The 'fucking summary' is wrong, though. Iranian oil makes up a very tiny fraction of US imports. There's no possible way that either the US cares about embargoing Iran (because it just doesn't matter to the US) or that Iran is negotiating due to US oil exports (because the US doesn't even buy much Iranian oil in the first place).
This is only sort of right. It is true that the US doesn't use Iranian oil, however, the oil it does or did import displaced oil other countries could use so it in effect would have had the same impacts as if the US was doing so. Let's look at this from a simple point of view. Suppose the world in it's entirety produced 10 units of oil per day. From that 10 units of oil, every single country and business that wanted to, could purchase and use oil at about $100 a subunit if it didn't already create their needs themselves. Now suppose the US of some other random country all the sudden decides that a producer cannot produce and sell 1 unit of oil. Now, whether the US or other random country ever purchased oil from them or not, the entire world has to get buy with 9 units total or ignore the sanctions to maintain the 10 units. That is unless the one unit was made up somewhere else allowing the sanctions to hold and creating 10 units.
The oil markets are not per country but rather world wide and drops in production in one area will globally impact prices if it isn't made up somewhere else. The US us making it up somewhere else.
The only reason, bar none, that Iran is coming to the negotiating table is because their new leader is not an off-the-rails anti-westerner like his predecessor. There has been no other significant changes in either country's domestic policies.
This is probably more true then anything. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a bit crazy, he was a twelver to start with but also held a grudge against the US for how they handled Iran's attempt to help with Afghanistan. So it was like telling a bi-polar girlfriend that her sister is cuter than she is or the dress she is wearing doesn't make her look as fat as the other ones. Most of the "freakish" anti western sentiment can be traced to the coalition forces booting his troops from Afghanistan making him look bad and his believe in the twelfth Imam coming back and delivering paradise.
Rare muffler bearings, you do realise those are made of platinum and are what makes catalytic converters so expensive and attrackable to thieves selling scrap right?
Seriously, the converters with the bearings inside them are worth the most for scrap. Of couse the beads aren't really bearings but they look just like small ball bearings with the race.
And undrr US law, fair use is considered a defense against a violation which makes it problematic because fair use posses the potential of risk that might not be completely disbursed if the somewhat costly legal system fails it.
People do make mistakes though and i'm not sure this shouldn't be viewed as one. Perhaps the site gets an official license out of the deal. Time will tell
I don't think fibre would cover the situations these are being targeted for. It is more of a mobile environment where a hardline connection isn't available. Imagine a news truck editing some interview feed and shooting it back to the station to air on the news in 10 minutes or so. Imagine an engineering firm sending an inspector to a remote location to see the progress of a project or potential damage so preparation can be made for repairs earlier and he sends video feeds back in real time so the firm can assess other areas to look into.
These are functions that a satellite link has typically been used for that a wireless plan might save some cash on. These are also functions where a fiber connect may not be available or was disabled somehow (building fire, natural disaster, vandalism and many other reasons).
They weren't legal at one time. The problem is a black market popped up making some people more powerful then the government itself. Of course this is largely the same situation with illegal drugs but society didn't care enough about them to amend the US constitution to allow them.
Enough people do turn into irresponsible idiots when they are drunk and high that laws prohibiting those behaviors have been made. We are suffering because of those idiots and I don't think it is a good idea to take the laws away and allow it to happen all over with again even if that is under the guise of harming or killing yourself because it often kills or harms others in the process. IF we look at the states that have legalized pot usage, we find the controlled dope is actually more expensive then the black market dope so all the problems with addicts stealing and everything else is will still be there. Except it will be compounded because more people will have access which means there will be more addicts.
The new rule wouldn't be included in many if any of those results unless the stoves already went above and beyond the existing rule. Any time there is a rule change, it is generally set on a manufacture date which means that while everything produced before the rule went into effect might not comply with the new rules, they certainly can be EPA compliant because they only have to be compliant under the rules they were subject to.
This is typically true up to a certain time where the rules forbid the sale of anything not compliant with the new rules. However, that will not necessarily be today.
It is not, it is regulation put in place by operatives of the administration without congressional input or voting on it at all. I'm betting that a lot of people would have an entirely different opinion on the matter if congress actually voted on this or was involved with it more so then empowering the administration several decades ago to create regulation with the effect of law.
The same thing that happened to the land of the free.
Your destiny is determined by the powers to be now, not your own free will. Now quit trying to save money and find some money to get insurance else be fined without due process of law because even though you have never been to the emergency room in your life or failed to pay your medical bills, we all know you go to the emergency room and charge up a huge bills then not pay it so it ends up costing everyone who already could afford insurance more and we cannot have that- except we are fixing it by doing just that.
Another problem is that unless it is to repair and replace something, often apartment buildings lose any other grandfathered code items. For instance, I used to own two 6 unit rental properties located right beside each other. If I wanted to install more efficient heating and cooling in those units, I would also have to update the wiring to the entire lot because the code change about 10 years after they were built, I would have to add fire escapes to every one of the second story levels of the unites with 2 stories, I would have to replace the stove and refrigerator with new energy saving models, and I never could get a complete answer, but I think I would have had to replace the windows to be up to code.
When looking, and this was a good couple of years ago, I sold them since, it was going to be cheaper to evict everyone and rebuild with new 4 unit apartments because the zoning code and building code required costs less in a new construction than retrofiring existing buildings. That is of course, is if I did anything to bring everything up to the current code that wasn't mandatory and grandfathered in. But if I waited until the AC and heating units failed, I could repair and replace them without having to go through the rest of the costly code updates.
So not only is the person paying to install the appliances not the one paying the bill for their usage, they are often encouraged not to change things or be penalized if they attempt to upgrade any of it out of concern for the residents, environment, or whatever else tickles their fancy through the loss of being grandfathered in one other code changes.
The only valid "what if" is comparing the incidents to a combustion car, because that's what the hype is about. You can't claim "what if the car caught fire in the garage hours later" because that hypothetical NEVER HAPPENED!
But you cannot say it will never happen because of how these fires actually start. The debris in the road doesn't puncture something flammable and then spark to ignite it. The cause is a malfunction in one or more of the battery cells which either independently or collaboratively build up heat until the point something is ignited. This can/could happen while the person is still driving or it can/could happen if he parks the car somewhere- including inside his garage. Of course all that is negated if the heat and henceforth fire risk is only capable while energy is being expelled from the car in which case driving it would be a requirement. But the point of all this is that we do not know until everything is investigated which is why the what if is perfectly valid.
he only reason to bitch about the fire is to present the concept that Tesla does not care about the fires and will never fix them. That, is idiocy! Stop and look at everything in comparison and context with other vehicles.
No, the reason the fire is being investigated is because Ford and GM at certain points in time in the past actually did not care and refused to fix the problems. No one is waiting for dead people in order to investigate first, they are proactively investigating and possibly bringing more brain power to the table at the US tax payer's dime to determine how these are happening and what a reasonable fix could be.
Assigning blame to this is sort of like complaining you are being picked on for having to stop at red lights when history shows us that people who do not, they can end up in fatal accidents. It simply doesn't exist so stop being overly zealous.
Example 2 is very clear, crashing into trees will cause combustion engines to catch fire also. That problem is not unique to EVs, but due to people crashing into walls, trees, concrete barriers, etc... If you want to bitch about Tesla cars doing this, you had best be just as vocal about making combustion engines immune to fire when crashing into these same heavy and hard objects. If you don't, you are just a biased idiot shilling for the failure of EVs and propagation of Combustion.
I don't think anyone is bitching about anything until half cocked defenders like you jump in criticizing everything because some pet of yours is involved so that somehow means all facts, history, and logic do not apply.
Items 1 and 3, really it's hit or miss. Smash a 3/4 inch piece of steel at 25,000lbs of pressure into the gas tank of a car. What happens?
Generally, they dent and that is all. I am very familiar with poking holes in gas tanks as most scrap yards require it when scrapping vehicles. I have two wreckers and scrapping vehicles for insurance companies and removing junk vehicles from people's property at their request is one of the things we use them for. The fuel tanks on modern vehicles are designed to absorb pressure like what you mention and displace it over a larger area of the tank rather then just the impact zone.
How about the engines?
The worst that would happen to the engine is that the oil pan would puncture or dent to a point that would cause the oil pressure to drop and the engine to have problems (generally locking up if a safety switch didn't shut it down first). There is minimal risk of fire due to this. This is also unlike the fires in the EVs as in those cases, the batteries themselves created the heat and resulting fire after being damaged.
Sounds to me like they have armor plating around the batteries, maybe this type of thing won't be preventable.
The Teslas have alerted the drivers of the damage and impending fire - a feature not found in any gasoline car I've ever heard of.
And the smell of raw gasoline wouldn't have done the same? I don't think there is anything special about telling a driver to pull over because you are going to burn to the ground when the entire point is that the car shouldn't be burning up in the first place. Sure, it might be safer then dumping 5 gallons of gas on a brush pile and standing right beside it with matches to light it, but still, I'm pretty sure the thing isn't supposed to be going up in flames.
Perhaps 5" layered steel and kevlar would help too. The impacts would have destroyed a gasoline car too, and could in one or more cases caused a fire. Where is your consern for all regular cars?
There is very little that could cause a fire in a gasoline automobile if it struck something like the tesla did. At best, the starter wires would separate, ground out, then after the insulation burned off, likely separate from where it was shorting. Most lead acid batteries are designed to separate the positive pole internally if amperage draw exceeds a set amount for a specific time. This is created by designing a part to fail in that case making the potential for fire even less.
As for the car being damage or destroyed, I do not think anyone but their owners really care about that.
Unlike the Pinto and GM issues, there has been exactly zero fiery deaths due to drivers crashing their cars into various objects.
Yes, and unlike Pinto and GM issues, no one in their right mind is going to wait until hundreds of fires and several dozen people get injured or killed before determining there might be a problem that costs less to keep and pay out claims then it would to fix while countless other instances keep racking up. This statement is precisely the type Ford and GM were making when they knew their design was dangerous to the public.
The Teslas have detected damage or the fire and asked the driver to evacuate.
And what happens when the damage prevents it from warning the driver and fumes overwhelm the occupants? What happens when the damage is small enough not to trip the warnings until after the driver parked it in their garage or right next to your car and left the lot? You cannot say that will never happen unless you know specifically what is causing the fires when the damage happens.
To me, it looks like Tesla engineered this well - far from the Pinto and GM fuel tank fuckups.
I'm betting you do not have the slightest clue about the Ford Pinto or GM truck fuel tank issues or why it is even close to being pertinent here. If you did, you wouldn't ever have made the comment you just did. And no, a warning about catastrophic failure is not engineering well, it is a freaking warning because the engineering was particularly incapable of handling an expected event.
Lol.. you made a point about what you think but aren't actually correct so your point is useless. As I already said, you were wrong. You being wrong and me pointing it out does not need to result in you blowing a gasket. Of course I am dealing with what ifs because they are the exception to your rule that makes you incorrect.
BTW, you are still wrong and it seems you failed to comprehend what I said again, I have never been on Gov disability just off on WC due to injury and when I had my two surgeries.
Now here is a suggestion for you. Stop thinking you know everything and actually pay attention to what someone else is telling you. You will likely learn something and fewer people will be telling you how wrong you are or asking what the hell is wrong with your reading comprehension. You might even blow fewer gaskets and have an overall superior mental health because of it too. Now take your lorazepam, Eskalith, and call your therapist before replying again.
Not unless the gas tank was moved to the front of the vehicle. And even then, if it didn't catch fire, it likely would have only leaked. The batteries actually create heat and catch fire.
I know people are scared of gas but gas cars actually have a few safety system built into them specifically because there were problems with fire in the past. This is no different so I do not understand why all the fanboyism trying to but but but everything. When gas cars went to electric fuel pumps, the fuel kept pumping with the key on and engine off so they put inertia sensors in them to cut the pumps if an impact was detected. There is also a circuit in most electronic fuel injected cars that will not allow the pump to run unless the motor is running. It measures the spark and if it is not present, outside of energizing when the key is first turned on, it will not pump the fuel. When we went to electronic fuel injection, the head pressure was at one point actually increased so a fuel line leak would cause the car to either stop or run so poorly the driver would pull over. The fuel tanks are designed to contain spillage in the vast majority of collisions and are tucked away so that it takes a serious impact to damage them. There are even anti siphon valves on the fuel line in order to prevent the fuel from flowing if a line is cut and and the car is off.
Most of these safety features were designed and implemented due to the small risk of fires over several dozen years. So we have primarily one manufacturer of EVs and it happens that there are some fires when specific problems happen. The solution is not to say, well, other cars can do it to, but to find a way to prevent it from happening or determine if it is such a rare position that it doesn't happen often. Maybe something as simple as replacing the aluminum shielding with a stronger composite material or perhaps steel and biting the weight disadvantage is the answer. Perhaps using rubber bushings in the plate in order to allow some of the impact energy to be displaced instead of all being absorbed is the answer but we will not know unless we understand the mechanisms causing the fires first.
I will repeat The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety.
I noticed you failed to log in to post your uninciteful comment. I probably shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but the point wasn't that gasoline cars do not catch fire or that you are always completely safe, it is that what causes them to catch fire is well known and mitigated to an acceptable level of safety and you should be aware of situations existing due to smell of the fuel while what is causing the Tesla's to catch fire (which it seems to mostly be these teslas and not other EVs) is not well understood except for damage to a certain part of the vehicle seems to be associated with them.
the point is that an investigation can point to ways to mitigate the tesla's fire hazard to a point they are as safe or safer then gas cars. Now I know you are likely a fanboy who doesn't have facts or reality on their side and instead resorts to ad hominem but it seriously does appear that this dumbass is running circles around you in the intelligence department on this one. I personally do not care if gas cars catch fire or if the fact that some EVs have caught fire or even that it hurts your feelings to the point of almost crying. I can if a product being sold to people is actually safe and if not, what can be done to make it as safe as practically possible. Now please sit down and let the adults talk for a bit.
Well I found it strange that you asserted knowledge that I could clearly invalidate. I don't see where I proved any of your point but perspective is perspective. I'll clarify.
IS reading comprehension not a strong trait of yours? I specifically quoted what you said that validated my claim. "until you accept Gov disability or your long term disability plan runs out or you guys make a settlement." You said it right?
So you were laid off after the claim was over evidently (that "after" you stated isn't clear enough).
No, the claim was not over, I was still under doctors care and only allowed to return to work with restrictions on lifting, movement, and even the amount of time I could be sitting at that time. It took another 6 years and two operations to clear the claim and it is technically open unless I don't file against it for ten consecutive years.
If you make it back to work in a condition that has been cleared by your doctor as good-to-go (for the lack of an official term) then the gap won't be there. If you take Gov disability because you are too broken then you won't be looking for work so the gap doesn't matter.
There are people who become injured at work who will never be able to work in that line again. There may be no possible way for the employer to offer work that the person could do. However the job they are applying for might by default meet their restrictions if they are otherwise qualified for or they may have received retraining in order to become employes at a different job. This is not uncommon with serious workplace injuries.
As stated in my example, I was laid off because there was no work I could do. This evidently isn't illegal in most states if there is reason other then the worker's comp claim for the lay off. (this was in Ohio too). And yes, I had a lawyer for several reasons, one of them being that the medical office I was sent to (read office and not hospital) failed to even Xray my back until after the 5th or 6th day and completely missed the problem disc that the specialist later noticed within a few seconds of seeing the Xray. I didn't see the specialist until I was sent to a real hospital after complaining about the lack of leg functionality. But because of the bungling the first medical staff did, the employer's insurance attempted to fight everything and I had to go through 3 BWC hearings it seemed like just to get tests approved like an MRI. It was a mess.
you just claim that there will be gaps in employment during the cases and if you had one personally
Perhaps "can be" instead of "will be" is a better match for words. Of course not everyone will have this problem, but definitely can. The rest of your post seems to be under an incorrect assumption or outside me specifically and I agree with it so I will not address it.
The problem isn't whether the car would of or would not have taken damage. The problem is that a fire is capable of spreading and causing serious other problems outside of the car. Suppose the damage happened but the fire didn't until the car was parked inside your garage that is connected to your home.
But more appropriately, the solution to the fires may be found in the investigations of the situation where something simple like an automatic resetting breaker between battery banks could contain the damage to less of the battery pack making it less likely to build enough heat up to cause fire. Perhaps the 1/4 inch armor which is not steel but aluminum could be a small sheet of steel sandwiched between two small aluminum plates or even layers of polycarbonate between steel or aluminum to absorb impact forces instead of deflecting the total force could stop the issues. Maybe something as simple as allowing the batteries to raise several inches on impacts over a certain force in order to displace some of the energy and retain structural integrity could be the answer.
I don't believe it has anything to do with EVs as a whole as most of them are not catching fire. This has to do with an engineering issue or possible a design limitation that needs addressed before it turns into another Ford Pinto or GM truck side fuel tank issue where the fire issues were ignored because the costs of fixing it was more then liability- until the big lawsuits happened.
until you accept Gov disability or your long term disability plan runs out or you guys make a settlement.
I find it strange that you act as if I know nothing but then go ahead and run to prove what I mentioned. Obviously if you cut your finger and take a day off, you are not going to have any gaps in employment. But when "Simply put, your genitals have been turned to jelly. The doctors do what they can to save your manhood, but it's a lost cause." as the GP mentioned happens, there will likely be a gap in employment.
Also, I have been laid off after a worker's comp claim. I blew a disc in my back apart when a 55 gallon drum of contaminated soil fell on me I couldn't move my legs for 2 weeks because of the inflammation on my spinal cord. I came back to work with limitations and after a week from my return, I was laid off because there wasn't anything I could realistically do there. The state wouldn't let me sue for this layoff and unemployment compensation requires you to be fit for work which my medical restrictions didn't quite satisfy. ( I could probably had found a lawyer willing to try but working paycheck to paycheck left that out of my price range) Finally, after about 3 weeks of unemployment, the unemployment representative bent the rules unofficially and granted compensation until my doctor found out and took me off work completely for another 5 months. I'm glad the guy sitting next to you has more options then I did.
First, workplace accidents aren't personal injury cases. They're no-fault. It's like employers make a deal with employees.
The rest of what you said is also true, but doesn't need specifically addressed. The lawsuits I am speaking of is not a general liability type of suit, it is where a company acted illegally in ignoring safety or some other regulation which resulted in the employee's injury or death. An example might be a construction worker was ordered to go on top of a pitched roof in the middle of winter with ice and snow on it without the proper safety equipment or else face termination- which resulted in his or her injury or death.
Most work place accidents are no fault and worker's comp is supposed to cover medical costs and compensate for some lost wages. But when the employer acts in an intentional or egregious conduct, you sometimes have the ability to go outside the worker's comp system. This has generally always been the case but varies from state to state insomuch as what the bar is for intentional or egregious conduct. The state may have the bar so high that it is almost impossible to be a practical remedy but those states generally fine excessively and hold employer's criminally liable for violations.
Here are a few resources that show a little more details on the potential for lawsuits. Note, these are not simple accidents, they all involve the employer doing something intentionally unsafe without regard to safety or established protocols.
It is more complicated then that. The comparison needs to involve details such as age of the vehicle and modifications/repair work done to it. Most vehicles that are new (within a few years) will not catch fire in accidents in which the occupants are not seriously injured. Most vehicle fires in cars not involved in serious crashes that I am aware of are generally the result if improperly performed maintenance, neglected repairs, or modifications and typically happen to cars that are aged.
If new cars, unmodified, were catching fire and burning up due to modest damage, you would see all sorts of issues surrounding it due to the past with Ford and GM and their gas tank issues. This persecution of cars catching fire is not new, it is only new tech involved. Remember the Pinto and side mounded fuel tanks on GM trucks?
It's no more after tesla then Ralph Nader was after GM when he insisted in safety improvements that doomed the Vega and led to the class action lawsuit against Ford over the gas tanks in the pintos which GM also had an issue with later in their side mounted fuel tanks.
There are known hazards that shouldn't cause fires or risk of death to anyone. These known hazards do include road debris and collisions with the later being far more difficult to protect against. The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety unless Tesla is going to be a Ford or GM and refuse to make minor modifications in the name of safety because the cost of implementing it so far is more then claims paid on it.
In the past, all you needed to do was keep records within your office of workplace injuries that do not need to be reported and post summaries once a year so employees could see them. The problem is, a guy shows up to work feeling bad and has a heart attack on the production floor. Is that a workplace injury or is that just the guy being ill? The new employee flips out and drives his car through the front of the store after his shift because a customer said he was too incompetent to take his order, and that customer was sitting in front of the window. Is this a work place injury or an illegal act? How about if it wasn't an angry employee at the end of their shift and a person who is having a heart attack or stroke while driving home from the grocery store and veers into the store front?
There is the problem. So many things are either out of the control of the employer or are an acceptable risk. Safety protocol says if you are working over 10 feet in the air, you need either a safety harness to arrest your fall or guardrails. So when your shoe lace comes untied and you fall with the guardrails breaking your arm or the safety harness jerking you hard enough to break a rib, does that count as a workplace injury and if so, how is it distinguished between one due to an unsafe work environment verses an unfortunate accident that might or might not have been worse if the safety features weren't in place?
Corrective actions taken is entirely proper. OSHA and MSHA do not exist to penalize companies but to implement and enforce a standard that makes working there relatively safe. If a boss orders you to do something that is against OSHA policies, you have the ability to personally sue them. OSHA has the ability to ensure they do not do it again which can mean corrective action like retraining employees and supervisors or using different safety equipment.
Cash settlements and fines should be reserved for repetitive violations. And remember, regardless of OSHA fines or action, the employee retains a right to recover damages independent of OSHA. In fact, OSHA makes it easier because their regulation is the de facto industry minimum.
It isn't even as convoluted as that. If a person has a claim against any company that required them to miss work, there will be a gap in their employment record. All anyone would have to do is look at the application, then search the previous company for any gaps in employment. What's this, some employees had a claim that costs 200k about the time this guy was unemployed? oh, and it is a back injury, well, I guess we will put this in the if there is no one else pile.
It doesn't even need to identify them. Just associating them with time periods would be close enough. It will certainly include innocent people but why would a prospective employer be concerned with that.
Or something I know specifically that happened. When I was younger I worked as a line cook at a restaurant. One day a dishwasher was bringing plated to the line and stacked them so high, he couldn't see in front of himself as he walked. He stepped on a dolly used to move glassware to the front of the house and fell over busting most of the plates and almost severing his middle finger on his right hand completely off. It was literally hanging by a thread of flesh.
Needless to say, they were able to re-attache his finger but one of the bosses told another which I over heard that the only reason he wasn't fired and the medical challenged is because he tried to save the plates instead of dropping them to save himself. This is clearly a case of an employee intentionally not being safe which caused a serious accident. It went against the company I worked for because no one fought the claims against it. While I'm not sure I agree with the companies being able to fight accident claims of workers on the job, I'm betting a lot more of them might do so in the future if they are made public and so easily accessible.
High costs of healthcare is largely due to government involvement in healthcare. It is the single largest factor involved when you look at it.
In 1965, medicare was born and shortly after, the US government attempted to use HMO's to reduce costs. Part of this costs reduction was specifically what you mentioned as in refusing to pay for anything preventative and focusing on actual claims and damages or as you put it, capitalistic greed. The HMO act in the early to mid 70's allowed HMOs to do the same as was a specific attempt at the government to control the medicare costs that seemed to surpass the most liberal estimates. The Federal government divided the country into several economic groups and would only pay a average of the costs for a procedure in each group. What this meant was that if something costs $100 to do profitably at an urban provider and some rural provider who doesn't have the same overhead can do it for $40, the government would only pay $70 which might be below the urban provider's costs. So the medical industry jacks up it's costs in order to get the $100 after the average and the HMO's have a fit. The US government steps in and says if you are offering discounts, then the costs before discount is what they will use for the averaging. So now the government and the HMO's and PPOs get steep discounts to outrageous costing structures designed to satisfy the save money mandate without the recipients receiving less. This problem is further exacerbated by medicare and medicaid now paying only a portion of the average which induces the prices to go up again.
Now, all this was done by well meaning people, generally the same people who were pushing for single payer anyways. People like Ted Kennedy who has stepped up to rescue the health care system time and time again while all along avoiding the fact that the problems people complain about are the results of the last time he saved it.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those hands off people who think the government has no roles in medical care or insurance (which for some reason people cannot distinguish between the two), but the government stepping in is what caused the biggest run up of medical costs in US history and this advent will be no different. The government will not be the answer unless it is willing to seriously look at the problem and people like you who only look at part of the problem will only make it worse.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only sort of right. It is true that the US doesn't use Iranian oil, however, the oil it does or did import displaced oil other countries could use so it in effect would have had the same impacts as if the US was doing so. Let's look at this from a simple point of view. Suppose the world in it's entirety produced 10 units of oil per day. From that 10 units of oil, every single country and business that wanted to, could purchase and use oil at about $100 a subunit if it didn't already create their needs themselves. Now suppose the US of some other random country all the sudden decides that a producer cannot produce and sell 1 unit of oil. Now, whether the US or other random country ever purchased oil from them or not, the entire world has to get buy with 9 units total or ignore the sanctions to maintain the 10 units. That is unless the one unit was made up somewhere else allowing the sanctions to hold and creating 10 units.
The oil markets are not per country but rather world wide and drops in production in one area will globally impact prices if it isn't made up somewhere else. The US us making it up somewhere else.
This is probably more true then anything. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a bit crazy, he was a twelver to start with but also held a grudge against the US for how they handled Iran's attempt to help with Afghanistan. So it was like telling a bi-polar girlfriend that her sister is cuter than she is or the dress she is wearing doesn't make her look as fat as the other ones. Most of the "freakish" anti western sentiment can be traced to the coalition forces booting his troops from Afghanistan making him look bad and his believe in the twelfth Imam coming back and delivering paradise.
Rare muffler bearings, you do realise those are made of platinum and are what makes catalytic converters so expensive and attrackable to thieves selling scrap right?
Seriously, the converters with the bearings inside them are worth the most for scrap. Of couse the beads aren't really bearings but they look just like small ball bearings with the race.
And undrr US law, fair use is considered a defense against a violation which makes it problematic because fair use posses the potential of risk that might not be completely disbursed if the somewhat costly legal system fails it.
People do make mistakes though and i'm not sure this shouldn't be viewed as one. Perhaps the site gets an official license out of the deal. Time will tell
I don't think fibre would cover the situations these are being targeted for. It is more of a mobile environment where a hardline connection isn't available. Imagine a news truck editing some interview feed and shooting it back to the station to air on the news in 10 minutes or so. Imagine an engineering firm sending an inspector to a remote location to see the progress of a project or potential damage so preparation can be made for repairs earlier and he sends video feeds back in real time so the firm can assess other areas to look into.
These are functions that a satellite link has typically been used for that a wireless plan might save some cash on. These are also functions where a fiber connect may not be available or was disabled somehow (building fire, natural disaster, vandalism and many other reasons).
They weren't legal at one time. The problem is a black market popped up making some people more powerful then the government itself. Of course this is largely the same situation with illegal drugs but society didn't care enough about them to amend the US constitution to allow them.
Enough people do turn into irresponsible idiots when they are drunk and high that laws prohibiting those behaviors have been made. We are suffering because of those idiots and I don't think it is a good idea to take the laws away and allow it to happen all over with again even if that is under the guise of harming or killing yourself because it often kills or harms others in the process. IF we look at the states that have legalized pot usage, we find the controlled dope is actually more expensive then the black market dope so all the problems with addicts stealing and everything else is will still be there. Except it will be compounded because more people will have access which means there will be more addicts.
The new rule wouldn't be included in many if any of those results unless the stoves already went above and beyond the existing rule. Any time there is a rule change, it is generally set on a manufacture date which means that while everything produced before the rule went into effect might not comply with the new rules, they certainly can be EPA compliant because they only have to be compliant under the rules they were subject to.
This is typically true up to a certain time where the rules forbid the sale of anything not compliant with the new rules. However, that will not necessarily be today.
lol.. You act as if this is legislation.
It is not, it is regulation put in place by operatives of the administration without congressional input or voting on it at all. I'm betting that a lot of people would have an entirely different opinion on the matter if congress actually voted on this or was involved with it more so then empowering the administration several decades ago to create regulation with the effect of law.
The same thing that happened to the land of the free.
Your destiny is determined by the powers to be now, not your own free will. Now quit trying to save money and find some money to get insurance else be fined without due process of law because even though you have never been to the emergency room in your life or failed to pay your medical bills, we all know you go to the emergency room and charge up a huge bills then not pay it so it ends up costing everyone who already could afford insurance more and we cannot have that- except we are fixing it by doing just that.
You idiot, now you got me confused.
Another problem is that unless it is to repair and replace something, often apartment buildings lose any other grandfathered code items. For instance, I used to own two 6 unit rental properties located right beside each other. If I wanted to install more efficient heating and cooling in those units, I would also have to update the wiring to the entire lot because the code change about 10 years after they were built, I would have to add fire escapes to every one of the second story levels of the unites with 2 stories, I would have to replace the stove and refrigerator with new energy saving models, and I never could get a complete answer, but I think I would have had to replace the windows to be up to code.
When looking, and this was a good couple of years ago, I sold them since, it was going to be cheaper to evict everyone and rebuild with new 4 unit apartments because the zoning code and building code required costs less in a new construction than retrofiring existing buildings. That is of course, is if I did anything to bring everything up to the current code that wasn't mandatory and grandfathered in. But if I waited until the AC and heating units failed, I could repair and replace them without having to go through the rest of the costly code updates.
So not only is the person paying to install the appliances not the one paying the bill for their usage, they are often encouraged not to change things or be penalized if they attempt to upgrade any of it out of concern for the residents, environment, or whatever else tickles their fancy through the loss of being grandfathered in one other code changes.
But you cannot say it will never happen because of how these fires actually start. The debris in the road doesn't puncture something flammable and then spark to ignite it. The cause is a malfunction in one or more of the battery cells which either independently or collaboratively build up heat until the point something is ignited. This can/could happen while the person is still driving or it can/could happen if he parks the car somewhere- including inside his garage. Of course all that is negated if the heat and henceforth fire risk is only capable while energy is being expelled from the car in which case driving it would be a requirement. But the point of all this is that we do not know until everything is investigated which is why the what if is perfectly valid.
No, the reason the fire is being investigated is because Ford and GM at certain points in time in the past actually did not care and refused to fix the problems. No one is waiting for dead people in order to investigate first, they are proactively investigating and possibly bringing more brain power to the table at the US tax payer's dime to determine how these are happening and what a reasonable fix could be.
Assigning blame to this is sort of like complaining you are being picked on for having to stop at red lights when history shows us that people who do not, they can end up in fatal accidents. It simply doesn't exist so stop being overly zealous.
I don't think anyone is bitching about anything until half cocked defenders like you jump in criticizing everything because some pet of yours is involved so that somehow means all facts, history, and logic do not apply.
Generally, they dent and that is all. I am very familiar with poking holes in gas tanks as most scrap yards require it when scrapping vehicles. I have two wreckers and scrapping vehicles for insurance companies and removing junk vehicles from people's property at their request is one of the things we use them for. The fuel tanks on modern vehicles are designed to absorb pressure like what you mention and displace it over a larger area of the tank rather then just the impact zone.
The worst that would happen to the engine is that the oil pan would puncture or dent to a point that would cause the oil pressure to drop and the engine to have problems (generally locking up if a safety switch didn't shut it down first). There is minimal risk of fire due to this. This is also unlike the fires in the EVs as in those cases, the batteries themselves created the heat and resulting fire after being damaged.
Won't be preventable is not an
And the smell of raw gasoline wouldn't have done the same? I don't think there is anything special about telling a driver to pull over because you are going to burn to the ground when the entire point is that the car shouldn't be burning up in the first place. Sure, it might be safer then dumping 5 gallons of gas on a brush pile and standing right beside it with matches to light it, but still, I'm pretty sure the thing isn't supposed to be going up in flames.
There is very little that could cause a fire in a gasoline automobile if it struck something like the tesla did. At best, the starter wires would separate, ground out, then after the insulation burned off, likely separate from where it was shorting. Most lead acid batteries are designed to separate the positive pole internally if amperage draw exceeds a set amount for a specific time. This is created by designing a part to fail in that case making the potential for fire even less.
As for the car being damage or destroyed, I do not think anyone but their owners really care about that.
Yes, and unlike Pinto and GM issues, no one in their right mind is going to wait until hundreds of fires and several dozen people get injured or killed before determining there might be a problem that costs less to keep and pay out claims then it would to fix while countless other instances keep racking up. This statement is precisely the type Ford and GM were making when they knew their design was dangerous to the public.
And what happens when the damage prevents it from warning the driver and fumes overwhelm the occupants? What happens when the damage is small enough not to trip the warnings until after the driver parked it in their garage or right next to your car and left the lot? You cannot say that will never happen unless you know specifically what is causing the fires when the damage happens.
I'm betting you do not have the slightest clue about the Ford Pinto or GM truck fuel tank issues or why it is even close to being pertinent here. If you did, you wouldn't ever have made the comment you just did. And no, a warning about catastrophic failure is not engineering well, it is a freaking warning because the engineering was particularly incapable of handling an expected event.
Lol.. you made a point about what you think but aren't actually correct so your point is useless. As I already said, you were wrong. You being wrong and me pointing it out does not need to result in you blowing a gasket. Of course I am dealing with what ifs because they are the exception to your rule that makes you incorrect.
BTW, you are still wrong and it seems you failed to comprehend what I said again, I have never been on Gov disability just off on WC due to injury and when I had my two surgeries.
Now here is a suggestion for you. Stop thinking you know everything and actually pay attention to what someone else is telling you. You will likely learn something and fewer people will be telling you how wrong you are or asking what the hell is wrong with your reading comprehension. You might even blow fewer gaskets and have an overall superior mental health because of it too. Now take your lorazepam, Eskalith, and call your therapist before replying again.
Not unless the gas tank was moved to the front of the vehicle. And even then, if it didn't catch fire, it likely would have only leaked. The batteries actually create heat and catch fire.
I know people are scared of gas but gas cars actually have a few safety system built into them specifically because there were problems with fire in the past. This is no different so I do not understand why all the fanboyism trying to but but but everything. When gas cars went to electric fuel pumps, the fuel kept pumping with the key on and engine off so they put inertia sensors in them to cut the pumps if an impact was detected. There is also a circuit in most electronic fuel injected cars that will not allow the pump to run unless the motor is running. It measures the spark and if it is not present, outside of energizing when the key is first turned on, it will not pump the fuel. When we went to electronic fuel injection, the head pressure was at one point actually increased so a fuel line leak would cause the car to either stop or run so poorly the driver would pull over. The fuel tanks are designed to contain spillage in the vast majority of collisions and are tucked away so that it takes a serious impact to damage them. There are even anti siphon valves on the fuel line in order to prevent the fuel from flowing if a line is cut and and the car is off.
Most of these safety features were designed and implemented due to the small risk of fires over several dozen years. So we have primarily one manufacturer of EVs and it happens that there are some fires when specific problems happen. The solution is not to say, well, other cars can do it to, but to find a way to prevent it from happening or determine if it is such a rare position that it doesn't happen often. Maybe something as simple as replacing the aluminum shielding with a stronger composite material or perhaps steel and biting the weight disadvantage is the answer. Perhaps using rubber bushings in the plate in order to allow some of the impact energy to be displaced instead of all being absorbed is the answer but we will not know unless we understand the mechanisms causing the fires first.
I will repeat The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety.
I noticed you failed to log in to post your uninciteful comment. I probably shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but the point wasn't that gasoline cars do not catch fire or that you are always completely safe, it is that what causes them to catch fire is well known and mitigated to an acceptable level of safety and you should be aware of situations existing due to smell of the fuel while what is causing the Tesla's to catch fire (which it seems to mostly be these teslas and not other EVs) is not well understood except for damage to a certain part of the vehicle seems to be associated with them.
the point is that an investigation can point to ways to mitigate the tesla's fire hazard to a point they are as safe or safer then gas cars. Now I know you are likely a fanboy who doesn't have facts or reality on their side and instead resorts to ad hominem but it seriously does appear that this dumbass is running circles around you in the intelligence department on this one. I personally do not care if gas cars catch fire or if the fact that some EVs have caught fire or even that it hurts your feelings to the point of almost crying. I can if a product being sold to people is actually safe and if not, what can be done to make it as safe as practically possible. Now please sit down and let the adults talk for a bit.
IS reading comprehension not a strong trait of yours? I specifically quoted what you said that validated my claim. "until you accept Gov disability or your long term disability plan runs out or you guys make a settlement." You said it right?
No, the claim was not over, I was still under doctors care and only allowed to return to work with restrictions on lifting, movement, and even the amount of time I could be sitting at that time. It took another 6 years and two operations to clear the claim and it is technically open unless I don't file against it for ten consecutive years.
There are people who become injured at work who will never be able to work in that line again. There may be no possible way for the employer to offer work that the person could do. However the job they are applying for might by default meet their restrictions if they are otherwise qualified for or they may have received retraining in order to become employes at a different job. This is not uncommon with serious workplace injuries.
As stated in my example, I was laid off because there was no work I could do. This evidently isn't illegal in most states if there is reason other then the worker's comp claim for the lay off. (this was in Ohio too). And yes, I had a lawyer for several reasons, one of them being that the medical office I was sent to (read office and not hospital) failed to even Xray my back until after the 5th or 6th day and completely missed the problem disc that the specialist later noticed within a few seconds of seeing the Xray. I didn't see the specialist until I was sent to a real hospital after complaining about the lack of leg functionality. But because of the bungling the first medical staff did, the employer's insurance attempted to fight everything and I had to go through 3 BWC hearings it seemed like just to get tests approved like an MRI. It was a mess.
Perhaps "can be" instead of "will be" is a better match for words. Of course not everyone will have this problem, but definitely can. The rest of your post seems to be under an incorrect assumption or outside me specifically and I agree with it so I will not address it.
The problem isn't whether the car would of or would not have taken damage. The problem is that a fire is capable of spreading and causing serious other problems outside of the car. Suppose the damage happened but the fire didn't until the car was parked inside your garage that is connected to your home.
But more appropriately, the solution to the fires may be found in the investigations of the situation where something simple like an automatic resetting breaker between battery banks could contain the damage to less of the battery pack making it less likely to build enough heat up to cause fire. Perhaps the 1/4 inch armor which is not steel but aluminum could be a small sheet of steel sandwiched between two small aluminum plates or even layers of polycarbonate between steel or aluminum to absorb impact forces instead of deflecting the total force could stop the issues. Maybe something as simple as allowing the batteries to raise several inches on impacts over a certain force in order to displace some of the energy and retain structural integrity could be the answer.
I don't believe it has anything to do with EVs as a whole as most of them are not catching fire. This has to do with an engineering issue or possible a design limitation that needs addressed before it turns into another Ford Pinto or GM truck side fuel tank issue where the fire issues were ignored because the costs of fixing it was more then liability- until the big lawsuits happened.
I find it strange that you act as if I know nothing but then go ahead and run to prove what I mentioned. Obviously if you cut your finger and take a day off, you are not going to have any gaps in employment. But when "Simply put, your genitals have been turned to jelly. The doctors do what they can to save your manhood, but it's a lost cause." as the GP mentioned happens, there will likely be a gap in employment.
Also, I have been laid off after a worker's comp claim. I blew a disc in my back apart when a 55 gallon drum of contaminated soil fell on me I couldn't move my legs for 2 weeks because of the inflammation on my spinal cord. I came back to work with limitations and after a week from my return, I was laid off because there wasn't anything I could realistically do there. The state wouldn't let me sue for this layoff and unemployment compensation requires you to be fit for work which my medical restrictions didn't quite satisfy. ( I could probably had found a lawyer willing to try but working paycheck to paycheck left that out of my price range) Finally, after about 3 weeks of unemployment, the unemployment representative bent the rules unofficially and granted compensation until my doctor found out and took me off work completely for another 5 months. I'm glad the guy sitting next to you has more options then I did.
The rest of what you said is also true, but doesn't need specifically addressed. The lawsuits I am speaking of is not a general liability type of suit, it is where a company acted illegally in ignoring safety or some other regulation which resulted in the employee's injury or death. An example might be a construction worker was ordered to go on top of a pitched roof in the middle of winter with ice and snow on it without the proper safety equipment or else face termination- which resulted in his or her injury or death.
Most work place accidents are no fault and worker's comp is supposed to cover medical costs and compensate for some lost wages. But when the employer acts in an intentional or egregious conduct, you sometimes have the ability to go outside the worker's comp system. This has generally always been the case but varies from state to state insomuch as what the bar is for intentional or egregious conduct. The state may have the bar so high that it is almost impossible to be a practical remedy but those states generally fine excessively and hold employer's criminally liable for violations.
Here are a few resources that show a little more details on the potential for lawsuits. Note, these are not simple accidents, they all involve the employer doing something intentionally unsafe without regard to safety or established protocols.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-injury-lawsuit-sue-30334.html
http://www.coleschotz.com/?t=40&an=14486&format=xml&p=5198
http://www.laffeybuccikent.com/can-an-employee-sue-an-employer-for-a-work-accident-in-pennsylvania/
And here is a couple about employers going to jail
http://www.thehortongroup.com/Insurance_Library/Tell_A_Tale__Go_to_Jail
http://safety.blr.com/workplace-safety-news/safety-administration/workplace-accidents/CalOSHA-Referral-Leads-to-Fines-Jail-Time-for-Cont/
http://www.fpcwlaw.com/blog/2013/09/workplace-fatalities-lead-to-jail-time-for-executive.shtml
It is more complicated then that. The comparison needs to involve details such as age of the vehicle and modifications/repair work done to it. Most vehicles that are new (within a few years) will not catch fire in accidents in which the occupants are not seriously injured. Most vehicle fires in cars not involved in serious crashes that I am aware of are generally the result if improperly performed maintenance, neglected repairs, or modifications and typically happen to cars that are aged.
If new cars, unmodified, were catching fire and burning up due to modest damage, you would see all sorts of issues surrounding it due to the past with Ford and GM and their gas tank issues. This persecution of cars catching fire is not new, it is only new tech involved. Remember the Pinto and side mounded fuel tanks on GM trucks?
It's no more after tesla then Ralph Nader was after GM when he insisted in safety improvements that doomed the Vega and led to the class action lawsuit against Ford over the gas tanks in the pintos which GM also had an issue with later in their side mounted fuel tanks.
There are known hazards that shouldn't cause fires or risk of death to anyone. These known hazards do include road debris and collisions with the later being far more difficult to protect against. The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety unless Tesla is going to be a Ford or GM and refuse to make minor modifications in the name of safety because the cost of implementing it so far is more then claims paid on it.
This is already misleading. You do not currently need to report injuries that do not result in 3 or more employees being hospitalized to OSHA.
https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/index.html
In the past, all you needed to do was keep records within your office of workplace injuries that do not need to be reported and post summaries once a year so employees could see them. The problem is, a guy shows up to work feeling bad and has a heart attack on the production floor. Is that a workplace injury or is that just the guy being ill? The new employee flips out and drives his car through the front of the store after his shift because a customer said he was too incompetent to take his order, and that customer was sitting in front of the window. Is this a work place injury or an illegal act? How about if it wasn't an angry employee at the end of their shift and a person who is having a heart attack or stroke while driving home from the grocery store and veers into the store front?
There is the problem. So many things are either out of the control of the employer or are an acceptable risk. Safety protocol says if you are working over 10 feet in the air, you need either a safety harness to arrest your fall or guardrails. So when your shoe lace comes untied and you fall with the guardrails breaking your arm or the safety harness jerking you hard enough to break a rib, does that count as a workplace injury and if so, how is it distinguished between one due to an unsafe work environment verses an unfortunate accident that might or might not have been worse if the safety features weren't in place?
Corrective actions taken is entirely proper. OSHA and MSHA do not exist to penalize companies but to implement and enforce a standard that makes working there relatively safe. If a boss orders you to do something that is against OSHA policies, you have the ability to personally sue them. OSHA has the ability to ensure they do not do it again which can mean corrective action like retraining employees and supervisors or using different safety equipment.
Cash settlements and fines should be reserved for repetitive violations. And remember, regardless of OSHA fines or action, the employee retains a right to recover damages independent of OSHA. In fact, OSHA makes it easier because their regulation is the de facto industry minimum.
It isn't even as convoluted as that. If a person has a claim against any company that required them to miss work, there will be a gap in their employment record. All anyone would have to do is look at the application, then search the previous company for any gaps in employment. What's this, some employees had a claim that costs 200k about the time this guy was unemployed? oh, and it is a back injury, well, I guess we will put this in the if there is no one else pile.
It doesn't even need to identify them. Just associating them with time periods would be close enough. It will certainly include innocent people but why would a prospective employer be concerned with that.
Or something I know specifically that happened. When I was younger I worked as a line cook at a restaurant. One day a dishwasher was bringing plated to the line and stacked them so high, he couldn't see in front of himself as he walked. He stepped on a dolly used to move glassware to the front of the house and fell over busting most of the plates and almost severing his middle finger on his right hand completely off. It was literally hanging by a thread of flesh.
Needless to say, they were able to re-attache his finger but one of the bosses told another which I over heard that the only reason he wasn't fired and the medical challenged is because he tried to save the plates instead of dropping them to save himself. This is clearly a case of an employee intentionally not being safe which caused a serious accident. It went against the company I worked for because no one fought the claims against it. While I'm not sure I agree with the companies being able to fight accident claims of workers on the job, I'm betting a lot more of them might do so in the future if they are made public and so easily accessible.
High costs of healthcare is largely due to government involvement in healthcare. It is the single largest factor involved when you look at it.
In 1965, medicare was born and shortly after, the US government attempted to use HMO's to reduce costs. Part of this costs reduction was specifically what you mentioned as in refusing to pay for anything preventative and focusing on actual claims and damages or as you put it, capitalistic greed. The HMO act in the early to mid 70's allowed HMOs to do the same as was a specific attempt at the government to control the medicare costs that seemed to surpass the most liberal estimates. The Federal government divided the country into several economic groups and would only pay a average of the costs for a procedure in each group. What this meant was that if something costs $100 to do profitably at an urban provider and some rural provider who doesn't have the same overhead can do it for $40, the government would only pay $70 which might be below the urban provider's costs. So the medical industry jacks up it's costs in order to get the $100 after the average and the HMO's have a fit. The US government steps in and says if you are offering discounts, then the costs before discount is what they will use for the averaging. So now the government and the HMO's and PPOs get steep discounts to outrageous costing structures designed to satisfy the save money mandate without the recipients receiving less. This problem is further exacerbated by medicare and medicaid now paying only a portion of the average which induces the prices to go up again.
Now, all this was done by well meaning people, generally the same people who were pushing for single payer anyways. People like Ted Kennedy who has stepped up to rescue the health care system time and time again while all along avoiding the fact that the problems people complain about are the results of the last time he saved it.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those hands off people who think the government has no roles in medical care or insurance (which for some reason people cannot distinguish between the two), but the government stepping in is what caused the biggest run up of medical costs in US history and this advent will be no different. The government will not be the answer unless it is willing to seriously look at the problem and people like you who only look at part of the problem will only make it worse.