Normally when NHTSA tries to start one the manufacturers do everything possible to avoid it. They even avoid doing it manyally. It's that old Fight Club equation.
Tesla is saying "We don't think we need a recall, but please investigate and we promise to do whatever is necessary." However, in earlier days the ride height adjustment would have been a recall already.
we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as... if something is discovered that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars
Wow, not running from a recall as is usual, but actively inviting one.
Or dropped armor because it was useless. Nowdays torpedo belts and bulges are useless because torpedoes normally explode under the ship, braking its back. Modern shaped charges in missiles can pierce all but armor so thick the ship would be unusable, and other missiles just dive onto the deck and blow up below decks.
It's like if every day you did a press conference and the question was "Have you been served by the government?" and your answer was always "No." If one day your answer is "No comment" or you refuse the interview everybody knows what happened.
Could the government actually force you to do the interview, or to lie to your customers, your shareholders? That would make it interesting for the SEC in a publicly traded company. Surely a company being monitored can affect its stock price.
There's a good idea for you. At every shareholder meeting at any publicly traded company, ask whether they've been subpoenaed. If the answer isn't "No" then you know it's "Yes."
Most pro-life people hold the position that theraputic abortion should remain legal.
When it is the convenience of the woman vs. the life of the fetus, the fetus wins. When it is the life of the woman vs the life of both the fetus and the woman, the fetus loses.
I'm explaining her position, not mine. Yes, I actually took the time to listen to the opposition, to learn their feelings and intent.
That's a big problem today, nobody wants to understand the thoughts behind the other side, instead choosing to demonize them. It's a lot easier to fire off some denigrating quips or a cut & paste argument than to actually listen.
I know people like this. If some other church somewhere wants to perform a gay "wedding" they don't care. They don't consider it to be a real wedding (of course, what do we care about what they think?). But if someone legally marries gays they go into a hissy fit. Remove the government involvement, you remove the issue. At most you'll have some churches splitting over the issue. Keep the government in the issue, and the government's definition of marriage constitutes legally defining our society. They are part of our society, so they get a say.
It's not just abortion, but I love how you zinged right to that part. It's also about access to birth control.
And you didn't answer that part. But about birth control, what are you talking about? Are you talking about making taxpayers pay for it? Forcing conscientious religious objectors to dispense it? They have a valid government involvement point when it comes to that.
As far as making it illegal, yep, some are hypocrites. Unless you're talking mifepristone, which isn't birth control (well, as much as abortion is after-the-fact birth control).
she wants the government to intrude in someone else's personal life so that it can protect traditional marriage by telling two people who love each other to not get married because they are the same sex
The only reason this is an issue is that the government is involved in marriage the first place. If there was no government sanction of marriage, then gay marriage would be a non-issue.
She also insists that the government should dictate the reproductive rights of women too.
Abortion is a balance of rights between the mother and the unborn child. Obviously, her opinion rests on the unborn child having full rights as a human being, so she is basically supporting murder being illegal. Do you support murder being illegal?
There is no inconsistency in her positions as far as you have stated them.
What would have happened if that chunk of metal would have come through the floorboard of a non-armored car? People have been seriously injured and even killed by that.
requires a progression from capitalism through socialism, and involves the loss of the state.
The state is only necessary as the vanguard to achieve communism. It will go away once all threats to the people have been eliminated and the perfect stateless and classless society achieved. Honest, we promise. Problem is, people are involved in forming this protective temporary government, and those people will get used to the power, and they won't want to relinquish it. We end up with two classes: the government and the slaves.
It works fine on the acres of common grazing land behind my partner's family's farm
Funny, exactly this is what grew to define the "tragedy of the commons." Of course, this concept exists outside of either communism or capitalism, and tragedy brought about by either system can occur.
It would never work applied purely on a large scale - as wouldn't capitalism
If you set up a large-scale government agnostic of economic system, you will end up with capitalism as people go about what is natural to them. Communism must be forced upon the people using excessive state power and oppression.
But we do agree on scale. It can work small-scale because you can get a small number of like-minded people together. As people are born into the system and disagree, or change their minds, they can leave this system. People who agree can join. A free country agnostic of economic system allows this. But you can't find 100 million people who think that way who live in the same place. Too many will leave, and for the country to work, they must be forced to stay. This is why communist countries heavily relied on forbidding most of their citizens from leaving.
I'm telling you that communism has always followed the Soviet model
The Khmer Rouge ideology was based on Marxism, aligned with China against the Soviets. Also, Titoism, Maoism and Juche split from Stalinist/Leninist theory.
But the next time someone tries communism, they'll do it right.
"But we'll get communism right THIS time" has always led to more repression. But it'll work right when YOU do it, right? You are the one who can buck the historical trend. How many have to die before you find out you were wrong, too?
Stalinism is part of communism. Every pro-communist says "But it's never been done right!." Many people have tried, all attempts have been oppressive. Your theory does not match reality.
You can talk theory all you want, but in practice you know how large scale socialism and communism have worked out. Hint: It has always resulted in very bad human rights abuses.
Power promotes selfishness. The states that grant the most power to government promote the most selfishness and the most control on the people. In recent history, socialist/communist states were the epitome of government power.
One shot, everybody looks, sees some guy looking scared and stupid, a couple hurt, no further shots fired, go about your business or render aid. It is quite a different scenario from some guy coming in blazing.
BTW, since 1934, there have been two murders committed in the US with one of the hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns. One of them was a corrupt cop killing a drug informant. In both cases, it was a single murder that could have been committed with any weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally when NHTSA tries to start one the manufacturers do everything possible to avoid it. They even avoid doing it manyally. It's that old Fight Club equation.
Tesla is saying "We don't think we need a recall, but please investigate and we promise to do whatever is necessary." However, in earlier days the ride height adjustment would have been a recall already.
Apparently Musk forgot to watch Fight Club.
So, that's about 3.5 kilos going 31 m/s, for 1,681 J. That's about the muzzle energy of the average .44 Magnum load.
Wow, not running from a recall as is usual, but actively inviting one.
With AWACS, OTH radar and satellite feeds, that would be you, every time.
Or dropped armor because it was useless. Nowdays torpedo belts and bulges are useless because torpedoes normally explode under the ship, braking its back. Modern shaped charges in missiles can pierce all but armor so thick the ship would be unusable, and other missiles just dive onto the deck and blow up below decks.
It's like if every day you did a press conference and the question was "Have you been served by the government?" and your answer was always "No." If one day your answer is "No comment" or you refuse the interview everybody knows what happened.
Could the government actually force you to do the interview, or to lie to your customers, your shareholders? That would make it interesting for the SEC in a publicly traded company. Surely a company being monitored can affect its stock price.
There's a good idea for you. At every shareholder meeting at any publicly traded company, ask whether they've been subpoenaed. If the answer isn't "No" then you know it's "Yes."
Most pro-life people hold the position that theraputic abortion should remain legal.
When it is the convenience of the woman vs. the life of the fetus, the fetus wins. When it is the life of the woman vs the life of both the fetus and the woman, the fetus loses.
I'm explaining her position, not mine. Yes, I actually took the time to listen to the opposition, to learn their feelings and intent.
That's a big problem today, nobody wants to understand the thoughts behind the other side, instead choosing to demonize them. It's a lot easier to fire off some denigrating quips or a cut & paste argument than to actually listen.
I know people like this. If some other church somewhere wants to perform a gay "wedding" they don't care. They don't consider it to be a real wedding (of course, what do we care about what they think?). But if someone legally marries gays they go into a hissy fit. Remove the government involvement, you remove the issue. At most you'll have some churches splitting over the issue. Keep the government in the issue, and the government's definition of marriage constitutes legally defining our society. They are part of our society, so they get a say.
And you didn't answer that part. But about birth control, what are you talking about? Are you talking about making taxpayers pay for it? Forcing conscientious religious objectors to dispense it? They have a valid government involvement point when it comes to that.
As far as making it illegal, yep, some are hypocrites. Unless you're talking mifepristone, which isn't birth control (well, as much as abortion is after-the-fact birth control).
We produce more, we consume more. I see a balance here.
The only reason this is an issue is that the government is involved in marriage the first place. If there was no government sanction of marriage, then gay marriage would be a non-issue.
Abortion is a balance of rights between the mother and the unborn child. Obviously, her opinion rests on the unborn child having full rights as a human being, so she is basically supporting murder being illegal. Do you support murder being illegal?
There is no inconsistency in her positions as far as you have stated them.
I guess the excessive per-capita economic output in rich countries can be correspondingly reduced?
Like all those who do. Yes, this is a thing, you just didn't hear about it nationally until it happened to one of those evil communist electric cars.
What would have happened if that chunk of metal would have come through the floorboard of a non-armored car? People have been seriously injured and even killed by that.
The state is only necessary as the vanguard to achieve communism. It will go away once all threats to the people have been eliminated and the perfect stateless and classless society achieved. Honest, we promise. Problem is, people are involved in forming this protective temporary government, and those people will get used to the power, and they won't want to relinquish it. We end up with two classes: the government and the slaves.
Funny, exactly this is what grew to define the "tragedy of the commons." Of course, this concept exists outside of either communism or capitalism, and tragedy brought about by either system can occur.
If you set up a large-scale government agnostic of economic system, you will end up with capitalism as people go about what is natural to them. Communism must be forced upon the people using excessive state power and oppression.
But we do agree on scale. It can work small-scale because you can get a small number of like-minded people together. As people are born into the system and disagree, or change their minds, they can leave this system. People who agree can join. A free country agnostic of economic system allows this. But you can't find 100 million people who think that way who live in the same place. Too many will leave, and for the country to work, they must be forced to stay. This is why communist countries heavily relied on forbidding most of their citizens from leaving.
The Khmer Rouge ideology was based on Marxism, aligned with China against the Soviets. Also, Titoism, Maoism and Juche split from Stalinist/Leninist theory.
But the next time someone tries communism, they'll do it right.
"But we'll get communism right THIS time" has always led to more repression. But it'll work right when YOU do it, right? You are the one who can buck the historical trend. How many have to die before you find out you were wrong, too?
And then we would be blamed for allowiing the resulting humanitarian disasters to happen.
But at least that way it would cost us less money.
Stalinism is part of communism. Every pro-communist says "But it's never been done right!." Many people have tried, all attempts have been oppressive. Your theory does not match reality.
You can talk theory all you want, but in practice you know how large scale socialism and communism have worked out. Hint: It has always resulted in very bad human rights abuses.
Capitalism is the default behavior for a free people, from the 10 year-old who sets up a lemonade stand to be able to afford his favorite toy, on up.
Power promotes selfishness. The states that grant the most power to government promote the most selfishness and the most control on the people. In recent history, socialist/communist states were the epitome of government power.
Apple has been installing massive fuel cell power at its new datacenters.
One shot, everybody looks, sees some guy looking scared and stupid, a couple hurt, no further shots fired, go about your business or render aid. It is quite a different scenario from some guy coming in blazing.
BTW, since 1934, there have been two murders committed in the US with one of the hundreds of thousands of legally owned machine guns. One of them was a corrupt cop killing a drug informant. In both cases, it was a single murder that could have been committed with any weapon.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. The alternative is that you're an idiot.