It's not about buying votes, it's about buying legislation.
I don't doubt that companies that lobby for things feel a very real sense of needing what they are lobbying for. I also don't doubt that there are times when 3rd parties are served or even well served by the outcomes of such lobbying.
But these things ought not be decided based on who has money and who doesn't.
I am all for impacts being analyzed and plans being made to make sure people are not unduly disrupted, but decisions should be made on merit.
We should not allow buggy whip manufactures to be able to lobby to ensure their livelihood.
( and why is it that when it is people's livelihoods, the politics seems to be "go for it", but for corporation's livelihoods it is "oh, wait a moment, cant have that"? ) ( rhetorical question, I know the answer. )
It seems to keep coming back to get money out of politics. For me. I know there are those that disagree. ( I think they are are wrong as "money out of politics" is likely to succeed ).
Since at least the Carter administration, liberals have been thinking about the consequences of burning coal and fossil fuels. Carter put a plan in place to try and get us off these.
Reagan et al pulled all that out, not thinking very far ahead.
"how would you get the old deteriorated vertebrum out without damaging the spine and spinal nerves?"
Leave it in place and have the replacement surround what is being replaced? Not sure why the fascination with 3d printing here, I don't imagine that the printer would be small enough to operate within the human body. ( someday... ) Otherwise, who cares how the replacement is formed
"By far the most common causes of house fires are cooking accidents (43%), heating equipment (16%), arson (8%), faulty wiring or other electrical (6%), and smoking accidents (5%)."
I could see Edward G. Robinson delivering that line...
It could have been the Tesla because of a problem with the Tesla It could have been the Tesla because of something stored in the Tesla not involving it's fundamentals ( i.e., smoldering cigarette ) It could have been the Tesla's charging system in the garage There was a Lexus in the garage also, from what I have read It could have been the Lexus because of a problem with the Lexus It could have been the Lexus because of something stored in the Lexus not involving it's fundamentals ( i.e., smoldering cigarette ) It could have been something unrelated to either vehicle, rag fire, garage electrical fire, etc It could have been arson ( alien or otherwise ) There could be other causes ( he said, watching sliders... ) Wait for the investigation, then you will know instead of assume.
If there is a clock, that draws power Your radio will draw power to maintain it's preset stations. The ECU/DME in anything that new will draw some power to maintain the map tables for how to run ( how much to inject at such and such conditions ). The cigarette lighter port, if equipped ( and some cars have multiple ), can be powered when the ignition is off.
If there are any electrical problems, something that is nominally un-powered when the ignition is off can draw power. Possibly too much....
I had a 1992 BMW 525 that would run down it's battery. In investigating why, I found and was surprised at how many items and how much power flows when "off".
there's a bit more to the story of how the fire started the owner believes he has hit his payday due to
being able to sue Tesla
holding off for a better "offer" from Tesla ( preventing bad publicity ) the waiver that bing.* mentions in his/her/it's post either scaring the owner or limiting his future recourse being a plant from another auto maker &c.
What you missed is that you have to decide how much power to apply at each wheel. If the wheels can get different amounts of power, it will impart some degree of sideways thrust. Also, if you lock the wheels on each side fo the vehicle together, you will scrub the tires going around corners. Look at what a differential does and why the front steering geometry on a car is designed the way it is.
Because those with power will abuse it. That includes governments and corporations. We had an internet for a long time without having to talk about Network Neutrality (no discrimination on what you carry on your wires). The reason we are talking about it is that corporations (Ed Whitaker(sp?), att, "google isnt paying to use our pipes..." (never mind their customer did) and all the rest) started introducing the notion of charging sites to access their customers.
Network Neutrality is not about charging prices, it is about discriminating in what traffic you will bear. I.E., refusing to allow Skype packets because you have a competing telephony service, or not allowing Google thru to your customer, because you want to extract a toll charge from them first.
"Similarly, building of bridges would end up with a company allowing anyone to cross their bridge. This company would get the highest volume because of their anti-discrimination policies, giving them more cash to invest in improving their capital assets. They could create more lanes, lower prices, improve safety, reduce congestion, i.e. offer a superior service in comparison to the discriminatory bridges. The owners of the discriminatory bridges would eventually be forced to discontinue their services or change their policies."
Net Neutrality is that "anti-discrimination" policy. If you are correct, why are ISPs working so darned hard to get around it? And companies do whatever makes them money, if Ford offers enough, they *will* discriminate, absent regulation. Why do you think they are trying to overturn Net Neutrality so relentlessly? They are rent-seeking.
If a corporation owns a bridge, it will expect to make money from that ownership. It could sign a deal with Ford that only Ford cars can cross, because Ford paid the most money, and wants an exclusive ( so people will want Ford cars ).
Can you really not see where that goes?
One bridge, own a non-Ford? Take a hike. So, GM, Toyota, etc come in and build their bridges. Tens of bridges, where one would do, each extracting money ( see broken window fallacy ) that could go to better things.
Want to start a small company building cars? Too bad, you don't have enough to do all the bridge building needed, and people are much less likely to buy a car that will be forbidden on too many bridges. Rejected.
And on the maintenance issues you raise, unregulated, corporations invest the minimum required and will take risks with people's lives to save a buck. I expect that corporate bridges will fall/need repair/etc also
All the people in the communities that Walmarts open in buy all the things before the store opens as after.
So, where are these new jobs coming from? Stealing from Peter to pay Paul, at best. Net is, at best, no new jobs, there are jobs moving from the retailers that operated before to some balance of the one's after. Maybe some job loss. Probably some net community aggregate wage loss. You might argue cheaper , more economically efficient, that is a separate argument, we are talking jobs.
"While I'm on the subject of religious texts, those who spout off on "The Bible Says" and such really amuse me to no end. A bunch of shepherds who knew virtually nothing sat around campfires telling tall tales and getting drunk, and some of those tales were written down. And modern day people consider those tales to be "the word of God"? Never mind all the translation errors and exagerrations as the tales were told through the generations, too many of the tales we just know flat out could not have been"
There are many Christians ( not sure about other religions, they may have theirs ) seeking to help humanity.
My Church, for example, collects and sends money and people to many places around the world to help. We have established hospitals and sent doctors and nurses many places. Many have given up successful careers in the western world to serve for a pittance.
I was pulled over once for the light that is supposed to illuminate the license plate was out. It wasn't, but pulled over I was.
I was guilty of driving as a male with long hair. I drove into a gas station, then I realized it was closed, and drove into a different, open gas station. They seemed to think I was reacting to their presence.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about buying votes, it's about buying legislation.
I don't doubt that companies that lobby for things feel a very real sense of needing what they are lobbying for.
I also don't doubt that there are times when 3rd parties are served or even well served by the outcomes of such lobbying.
But these things ought not be decided based on who has money and who doesn't.
I am all for impacts being analyzed and plans being made to make sure people are not unduly disrupted, but decisions should be made on merit.
We should not allow buggy whip manufactures to be able to lobby to ensure their livelihood.
( and why is it that when it is people's livelihoods, the politics seems to be "go for it", but for corporation's livelihoods it is "oh, wait a moment, cant have that"? )
( rhetorical question, I know the answer. )
It seems to keep coming back to get money out of politics. For me. I know there are those that disagree. ( I think they are are wrong as "money out of politics" is likely to succeed ).
Thanks!
Quite. Now, who added the single line spoken of to the farm bill that opened the door for this?
I think we need some bread to go with this circus.
"We don't care. Why the should we care? "
Because this workforce is where most of your profits come from?
Because this workforce is the workforce you need to get things done?
I leave out any moral and ethical argument. of which there are many.
Yes, both the above are going away, due to your actions. Way to take care of the "garden" you have "harvested" from.
Since at least the Carter administration, liberals have been thinking about the consequences of burning coal and fossil fuels.
Carter put a plan in place to try and get us off these.
Reagan et al pulled all that out, not thinking very far ahead.
True. But there were some mechanical "computors" back then. Fire control computers come to mind, and date back to WWI.
"how would you get the old deteriorated vertebrum out without damaging the spine and spinal nerves?"
Leave it in place and have the replacement surround what is being replaced?
Not sure why the fascination with 3d printing here,
I don't imagine that the printer would be small enough to operate within the human body. ( someday... )
Otherwise, who cares how the replacement is formed
"By far the most common causes of house fires are cooking accidents (43%), heating equipment (16%), arson (8%), faulty wiring or other electrical (6%), and smoking accidents (5%)."
I could see Edward G. Robinson delivering that line...
It could have been the Tesla because of a problem with the Tesla
It could have been the Tesla because of something stored in the Tesla not involving it's fundamentals ( i.e., smoldering cigarette )
It could have been the Tesla's charging system in the garage
There was a Lexus in the garage also, from what I have read
It could have been the Lexus because of a problem with the Lexus
It could have been the Lexus because of something stored in the Lexus not involving it's fundamentals ( i.e., smoldering cigarette )
It could have been something unrelated to either vehicle, rag fire, garage electrical fire, etc
It could have been arson ( alien or otherwise )
There could be other causes ( he said, watching sliders... )
Wait for the investigation, then you will know instead of assume.
If there is a clock, that draws power
Your radio will draw power to maintain it's preset stations.
The ECU/DME in anything that new will draw some power to maintain the map tables for how to run ( how much to inject at such and such conditions ).
The cigarette lighter port, if equipped ( and some cars have multiple ), can be powered when the ignition is off.
If there are any electrical problems, something that is nominally un-powered when the ignition is off can draw power. Possibly too much....
I had a 1992 BMW 525 that would run down it's battery. In investigating why, I found and was surprised at how many items and how much power flows when "off".
reasons why
there's a bit more to the story of how the fire started
the owner believes he has hit his payday due to
being able to sue Tesla
holding off for a better "offer" from Tesla ( preventing bad publicity )
the waiver that bing.* mentions in his/her/it's post either scaring the owner or limiting his future recourse
being a plant from another auto maker
&c.
What you missed is that you have to decide how much power to apply at each wheel.
If the wheels can get different amounts of power, it will impart some degree of sideways thrust.
Also, if you lock the wheels on each side fo the vehicle together, you will scrub the tires going around corners.
Look at what a differential does and why the front steering geometry on a car is designed the way it is.
"Why must the govt intrude"
Because those with power will abuse it. That includes governments and corporations.
We had an internet for a long time without having to talk about Network Neutrality (no discrimination on what you carry on your wires).
The reason we are talking about it is that corporations (Ed Whitaker(sp?), att, "google isnt paying to use our pipes..." (never mind their customer did) and all the rest)
started introducing the notion of charging sites to access their customers.
You and I have very different definitions of Net Neutrality.
I feel pretty comfortable that I have the correct definition.
I disagree that Markets will resist discrimination, because it is generally the company with the most money that starts doing the discrimination.
Network Neutrality is not about charging prices, it is about discriminating in what traffic you will bear.
I.E., refusing to allow Skype packets because you have a competing telephony service, or not allowing Google thru to your customer, because you want to extract a toll charge from them first.
"Similarly, building of bridges would end up with a company allowing anyone to cross their bridge. This company would get the highest volume because of their anti-discrimination policies, giving them more cash to invest in improving their capital assets. They could create more lanes, lower prices, improve safety, reduce congestion, i.e. offer a superior service in comparison to the discriminatory bridges. The owners of the discriminatory bridges would eventually be forced to discontinue their services or change their policies."
Net Neutrality is that "anti-discrimination" policy. If you are correct, why are ISPs working so darned hard to get around it?
And companies do whatever makes them money, if Ford offers enough, they *will* discriminate, absent regulation.
Why do you think they are trying to overturn Net Neutrality so relentlessly? They are rent-seeking.
If a corporation owns a bridge, it will expect to make money from that ownership.
It could sign a deal with Ford that only Ford cars can cross, because Ford paid the most money, and wants an exclusive ( so people will want Ford cars ).
Can you really not see where that goes?
One bridge, own a non-Ford? Take a hike.
So, GM, Toyota, etc come in and build their bridges. Tens of bridges, where one would do, each extracting money ( see broken window fallacy ) that could go to better things.
Want to start a small company building cars? Too bad, you don't have enough to do all the bridge building needed, and people are much less likely to buy a car that will be forbidden on too many bridges.
Rejected.
And on the maintenance issues you raise, unregulated, corporations invest the minimum required and will take risks with people's lives to save a buck.
I expect that corporate bridges will fall/need repair/etc also
Erasing moderation
All the people in the communities that Walmarts open in buy all the things before the store opens as after.
So, where are these new jobs coming from? Stealing from Peter to pay Paul, at best.
Net is, at best, no new jobs, there are jobs moving from the retailers that operated before to some balance of the one's after.
Maybe some job loss. Probably some net community aggregate wage loss.
You might argue cheaper , more economically efficient, that is a separate argument, we are talking jobs.
"While I'm on the subject of religious texts, those who spout off on "The Bible Says" and such really amuse me to no end. A bunch of shepherds who knew virtually nothing sat around campfires telling tall tales and getting drunk, and some of those tales were written down. And modern day people consider those tales to be "the word of God"? Never mind all the translation errors and exagerrations as the tales were told through the generations, too many of the tales we just know flat out could not have been"
2 Timothy 3:16
There are many Christians ( not sure about other religions, they may have theirs ) seeking to help humanity.
My Church, for example, collects and sends money and people to many places around the world to help.
We have established hospitals and sent doctors and nurses many places.
Many have given up successful careers in the western world to serve for a pittance.
I was pulled over once for the light that is supposed to illuminate the license plate was out.
It wasn't, but pulled over I was.
I was guilty of driving as a male with long hair. I drove into a gas station, then I realized it was closed, and drove into a different, open gas station.
They seemed to think I was reacting to their presence.
undoing moderation
Likewise, thanks!