It's not often I agree with the party line of the Chinese government, but this sounds pretty damn reasonable and correct. Thank you, Tea Party, you've made us all so proud....
There's a very basic problem here that no one seems to be getting. Drivers claim that their cars accelerate even though they push hard on the brake pedal. That's not possible. The brakes are more powerful than the engine. Always. Because it's so much easier and cheaper (both initially and liability-wise) to make powerful brakes than a powerful engine. The brakes win. Every time. No exceptions. You can prove this to yourself by going to a deserted road and flooring the gas pedal. Hold it down, then use your left foot to step on the brake. You can easily bring the car to a dead stop, even with your gas pedal mashed to the floor. Even if you're driving the most over-powered performance car on the road. (If it's a manual transmission, let up around 2000 rpm or you'll damage the engine.)
There is no connection, mechanical, electronic or via software, between the engine management system and the braking system. A failure relating to the gas pedal cannot in any way affect the brakes. Even if all the electronics go completely nuts, the brakes still default to a simple, independent hydraulic system.
This whole story is hogwash. It's the Audi 5000 all over again. Everyone went crazy over how the demonic "unintended acceleration" was going to kill us all. The final conclusion? People were stepping on the wrong pedal.
This is not a technological problem. It's a human factors problem. Still a problem that needs to be addressed, but can we please shut up the science-challenged Chicken Littles so we can address it?
It may be a mistake to lump the entire oil industry together, but let's look at the big picture. Putting on a green face is a PR benefit. Actually hastening the obsolescence of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars of infrastructure (tankers, offshore platforms, refineries, pipelines, etc., etc.) is simply stupid from a business perspective. They never cared about being green. They cared about appearing green. In these trying economic times they are cutting back where they can. Lose the apperances? OK. Don't lose the core. The people running these companies are doing what they are legally required to do - maximize profit for the shareholders. Actually going green is a threat to profits. Won't happen.
Jurors need to act responsibly, no question. Twittering on a case in process is irresponsible. As expressed above though, responsibility should also extend to standing up against stupid rules.
Example (sorry, can't cite a source): There was a murder case where the victim was stabbed to death and the defendant was found in posession of a bloody shirt with several cuts in it. The defense attorney convincingly demonstrates that the cuts don't match the stab wounds.
A juror poses a question. This is obviously very unconventional - but even more unusual, the judge allows it. The juror asks if the cuts match when the victim is curled up in a defensive position. They do. The defendant is convicted. ONLY because a juror spoke up.
Another example is video tape of expert testimony that has obviously been edited due to objections by counsel, and then presented without the approval of the expert witness regarding its accuracy as edited. Which of course renders it useless as expert testimony, but it's admitted anyway.
Damn the rules. Jurors, and all those involved for that matter, need to do the right thing. Maybe causing a mistrial is the most responsible thing you can do.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not often I agree with the party line of the Chinese government, but this sounds pretty damn reasonable and correct. Thank you, Tea Party, you've made us all so proud....
There's a very basic problem here that no one seems to be getting. Drivers claim that their cars accelerate even though they push hard on the brake pedal. That's not possible. The brakes are more powerful than the engine. Always. Because it's so much easier and cheaper (both initially and liability-wise) to make powerful brakes than a powerful engine. The brakes win. Every time. No exceptions. You can prove this to yourself by going to a deserted road and flooring the gas pedal. Hold it down, then use your left foot to step on the brake. You can easily bring the car to a dead stop, even with your gas pedal mashed to the floor. Even if you're driving the most over-powered performance car on the road. (If it's a manual transmission, let up around 2000 rpm or you'll damage the engine.) There is no connection, mechanical, electronic or via software, between the engine management system and the braking system. A failure relating to the gas pedal cannot in any way affect the brakes. Even if all the electronics go completely nuts, the brakes still default to a simple, independent hydraulic system. This whole story is hogwash. It's the Audi 5000 all over again. Everyone went crazy over how the demonic "unintended acceleration" was going to kill us all. The final conclusion? People were stepping on the wrong pedal. This is not a technological problem. It's a human factors problem. Still a problem that needs to be addressed, but can we please shut up the science-challenged Chicken Littles so we can address it?
It may be a mistake to lump the entire oil industry together, but let's look at the big picture. Putting on a green face is a PR benefit. Actually hastening the obsolescence of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars of infrastructure (tankers, offshore platforms, refineries, pipelines, etc., etc.) is simply stupid from a business perspective. They never cared about being green. They cared about appearing green. In these trying economic times they are cutting back where they can. Lose the apperances? OK. Don't lose the core. The people running these companies are doing what they are legally required to do - maximize profit for the shareholders. Actually going green is a threat to profits. Won't happen.
Jurors need to act responsibly, no question. Twittering on a case in process is irresponsible. As expressed above though, responsibility should also extend to standing up against stupid rules. Example (sorry, can't cite a source): There was a murder case where the victim was stabbed to death and the defendant was found in posession of a bloody shirt with several cuts in it. The defense attorney convincingly demonstrates that the cuts don't match the stab wounds. A juror poses a question. This is obviously very unconventional - but even more unusual, the judge allows it. The juror asks if the cuts match when the victim is curled up in a defensive position. They do. The defendant is convicted. ONLY because a juror spoke up. Another example is video tape of expert testimony that has obviously been edited due to objections by counsel, and then presented without the approval of the expert witness regarding its accuracy as edited. Which of course renders it useless as expert testimony, but it's admitted anyway. Damn the rules. Jurors, and all those involved for that matter, need to do the right thing. Maybe causing a mistrial is the most responsible thing you can do.