There are plenty of reasons to highlight this invention whether you believe the carbon tax (global warming) proponents or not. Seems that Ms. Eesha Khare of Saratoga, CA has invented a power storage device that can recharge a cellphone in seconds. According to NBC News's John Roach, Ms. Khare won the Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award (a $50K prize) for her nano-technology-based device that can be charged in seconds, pack more energy than comparable rechargeable battery and last (10,000 recharge cycles vs. 1,000) much longer than conventional rechargeable batteries. I'm sure battery makers are just thrilled at the thought of such competition. That is, unless one of them is smart enough to license the technology and maybe even improve on it for making specialty batteries, like those that would be required to make electric transportation viable to replace internal combustion engines. Having been involved with presentations of technology that is deemed 'disruptive' because it poses such a negative impact on monopolistic corporations, who also have very strong lobbying power at the state and federal level, I can assure you that your iPhone will not be charging up any faster anytime soon.
According to a report issued by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) titled, Global Trends 2030:Alternative Worlds, food and water shortages will reduce the United States to third-world status. They indicate that it is not 'carved in stone however it does seem that with the current trends by our government, it will happen, unless an alteration of course is pursued in the very near future. I feel that most Americans are too trusting of the government and the propaganda they are bombarded with by the privately-owned major media. Most Americans still believe that the media represents some truth in journalism standards that will keep what the government tells us as being truth. it seems obvious that nothing can be further from the truth. We live in a world that is becoming more totalitarian every day. keeping people in fear of wars and terrorism has created a generation of people who fear that only the government can save them from certain death. The people of America are terrorized more by the so-called Transportation Safety Administration than they have been by any terrorists.
Government mandates, regulations, and taxes have driven farmers into bankruptcy or out of business before they faced bankruptcy and/or foreclosure. Many have sold out to corporate food producers like ADM, Burlington, or Monsanto, who have replaced healthy and naturally grown foods with genetically modified organisms that been banned in some nations because of their detrimental effects to the health of the consuming public. It would seem logical that these mutant strains will eventually be incapable of supporting life, and hence the predictions of the Global Trend 2030 document may become reality. There is a solution. We must stop the proliferation of these GMO foods. Legislation alone will not do it. We need to support the local farmers who use heirloom seeds and grow their crops without modern chemical fertilizers. These chemical are also contributing to decline of potable water. Desalination using sun and wind power sources like Israel does, will provide the necessary potable water for drinking and irrigation. Most importantly is to reduce dependence on government and free the markets to grow once more. Don't expect the government to capitulate to the people when they have demonstrated their disregard for the well-being of the people and embrace the corporate lobby. Demanding a return to constitutional limitations of the government will only work when the States protect and support their own residents against the tyrannical federal government.
Would it not be better for all concerned if the State and local governments took responsibility for building their own roads and highways? Yes, there can be a standard in how these roads must interconnect with those of adjoining states, but it need not be a federal mandate or regulation. It seems that the needs of the local communities are best served by the local government(s) without federal intervention. For every dollar the federal government takes from the taxpayers in each State, only a fraction is returned to the States due to the overhead of a bloated federal bureaucracy. These tax dollars are best left to the individual States to decide what serves the highest good for the benefits of their taxpaying residents. It is yet another way that the federal government removes liberty from the People. The State governments must comply with the federal laws, mandates, and regulations, often to the detriment of the liberties of the people they represent. An idea that would best serve the benefit of the People is the Solar Roadway concept of Scott Brusaw. Solar energy used for power, to light the roads and provide information displays to motorists, a truly smart grid that also contains telecommunications, all enclosed within each roadway panel.
This is an idea that would benefit the nation, but it is not even being considered by the federal government. Why? While billions if not trillions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on companies like Solydra, The solar roadway concept languishes. The shame of it all is to detrimental effects not only to the economy but to transportation itself. Liberty is taken from inventors when the government takes control of businesses. Isn't it time We the People do something about it?
There is always a reason why some things never change. At least they don't change for the better. As an example in Europe, Asia and in South America also, there are Fords and Toyotas that get over 70 MPG on the highway. None of them are sold in the United States. And it's not because they are not safe vehicles. They are the same vehicles sold here but with much more fuel efficient engines. That's right, they are made here in America, but for export only.
Someone researched this "rumor" only to discover that not only was it true, but that the reason given is really based on half-truths, smoke screen, for the truth. More fuel efficiency means the care can go further or create more horsepower using less fuel. This means less fuel is sold and a reduction in revenue for the government. See, "under the guise of cleaner air," the EPA claims that the more fuel efficient engines produce more pollution per gallon than their US-sold counter parts. But the facts are such that those foreign-sold engines, because they burn less fuel per mile, will produce less pollution over the same distance than the US-sold engines..
No, the reality is that our government wants more of our money, so they create all of this hidden tax that most people pay without thinking about it. When it comes to the price of fuel, they blame the "greedy oil industry" or Wall Street speculators. That is because the media reports such drivel as the government spins-out to the public.
Same thing with the electric car. If just 20 percent ofall American vehicles driven here in America were all electric, the federal government would lose hundreds of millions in revenue currently used to build, maintain, and repair the nation's highways. Now that part may be partially true, but it does not tell the whole story.
Less exhaust fumes in the air will allow people and wildlife healthier lives. That in itself will reduce the cost to treat the sick, who are availing themselves of taxpayer funded medical resources or programs. The roads themselves will retain serviceability longer since the pollutants that settle on and damage the roads will be greatly reduced. Businesses and commuters will spend less on fuel and that will mean they can have more revenue of their own! Imagine that! you could then afford to drive to your vacation spot and still have money left in your wallet to really enjoy it!
As more and more reasons become apparent for solar and wind energy, they too will supplement the fuels used today that will further reduce the pollutants in environment. It may even provide more incentives to install solar and wind power generating systems and that will mean manufacturers in the US will be able to compete in those markets.
I can see the technology being refined to introduce more efficiency and power output as the demand for these systems increase.
An international effort to cut so-called greenhouse gases by imposing taxes and caps on how much GHG you can exhaust before paying is not going to solve anything, in fact the so-called carbon tax is nothing more than another taxation boondoggle. All it will do is make the world poorer and the investors in the Cap & Trade program much wealthier. That will increase the polarization of haves and have-nots. The intent is, of curse, reduce the world to the slaves and masters or the situation of those who must depend on the state for rations and those who will live in opulence and splendor as they continue to look down on the rest of us as if we were their property.
“So will there be some [programs] that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”
— Mitt Romney
“I actually have a[n immigration] plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. ”
— Mitt Romney
“Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues…”
— Tax Policy Center
WASHINGTON, DC – Admittedly afraid of how voters will react to his ideas, Mitt Romney has a bad habit of teasing his policy proposals before refusing to show voters the details. First, Romney told told the Washington Examiner that he had an immigration plan that he hadn’t unveiled — that was over 100 days ago. Next, he gave a highly publicized “major” policy address at Ford Field in Detroit to unveil his new tax plan, but he failed to actually release the details of the plan in question. And finally, while speaking with the Weekly Standard, Romney flat-out admitted he was keeping secrets from voters because he was afraid his ideas would be unpopular. The Standard wrote: “But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.”
“Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his plans before the election shows he’s fully aware that his ideas are out of touch with American values. The only thing more cynical than Romney’s outdated policies that make the rich richer is his willingness to keep the details secret from voters."
— Rodell Mollineau, American Bridge president
Americans expect presidential campaigns to be worthy of the office they’re seeking — for candidates to offer competing visions for the future, instead of defaulting on the promises that got them there. Romney has yet to prove to anyone he has what it takes. In fact, in the sixty months since Mitt Romney began his quest for the White House, the most noteworthy thing he’s done is outspend Rick Santorum in a couple of states. He has failed to realize it’ll take more than that to reach the White House.
Romney promised to eliminate cabinet agencies and government programs, but refused to specify which, out of a fear of the plans being politically unpopular. According to The Weekly Standard, “Mitt Romney wants to eliminate government programs and shutter cabinet agencies. Doing so, he says, is ‘the critical thing’ that needs to be done in order to bring government books back into balance and to begin restoring the promise of America.' ‘Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them,’ he revealed in a 30-minute interview on March 21. It’s a smart answer in that it actually says nothing and is a deeply politically correct one.
Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to be specific about any programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications. ‘One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,’ Romney recalled. ‘So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.’
[The Weekly Standard, 04/02/12]
December 7, 2011: Romney admits he had an illegal immigration plan, but refused to unveil it.
In a Washington Examiner editorial board meeting, Romney was asked, “Have you not said enough to encourage that… simply by saying, ‘Well, once we’ve secured the border, we can do something?’" Romney responded, “I actually have a plan in mind, I haven’t unveiled it. There are other people I’d like to sit down with and review it with me. I went down to Florida and met with Jeb Bush six, seven months ago, laid out what I thought would be a complete plan to deal with permanent immigration policies with regards to our legal system to simplify it. Number two, how to deal with those who are here illegally today. And then number three, how to secure the border. And every piece of advice I've received from people who talk about this topic say get the first job done first, because if you talk about the other jobs you get highly confused with whether you are going to create incentives for people to come here illegally to take advantage of whatever program you might describe.”
[The Washington Examiner Editorial Board, 12/7/11]
Romney promised to eliminate tax deductions to pay for his tax plan, but did not specify which deductions, making it impossible to accurately evaluate his proposal. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. …
The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now… Because Gov. Romney has not specified how he would increase the tax base, it is impossible to determine how the plan would affect federal tax revenues or the distribution of the tax burden.”
[Tax Policy Center]
Mitt Romney Platform:
What is the platform of Mitt Romney? Is Mitt Romney's 2012 platform truly conservative? And most importantly, can Mitt Romney be trusted to stand by his platform?
Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy platform is contrasted below with the platform Mitt Romney maintained before and during his governorship of Massachusetts, and the previous article. Why is Mitt Romney running for President on a platform that has been so drastically altered?
Obviously, the 2012 Mitt Romney platform plays to the conservatives to win the Republican nomination, while Mitt Romney's earlier platform played to the liberals in Massachusetts to try to unseat Senator Edward Kennedy. In fact, Mitt Romney's earlier platform was actually more liberal than Kennedy's liberal platform.
Mitt Romney on Gay Marriage:
1994: "As we seek to establish full equality [for gays], I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, [Edward Kennedy]."
2011: "I believe we should have a federal amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Mitt Romney on Abortion:
1994: "Abortion should be safe and legal in this country."
2002: "Let me make this very clear, I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose."
2011: "I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life."
Mitt Romney on Homosexuality in the Military:
1994: "[I support] gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly."
2007: "‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has worked well... We’re in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the time for a change in that regard, and I don’t have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."
Mitt Romney on Health Care:
2007: “I’m proud of what we’ve done... If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”
2011: "What works in one state may not be the answer for another."
Mitt Romney on Immigration:
2006: "[I am against] rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."
2008: "I disagree fundamentally that the 12 million people who come here illegally should be allowed to stay here permanently. I think that is a form of amnesty and that it's not appropriate."
Mitt Romney on Campaign Finance Reform:
1994: "I would like to have campaign spending limits."
2007: "The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations."
Platform 2012?
Abortion: pro-life
Capital punishment: against
Censorship: against the Fairness Doctrine
Child protection: "would propose a "One-Strike, You're Ours" law for child sex offenders convicted of using the Internet to prey on children."
Education: supports No Child Left Behind
Abstinence education: supports this in public schools
Prayer in schools: He was against this in 1994, but in 2007 said, "We ought to allow ceremonies, graduation ceremonies and public events that we have the ability to recognize the Creator."
Gas crisis: Wishes to become independent of foreign oil by using alternative fuels as well as domestic reserves of petroleum.
Environment\Global warming: Pro-environment; regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary measures.
Family life: Mitt Romney has said, "That strong families are one of his three pillars, along with military and economy, for a strong America."
Gun control: Romney has "flip-flopped" on this issue, once stating that he supported, "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution." and at another date saying he supported gun control and a ban on assault weapons.
Health Care: supports the right of states to form their own health care plans for their respective state citizens.
Same-Sex Marriage/Civil Unions: Romney has avidly supported same-sex marriage in the past, saying, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern." However, in his 2008 campaign, Romney stated that, "I oppose same-sex marriage and I also oppose civil unions."
Medical Marijuana: Stated, "I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana."
Stem Cell Research: Believes it is ethical, but opposes research involving cloned embryos and opposes federal funding for it.
Free Trade: Supports
Minimum Wage: Supports predictable, steady "changes" in the minimum wage. Up or down... Who knows?
Taxation: Has pledged to not produce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes; advocated for the elimination of the estate tax.
Immigration: Supports legal immigration and decreased illegal immigration. Opposes amnesty for illegal aliens, but supports a path to citizenship for them, without any special treatment over legal immigrants, as well as the requirement to pay taxes and register with the government.
Iran: Believes the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran if the latter country threatens to use nuclear weapons is an option.
Iraq War: Romney has stated, "So long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population." Is willing to withdraw from Iraq if the surge proves unsuccessful, which Romney believes is too early to tell.
Pakistan: Wishes to aid this country in military, informational, and governmental ways through the Special Partnership Force."
What... if anything does the previous information actually mean? You could corner Willard Mittington Romney in a closed room and sweat it out of him... but he might not know.
When Solyndra hit the wall of insolvency, all that could be heard were the echoes of the person occupying the Presidency: "this loan will generate hundreds of jobs insuring Solyndra a brighter future". The $535 million loan was expanded by another $75 million and Solyndra’s expenditures, just to build the plant, cost an estimated $733 million. With those words and figures in mind, more than a thousand people are jobless many are losing or have lost their homes and for them times are, indeed, really tough. More than 900 are still without steady employment.
After the bankruptcy on September 6, a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing was called to ask questions of company officials. The company's CEO, Brian Harrison, and chief financial officer, W.G. Stover, were called and both invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and in response to questions said nothing. The interesting point of this debacle is not concerning the Solyndra employees, not concerning the increase in future jobs at Solyndra, not concerning the private investors in Solyndra, not concerning the "Made in America" products, not concerning the increase in "Jobs in America", and certainly not concerning solar panels or the "Green Industry." And unquestionably not concerning who the criminals are, how much money they got, and why they aren't all in prison. As memos, Emails, and testimony have clearly shown without doubt, the concern of all the major players involved everywhere, as if it were just a board game to win at any cost, were solely political and had nothing to do with making our Nation strong in manufacturing or profitable for the citizens who work to make a life for themselves and their families. The sleazy dealings of the White House, political appointees at the DOE, and campaign contributors being repaid for helping the person occupying the Presidency. With the political favors repaid, taxpayers left to pay the costs, move on, nothing to see here, more change is necessary. You don't need sunglasses to see all that remains are just another business failure and lives that lay in ruins.
It doesn't take a PhD. in economics to see how much taxpayer revenue and borrowed funds are being wasted on "investments" in alternative energy projects. And while the President in busy with campaigning and finger pointing at the GOP-led House to pass another "stimulus" bill disguised as a jobs bill, there are several bills stacked up in the Democrat-controlled Senate that Harry Reid & Company have been ignoring. Several of them are budgets which will prevent another last-minute panic to push through a budget so that government won't be shut down. Sound familiar?
Now subpoenas are sent to the White House because the Administration is stonewalling and not providing information about the Solyndra scandal. The President however pokes at Congress passing a reaffirming resolution to keep "In God We Trust" as the national motto while his jobs bill gets no vote of confidence.
The biggest contributors to the Obama campaign are the same ones that received huge bailouts, many that pay no taxes (General Electric) and yet Obama says he wants the rich to pay their "fair share." The jobs in his "jobs bill" will create "thousands" of jobs in construction, bridges and highways, all union and all costing the taxpayers. The budgets thus far all have not cuts spending, instead they raised the credit limit (Can you do that with your bank or credit card company?) for themselves and spent more money that they had to borrow.
With the support of grassroots patriots, organized as the Tea Party Movement, the majority in the House shifted to the right, and gains were also made in the Senate, although short of the desired majority. But in a way, that is good for Americans who can plainly see (if they choose to) where the real problems are and with whom. They are not found in examining the sexual harassment allegations of Herman Cain, or the religious beliefs of Mitt Romney.
I can go down the list of the candidates vying for the GOP nomination and I am sure to find good things to say about each. But in all but one of them, we can discover past indiscretions, that even as isolated incidents, call into question their integrity and ability to serve the People and their Constitution.
There are many things that are going wrong in the United States, many issues that the government, the President cannot solve. The best thing for them to do is remove the barriers to free markets and lower taxes to stimulate business development. There are too many laws and department level regulations that inhibit business development and growth, moving innovation and jobs overseas along with revenue from profits. ARRA and TARP are but two prime examples of wasted spending and a burden to the American taxpayer. Guaranteed loans in excess of one half billion dollars to Solyndra is an exclamation point at the end of the phrase, "government waste and total ineptitude."
After listening and reading all of the so-called solutions that all these candidates are offering, and as we watch and listen to the debates and the analysis of those debates, one thing seems evident to me. Only Ron Paul is offering the tough and truthful answers to all of the questions, with the same consistency and persistence that We the People need and want in a President. A man who seems almost meek, but don't let that fool you, as he has been as tough as anyone in Congress that you will find. Not once can you find him changing his mind on issues, it is why the GOP and media resort to name-calling when they do have to acknowledge him. Mostly they just tend to ignore him.
We know that the major media will do whatever it is paid to do, regardless of how "fair and balanced" they profess to be. It is We the People that need to take back our liberty and choose our President, not from the rank and file party favorites, but from the Spirit of Liberty, the Constitution, Free Markets and Sound Money.
It seems that there are many so-called free energy devices with claims of "over-unity" energy production. But do they really work? Are these devices all scams and chicanery or is there a concerted effort to suppress the technology.
I have followed these devices since I first read about Nikola Tesla and radiant energy about 35 years ago or more. I have experimented with others on building devices and have witnessed for myself some remarkable phenomena that cannot be explained by conventional physics. We have even demonstrated experiments to lettered physicists who claim that while they cannot explain what was taking place, there were sure that the "anomaly" was NOT due to some unknown energy source as that is "impossible" since all known sources are documented.
So who is right and why? Can there be nothing new in physics that be discovered?
Deregulation brought a meltdown in our electricity markets with market manipulation, profiteering and higher costs to consumers without benefits. Remember Enron? Deregulation was also a major contributor to the recent Wall Street-led financial crisis. Now powerful forces in Washington, D.C., and Salem are pushing a market-based (read unregulated) cap-and-trade system to address the problem of climate change.
A cap-and-trade system works by setting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and then giving participants credits to pollute up to the established cap. Participants may buy, trade and sell credits in an unregulated market to meet their emission targets. In theory, emissions will drop as the number of credits available each year is reduced. It's a good idea on paper.
But like deregulated U.S. energy and financial markets, a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation.
Alarmingly, cap-and-trade proposals being considered in Washington, D.C., and Salem would allow unregulated entities -- such as investment banks and hedge funds -- to participate in the market. These entities -- really, speculators -- don't have emissions to cut. Their goal is to make profits.
Speculation has been ruinous in Europe where a cap-and-trade system was implemented in 2005. Unregulated entities are profiting at the expense of regulated businesses by buying up credits to pollute, hoarding them until the price increases, and then selling them for inflated returns. The result? greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise despite $60 billion worth of credits being traded in the lucrative European market each year. The cost of business is rising and consumers are paying the premium.
Apply this to a U.S. market, expected to be three times the size of Europe's. The opportunities for economic competitors with large reserves of dollars (think China and Saudi Arabia) to manipulate and abuse the market would be enormous. Similarly, the possibilities are ripe for a few powerful speculators to bring Oregon's small market to its knees.
To add insult to injury, proposals in Washington, D.C., and Oregon would give a large portion of the pollution credits to the energy industry based on historical emission levels free of charge. The idea is to cushion the fall in profits for regulated entities when they start to cut emissions. This works out to a potential $100 billion giveaway to the oil, gas and coal industries in the first year alone of a nationwide system. Total giveaways to industry through the life of the market would be mind-numbing, making the Wall Street bailout seem like pocket change.
Despite these obvious problems, federal and state lawmakers are poised to move forward with a cap-and-trade system. I'm working in Washington to oppose this proposal and to find an alternative. One option that needs further exploration is to establish a emissions cap and to direct polluters to either reduce emissions or to purchase certified offsets (reductions from other entities) to meet emission targets.
But given the devastating impact of past deregulation on U.S. energy and financial markets, I have serious concerns about using a "market-based approach" to solve serious problems. My colleagues in Congress, and Oregon legislators, would be wise to do their homework on a cap-and-trade system before moving forward with more deregulation.
Peter DeFazio, a Democrat, represents Oregon's 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
It seems that I am not alone in my thinking about the cap and trade market doing little to move to energy independence or reduce the GHG emissions. All it will do is create yet another way for the financial sector to profit and the consumers get squat.
The governor of the state of Oregon looks like he is making a good move toward clean energy and creating jobs and economic growth for his state. On the other hand, GM is partnering with Segway, the makers of those two wheeled pedestrian mobility devices that you plug in to charge. I would say that based on what I see, Nissan has the better business plan and that is why bailing out GM is a bad idea.
Governor: Electric cars are Oregon’s future
The Associated Press • April 6, 2009 PORTLAND — Gov. Ted Kulongoski continues to pitch Oregon as the nation’s all-electric vehicle hub. At a news conference the governor test drove a Nissan all-electric vehicle this morning — the same vehicle he drove during his November trade visit to Asia.
Right before Kulongoski jumped behind the wheel, he described the all-electric technology and green technology in general as “the future of Oregon’s economy” and environment. Nissan plans to bring all-electric vehicles to Oregon in late 2010. The state will be one of the nation’s first markets. On Tuesday, a Norway-based company will come to town as it searches for a U.S. location for an electric car manufacturing plant.
Mike Gansler, Director of Core Technology with Segway Inc., drives a Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, or PUMA, project prototype vehicle in New York's Times Square on Sunday, April 5, 2009. Segway Inc. and General Motors Corp. announced Tuesday that they are working together to develop the two-wheeled, two-seat electric vehicle designed to be a fast, efficient, inexpensive and clean alternative to traditional cars and trucks in an urban environment. (AP Photo/Jin Lee)
