When someone in a corporation illegally dumps hazardous chemicals, they aren't held responsible. They claim they were "told" they were safe. The guy who told them they were safe isn't held responsible because he didn't know they weren't. The person who put the hazardous chemicals in the general bin thought the rubbish handlers would identify and separate them. So the corporation illegally dumps hazardous chemicals, and the corporation isn't responsible, and no person is responsible either. That's what generally happens, unless someone manages to find an email where the manager who told the dumper they were safe is poven to have known otherwise. And then, he blames the corporate policies, and still has only a trivial punishment, if any.
It's like saying that if a resident of New York City mugs someone, then everyone in New York City is responsible for that crime and in particular, New York City itself is responsible for that crime.
Nah, more like the mugger who did it getting off because he claims he only did it for profit from the pawn shop that knowingly deals in stolen goods.
The people (within a corporation) are, generally, not held responsible. The corporation is generally not held responsible. Those are independent statements that are both true. One does not "cause" the other. You implied, and then ridiculed the causation that was not stated or implied.
There need to be more "smaller" rail engines for short runs. In the "old days" there'd be local, regional, and long-haul rain networks. You'd use rail to get from on side of town to the other, or to the central depot for outside. Then link into a train for a longer haul, next city over or so. And split the car back out for local delivery.
The trucking lobby is strong, and conveinced everyone that this is no longer possible. But it still is. If trucks were taxed in a manner that they paid their own way, rail would make a comeback. When rail is strong, passenger rail does better. And rail is more efficient.
The captain had a suspended license from his most recent of a string of DUIs. He couldn't drive a car, but was legal to thread the needle with a tanker? Either Exxon is criminally negligent with failure to perform basic checks, or criminally negligent in identifying a repeat offender of operating heavy machinery while drunk, then giving that person very very heavy machinery to operate.
So who, exactly, sent the ship out knowing that it was unsafe to do so?
The engines in the 100P were most certainly not car engines. They were custom designs. Put one of those in a car of the era and it would twist the drive train right out of the car.
You are wrong. Since the engines were never actually built, I can't prove you wrong (by comparing them with a real engine of the era). But you have no reason to believe you are right, other than ignorant stubbornness.
What's the cost of the 450 hp engines you are referring to? If you can't give me an exact figure for them, then you are a hypocritical ass. You are demanding more of me that you are wiling or capable of giving.
BTW, the 2JZ-GTE with TWO turbochargers maxes out at 321HP (so 120HP short). Do you have a plan to make one of them run backwards? Any idea how to get 500HP out of one without blowing the head off? Care to bet your life on it? (note that blowing an engine in an airplane is much worse than in a car)
So you are saying "I'm ignorant, so you must be wrong." Judt because you don't know it doesn't mean it's impossible. I've seen no less than 10 different 2JZ-JTE making more than 1000 hp. TWO turbos mean nothing. For aircraft, that'd likely be modified back to one (easy enough to do) to save weight and because rate of change of power is not considered important in an aircraft, but is important for a racing car.
You obviously know nothing about aircraft or cars (or engines). So I can't understand why you keep arguing? Do you just have some emotional need to "win" an argument?
Hundreds of them. You'd be hard pressed to find a production 2.0 l 4-cyl that can't make that (with turbos), with no "bottom end" modifications. The F-1 engines would easily handle that, at under 3l and normally aspirated to 750+hp (and they have sumps that allow large lateral g's, so almost no modifications would be necessary to oil handing. You did note that the 450 hp in question were automotive racing engines (though indicated by a relatively crap article, so that may not be accurate). So the 450 engine you are talking about was already from a racing engine, not a regular production engine. But with today's tech, getting better performance from a single 3l engine wouldn't be hard, surpassing the capabilities of the two 4.9l engines indicated for it. Personally, for that, I'd go with one of the I-6 blocks to start with. Take the Toyota 2JZ-GTE, and tune it to about 1000 hp turbo. That'd significantly beat the performance of 900 hp of old N/A engines.
So, nobody who worked closely with him had any idea he was drunk repeatedly? I remember reading that the crew was familiar with him being below decks for the "tricky" part of the trip, as he slept off his previous night's actions.
"At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. "
That's sufficient to get Exxon a loss with insane penalties. They knowingly sent a ship to sea in an unsafe manner. Anyone who permitted that should have been sent to jail, and $100 Billion would have been about right for the fine.
Conspiracy requires two people. You can write the "illegal" contracts all you want, but until you ask someone else to participate, it isn't a conspiracy.
The engines in planes at the time weren't aviation engines either. They were car engines with modifications, the same we can (and do) do today (see the large number of car-based engines available for hobby aviation).
Yes, they are. As someone else pointed out, inverted operation (literal or g's in a dive) would require minor adjustments in oil flow, but plenty of automotive engines are suited to aricraft. There are a number of places that make such minor changes and offer the engines to the experimental craft hobbyists. They are nearly stock car or motorbike engines with tiny adjustments made to account for such things.
It's not hard to make an aircraft engine. They were doing it in the '50s. And most of them were based on car engines, or taking a portion of a car engine and modifying it. The plane in question used two automotive racing engines. Why do you think a 1930's car racing engine would work in a plane, but a 2010 one wouldn't?
It'd be fine, so long as you adjust the oil flow slightly. Many engines are dry sump, and match that with some more interesting collections methods, and you'd be good.
And here I am thinking that the Viper and Corvette still have 500 hp range options. And it was a "racing engine" like taking two F1 engines and putting them in a plane. That'd be 2.4l V8s putting out 750 hp with tons of restrictions on them (and yes, no turbos). I don't think 4.9l to make 500 hp is beyond today's engines. I'd expect 1000+ hp from a 3l 6-cyl (with turbos, so better performance at altitude compared to N/A) to be what would be used today (plenty of options to make that from stock engine blocks in production cars), though we have no need for such a craft now.
The original point of a corporation was to limit liability of the investor to no more than the amount invested, presuming they weren't otherwise involved (on the board, employed by it). This has been misunderstood to having the corporation accept liability for individual actions, but that may just be a modern thing caused by lawyers showing that any individual couldn't have known they'd change the outcome, even if they provably did change it.
They have liability up to the amout of money they have invested. The way it works now, they have much lower liability than that. Only in truly exceptional circumstances (Enron) do shareholders get held to their maximum liability. Shareholders should be held laible more often.
Domestic laws and international trade agreements are the "mysterious force" that motivates the "invisible hand" to move in a particular direction in search of profit.
Go re-read about the hand. The invidible hand acts in spite of the laws and agreements, not because of them. If you erect artificial barriers, the "invisible hand" will arbitrage around them, not be guided by them.
If a person was treated like a corporation, murder would be legal. You could walk up to somone with 10,000 witnesses, 10 video cameras coving you, then shoot someone. If you were tried for it, you'd challenge the prosecution to prove you didn't have a muscle spasm that caused the trigger pull.
The captain, the first officer, and the captain's boss should have ended up in jail, unless the helmsman could prove he called Exxon's safety line and reported erratic behavior of the captain. If Exxon didn't have an anonymous way to report safety issues, then Exxon should have been held criminally liable. And not the few-days-of-revenue criminal liability, but actual losses that will harm a corporation as much as the same thing done by a lone human would.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like saying that if a resident of New York City mugs someone, then everyone in New York City is responsible for that crime and in particular, New York City itself is responsible for that crime.
Nah, more like the mugger who did it getting off because he claims he only did it for profit from the pawn shop that knowingly deals in stolen goods.
The people (within a corporation) are, generally, not held responsible. The corporation is generally not held responsible. Those are independent statements that are both true. One does not "cause" the other. You implied, and then ridiculed the causation that was not stated or implied.
Self driving trucks still need a cab. That's where the engine goes.
The real savings in self-driving would be having them cruise at 35 mph. Much better economy at lower speeds, and no driver fatigue.
There need to be more "smaller" rail engines for short runs. In the "old days" there'd be local, regional, and long-haul rain networks. You'd use rail to get from on side of town to the other, or to the central depot for outside. Then link into a train for a longer haul, next city over or so. And split the car back out for local delivery.
The trucking lobby is strong, and conveinced everyone that this is no longer possible. But it still is. If trucks were taxed in a manner that they paid their own way, rail would make a comeback. When rail is strong, passenger rail does better. And rail is more efficient.
Yes, that's what I said. Is the threading in the new layout causing everyone to object to my posts without reading the one I'm replying to?
So who, exactly, sent the ship out knowing that it was unsafe to do so?
Exxon did.
The engines in the 100P were most certainly not car engines. They were custom designs. Put one of those in a car of the era and it would twist the drive train right out of the car.
You are wrong. Since the engines were never actually built, I can't prove you wrong (by comparing them with a real engine of the era). But you have no reason to believe you are right, other than ignorant stubbornness.
BTW, the 2JZ-GTE with TWO turbochargers maxes out at 321HP (so 120HP short). Do you have a plan to make one of them run backwards? Any idea how to get 500HP out of one without blowing the head off? Care to bet your life on it? (note that blowing an engine in an airplane is much worse than in a car)
So you are saying "I'm ignorant, so you must be wrong." Judt because you don't know it doesn't mean it's impossible. I've seen no less than 10 different 2JZ-JTE making more than 1000 hp. TWO turbos mean nothing. For aircraft, that'd likely be modified back to one (easy enough to do) to save weight and because rate of change of power is not considered important in an aircraft, but is important for a racing car.
You obviously know nothing about aircraft or cars (or engines). So I can't understand why you keep arguing? Do you just have some emotional need to "win" an argument?
So a corporation can't be held responsible, neither can the people that work for it. So how do you force "legal" behavior from a corporation?
Hundreds of them. You'd be hard pressed to find a production 2.0 l 4-cyl that can't make that (with turbos), with no "bottom end" modifications. The F-1 engines would easily handle that, at under 3l and normally aspirated to 750+hp (and they have sumps that allow large lateral g's, so almost no modifications would be necessary to oil handing. You did note that the 450 hp in question were automotive racing engines (though indicated by a relatively crap article, so that may not be accurate). So the 450 engine you are talking about was already from a racing engine, not a regular production engine. But with today's tech, getting better performance from a single 3l engine wouldn't be hard, surpassing the capabilities of the two 4.9l engines indicated for it. Personally, for that, I'd go with one of the I-6 blocks to start with. Take the Toyota 2JZ-GTE, and tune it to about 1000 hp turbo. That'd significantly beat the performance of 900 hp of old N/A engines.
No, it's called an exponential function (even if incorrectly).
My beliefs on the matter are unrelated to the AC's comments on it, or my response.
So, nobody who worked closely with him had any idea he was drunk repeatedly? I remember reading that the crew was familiar with him being below decks for the "tricky" part of the trip, as he slept off his previous night's actions.
"At the helm, the third mate never would have collided with Bligh Reef had he looked at his RAYCAS radar. But the radar was not turned on. In fact, the tanker's radar was left broken and disabled for more than a year before the disaster, and Exxon management knew it. "
That's sufficient to get Exxon a loss with insane penalties. They knowingly sent a ship to sea in an unsafe manner. Anyone who permitted that should have been sent to jail, and $100 Billion would have been about right for the fine.
Conspiracy requires two people. You can write the "illegal" contracts all you want, but until you ask someone else to participate, it isn't a conspiracy.
The engines in planes at the time weren't aviation engines either. They were car engines with modifications, the same we can (and do) do today (see the large number of car-based engines available for hobby aviation).
It grows with an exponent of 2, as opposed to linearly.
Yes, they are. As someone else pointed out, inverted operation (literal or g's in a dive) would require minor adjustments in oil flow, but plenty of automotive engines are suited to aricraft. There are a number of places that make such minor changes and offer the engines to the experimental craft hobbyists. They are nearly stock car or motorbike engines with tiny adjustments made to account for such things.
It's not hard to make an aircraft engine. They were doing it in the '50s. And most of them were based on car engines, or taking a portion of a car engine and modifying it. The plane in question used two automotive racing engines. Why do you think a 1930's car racing engine would work in a plane, but a 2010 one wouldn't?
It'd be fine, so long as you adjust the oil flow slightly. Many engines are dry sump, and match that with some more interesting collections methods, and you'd be good.
And here I am thinking that the Viper and Corvette still have 500 hp range options. And it was a "racing engine" like taking two F1 engines and putting them in a plane. That'd be 2.4l V8s putting out 750 hp with tons of restrictions on them (and yes, no turbos). I don't think 4.9l to make 500 hp is beyond today's engines. I'd expect 1000+ hp from a 3l 6-cyl (with turbos, so better performance at altitude compared to N/A) to be what would be used today (plenty of options to make that from stock engine blocks in production cars), though we have no need for such a craft now.
How would it have hurt BP to have nationalized Exxon at the time?
The original point of a corporation was to limit liability of the investor to no more than the amount invested, presuming they weren't otherwise involved (on the board, employed by it). This has been misunderstood to having the corporation accept liability for individual actions, but that may just be a modern thing caused by lawyers showing that any individual couldn't have known they'd change the outcome, even if they provably did change it.
They have liability up to the amout of money they have invested. The way it works now, they have much lower liability than that. Only in truly exceptional circumstances (Enron) do shareholders get held to their maximum liability. Shareholders should be held laible more often.
Domestic laws and international trade agreements are the "mysterious force" that motivates the "invisible hand" to move in a particular direction in search of profit.
Go re-read about the hand. The invidible hand acts in spite of the laws and agreements, not because of them. If you erect artificial barriers, the "invisible hand" will arbitrage around them, not be guided by them.
Based on the current rules in the US, never.
If a person was treated like a corporation, murder would be legal. You could walk up to somone with 10,000 witnesses, 10 video cameras coving you, then shoot someone. If you were tried for it, you'd challenge the prosecution to prove you didn't have a muscle spasm that caused the trigger pull.
The captain, the first officer, and the captain's boss should have ended up in jail, unless the helmsman could prove he called Exxon's safety line and reported erratic behavior of the captain. If Exxon didn't have an anonymous way to report safety issues, then Exxon should have been held criminally liable. And not the few-days-of-revenue criminal liability, but actual losses that will harm a corporation as much as the same thing done by a lone human would.
Compared to what ADP charges for it, it's a bargain.