The democratic thing to do would be for Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine. Then go through whatever process Ukraine has for the secession of a Ukrainian state. Then once Crimea has independence from Ukraine petition to join Russia.
Well. Crimea and Russia had the shores of the Straight of Kerch which lead from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov which the latter has a number of Russian ports. However I don't think Syrians militants were in a position to take control of Crimea....
Taking Crimea as Russian territory gives Russia control of both sides of the Straight of Kerch so that does provide an increased margin of safety for shipping traffic to Russian ports on the Sea of Azov.
If the people want to join Russia, why don't they emmigrate? Russia took sovereign land from Ukraine and made it Russian. That isn't even demonstrably close to what the US did and it directly violated a treaty that Russia had signed.
Who knows, because it's precise the sort of confrontational attitude that has created such an impasse.
Frankly, I don't get the whole point. I don't understand where people are getting the idea that marriage is a right. I think the term "right" has been erroneously applied to many things which are privileges. I don't understand why marriages are granted any sort of benefit in the first place or why people would rely on such a loosely constructed link for critical important things.
In short, I believe the whole argument is an artificially created by government.
Some insurances companies might cover for hire drivers. However the premiums are going to be drastically higher than what you pay for your personal insurance.
Oh heavens no. Any part savings wouldn't be passed on to the consumer. They would be "pocketed" in the sense that the price would be kept elevated so that if the vehicles aren't moving the OEM can provide discounts or other incentives using those pocketed savings to move the vehicles without causing a real loss.
The major problem is that people are judging pricing based on what are, essentially, hobby grade equpment. The prices you find on Amazon.com are nowhere close to what GM or Ford would get from their suppliers because those kits aren't what's used. While it's an extreme example, this is a situation not unlike Fluke and the cheap multimeters. Fluke has warranties, quality controls, and in general produces a much better (and more expensive) piece of equipment compared to the knock off. That's what you're dealing with with the backup cameras.
Now maybe, maybe, the prices can come down drastically if GM and Ford were to lean on their tier 1 suppliers, which in turn lean on tier 2 suppliers, and so on to drag the price down. It could happen, but once again barring some drastic change in technology over four years that significantly reduces the costs of the kits you're going to either have the auto OEMs dealing with poor QCed products, because that's what their 1st and 2nd tier suppliers went with to bring down costs, which increases their warranty costs (from defective units) and opens them up for potential lawsuits for having a defective device or they're using the more expensive devices with better QC processes.
You see the same thing with fleets getting backup cameras installed. They don't go with the cheap stuff. They want stuff that has good QC to ensure the products aren't defective because the liability of a defective camera falls on them.
Perhaps, by the pricing that I'm looking at is our sell price to install backup sensors (just proximity sensors) for bulk customers. Now our bulk customers are nowhere near the bulk that the government might use, which I could see them maybe pushing a backup camera down to $135 for them to purchase. That's why I find the figure questionable. You're basically telling me that in four years the unit costs will decrease so much as to bring a backup camera in line with a backup sensor.
The other things to consider it that the kits you can get off the shelf of a hobby shop are not the same kits that the OEM would use or the kits a company like mine would use. Installing it yourself doesn't eliminate the labor costs either, it just shifts it to you so unless you value your time at $0 there's an additional cost. There's also probably stricter QC controls on the products we're using as well as warranties provided for the prodcuts in addition to any warranty provided by the OEM or a company like mine. These are all additional costs which people have been ignoring. While the labor cost would probably be brought down a bit by doing it at the OEM level the unit costs are going to be a bit tougher to bring down. So instead of a $70 landed cost for a backup sensor you might instead see a $50 landed cost by reducing labor. The unit cost can be brought down by decreasing warranty coverage or reducing the cost of production.
It's auto-maker welfare. Now everyone has to get the backup camera option. Expect vehicle prices to increase by about $400-$500 to comply with this regulation unless there's a drastic reduction in the cost of parts and labor.
I would love to know where they got their pricing from. $135 is about the price we see for backup sensors that are installed. Cameras run drastically higher.
Backup sensors run about $125-150 on a new vehicle. However this regulation requires backup cameras which are a separate system. A backup camera from the manufacturer is probably a $300-$400 option. You're also going to likely get the backup sensor included so that's a total cost increase of $400-500 easily.
So the cost of this regulation is closer to $450 x 15m = $6.75b.
Your costs are vastly underestimated, at least based on current pricing.
A backup alarm/sensor will run about $200 at a post-manufacturer upfitter. A backup camera will run you around $500-600 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
You're going to likely get both from the manufacturer and while it won't cost $700-800 for the pair from them it's still going to be a good $400-500 and people will be hesitant at that.
The other way I like to look at it is the value of $s to investors. This is why I'm leary of most kickstarter type projects. At a certain point you can be assured that some number of investors have invested because so many other people or dollars have been invested. They never did their own individual risk assessment nor could they have properly afforded to. The question is always how much of those investment dollars were done so out of bad motivations.
So what you're saying is that your vessel is reincarnated with a fragment of yourself. It makes you a bit dumber while your reincarnation is a moron.....
That explains why you run yourself over with a car.
1. Because whale meat is not that popular. 2. Not abiding by it causes them more trouble than abiding by it. 3. Most importantly, Japan has been fighitng this issue as the frontline of the battle for fishing rights. It was a battle that was going to be lost eventually so it was serving as a delaying action.
Because economic warfare is the only course of action you have available if you don't want to be party to actual warfare which is generally looked down upon without an obvious aggressor.
Slashdot Mirror
The democratic thing to do would be for Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine. Then go through whatever process Ukraine has for the secession of a Ukrainian state. Then once Crimea has independence from Ukraine petition to join Russia.
Well. Crimea and Russia had the shores of the Straight of Kerch which lead from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov which the latter has a number of Russian ports. However I don't think Syrians militants were in a position to take control of Crimea....
Taking Crimea as Russian territory gives Russia control of both sides of the Straight of Kerch so that does provide an increased margin of safety for shipping traffic to Russian ports on the Sea of Azov.
I doubt that's the primary reason though.
Yes it is more objectionable.
If the people want to join Russia, why don't they emmigrate? Russia took sovereign land from Ukraine and made it Russian. That isn't even demonstrably close to what the US did and it directly violated a treaty that Russia had signed.
Vouchers for Dutch prostitutes.
No water? No coffee?
So Aquafina and prepackaged Starbucks coffees aren't produced by Pepsi Co?
Who knows, because it's precise the sort of confrontational attitude that has created such an impasse.
Frankly, I don't get the whole point. I don't understand where people are getting the idea that marriage is a right. I think the term "right" has been erroneously applied to many things which are privileges. I don't understand why marriages are granted any sort of benefit in the first place or why people would rely on such a loosely constructed link for critical important things.
In short, I believe the whole argument is an artificially created by government.
Some insurances companies might cover for hire drivers. However the premiums are going to be drastically higher than what you pay for your personal insurance.
Oh heavens no. Any part savings wouldn't be passed on to the consumer. They would be "pocketed" in the sense that the price would be kept elevated so that if the vehicles aren't moving the OEM can provide discounts or other incentives using those pocketed savings to move the vehicles without causing a real loss.
The major problem is that people are judging pricing based on what are, essentially, hobby grade equpment. The prices you find on Amazon.com are nowhere close to what GM or Ford would get from their suppliers because those kits aren't what's used. While it's an extreme example, this is a situation not unlike Fluke and the cheap multimeters. Fluke has warranties, quality controls, and in general produces a much better (and more expensive) piece of equipment compared to the knock off. That's what you're dealing with with the backup cameras.
Now maybe, maybe, the prices can come down drastically if GM and Ford were to lean on their tier 1 suppliers, which in turn lean on tier 2 suppliers, and so on to drag the price down. It could happen, but once again barring some drastic change in technology over four years that significantly reduces the costs of the kits you're going to either have the auto OEMs dealing with poor QCed products, because that's what their 1st and 2nd tier suppliers went with to bring down costs, which increases their warranty costs (from defective units) and opens them up for potential lawsuits for having a defective device or they're using the more expensive devices with better QC processes.
You see the same thing with fleets getting backup cameras installed. They don't go with the cheap stuff. They want stuff that has good QC to ensure the products aren't defective because the liability of a defective camera falls on them.
Perhaps, by the pricing that I'm looking at is our sell price to install backup sensors (just proximity sensors) for bulk customers. Now our bulk customers are nowhere near the bulk that the government might use, which I could see them maybe pushing a backup camera down to $135 for them to purchase. That's why I find the figure questionable. You're basically telling me that in four years the unit costs will decrease so much as to bring a backup camera in line with a backup sensor.
The other things to consider it that the kits you can get off the shelf of a hobby shop are not the same kits that the OEM would use or the kits a company like mine would use. Installing it yourself doesn't eliminate the labor costs either, it just shifts it to you so unless you value your time at $0 there's an additional cost. There's also probably stricter QC controls on the products we're using as well as warranties provided for the prodcuts in addition to any warranty provided by the OEM or a company like mine. These are all additional costs which people have been ignoring. While the labor cost would probably be brought down a bit by doing it at the OEM level the unit costs are going to be a bit tougher to bring down. So instead of a $70 landed cost for a backup sensor you might instead see a $50 landed cost by reducing labor. The unit cost can be brought down by decreasing warranty coverage or reducing the cost of production.
Where do you live so I know never to go there.
It's auto-maker welfare. Now everyone has to get the backup camera option. Expect vehicle prices to increase by about $400-$500 to comply with this regulation unless there's a drastic reduction in the cost of parts and labor.
I would love to know where they got their pricing from. $135 is about the price we see for backup sensors that are installed. Cameras run drastically higher.
Only if they drive forward after doing so.
Backup sensors run about $125-150 on a new vehicle. However this regulation requires backup cameras which are a separate system. A backup camera from the manufacturer is probably a $300-$400 option. You're also going to likely get the backup sensor included so that's a total cost increase of $400-500 easily.
So the cost of this regulation is closer to $450 x 15m = $6.75b.
Your costs are vastly underestimated, at least based on current pricing.
A backup alarm/sensor will run about $200 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
A backup camera will run you around $500-600 at a post-manufacturer upfitter.
You're going to likely get both from the manufacturer and while it won't cost $700-800 for the pair from them it's still going to be a good $400-500 and people will be hesitant at that.
The other way I like to look at it is the value of $s to investors. This is why I'm leary of most kickstarter type projects. At a certain point you can be assured that some number of investors have invested because so many other people or dollars have been invested. They never did their own individual risk assessment nor could they have properly afforded to. The question is always how much of those investment dollars were done so out of bad motivations.
And now I have the mental image of an Apple product dragging its ass across my carpet leaving a long brown shit stain.
So what you're saying is that your vessel is reincarnated with a fragment of yourself. It makes you a bit dumber while your reincarnation is a moron.....
That explains why you run yourself over with a car.
It won't work because it will be, successfully, argued that you're getting paid in miles rather than cash.
1. Because whale meat is not that popular.
2. Not abiding by it causes them more trouble than abiding by it.
3. Most importantly, Japan has been fighitng this issue as the frontline of the battle for fishing rights. It was a battle that was going to be lost eventually so it was serving as a delaying action.
Because economic warfare is the only course of action you have available if you don't want to be party to actual warfare which is generally looked down upon without an obvious aggressor.
What You Meant:
Cooked food contains more calories per gram.
What I Heard:
Cooking food makes you fatter.
The UN court is basically non-binding arbitration.
Yeah. We know how the Japanese have responded to economic sanctions.