It's a great defense.
Companies are not liable for what people do with their products,
That's an editorial comment, not a legal principle.
Companies, in fact, can be liable for what people do with their product. This is specifically true when what their product does is kill people.
Shitheal states were trying to pass laws to make the gun manufacturers liable for their products _working_correctly_. That's because absent those laws, gun manufactures were not liable. No more than car manufacturers are liable for shitty drivers.
An excellent example. Car manufacturers are subject to a whole plethora of regulations for safety. Gun manufacturers, none.
Actually, by law, if a gun is used in a crime it is explicitly not the fault of the gun manufacturer. The 2005 "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" makes gun manufacturers immune from liability for use of their guns.
Context: States trying to pass laws that make manufactures liable for their product working as designed and intended.
Close. The context is that lawyers discovered that there is money to be made from suing manufacturers of products that kill people. After they went after asbestos and then after tobacco, an obvious next target in the category of "somebody who makes a product that kills lots of people" is "companies that make guns."
The fact that killing people is (as you put it) "the product working as designed and intended" would not be a very good defense.
Looks like this Yahoo-only news story is being picked up by the right-wing echo chamber. Since the news media isn't picking up on this story, I'm going to call it fake news.
Not yahoo-only, in fact, it was reported here before Yahoo picked it up:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018... and here: https://www.thisisinsider.com/... http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22952/chinas-dismantling-of-cia-spy-ring-highlights-growing-dystopian-like-surveillance-state
https://www.foxnews.com/us/officials-fear-china-compromised-us-covert-communications-report-says
It's like saying car manufacturers are evil because someone used their product to rob a bank.
But if a gun is used, it is the fault of the gun manufacturer.
Actually, by law, if a gun is used in a crime it is explicitly not the fault of the gun manufacturer.
The 2005 "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" makes gun manufacturers immune from liability for use of their guns.
http://time.com/4967018/las-vegas-shooting-gun-lawsuits/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gun-manufacturers-crimes-products/
Can any part of the circuitry be driven sufficiently to set up an
elecron loop (using the remaining solar energy collection) so as to
slowly rotate the craft (via Newtons third law) into a better orientation
for solar collection and/or observation?
Good idea, but no. A current loop will push against an external magnetic field, but in the outer solar system, the external field is so weak as to be essentially zero.
Also, there typically aren't big current loops in the circuitry of modern electronics, simply because there is no reason to put loops in.
30 Chinese assets executed. Iranians use Google to break into a classified information system. Covertly funded "Friendly rebels" become ISIS. Obama was one of the worst presidents ever.
If you dig down into the references, you see that the first realization that there was a problem dates back to 2006, two years before Obama was elected:
Reidy asserts that he first detected vulnerabilities in a CIA program in 2006, according to the appeal filing obtained by McClatchy.
source: https://www.thestate.com/news/...
So how did Russia get the names of US agents, one former FSB and one current FSB, and one hotel cleaner, six days after Trump got the unredacted piss memo with the names of those agents in?
I'm not sure what your point is. The article here is about one intelligence failure, which was in 2011. You're asking about a different intelligence failure, six years later. The existence of one intelligence failure doesn't say much about the other one.
...There is ONE article by "Zach Dorfman and Jenna McLaughlin" and this is it. Just because you read it, don't assume its true.
John Reidy, a former CIA contractor, recently cited his frustration with the inspector general’s handling of his case in his appeal to the new intelligence community panel. Reidy claimed he was demoted and eventually fired in retaliation after he tried to raise the alarm in 2007 on an “intelligence failure” by the spy agency.
His lawyer McClanahan said he understood that “the intelligence failure involved U.S. government activity that was supposed to be covert but was done in such a bungled way that it was virtually guaranteed to be discovered.”
CIA inspector general investigators didn’t interview Reidy until two years after he first went to them and then only after being directed to do so by the House Intelligence Committee, McClanahan said.
he [Reid]described what by 2010 had become a “catastrophic intelligence failure[]” in which “upwards of 70% of our operations had been compromised.” The problem appears to have arisen because “the US communications infrastructure was under siege,” which sounds like CIA may have gotten hacked. At least by 2007, he had warned that several of the CIA’s operations had been compromised, with some sources stopping all communications suddenly and others providing reports that were clearly false, or “atmospherics” submitted as solid reporting to fluff reporting numbers. By 2011 the government had appointed a Task Force to deal with the problem he had identified years earlier, though some on that Task Force didn’t even know how long the problem had existed or that Reidy had tried to alert the CIA and Congress to the problem.
All that seems to point to the possibility that tech contractors had set up a reporting system that had been compromised by adversaries
This is a really long article that can be summarized in about two paragraphs:
Well, plus one more very important paragraph:
In 2008 — well before the Iranians had arrested any agents — a defense contractor named John Reidy, whose job it was to identify, contact and manage human sources for the CIA in Iran, had already sounded an alarm about a “massive intelligence failure” having to do with “communications” with sources. According to Reidy’s publicly available but heavily redacted whistleblower disclosure, by 2010 he said he was told that the “nightmare scenario” he had warned about regarding the secret communications platform had, in fact, occurred
They were told there was a problem. They ignored it, and fired the person who told them.
And more oops: a CIA employee named John Reidy figured out that there was a leak and warned about it two years before. His information was ignored, and he was removed from his job.
"The CIA case involves former contractor John Reidy, who asserts he was punished after warning of a “catastrophic failure” in the spy agency’s operations. “It was a recipe for disaster,” Reidy wrote in his appeal, which was redacted by intelligence officials. “We had a catastrophic failure on our hands that would ensnare a great many of our sources.” His lawyer, Kel McClanahan, said Reidy was in charge of identifying foreign sources and systems in the telecommunications and computer fields that would be of interest to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Reidy also was responsible for developing intelligence operations against those targets, his lawyer said.
McClanahan said his client is not permitted to discuss the case in more detail even with him because the CIA says the information is classified.
Reidy asserts that he first detected vulnerabilities in a CIA program in 2006, according to the appeal filing obtained by McClatchy.
Signs of the problems included “anomalies in our operations and conflicting intelligence reporting that indicated several of our operations had been compromised,” he wrote, adding that he noticed “sources abruptly and without reason ceasing all communications with us.”
Google didn't even screw up, it worked as intended.
the compromised communications system tried to work by "security through obscurity"-- it used publicly-visible websites that were indexable and searchable, and didn't realize that once one was compromised, you could look at what was on it, and use well-crafted search terms to find them all.
This doesn't address the fact that they are raping the earth for the minerals to build these batteries.
Huh? Lithium comes mostly from evaporite deposits. Don't see why you would "rape the Earth" to get at evaporites, which generally don't require deep mining. You want to see what "raping the Earth" means, look at coal mining: https://grist.org/business-tec...
Steel and Aluminum now are some of the most recycled materials there are. And there is plenty of the product left to recycle.
Well, lithium is one of the most easily recycled materials there is. And, of course, not just internal combustion cars, but electric cars are also made out of steel and aluminum.
Not saying Electric is bad, I just prefer honesty when promoting them.
However if you really get into it, the entire continent is connected. So even though BC, Washington, Idaho and Oregon might be green, they are connected to states in the Western Energy Grid that are not, and there are interconnects to the rest of the continent.
They are connected, yes, but in fact you don't wheel power over distances of more than a thousand kilometers or two; transmission losses are just too high.
Superconducting transmission could solve that, but it's not implemented yet.
In fact, science does do actual studies... but this isn't one of them. This is an article in a business magazine, which cites a study from Berylls Strategy Advisors, which they list as "a Munich-based automotive consultancy".
So, no, this isn't a scientific study; this is an advocacy piece disguised as a scientific study.
"Every major carmaker has plans for electric vehicles to cut greenhouse gas emissions". Not because the market demands it or because their customers want it.
Tesla Model 3 is now the best selling luxury car in America (ref: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04... ), and is likely to be the best selling car in America, period, by the end of the year. So it seems that the market does demand it.
You mean like from nuclear power? Lowest CO2 energy source we know of, safest energy source we know of, and as "renewable" as solar power because there is enough thorium and uranium on Earth that we'd never be able to burn it all before the sun consumes the planet.
I'd like to see somebody start making thorium-fueled nuclear power plants; the hype sure makes it sound like a good solution. But so far it's not being done.
Uranium fueled plants, on the other hand, actually have a pretty limited amount of fuel available-- not a problem with the world currently using only about 2% of its power from nuclear sources (*), but if we went to 100%, there's only about 5 years (!!) of fuel.
Some data:
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
This can be solved by reprocessing spent fuel, and by going to breeder reactors. But governments don't want to do that because of fear of nuclear terrorism.
*(nuclear generates 14% of the world electrical production, but electricity is only a small fraction of the world energy use)
Having driven both, I like electric cars. The technology is finally right up there equal to, and in many ways superior to, internal combustion cars.
The solution is relatively obvious; manufacture electric cars using energy from solar arrays or other renewable sources. The cost of solar arrays has dropped so much in the last decade that this is practical now; it does mean you'll want to site car manufacturing plants (and more notably, battery manufacturing plants) in locations with abundant solar energy, but that seems doable-- stay out of Seattle, go for Las Vegas. Wait, that's where Tesla's battery plant is sited.
Hasn't it been known for some time that most CO2 is produced during a vehical's manufacturing rather than during use
Except that's not correct. The average car emits six tons of carbon dioxide per year. A medium-sized car produces 17 tons of carbon dioxide in manufacturing. That is not negligible! But once you've kept your car for three years, then no, more carbon dioxide is produced in driving the car than in making the car.
and the most low carbon approach is to keep trying the same vehicle for as long as possible rather than buying a new electric car.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a great defense. Companies are not liable for what people do with their products,
That's an editorial comment, not a legal principle.
Companies, in fact, can be liable for what people do with their product. This is specifically true when what their product does is kill people.
Shitheal states were trying to pass laws to make the gun manufacturers liable for their products _working_correctly_. That's because absent those laws, gun manufactures were not liable. No more than car manufacturers are liable for shitty drivers.
An excellent example. Car manufacturers are subject to a whole plethora of regulations for safety. Gun manufacturers, none.
Actually, by law, if a gun is used in a crime it is explicitly not the fault of the gun manufacturer. The 2005 "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" makes gun manufacturers immune from liability for use of their guns.
Context: States trying to pass laws that make manufactures liable for their product working as designed and intended.
Close. The context is that lawyers discovered that there is money to be made from suing manufacturers of products that kill people. After they went after asbestos and then after tobacco, an obvious next target in the category of "somebody who makes a product that kills lots of people" is "companies that make guns."
The fact that killing people is (as you put it) "the product working as designed and intended" would not be a very good defense.
Looks like this Yahoo-only news story is being picked up by the right-wing echo chamber. Since the news media isn't picking up on this story, I'm going to call it fake news.
Not yahoo-only, in fact, it was reported here before Yahoo picked it up: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018...
and here: https://www.thisisinsider.com/...
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22952/chinas-dismantling-of-cia-spy-ring-highlights-growing-dystopian-like-surveillance-state
https://www.foxnews.com/us/officials-fear-china-compromised-us-covert-communications-report-says
and it's been picked up elsewhere: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
But if a gun is used, it is the fault of the gun manufacturer.
Actually, by law, if a gun is used in a crime it is explicitly not the fault of the gun manufacturer.
The 2005 "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" makes gun manufacturers immune from liability for use of their guns.
http://time.com/4967018/las-vegas-shooting-gun-lawsuits/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gun-manufacturers-crimes-products/
Can any part of the circuitry be driven sufficiently to set up an elecron loop (using the remaining solar energy collection) so as to slowly rotate the craft (via Newtons third law) into a better orientation for solar collection and/or observation?
Good idea, but no. A current loop will push against an external magnetic field, but in the outer solar system, the external field is so weak as to be essentially zero.
Also, there typically aren't big current loops in the circuitry of modern electronics, simply because there is no reason to put loops in.
Why would the solar panels ever not face the sun
Because the probe is out of fuel used to maintain pointing.
30 Chinese assets executed. Iranians use Google to break into a classified information system. Covertly funded "Friendly rebels" become ISIS. Obama was one of the worst presidents ever.
If you dig down into the references, you see that the first realization that there was a problem dates back to 2006, two years before Obama was elected:
Reidy asserts that he first detected vulnerabilities in a CIA program in 2006, according to the appeal filing obtained by McClatchy. source: https://www.thestate.com/news/...
So how did Russia get the names of US agents, one former FSB and one current FSB, and one hotel cleaner, six days after Trump got the unredacted piss memo with the names of those agents in?
I'm not sure what your point is. The article here is about one intelligence failure, which was in 2011. You're asking about a different intelligence failure, six years later. The existence of one intelligence failure doesn't say much about the other one.
...There is ONE article by "Zach Dorfman and Jenna McLaughlin" and this is it. Just because you read it, don't assume its true.
Yes, it is one article. Once you read it, however, you see that there were earlier articles on the same leak which just didn't have the actual details. :
https://www.pulitzer.org/files/2015/national-reporting/mcclatchy/10mcclatchy2015.pdf. (alternate source: https://www.kentucky.com/news/...)
Or here: https://www.emptywheel.net/201...
Or here: https://www.thestate.com/news/...
This is a really long article that can be summarized in about two paragraphs:
Well, plus one more very important paragraph:
They were told there was a problem. They ignored it, and fired the person who told them.
That was actually in the news three years ago, but because of secrecy, the details of exactly what he warned about was left out. Now we know: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/ne... or https://www.thestate.com/news/...
"The CIA case involves former contractor John Reidy, who asserts he was punished after warning of a “catastrophic failure” in the spy agency’s operations. “It was a recipe for disaster,” Reidy wrote in his appeal, which was redacted by intelligence officials. “We had a catastrophic failure on our hands that would ensnare a great many of our sources.” His lawyer, Kel McClanahan, said Reidy was in charge of identifying foreign sources and systems in the telecommunications and computer fields that would be of interest to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Reidy also was responsible for developing intelligence operations against those targets, his lawyer said. McClanahan said his client is not permitted to discuss the case in more detail even with him because the CIA says the information is classified.
Reidy asserts that he first detected vulnerabilities in a CIA program in 2006, according to the appeal filing obtained by McClatchy. Signs of the problems included “anomalies in our operations and conflicting intelligence reporting that indicated several of our operations had been compromised,” he wrote, adding that he noticed “sources abruptly and without reason ceasing all communications with us.”
the compromised communications system tried to work by "security through obscurity"-- it used publicly-visible websites that were indexable and searchable, and didn't realize that once one was compromised, you could look at what was on it, and use well-crafted search terms to find them all.
This has been talked about several times, for example, "Why We Should Build Cloud Cities on Venus," here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/539jj5/why-we-should-build-cloud-cities-on-venus
based on this 2003 paper: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668.pdf
I've checked the link in the article. I've sourced the original press release. Where are the pictures?
here https://phys.org/news/2018-10-...
here https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/...
here https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/...
Just like this!
https://beta.theglobeandmail.c...
This doesn't address the fact that they are raping the earth for the minerals to build these batteries.
Huh? Lithium comes mostly from evaporite deposits. Don't see why you would "rape the Earth" to get at evaporites, which generally don't require deep mining. You want to see what "raping the Earth" means, look at coal mining: https://grist.org/business-tec...
Steel and Aluminum now are some of the most recycled materials there are. And there is plenty of the product left to recycle.
Well, lithium is one of the most easily recycled materials there is. And, of course, not just internal combustion cars, but electric cars are also made out of steel and aluminum.
Not saying Electric is bad, I just prefer honesty when promoting them.
However if you really get into it, the entire continent is connected. So even though BC, Washington, Idaho and Oregon might be green, they are connected to states in the Western Energy Grid that are not, and there are interconnects to the rest of the continent.
They are connected, yes, but in fact you don't wheel power over distances of more than a thousand kilometers or two; transmission losses are just too high.
Superconducting transmission could solve that, but it's not implemented yet.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182278-the-worlds-first-superconducting-power-line-paves-the-way-for-billions-of-dollars-in-savings
That is why science does actual studies
In fact, science does do actual studies... but this isn't one of them. This is an article in a business magazine, which cites a study from Berylls Strategy Advisors, which they list as "a Munich-based automotive consultancy".
So, no, this isn't a scientific study; this is an advocacy piece disguised as a scientific study.
"Every major carmaker has plans for electric vehicles to cut greenhouse gas emissions". Not because the market demands it or because their customers want it.
Tesla Model 3 is now the best selling luxury car in America (ref: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04... ), and is likely to be the best selling car in America, period, by the end of the year. So it seems that the market does demand it.
You mean like from nuclear power? Lowest CO2 energy source we know of, safest energy source we know of, and as "renewable" as solar power because there is enough thorium and uranium on Earth that we'd never be able to burn it all before the sun consumes the planet.
I'd like to see somebody start making thorium-fueled nuclear power plants; the hype sure makes it sound like a good solution. But so far it's not being done.
Uranium fueled plants, on the other hand, actually have a pretty limited amount of fuel available-- not a problem with the world currently using only about 2% of its power from nuclear sources (*), but if we went to 100%, there's only about 5 years (!!) of fuel.
Some data:
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf
This can be solved by reprocessing spent fuel, and by going to breeder reactors. But governments don't want to do that because of fear of nuclear terrorism.
*(nuclear generates 14% of the world electrical production, but electricity is only a small fraction of the world energy use)
The solution is relatively obvious; manufacture electric cars using energy from solar arrays or other renewable sources. The cost of solar arrays has dropped so much in the last decade that this is practical now; it does mean you'll want to site car manufacturing plants (and more notably, battery manufacturing plants) in locations with abundant solar energy, but that seems doable-- stay out of Seattle, go for Las Vegas. Wait, that's where Tesla's battery plant is sited.
Hasn't it been known for some time that most CO2 is produced during a vehical's manufacturing rather than during use
Except that's not correct. The average car emits six tons of carbon dioxide per year. A medium-sized car produces 17 tons of carbon dioxide in manufacturing. That is not negligible! But once you've kept your car for three years, then no, more carbon dioxide is produced in driving the car than in making the car.
and the most low carbon approach is to keep trying the same vehicle for as long as possible rather than buying a new electric car.
Maybe. This site https://www.greencarreports.co... says not, but it depends on how you analyze the numbers.
But where's the content?
The content is on the internet, account name "admin," no password.
C'mon now. Elvis was killed in a car crash in the 90s. It was on the front page of the Weekly World News.
Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead..
Hmm, compensating artists for pre-1972 recordings? All I can say is, if you go chasing rabbits, you know you're going to fall.
What if you consider that Tesla has been testing self-driving, but this is not the same as their autopilot, and hasn't accumulated millions of miles?