequency that she wanted, finally forcing her to accept the nickname "White Noise." She in fact could sing around 50kHz and played air traffic controller with the bats. Due to her bizarre sense of humor, she would host dinner parties late at night and direct the bats--some actually rabid--to attack her guests. This earned her the apt name of "Bat Girl" and started her three-season stint with Adam West. When the bats learned of what was going on, they got up really early to surprise her(if you ever see a bat during the daytime, it is rabid) and headed down to her typical dive bar hangout and attacked her, leaving only bones.

Re:Barbra Streisand: Jewish American Princess or S (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296561)

Because of Barbra Streisand's attitude, I usually don't respond to her communiqués, but this time I'll make an exception. For the sake of review, Barbra has stated that society is supposed to be lenient towards twisted, capricious warlords. One clear inference from that statementan inference that is never really disavowedis that hanging out with lubricious miscreants is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Now that's just dodgy.

It's not necessary to go into too long of a description about how Barbra plans to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to numb the public to the mercantalism and injustice in mainstream politics in the blink of an eye. Suffice it to say that I have to laugh when she says that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Where in the world did she get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever but she does not merely give lunatics control of the asylum. She does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. If I didn't think she would spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, hateful behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government, I wouldn't say that she plans to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. The result will be an amalgam of vile charlatanism and sinful solipsism, if such a monster can be imagined. I hate it when people get their facts wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how Barbra is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong, I can't help but think that in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Barbra, but I cannot promise not to be angry at Barbra. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading meas it leads Barbrato promote the sappy views of reprehensible, inaniloquent bullies.

It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but if you study Barbra's inerudite generalizations long enough, you'll come to the inescapable conclusion that you might have heard the story that she once agreed to help us spread awareness of the unctuous nature of her asseverations. No one has located the document in which Barbra said that. No one has identified when or where Barbra said that. That's because she never said it. As you might have suspected, given the amount of misinformation that Barbra is circulating, I must point out that I take an uncharitable attitude towards her birdbrained cajoleries. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that Barbra is a very conceited little woman. The logical consequences of that are clear: Whenever Barbra is blamed for conspiring to keep us hypnotized so we don't advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence, she blames her comrades. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Barbra rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items.

I know very few blathering scaramouches personally but I know them well enough to surmise that Barbra has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity. We can therefore extrapolate that I have some advice for Barbra. She should keep her mouth shut until she stops being such a longiloquent four-flusher and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining. Her favorite scapegoats are the government, the economy, the environment, society, parents, teachers, and just about everything else, and deep down in our bones, we all know why.

I would be grateful if Barbra would take a little time from her rigorous schedule to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding her dour epithets. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. So remember kids, if you want to fill the air with recrimination and rancor, all you have to do is agree to let Barbra thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments. Actually, even when the facts don't fit, she sometimes tries to use them anyway. She still maintains, for instance, that she should silence anyone whom she considers doctrinaire because "it's the right thing to do".

Barbra has failed entirely to grasp the essence of my criticisms of her. That much is crystal clear. But did you know that I regard Barbra the way I would the sort of stinking filth I might have to clean off my boots after a careless walk in a dog kennel? That's why I'm telling you that what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that if we do nothing, Barbra will keep on increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can weed out people like Barbra who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us.

I unmistakably dislike Barbra. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which snivelling pseudo-intellectuals like Barbra are absolutely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of opportunism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some nasty election-year also-ran tell everyone who passed by that Barbra does the things she does "for the children". Astounded, I asked this person if she realized that Barbra justifies her brazen nature by denying that she gained ascendancy through monstrous abuse of her assistants. Not only was her answer "no" but it was also news to her that Barbra once tried to use both overt and covert deceptions to do everything possible to keep frowzy riffraff unambitious and revolting. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you honestly don't understand how Barbra operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I am confident that genuine patriots will perceive the veracity of my statements regarding her satanic perversions. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this screed will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Barbra has any control over. But that's inconsequential because our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture, we must examine her worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing). I consider that requirement a small price to pay because you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with slimy scatterbrains?" Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that Barbra has a strategy. Her strategy is to create a Frankenstein's monster. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Barbra.

Does Barbra actually think her arguments through, or does she just chug along on her computer writing about whatever trite half-measures happen to suit her needs that day? I ask because society must soon decide either to examine the social and cultural conditions that lead Barbra to defile the air and water in the name of profit or else to let Barbra turn reavers loose against us good citizens. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that I once overheard Barbra say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Barbra said that neopaganism forms the core of any utopian society. Can you believe that? At least her statement made me realize that there's an important difference between me and Barbra. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Barbra, in contrast, is willing to kill for hersor, if not to kill, at least to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to reveal some shocking facts about her zingers.

I intend to look closely at Barbra's tirades to see what makes them so effectual at turning positions of leadership into positions of complacency. I should expect to findthis is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verifythat the wisdom that comes from maturation of the spirit, mind, and body will some day prevail over the idiocy of Barbra's vaporings. And that's why I'm writing this screed; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to criticize her complicity in the widespread establishment of cronyism. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that she justifies her contemptuous ploys with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Barbra's claim that her mistakes are always someone else's fault then she will threaten our core values, allegiances, and beliefs.

To scorn and abjure reason is Barbra's objective, and deluded, worthless blackguardism is her method. The pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to tell it like it is? Barbra's fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combine to make her the deadly enemy of all mankind, while her inane, truculent memoirs contribute to inflame her wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition. If you think about it you'll see that Barbra's closed-minded communications are merely a distraction. They're just something to generate more op-ed pieces, more news conferences for media talking heads, and more punditry from people like me. Meanwhile, Barbra's proxies are continuing their quiet work of advancing Barbra's real goal, which is to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate.
As soporific as Barbra's expositors may be, they are also the most negligent megalomaniacs you'll ever see. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that if one could get a Ph.D. in Commercialism, Barbra would be the first in line to have one. She may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider Barbra to be a weapon of mass destruction herself.
Barbra can't relate to anyone other than brazen, censorious mafia dons. To say anything else would be a lie. She must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why she accuses me of admitting that she defends the real needs of the working class. What I actually said is that I can reword my point as follows. Barbra's excuses have nothing to do with freedom and honor but everything to do with revanchism.
In the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Barbra, but if you don't think that I would have expected Barbra to at least listen to my side of the story, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. She has it all wrong; she ought to unstop her ears and uncover her eyes. Only then will Barbra hear that to which she has been too long heedless. Only then will she see that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to solve the problems that are important to most people. She managed to convince a bunch of insensate psychopaths to help her make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely bookish. What was the quid pro quo there? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that she is so incredibly disruptive that she really ought to change her name to "Disruptive McDisruptive, the Disruptive Queen of the Disruptive". The second, more telling, observation is that I doubtlessly have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Barbra enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of her slaves to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant.
I do not wish to endorse pauperism but rather to illustrate that if there's an untold story here, it's that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Barbra's part to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society within a short period of time. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that statements like, "We must publicly distance ourselves from homophobic politicasters" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. The significance of this is that Barbra has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Barbra, however, is more likely to glorify wicked, homicidal survivalists.
I don't just profess that the idea that people want scary abusive-types to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of neurotic conspiracies is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition; I can back that up with facts. For instance, as that last sentence suggests, only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to lend support to the thesis that Barbra has announced a number of contemptuous ideas on how to runor is that ruin?everyone's life. But the first step is to acknowledge that if we don't promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad, right now, then Barbra's precepts will soon start to metastasize until they alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with Barbra's current "reality". I could accuse Barbra of using headlong spouters to get her way but I wouldn't stoop to that level. Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that it is both frustrating and frightening to observe the extreme ignoranceno, idiocypresent in her put-downs. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation.
Barbra writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that she constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to her readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, Barbra's cheerleaders have always found a way to sharpen intergroup tensions. The reason she wants to destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to is that she's totally dysfunctional. If you believe you have another explanation for her prudish behavior, then please write and tell me about it. You've never heard Barbra announce that she plans to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship? Well, Barbra has repeatedly enunciated such a plan but in her typically convoluted way.
It's unreasonable ratbags that make unstable favoritism possible. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that we need to educate others about the cock-and-bull stories and homilies of untoward killjoys?
Barbra's toadies don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat baleful. Barbra's directionless, primitive hariolations have caused maladroit nutters to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, brainwashing the masses into submission. If Barbra can't cite the basis for her claim that feudalism is a wonderful thing then she should just shut up about it. This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. And that's it. What really upsets me is that Barbra Streisand wants to squander irreplaceable treasures.

I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (5, Funny)

ActusReus (1162583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296497)

... or maybe a Tata Shuffle, with the steering controls obnoxiously embedded in some earbuds?

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296505)

or the `tata clean air - it was nice knowing you'...

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (0, Flamebait)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296967)

the world's most polluting country - per capita (meaning based on the population) - is the USA... and once the technological advancements will make it possible for everyone to afford an electrical vehicle with all the bells and whistles that have put them off buying one so far, then the whole climate change argument will take a whole new dimension... and I wouldn't be in a cow's shoes for any price...
p.s.: I'm not fishing for flames...

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (2, Insightful)

Feminist-Mom (816033) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296615)

Seriosly, Indian industry will eventually come out with a tatabook, which might be the price that the negroponte thing was supposed to be.

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296643)

Stop hanging around SlashDot, or you may be waiting forever.

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296757)

Well, I'll be waiting for the "Touch Tata" so I can finally say I got to 2nd base!

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296783)

Hey! You'd better watch who's Tatas you're Touching!

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297197)

Hey! You'd better watch whose pronouns you're abusing!

Re:I'm still waiting for the Tata Touch... (4, Funny)

kinnell (607819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297115)

...or maybe a single button in the centre of the dashboard which steers you in a random direction.

And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296543)

The UK and Europe as well as the USA will never EVER see this car.
And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?

I could see it if a very low emissions small car was available to the poor to help get the nasty junk off the road...

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296567)

And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?

      No, it's not. So please hand over your car keys.

      (My point being - who the hell are you to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't?)

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296681)

(My point being - who the hell are you to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't?)

Barak Obama and/or "Algore"

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296687)

My point being - who the hell are you to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't?

He's Lumpy. Get in line soldier. You really need to learn to take your lumps like the rest of us here. ba dum da cha!

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0, Flamebait)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296773)

I'm guessing he's an inhabitant of the country that has been churning out rediculously large gas guzzlers for the last few decades -- so indeed please shut up or trade in your SUV/pickup for a car with reasonable mileage. On the gas saved an Indian could probably drive around all year in one of these without the net world oil consumption going up.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (2, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296857)

Which country would that be? Germany with BMW, Mercedes and Audi? Or rather a scandinacian one? Volvo comes to mind. And what about all the Japanese SUVs?

Meanwhile, my 99 Century Buick V6 needs less gas than a Mitsubishi Galant V6 from approximately the same year.

So what the hell is your point?

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296983)

Where is this Scandinacia you are talking about?

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (5, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297121)

Which country would that be? Germany with BMW, Mercedes and Audi? Or rather a scandinacian one? Volvo comes to mind. And what about all the Japanese SUVs?

Meanwhile, my 99 Century Buick V6 needs less gas than a Mitsubishi Galant V6 from approximately the same year.

So what the hell is your point?

Yeah, and where are all the SUVs from those foreign car companies sold? You don't think Toyota started making SUVs to take advantage of the lucrative large-truck-in-Tokyo market, do you?

Oh sure they do sell in other markets, but the point is that nobody has latched onto the gas-guzzling needlessly-oversized truck and SUV like in America. And therefore nobody from there, including those driving Century Buicks, should be pointing fingers at Indians buying the cheapest car ever and saying "Hey you shouldn't do that!"

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297027)

No problem. I'd gladly give up my wifes guzzler (29.9mpg) for a smart four-two, I already drive a 50mpg Geo Metro summer and a 38mpg Suzuki sidekick sport 4X4 for the winter.. we only get 84 inches of snow a year here and typically had 1 foot of snowfall per storm so I'm being a pussy for using a 4x4 in the winter..

I wish I could buy a 50mpg small car here in the states for under $9500.00 but we have large numbers of really dumb people that think owning a canyonero is what you are supposed to do.

Honestly, I WISH these would come the the states. but they wont because of the ridiculous safety laws designed to keep small cheap cars out of the country.

But, enabling 29,000,000,000 people to buy a car and drive around is not always a great idea. Everyone is already bitching about how cars are destroying the planet so would enabling more cars be a bad idea? Just going from the eco freaks that complain here. cars still = bad right? or was that last week.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297159)

But, enabling 29,000,000,000 people to buy a car and drive around is not always a great idea.

      So when Henry Ford rolled out the Model T for under $800 or so, with the intention of selling it to the masses, he was "enabling" the destruction of the environment, etc? After all, before Ford came along, cars were an item only affordable by the 1% richest part of the population.

      So how come Americans can get mass produced cars for "the common man" (with all the environmental destruction involved) and Indians cannot? Suddenly it's a bad idea if Indians and Chinese wish to progress...

      Fundamentally I understand your point - if everyone has a straw sucking up the oil fields, then they will dry up much faster. But I say that you cannot stop the rest of the world from trying to progress - either physically or morally. After all, America showed the world that a life of materialism and luxury is desirable since most of your middle class has (until recently) attained it, and Hollywood keeps exporting and advertising it. Then you want to tell the world - "no, this is for US, it's not for YOU". A word of advice: watch your back.

      However if we don't find a viable, portable and economically feasible source of energy soon, there's going to be one hell of a fight for the last few billion barrels of oil - and I'm not even sure the US would win.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (2, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297113)

I agree with the sentiment but it is not black and white. Most people in India have lived their entire lives without cars and didn't need it. Their family, work, friends, home were all (for the most part) in relative distances. This car is so cheap they will get it (even if just 1% that's 10 mil more drivers on a 1 billion pop) and eventually need it.

Gas demand will go up, pollution will go up.

This is not some miracle of technology -it is worse then good.

To turn around to countries that have been using cars for years in a major way and say "well give up your car" - rememebr those countries' lifestyles have been based around cars for many years...in the US since the 40's-50's (really before then, but that was an insane boom time). The AVERAGE american commute is 30 minutes by car - not feasible by foot/bike...and 30 minutes by car usually means about 1-1.5 hours by train/bus each direction. Again, it's living standard. If you never had it you didn't build your life around it.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

wilper (103281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297187)

Wait.

Just because we did it does not mean it is a good idea. We used to dig down copper cables to each and every house to get telephone connectivity, back in the old days.

These days many of the emerging economies build cell phone networks instead, since those are cheaper to build. Most would agree that they are better too.

Perhaps those economies should do the 'right' thing and invest in better public transportations instead of slavishly following in our footsteps. It has worked well in one area, chances are it will in others.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296569)

One reason we wouldn't see it is because few drivers in the West now would stand for a car without power steering.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296577)

Or, more to the point, one without airbags.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

ActusReus (1162583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296627)

Or, more to the point, one that doesn't look "sexy"! (whatever that means)

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (4, Funny)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296985)

Tatas are very sexy though.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297013)

hey, with those two you just waived your rights to free physical exercise while driving and to an excuse that while putting on your make-up you bumped into the car ahead to make-out with the guy driving it... (because I statistically know that slashdot has a huge female fanbase)

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297153)

These cars don't hold women? Sign Me Up!

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296637)

there are also federal (and state) regulations governing automobiles in the US.

Taxation without Representation... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296885)

there are also federal (and state) regulations governing automobiles in the US.

there are also federal and state regulations and taxes governing damn near everything and anything in the US.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296999)

I wonder how the Tata Nano compares to various voiturettes/brommobiels/other tiny car-like vehicles. Those are very popular nowadays, partially for disableds, partially for youths who don't have a driver's license yet.

I expected them to be not much more expensive than a scooter, and similar in performance to the Tata Nano. Imagine my surprise when I find that they tend to cost $10,000 or more, which is more than some real cars that are fast enough for motorways.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (4, Informative)

rumith (983060) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296579)

It will be available in Europe in 2011. Link [ft.com] .

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (4, Informative)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296609)

"And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?"

I assume you don't own one, yes?

"I could see it if a very low emissions small car was available to the poor to help get the nasty junk off the road..."

Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296873)

Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.

The irony being if pollution doesn't kill you having an accident in this car will, far more than other vehicles.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

slugstone (307678) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297021)

"I could see it if a very low emissions small car was available to the poor to help get the nasty junk off the road..."

Why just the poor? I would think anybody could own one.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297043)

Nano's emission would be far more benign than 2-cycle autorickshaws, not mention being far more safe.

And that's the real point here. Lots of people in countries like Indian and China are transporting themselves and their entire family on old and dangerous motorbikes not suited for that task. The Nano isn't to get more people on the road, it's to get road users to use a safer vehicle, more suited for their needs.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296633)

This car will never see the light of day in the US. You can thank heavy government regulation and lobbying.

As for enabling more people to drive? Umm, why is it fair to prevent others from enjoying the same quality of life that you or I have? I mean, if people are going to start worrying about the environment, perhaps the solution is to nuke ourselves off this rock for "Urth Mother"?

Look folks. The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression. What you can do however, is develop more efficient ways of achieving that goal.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (2, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296769)

As for enabling more people to drive? Umm, why is it fair to prevent others from enjoying the same quality of life that you or I have?

Quite. The solution is for you to give up your car, not for them to get one.

I mean, if people are going to start worrying about the environment, perhaps the solution is to nuke ourselves off this rock for "Urth Mother"?

You are welcome to commit suicide if you want, but don't presume to make the decision for the rest of us.

Look folks. The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression.

I may not be able to, but the fact is that the rest of the world simply cannot have the same standard of living that we have. Indeed, in part, we enjoy it because they work for us to have it.

What you can do however, is develop more efficient ways of achieving that goal.

That's a good idea, but I'm afraid it's rather too little too late. We're going to have to prepare ourselves for a severe cut in our standards of living.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297091)

You are welcome to commit suicide if you want, but don't presume to make the decision for the rest of us.

then how dare you presume to make the decision for the rest of us that we shouldn't be driving cars!

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296941)

The rest of the world wants to have the same same standard of living that US and Europe enjoys today. You can't stop or prevent its progression.

That progression will stop itself, if the whole Earth lived like the US and Europe circa 2000, we (probably all land mammals) would be dead from the pollution within 20 years, if we could even find enough fossil fuel to make "the dream" come true.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (2, Funny)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297015)

Oh my God! He's right! Quick! Somebody convene a special congress to invent science!

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297075)

Why not spend that money on decent public transportation? just because USA snobs poo-poo riding a bus or train does not mean the rest of the planet has that stick firmly planted in their rear ends as well...

The public transportation systems in many places need upgrading. Sounds like a better way to spend money than to enable more cars on the road. India already has a traffic nightmare in all it's major cities.. In Chennai, it's near suicide to step off the curb or to be in a car on those roads... How will this car help that?

Yes I'm a US citizen that has actually left his country and went to other places. Traffic in India is INSANE (France is even more insane!) and I cant see this car helping.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0, Troll)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297185)

Yes I enjoy such draconic rules as:
1) You must get car insurance so when you hit me my medical bills and pain and suffering is covered. India does not have this
2) Your car must meet certain safety standards so you can mitigate the damage you do to yourself and your friends/family when you hit something with your car. This saves on insurance costs, keeping the cost to insurance for other people down. India does not have this.
3) Your car needs to meet certain emissions standards. Low gas consumption is not the only concern in emissions. India does not have this.
4) Your car requires you to have a drivers license to drive, annual inspections/emissions. To make sure you have at least some cursory knowledge of the road rules, and to make sure your car's tail-pipe won't fal off in mid drive. India does not have this.
5) Your way of life was dictated to you before you were born (unless you are about 80-90 years old). People in the US/UK/Germany and other countries where cars have been a dime a dozen for many decades are needed because people built their lives around it (not necessarily by choice). India does not have this (for long).

Just because something can be done doesn't make it a good idea. Let's see how India enjoys $4/gallon gas prices - which will happen with an extra 10 mil drivers. Let's see how long it will take them to get the necessary rules/regulations to bring their cars up to snuff and then let's see if those cars make it.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296821)

From TFA

There aren't many, but it's far safer than the bicycles and scooters that many Nano buyers will be trading up from. Tata's engineers are working on a series of upgrades, including airbags, anti-lock brakes, power steering, more powerful three-cylinder petrol and diesel engines and five-speed and automatic gearboxes which will allow the Nano to go on sale beyond its home market, and capitalise on the colossal potential created by its base price.

I think we might be seeing this over here, sooner than some of you think. It would be insufficient for freeways and highways, but it's more than adequate for running around town, well, once the safety features that we expect are in place.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (2, Insightful)

macshit (157376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296893)

And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?

Of course not. But it's a sad cycle -- people in very poor countries like this see cars as being status symbols, a sign of wealth. Society (and the government) often treat increase car ownership the same way, as some indicator that they've "made it," and try to emphasize car-oriented development.

By the time they come to the realization that having every poor schmuck in the city driving to work is a really dumb idea, and not very scalable, it may be too late...

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297103)

"And honestly, is it really a good idea to enable more people to buy cars?"

"Of course not."

It is only a bad idea because the parent asked the wrong question. The question should be:

"Since more people are definitely going to drive cars in the future, should we continue on the current path rather than developing better technologies to reduce emissions and counteract already inflicted environmental damage."

The answer to that question is indeed of course not . Asking if it is a good idea for more people to have cars is like asking if it is a good idea for humans to procreate. I ask the question myself from time to time, but the answer is moot ;-)

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296971)

um, a European version of the car was showcased at the Geneva Motor Show. Basically, a souped version of what is on sale in India. Not sure about the timelines for the EU launch. However TATA's Jaguar Landrover will definitely be leverages to support the EU launch.

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296981)

Leave the Beaver [wikipedia.org] alone Lumpy [leaveittobeaver.org] ...

Re:And will be unavailable anyplace else.... (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297053)

1% of a 1 billion pop country buying this country = a LOT more pollution & much more demand on oil which means higher gas prices.
Not to forget this car doesn't have many standard safety features.
Not to forget India driving rules are a lot less restrictive then other countries
There is also the issue where many people in India got along fine without cars. They didn't "need" it because their life was based on not having it. Now that this vehicle came out things will change and eventually the India population will "need" cars.

Hyperbole much? (1, Funny)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296571)

CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini

Wow, that's some hyperbole. A tuktuk is a sort of moped with a roof, and this Nano is a tuktuk with doors. Maybe he's talking about his first ride in a cardboard box in the "exciting" traffic flows in India - go ahead and search for that in YouTube.

Re:Hyperbole much? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296619)

CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini

Wow, that's some hyperbole.

That's not hyperbole. It's entirely plausible that the reviewer was more excited and saw more signicance in this particular test ride than in others of a sort that he does frequently. It doesn't say much at all. If he'd said something like "this car has more significance for the human race than the splitting of the atom" then that would be hyperbole. What he actually said was very little.

Re:Hyperbole much? (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296741)

Wow, that's some hyperbole. A tuktuk is a sort of moped with a roof, and this Nano is a tuktuk with doors. Maybe he's talking about his first ride in a cardboard box in the "exciting" traffic flows in India - go ahead and search for that in YouTube.

I was just looking at it and I suddenly got this urge to get inside. No, not just an urge - more than that. It was my destiny to be here.

Re:Hyperbole much? (2, Informative)

dreixel (1338237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296903)

Maybe he's talking about his first ride in a cardboard box in the "exciting" traffic flows in India - go ahead and search for that in YouTube.

Rather impressive indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsPbLC8ppoU [youtube.com]

Cheap car already tried and failed! (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296589)

Those of us old enough to remember the 1980s remember the Yugo [wikipedia.org] , which was touted then as the cheapest car ever: $3990 when they debuted in the U.S. in 1987 (bear in mind that the U.S. has much tougher safety and emissions standards than India).

It was tried here and failed miserably, especially after the general consensus among the consumer rags, especially Consumer Reports, was that you were better of with a used car than a new Yugo.

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (4, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296635)

A lot of the Yugo failure was quality.

I was in the auto repair business through much of the 90's and we never saw one, despite a pretty decent number of them being sold locally. I don't think they made it out of the 80's still running.

One of my store managers had been working at an import auto parts store while the Yugo was on sale as a new car.

I recall him saying that the Yugo dealer bought a lot of starters from them - for new cars before they sold them. Fortunately for the dealer, a new Yugo was mostly just a old Fiat.

Try to get your mind around that total lack of quality - the dealer replacing an OEM, brand new, factory part with an aftermarket part to get one that would work.

Wow, talk about crappy.

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296707)

Oh, I agree totally. And I also think that that at $2500 in 2009 dollars (that $3995 Yugo in 1987 dollars would be ~$7200 today, give or take) there is no way in hell they are going to get much better quality than the Yugo. (Wrap your mind around that!)

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296875)

Don't know. What makes the cost of a modern car or why haven't cars done the same things as PC's? I am currently the proud owner of an Acer Aspire One. 269 euro and that includes the very high dutch taxes.

What do I have for that? A more then capable laptop with build in Wifi, 3G, a SSD, 2x SD expansion slots. A very decent screen etc etc all powered by a DUAL core Atom and 1g of memory.

No, it doesn't compete with a top of the line desktop, but just get your head around the fact that for about 250 euro, I got a highly decent laptop easily powerful enough to run anything I throw at it INCLUDING displaying hi-res movie rips. Not so long ago a desktop PC struggled with that.

And it is not like cars are all that high-tech. The car industry doesn't re-invent the engine every couple of year, so why do we pay a premium on decades old technology? It would be the same as if blue led's still cost 10 bucks per item.

How much of the 10.000 euro price ticket of a car (and Hyundi already delivers good cars for 7000 euro (including the insane dutch taxes)) is Apple/Coca-Cola style markup (you will pay for the logo) and how many thousands do you pay for that iPod connector?

If this car comes with a basic engine (it does) no airbags, no powersteering, no abs then it is basically old (read no license fees, no R&D) produced with modern techonology and cheap labour subsidised by a country that wants to do to korea what japan did to the US what the US did to europe. If you are old you remember the days that japanese cars were thought of as crap on wheels and if you are of a civilized country you know that cheapo american sportscars could never compete with proper race cars from europe.

Wrap your mind around this. Things change. If you had said just a few decades ago that a top of the line luxury car would be from japan, you would have been laughed at. Yet that is the truth, japan competes with mercedes. Who is to say Tata won't be the next Hyunadi or Toyota?

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (4, Insightful)

spisska (796395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296889)

there is no way in hell they are going to get much better quality than the Yugo. (Wrap your mind around that!)

Remember though that the Yugo was essentially Warsaw Pact manufacturing quality with Fiat parts. The Tata was engineered from the ground up.

Remember also that the Yugo was designed for Western markets, the Tata is not.

I'm not sure about all the concern around this thing selling in the US or EU. It's a car designed for Asian cities, and that in itself means a much larger potential market than the US.

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296987)

They can get better quality for $2500, if they have a labor pool that doesn't cost $100K/year/head for a bunch of lazy slugs.

India is a kind of scary place, they have the potential for greatness and a dirt cheap economy, but I have yet to see those two come together with the kind of results you get out of China.

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297037)

Heh. My dad managed to keep one running through the mid 90s. We called it Hugo, and it even once managed to tow a caravan. It was great as a kid, because you often got to stop in interesting places while the AA brought out various bits and pieces to make it go again (including, on one mermorable occasion, a complete new engine).

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296721)

Those of us old enough to remember the 1920s remember the Model T. It was a cheaply produced car for the masses. It was sort of a success...

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296843)

The Model T's debut price in 1909 was $850 -- about $20,000 in today's dollars. Its lowest price in 1915, $440, is equivalent to ~$9,000 today.

Accounting for inflation, the Model T was far more expensive than the Yugo, and nearly 4 times the cost of the Tata.

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297007)

The Model T's debut price in 1909 was $850 -- about $20,000 in today's dollars. Its lowest price in 1915, $440, is equivalent to ~$9,000 today.

Accounting for inflation, the Model T was far more expensive than the Yugo, and nearly 4 times the cost of the Tata.

I would hope that the world has learned a little about efficiency in the last 100 years. If nothing else, the basic supply chains that provide sheet metal, rubber, glass, etc. should be much more efficient today than they were in 1909.

Re:Cheap car already tried and failed! (5, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297157)

Failed?

The Yugo sold quite a lot of cars, and according to the wikipedia article you link to, they're still being sold. Not in the US, but the Tata Nano isn't aimed at the US either. Lots of stuff isn't. Just because something won't succeed in the US, that doesn't automatically make it a failure.

Safety.... (2, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296593)

There aren't many, [safety features] but it's far safer than the bicycles and scooters that many Nano buyers will be trading up from. Tata's engineers are working on a series of upgrades, including airbags, anti-lock brakes, power steering, more powerful three-cylinder petrol and diesel engines and five-speed and automatic gearboxes which will allow the Nano to go on sale beyond its home market, and capitalise on the colossal potential created by its base price.

So basically it's "safe enough for India" but you couldn't sell it as-is anywhere that has vehicle safety standards.

Of course, you probably couldn't sell a Geo Metro or a Honda CRX (two 1980's high mileage cars) as a new car in the US today either for the same reasons.

I'm not convinced that changing the vehicular population makeup of India from bicycles and scooters to have a higher volume of these actually raises the overall safety of the traveling population - and it surely doesn't improve the fuel economy.

For those of us who are used to dollars, according to Google, the base price of 1700 pounds in the article is about $2500.

Re:Safety.... (5, Informative)

bytta (904762) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297011)

I live in India an I'm kind of scared...

The driving exam is a joke here. If you correctly answer 6 out of 10 multiple choice questions (mostly "guess the taffic sign" ones) you get a learners licence. Curiously, 9 out of 36 failed that in my class. 1 month later you get the full licence, provided that you can drive 100m without incident.

The traffic here is very chaotic already, but it's mostly motorbikes and 3-wheelers. Add more cars to the mix and you're asking for trouble. On the other hand the Tata Nano seems to be a scaled-up rickshaw rather than a scaled-down car.

TFA is 4 months old, and the price is way off. The base price is 100.000 rupees, or about $2000/£1350. You can still get 2 high-end scooters for that price, not one for £1700 like the article says.

Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (1, Interesting)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296599)

Great, a more affordable vehicle hits the roads so that more people can increase their carbon footprints and increase oil consumption. A few gas guzzlers or many more efficient vehicles. The result's the same.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (5, Insightful)

ActusReus (1162583) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296657)

The developed world has had DECADES to build up moral authority on this issue, and utterly blew it. Now, efforts on our part to shame the developing world for pollution or inefficient energy use sound spiteful and hypocritical.

You may be right... but you're also wrong.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (1)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296805)

Just because someone else does it doesn't make it ok.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (2, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296819)

There's no point being defeatist about it. Until fusion is sorted out (hopefully soon?) [wikipedia.org] the rest of the world simply cannot enjoy such a high standard of living as the west has indulged itself in these past few decades. I mean "cannot" in a physical rather than a moral sense. The time for crying hypocrite is over. We all have to work together now.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296963)

There's no point being defeatist about it. Until fusion is sorted out (hopefully soon?) [wikipedia.org] the rest of the world simply cannot enjoy such a high standard of living as the west has indulged itself in these past few decades. I mean "cannot" in a physical rather than a moral sense. The time for crying hypocrite is over. We all have to work together now.

Now if that's not really damn handy, I don't know what is.
Ok mister rich American dude, let's work together. Let's all start using bicycles to go to work from now on ...
Or better yet ... you can use bicycles. Now it's our turn do drive fossil fuel powered vehicles for the next six decades.
Whether you like it or not, it's only human nature to want more out of life. I just want to get to work in half an hour. I'm tired of spending three hours each day going to work (although i live in the city).
Although this post is a troll, the bottom line is this: You cannot demand sacrifices from other people (people who are already less fortunate than you) without doing some sacrifices yourself.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (1)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297063)

Ok mister rich American dude, let's work together. Let's all start using bicycles to go to work from now on ...

I'm a European, I do not have a car, and I work from home. Your assumptions are unwarranted.

Whether you like it or not, it's only human nature to want more out of life.

Whether you like it or not, it is simply impossible for everyone to live like Americans and Europeans currently do. Increasingly, it's not even possible for Americans and Europeans to live like that. Again: this is not a moral argument, it's an observation of supply and demand in a world of finite resources.

Although this post is a troll, the bottom line is this: You cannot demand sacrifices from other people (people who are already less fortunate than you) without doing some sacrifices yourself.

What in my post gave you the impression that I do not expect to make sacrifices myself? I'll say it again in case you missed it first time: we all have to work together now.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (3, Insightful)

American Terrorist (1494195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296699)

OTOH, it's good if this drives up oil prices, then other people will drive fewer gas guzzlers. It will also increase the demand for renewable energy and possibly force the US's uberconsumers to reduce their lavish lifestyles.

It's also good for Indian people who want cheap taxis and are sick of riding on top of buses to get around.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27297169)

If gasoline was a tax, it would be a highly regressive tax. Higher gas prices don't affect the "uberconsumers" because even if gas goes to double digits per gallon, it will still be a trivial percentage of their income.

Gas prices affect the people who are priced out of the core of cities and into suburbs the most, the people who can least afford some unknown expenses.

To boot, gas prices don't just affect who drives. They affect everyone. Though someone may bicycle to work, they pay for the higher oil/gas with higher grocery prices, upped rent, higher sales taxes, and so on.

Please, be wise what you wish for. Trust me, if gas in the US went to $10.00 a gallon on average, you will be feeling the hurt as a wave of price increases runs through the whole supply chain.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (5, Insightful)

TheAmit (1011767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296759)

I don't understad why do drivers in the US who majorly drive big Ford trucks talk down to the developing world for driving small cars. Remember India with almost 4 times the population has a smaller carbon footprint than the US. Stop driving your gas guzzlers for the next 20 years before you get a right to talk about carbon footprints. After enjoying the economic benefits of gasoline you want the developing world to give it all up and stay poor is it ?

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (1)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296975)

In the US the population is dispersed in suburbs making personal vehicles mandatory and public transportation impractical. At the Federal level we are passing laws that do nothing to reduce the number of vehicles on the road (it would hurt the economy, you see) and have stupidly mandated the production and use of bio-fuels that cost more or about as much petroleum to manufacture than they produce. Never mind the consequences to the world food supply.

At some point gas prices will rise to prohibitive levels and our economy will wither or crash IMHO.

So over the years the US has done it wrong but some of us know that and want to sound a warning both at home and abroad.

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297191)

Because we are Americans you over-sensitive clod!

Re:Oh, Joy, Joy, more oil comsumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27296935)

That's right! You tell those brown people how it is, whitey! How dare they try to advance their civilization and enjoy a fraction of the prosperity you've been able to!!! Now go pay your carbon indulgences to Pope Gore, you self-righteous douche bag.

Jevon's paradox (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297147)

There won't be more oil consumed, because we have already hit peak oil. What will happen instead is that the price of oil will go up and make it uneconomic for the bottom end of US economy to use their cars. This will cause another recession and the US will respond by hyperinflating their currency, until people in America are no wealthier than people in India or China.

You are seeing the rise of the new empires and the fall of the old, corrupt one. Unless of course the US government manage to persuade Saudi to continue to sell oil only in US paper.
 

Infrastructure will not handle this (5, Interesting)

Laxitive (10360) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296739)

I think Indian infrastructure is going to have a hard time coping with this.

Tried getting anywhere in New Delhi recently? A 10km ride can take HOURS. I'm not exaggerating or kidding. You will literally stand in one spot for half an hour. Nobody obeys traffic rules and gridlock is the norm.

The Indian middle class is looking to copy the west, and they want their SUVs and their tall lattes too.

In late afternoon in New Delhi (about 6:00pm or so), you can STARE AT THE SUN without feeling any queasiness in your eyes. That's how bad the pollution is.

Instead of looking to other cultures and trying to NOT make the same mistakes, India is eager to copycat them. Heh... you think Americans go a little bit overboard with the bling and the super-size-me? Just wait.. just wait.

-Laxitive

Re:Infrastructure will not handle this (1)

American Terrorist (1494195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296891)

I think Indian infrastructure is going to have a hard time coping with this

Yes, they need more ways of getting around and fewer people. They should be investing massively in their infrastructure like China did, but they're not.

Ideally the big cities of the present and future would have massive high tech subway systems, buses going from everywhere to everywhere, tight regulation of car numbers (like HK, Singapore, and London) and (my personal favorite) skyways with bike paths.

The only people with enough money to pay for these things are the ones who print it though. So good luck to everyone out there waiting for the invisible hand to rescue them from their commute.

Re:Infrastructure will not handle this (5, Funny)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296955)

Heh. My first visit to New Delhi, I wondered if India followed 'British' driving rules (drive on the left side of the road) vs the right side lane driving seen in many other countries. A couple hours each way, several days in a row, I was unable to call it based on the driving observed.

These guys would make the Brazilian or Italian drivers blush... It is a wonder we don't see more of them on the race track.

Re:Infrastructure will not handle this (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297039)

America is still having trouble with the "keeping up with the Joneses" concept... I think it's basic human (and animal) nature - monkey see, monkey want.

News? (1)

harris s newman (714436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296755)

So am I to believe that before this car there was no "cheepest car" in the world?

Judgement already! (5, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296767)

It won't compete on dynamics or quality with European or Japanese city cars, but it doesn't have to.

That is precisely how the Japanese "came from behind" in the late seventies and ended up capturing the American mindset when it comes to quality.

I know what I am talking about because I was around at that time. No body would even think of touching a Japanese front wheel drive car! Guess what! It is second nature to most auto manufacturers now.

I guess it's the time for the Indians this time round. Let's just watch out after all, Tata's direction on quality can only be up.

Re:Judgement already! (2, Insightful)

American Terrorist (1494195) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296809)

I see where you're coming from, but Toyota didn't do what they did overnight. Sure, they were crappy at first, but they kept gaining market share due to their ever-improving quality.

Top gear (5, Funny)

simonwalton (843796) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296789)

Can't wait to see The Stig powersliding this baby around the Top Gear test track.

Re:Top gear (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297059)

You know, a model specific racing program using these would be competitive, cheap, and likely safe (due to the relatively low speeds.)

Would be more entertaining to watch than go-kart racing, more rollover potential!

Other Models (0, Flamebait)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296793)

Did anyone else notice Tata Motor's other models. They are all fricking rip-offs of other manufacturers cars. They all look like Toyotas. It seems like a copy-me company got too good at manufacturing and decided to do something innovative.

This is a good thing for the carbon footprint (4, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296801)

India's carbon footprint will be going up no matter what we do. The Nano has a good MPG rating. Better than many hybrids. It's a good thing, not a pollution machine.

I thought the British Empire was dead. (-1, Troll)

dangitman (862676) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296811)

although we'd guess it will cost Indian consumers closer to £1700 when it finally goes on sale, six months late, in March 2009.'"

Indians are using British pounds to buy their cars? What happened to independence?

Re:I thought the British Empire was dead. (2, Insightful)

grodzix (1235802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297045)

Man, I hope you're not being serious right now. You can see that it's co.uk web site so it is designed for British population. It kinda makes sense to put price in pounds rather than in rupees as most of British people (or at least many of them) don't know how much rupee is, right?

Buy One as H1B (-1, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296859)

We should be able to buy one of these cars in the US. It's only fair to sell cars here that are subsidized by being manufactured cheap in India, without labor or environmental protections there, since Indians subsidize their competitively low labor rates (there and while "visiting labor" here) with those same cheaper institutions.

shopping cart, anyone? (3, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#27296923)

Seriously, look at it. 12" wheels, and how tall and narrow it is!

But looking at what it's designed for, it appears to be very well thought-out. Anyone that's driven in europe can understand why you need a narrow car because of the streets. And anything that gets your side mirror another half inch away from oncoming traffic's mirrors is a good thing, and then of course there's parking. (no mention of how well it turns to squeeze into a tight spot?) For an in-town car in a big city, it looks to be ideally suited. 60mpg? Heck I could use that right now.

It said it accomodates "six footers". I'm 6'2, I wonder if I'll be cracking my head on the roof?

Considering the next-to-nonexistent trunk, it's NOT a family trip car, unless you're a family of two. The back seat really IS the trunk, and the trunk is the glovebox.

But I wouldn't mind trying one. I wonder what it's top speed is, they only tested it to 60mph and it took 17 sec to get there, i wonder if it can do 70? I have to take an interstate to work here and it's 70 in places.

I'd also be interested to know its range. At 60mpg though, I wonder what speed that's at? Most larger cars, that's measured at highway speed (55?) and is lower for in-town. This car is targeted almost exclusively for in-town so that's not the number I want to hear. It's not a hybrid so it lacks the regenerative breaking bonus for in-town driving. (unless the thing's got a flywheel? heh) I'm picturing it getting more like 40mph in-town, and guessing at a 5gal tank, so that'd be about a 200 mile in-town range, which I could certainly live with. My exploder gets 300 miles on the highway, 240 in town. It'd shave 70% off my total at the pump too which would be wonderful.

The review was ok but missed a lot, I'd like to have seen 7 pages, not 2. Airbags I hope? looks to be manual only. (can you smell my clutch yet?) And it doesn't look like they let him drive it, which worries me a little.

Re:shopping cart, anyone? (1)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297205)

Regarding city driving, yah the size helps, but the lack of power steering sure doesn't. I lived in an urban area without power steering before, and it can get annoying trying to parallel park without it. On the bright side, my arm strength increased quite a bit during that time.

My impression regarding any ability to get this in the US is that the company has taken advantage of the fact that India has lax (nonexistent?) safety and emissions standards in order to keep the price low. Making one of these that would actually be street legal in the US would probably cost thousands more.

WHAT!?!?! (-1, Flamebait)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297031)

'CAR's first ride in the Tata Nano felt far more significant and exciting than a first drive in a Ferrari or Lamborghini, because this car's importance is immeasurably greater.

This statement fails miserably. Tata Nano should never be in the same sentence as Lamborghini or Ferrari, except in a sentence to say they should never be in the same sentence. One of the Lamorghini's wheels cost more then that car.

With regards to this car and it's price - I wouldn't hail it as a miracle - assuming only 1% of the population buys this car that is 10 million new drivers - eating up gas. Yay demand!!!! Another summer of $4/gallon gas prices!!! Plus the added pollution.

I wonder how many safety standards this car had to break to get passed. Driving rules in India are a lot more lax then driving rules in UK/US & other countries where driving has been established as an every-day necessity.

Fundamentals (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297069)

There are a handful of things fundamental to this existence, regardless of where you live. On the "basic survival" [trackerschool.com] end of the spectrum, you've got shelter, water, and food.

If you seek something more than just basic subsistence, the list expands to include energy, communications, and transportation.

If you believe that a modern society is beneficial, then providing more accessible transportation is a good thing. If you believe we should all be subsistence farmers, then the Tata Nano is a plague upon the land.

The year of cheap stuff. (2, Insightful)

oftenwrongsoong (1496777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27297123)

This is the year of the netbook, the cheap car, and next thing you know, they'll be selling houses made out of cardboard for dirt cheap, too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>