Right, airbags were developed because of government regulations...No, wait, car companies developed and started to install air bags before there were any government regulations requiring them. Amazingly enough, while they first sold them in luxury cars, they were starting to put them in ever cheaper cars. One of the arguments about the enactment of the government requirement for airbags was that airbags were not safe for everyone...and, low and behold, it turned out there were all kinds of problems when airbags were installed in every car. Those problems were fixed, but how many people suffered, and some died, because the government mandated airbags in every car before the technology was ready?
Can you give me an example of where an insufficiently regulated market resulted in less safety? I can give you lots of examples of BADLY regulated markets that had that result (every example I have seen used to justify regulations was actually a badly regulated market, not an insufficiently regulated market).
Yes, I believe that cars would be just as safe, if not safer, and significantly less expensive if it were not for government safety regulations. Exactly how is that "demonstrably wrong"? Where has this been demonstrated?
I asked you why you should have the right to tell me that I have to have a seatbelt. Your answer was because if I did not wear a seat belt, there was a chance that my body flying out of the car might hit and injure you. If you can justify interfering in someone else's life on the basis of such an improbable event, there is nothing you cannot justify interfering in. You basically believe that it is appropriate for the government to force people to do things because YOU think those things are in that person's best interest, no matter what they think.
OK, you clearly know nothing about cars and seat belts. You just think it is your business to tell other people how to go about their lives and how to spend their money.
Sorry, if you are close enough to be hit and injured by a body flying through the windshield you have already been hit by something and injured much more severely than that flying body will.
It is my belief that if the government had not mandated certain safety features, cars would be just as safe or safer and cheaper because of market forces.
The biggest problem with this plan is that as they started buying up coal companies the price of buying up coal companies would go up to the point that it would take considerably more than $50 billion to do the job.
I generally get parts for my (more than 10 years old) cars from an auto parts store for less than the dealer charges. My mechanic does the same thing. For that matter, so do some of the dealers around me.
You are not completely wrong. Except that the current administration wants to encourage the use of electricity to power vehicles BECAUSE they believe that will make vehicles unobtainable for the masses.
Actually, it is not true that PEOPLE have decided that they prefer buying more car. It is government regulation that has made cars such as the VW Beatle obsolete (for example, an original VW Beatle only gets about 22 mpg which is less than the goal for large trucks in 2012--although that is measured by government standards, not real-world usage). There are other government regulations which would drive up the cost of a VW Beatle if it was brought to market today.
Basically what Audi is doing by instituting this plan is announcing to the world that they are building their cars to be obsolete in two years. If Audi was building quality cars they would have announced that they have entered a partnership with AT&T to put an adapter in their car that will be compatible with cellphones on the AT&T network for the next 10 years (or more). As it is, they have indicated that they are building fancy pieces of junk that you won't want two years from now.
Well the large reason for that is that Ukraine BELIEVED the rest of the world when they promised to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine in order to convince Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. As a result of that belief, the Ukrainians don't have much of an army.
Wow, you really believe that? You believe that a man who as a teenager helped the Nazis loot the Jews of Europe before killing them (after having been taken in by a non-Jewish family so that he was not killed by the Nazis along with his Jewish parents) only does what he does "out of necessity".? And its not like that childhood action was not followed up by similar behavior as an adult (not as blatantly evil, but with a similar disregard for how his actions negatively effected others).
That does me no good whatsoever if the bad guys are targeting me. Automated driving means that every accident should be investigated as a possible assault/attempted murder.
You seem to have missed my point. Once we have self-driving cars, YOU will no longer be able to protect yourself against a hacker who decides to target you by targeting your car. It will not matter how skilled you are, the skills that will matter will be those of the person who writes the security software for your car.
Except that you miss the point. Currently, if you are involved in a mishap involving an automobile, there is a chance that you could have avoided it if your skill was sufficient to the task and if that is not the case it is unlikely that you were specifically targeted. In addition, if by some chance you WERE targeted, the person targeting you is putting themselves at risk. In an autonomous car, your skill will be irrelevant AND those targeting you will be able to target just the vehicle you are in.
The most amusing thing about President Obama going on about gender pay inequality is that one of the few places where it is significant is one of the places where he has the most control over it, White House staff. There have been several reports that women who work at the White House are paid significantly less than men working at the White House, even when they are filling the same role.
I am not saying that they "like" killing animals. I am saying that they prefer killing animals to allowing those animals to be adopted as someone's pet. PETA has given me reason to think that they believe it is better for those animals to die than for them to live as someone's pet.
I am sorry, I need a source other than PETA to believe that they don't like it. They provide no evidence that their claim is true. This is an organization which has been shown in the past to be willing to distort the facts in order to promote its agenda. It is also an organization that opposes the very concept of pets. So, to put it bluntly, I do NOT believe them. Since PETA believes that dogs and cats SHOULD be allowed to run feral (and only as many survive as manage to do so without human intervention), I believe they take these animals in with the intention of killing them since these animals apparently cannot survive in the wild without human intervention (the reason they are brought to the shelter in the first place).
One other fact of serious consideration is this, how many could the Germans have built if they went all in on building them? One of the decisive factors in WWII was the greater production capability of the U.S. over Germany. By the end of the war, the U.S. was building more tanks each month than Germany had over the course of the entire war.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, airbags were developed because of government regulations...No, wait, car companies developed and started to install air bags before there were any government regulations requiring them. Amazingly enough, while they first sold them in luxury cars, they were starting to put them in ever cheaper cars. One of the arguments about the enactment of the government requirement for airbags was that airbags were not safe for everyone...and, low and behold, it turned out there were all kinds of problems when airbags were installed in every car. Those problems were fixed, but how many people suffered, and some died, because the government mandated airbags in every car before the technology was ready?
Can you give me an example of where an insufficiently regulated market resulted in less safety? I can give you lots of examples of BADLY regulated markets that had that result (every example I have seen used to justify regulations was actually a badly regulated market, not an insufficiently regulated market).
Yes, I believe that cars would be just as safe, if not safer, and significantly less expensive if it were not for government safety regulations. Exactly how is that "demonstrably wrong"? Where has this been demonstrated?
I asked you why you should have the right to tell me that I have to have a seatbelt. Your answer was because if I did not wear a seat belt, there was a chance that my body flying out of the car might hit and injure you. If you can justify interfering in someone else's life on the basis of such an improbable event, there is nothing you cannot justify interfering in. You basically believe that it is appropriate for the government to force people to do things because YOU think those things are in that person's best interest, no matter what they think.
There are FAR MORE PEOPLE in the U.S. than in Canada as well.
getting reasonably priced insurance even with preexisting conditions
Except that it is not reasonably priced.
OK, you clearly know nothing about cars and seat belts. You just think it is your business to tell other people how to go about their lives and how to spend their money.
Sorry, if you are close enough to be hit and injured by a body flying through the windshield you have already been hit by something and injured much more severely than that flying body will.
And why would this be YOUR concern?
It is my belief that if the government had not mandated certain safety features, cars would be just as safe or safer and cheaper because of market forces.
The biggest problem with this plan is that as they started buying up coal companies the price of buying up coal companies would go up to the point that it would take considerably more than $50 billion to do the job.
I generally get parts for my (more than 10 years old) cars from an auto parts store for less than the dealer charges. My mechanic does the same thing. For that matter, so do some of the dealers around me.
You are not completely wrong. Except that the current administration wants to encourage the use of electricity to power vehicles BECAUSE they believe that will make vehicles unobtainable for the masses.
Actually, it is not true that PEOPLE have decided that they prefer buying more car. It is government regulation that has made cars such as the VW Beatle obsolete (for example, an original VW Beatle only gets about 22 mpg which is less than the goal for large trucks in 2012--although that is measured by government standards, not real-world usage). There are other government regulations which would drive up the cost of a VW Beatle if it was brought to market today.
Basically what Audi is doing by instituting this plan is announcing to the world that they are building their cars to be obsolete in two years. If Audi was building quality cars they would have announced that they have entered a partnership with AT&T to put an adapter in their car that will be compatible with cellphones on the AT&T network for the next 10 years (or more). As it is, they have indicated that they are building fancy pieces of junk that you won't want two years from now.
Well the large reason for that is that Ukraine BELIEVED the rest of the world when they promised to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine in order to convince Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. As a result of that belief, the Ukrainians don't have much of an army.
You really think that people in an academic setting have more of a "get-it-done" mentality than people in business?
Wow, you really believe that? You believe that a man who as a teenager helped the Nazis loot the Jews of Europe before killing them (after having been taken in by a non-Jewish family so that he was not killed by the Nazis along with his Jewish parents) only does what he does "out of necessity".? And its not like that childhood action was not followed up by similar behavior as an adult (not as blatantly evil, but with a similar disregard for how his actions negatively effected others).
It is not a matter of decision making. It is a matter of hostile action by someone who is out to get someone.
That does me no good whatsoever if the bad guys are targeting me. Automated driving means that every accident should be investigated as a possible assault/attempted murder.
You seem to have missed my point. Once we have self-driving cars, YOU will no longer be able to protect yourself against a hacker who decides to target you by targeting your car. It will not matter how skilled you are, the skills that will matter will be those of the person who writes the security software for your car.
Except that you miss the point. Currently, if you are involved in a mishap involving an automobile, there is a chance that you could have avoided it if your skill was sufficient to the task and if that is not the case it is unlikely that you were specifically targeted. In addition, if by some chance you WERE targeted, the person targeting you is putting themselves at risk. In an autonomous car, your skill will be irrelevant AND those targeting you will be able to target just the vehicle you are in.
The most amusing thing about President Obama going on about gender pay inequality is that one of the few places where it is significant is one of the places where he has the most control over it, White House staff. There have been several reports that women who work at the White House are paid significantly less than men working at the White House, even when they are filling the same role.
I am not saying that they "like" killing animals. I am saying that they prefer killing animals to allowing those animals to be adopted as someone's pet. PETA has given me reason to think that they believe it is better for those animals to die than for them to live as someone's pet.
I am sorry, I need a source other than PETA to believe that they don't like it. They provide no evidence that their claim is true. This is an organization which has been shown in the past to be willing to distort the facts in order to promote its agenda. It is also an organization that opposes the very concept of pets. So, to put it bluntly, I do NOT believe them. Since PETA believes that dogs and cats SHOULD be allowed to run feral (and only as many survive as manage to do so without human intervention), I believe they take these animals in with the intention of killing them since these animals apparently cannot survive in the wild without human intervention (the reason they are brought to the shelter in the first place).
One other fact of serious consideration is this, how many could the Germans have built if they went all in on building them? One of the decisive factors in WWII was the greater production capability of the U.S. over Germany. By the end of the war, the U.S. was building more tanks each month than Germany had over the course of the entire war.