Replying to myself since a few people have brought up the point:
All things being equal, a more massive car will be safer than a less massive car in an accident because there will be less injury due to the vehicle being knocked around.
All things being equal, a car with more crumple zone will be safer than smaller car in an accident because there's more room for the energy to dissipate.
So yes, newer small car is better than older big car. But newest, biggest car is best car. (For self-preservation in an accident, not for avoiding accidents or avoiding injury to others.)
2. If it meets FMVSS then it's the SUV driver's fault for not being able to see it and the SUV manufacturer's fault for making such a huge vehicle to begin with. The SUVs are the unsafe cars here, but they're acceptable to the population because the risk is to others, not the SUV driver.
This is a prisoner's dilemma problem -- You want a safer car for your personal safety so you buy bigger, but in doing so threaten everyone else. This makes all cars large, fat, heavy, costly and full of energy in the inevitable impact. If, however, everyone accepted that it's in the best interest of the population to optimize for average safety, cars should be much smaller since they would then have lower energy in an impact (helping in accidents where property or pedestrians are hit in addition to other cars) and be more maneuverable in order to avoid impacts.
Also, due to the relative rarity of tractor trailers and the fact that professional drivers have faaaaaaaaar better safety records than non-professionals those tractor trailers don't impose much of a risk even in a small car.
Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people/avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
And I haven't even touched on the environmental and financial benefits of smaller cars.
Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot. The vast majority do not. The vast majority could make do with better packing strategies including such things as roof racks/roof bins.
I did say "at a minimum". If you would just assume that I'm reasonable and not an asshole maybe a real discussion could be had.
Also, I'm actually quite aware of the issue of differing costs by region and would love to see that actually mean something in the national tax discussions but at the moment it's at the level of: "It's mine." "No, you should share, Bobby." "No, I don't wanna." "But Petey doesn't have anything." "Then his momma should buy some for him."
So yes, while I understand I was being rather vulgar to an AC it was in an attempt to make him actually reconsider his original statement, not to try to set policy.
1. Houses aren't actually that much of a money-maker if you actually consider all of the additional taxes, upkeep costs and market volatility. Their main benefit is freedom to modify and protection from eviction.
2. He said unsecured. Houses are not unsecured.
3. The debt you're accruing interest on accrues faster than inflation stacks up, gaining more negative value.
And unless you're making, at a minimum, $100k and have a significant personal portfolio then fuck you if you think they're trying to make you pay more than you already do.
Are there any liabilities if you misuse the take-down system? Are there any identity checks to make sure you're really who you say you are when you do misuse the take-down system?
Which is the same as any other organization whose income is based on donations or memberships. I get mailings to my new address in a different state from the NPR station that served me before. I got membership renewal forms from a club I was part of for two years after my last engagement with them.
If our judges had any real legal training they're realize that their job is to allow both sides to collect evidence in an effort to create a precedent for this unprecedented situation. Unless, of course, there's already a law on the books or an old case about Rex Masterson using the address @Edison_Rex, 1920 Made Up Road, Menlo Park, New Jersey in his private life while he worked for Tommy and switching back to Rex Masterson after he left...
(Yes, Rex Masterson is made up. I think @Edison_Rex would be an awesome name though for someone working for Thomas Edison... I'm weird.)
Or advance the science and engineering so that we can safely retrieve the stored petrochemicals and handle the resulting combustion products. You know, there's always that option.
Well, it doesn't hold up to heat, so the question becomes "What happens when you heat it up?" It could be that it breaks down into easy-dispose-of sub-components when exposed to heat and thus is a non-issue. (That's optimism there.) It could be that it breaks down into the most toxic substance of all time. (That's pessimism.) When we find out what it actually does it'll be science.
Slashdot Mirror
Replying to myself since a few people have brought up the point:
All things being equal, a more massive car will be safer than a less massive car in an accident because there will be less injury due to the vehicle being knocked around.
All things being equal, a car with more crumple zone will be safer than smaller car in an accident because there's more room for the energy to dissipate.
So yes, newer small car is better than older big car. But newest, biggest car is best car. (For self-preservation in an accident, not for avoiding accidents or avoiding injury to others.)
1. This is a half-scale prototype.
/avoid/ potentially fatal accidents that they would have been in had there been a larger car on either side? Yes.
2. If it meets FMVSS then it's the SUV driver's fault for not being able to see it and the SUV manufacturer's fault for making such a huge vehicle to begin with. The SUVs are the unsafe cars here, but they're acceptable to the population because the risk is to others, not the SUV driver.
This is a prisoner's dilemma problem -- You want a safer car for your personal safety so you buy bigger, but in doing so threaten everyone else. This makes all cars large, fat, heavy, costly and full of energy in the inevitable impact. If, however, everyone accepted that it's in the best interest of the population to optimize for average safety, cars should be much smaller since they would then have lower energy in an impact (helping in accidents where property or pedestrians are hit in addition to other cars) and be more maneuverable in order to avoid impacts.
Also, due to the relative rarity of tractor trailers and the fact that professional drivers have faaaaaaaaar better safety records than non-professionals those tractor trailers don't impose much of a risk even in a small car.
Now, will people die in accidents that they would have survived had they been in a larger car? Yes. However, will people
And I haven't even touched on the environmental and financial benefits of smaller cars.
Also, yes, I acknowledge that some families require larger vehicles to haul around hockey gear and three kids and whatnot. The vast majority do not. The vast majority could make do with better packing strategies including such things as roof racks/roof bins.
Re-posting something an AC said: That's the trailer.
It also supports composite out.
I did say "at a minimum". If you would just assume that I'm reasonable and not an asshole maybe a real discussion could be had.
Also, I'm actually quite aware of the issue of differing costs by region and would love to see that actually mean something in the national tax discussions but at the moment it's at the level of: "It's mine." "No, you should share, Bobby." "No, I don't wanna." "But Petey doesn't have anything." "Then his momma should buy some for him."
So yes, while I understand I was being rather vulgar to an AC it was in an attempt to make him actually reconsider his original statement, not to try to set policy.
1. Houses aren't actually that much of a money-maker if you actually consider all of the additional taxes, upkeep costs and market volatility. Their main benefit is freedom to modify and protection from eviction. 2. He said unsecured. Houses are not unsecured. 3. The debt you're accruing interest on accrues faster than inflation stacks up, gaining more negative value.
And unless you're making, at a minimum, $100k and have a significant personal portfolio then fuck you if you think they're trying to make you pay more than you already do.
Really, you could do both. And you should use a setup similar to a cremation device instead.
Are there any liabilities if you misuse the take-down system? Are there any identity checks to make sure you're really who you say you are when you do misuse the take-down system?
Does it include any metal? Sorry, bud, contraband. Off to the strip-search before Gitmo.
Well, duh. It's only discrimination if you do it to a protected class. It's fine if you do it to everyone.
It's not the agents' faults. The ones locked in should be the congresscritters that voted for this crap.
Truly American that the profiteering going on here to the detriment of citizens.
FTFY.
Which is the same as any other organization whose income is based on donations or memberships. I get mailings to my new address in a different state from the NPR station that served me before. I got membership renewal forms from a club I was part of for two years after my last engagement with them.
1080p30 using h.264 is the top specification.
If our judges had any real legal training they're realize that their job is to allow both sides to collect evidence in an effort to create a precedent for this unprecedented situation. Unless, of course, there's already a law on the books or an old case about Rex Masterson using the address @Edison_Rex, 1920 Made Up Road, Menlo Park, New Jersey in his private life while he worked for Tommy and switching back to Rex Masterson after he left... (Yes, Rex Masterson is made up. I think @Edison_Rex would be an awesome name though for someone working for Thomas Edison... I'm weird.)
They're contacting aliens?
Just like bandwidth in a station wagon, the best computing power comes from a van full of mini-ITX systems?
Or advance the science and engineering so that we can safely retrieve the stored petrochemicals and handle the resulting combustion products. You know, there's always that option.
Surfers, in your water? Did you live in a houseboat on the pacific? :P
And the telescope is just a high powered sight?
Good luck proving it though. I don't think they make paperwork to even cover that. "CLAIM DENIED > ACT OF GOD > UNIVERSE CREATED"
Well, it doesn't hold up to heat, so the question becomes "What happens when you heat it up?" It could be that it breaks down into easy-dispose-of sub-components when exposed to heat and thus is a non-issue. (That's optimism there.) It could be that it breaks down into the most toxic substance of all time. (That's pessimism.) When we find out what it actually does it'll be science.
I really wouldn't want my shower to be ultra-slippery. Or my toilet seat, for that matter. I like keeping my head above my waist when in the bathroom.
I stand corrected.