Yes I would say he should be held accountable for manslaughter if faulty equipment sold under false pretenses caused anyone's death. Not Murder 1 sure, but it fits: by your actions someone died, your actions weren't intended to cause death but could have those consequences, your actions were illegal and harmful and malicious, therefor you are responsible for death.
Categorically false. When the United States decided to levy an income tax, it was and is still considered possibly unconstitutional (but accepted). One of the biggest factors was that the government doesn't have a right to know how much money you make--the government does not have a constitutional grant of power to know how much an individual is being paid, and indeed an individual is supposed to have immunity from such warrantless demands of information on their personal lives. Businesses have to disclose what business they do (and thus tariffs are levied), but not how much they bring in or what they pay workers, and so this is very well protected.
Not protected anymore: we accepted income tax. Income and property tax used to not be a thing. We still don't have an asset tax because, for the moment, we still believe the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to stick its nose in your purse and see how much money you have. Apparently we let them watch when you move it around, though.
Those organizations are not beyond reproach, nor are the 'po po' as you put it. In fact modern police are militarized assholes and the modern prison system is effectively a source of slave labor for private enterprise, essentially an economic subsidy by which American jobs are undermined by locking up Americans and forcing them to work for a quarter an hour doing a job that would normally be filled by an un-incarcerated American at $15/hr. This is vastly less capital-intensive for businesses, hence why it's a 'subsidy'.
I'm sure you don't want to abolish the police and prison systems, though. Just as well, the number of government economic functions we have are in some cases overreach and in other cases not enough; we need to trim the overreach and prop up the ones doing not enough--without giving them more powers they're not supposed to have in the process.
Healthcare is one of the best examples, because it's so tricky to get right. Socialized healthcare systems are either expensive or ineffective (or both); privatized healthcare systems tend to develop into a web of terrible, terrible problems. Some measure of insurance regulation has kept our systems from spiraling out of control into a mess of rent-seeking behavior, but it's still fugly; and then there's the litigation machine that attacks doctors for not being perfect (and often for not making any mistakes, just not magically curing the incurable). Further, even in a healthy private system, a baseline of public healthcare additionally provides great benefits to the economy: it reduces the spread of disease and the incidence of crippling injury (i.e. an untreated sprain, something that simple, can disable you for life), providing a bigger and more stable labor base and reducing sickness among the upper class (who can pay for healthcare, but are always getting infected by diseases that fester among the poor); yet a full-scale public health system is, again, expensive and/or ineffective.
One of the best ways to handle public healthcare services is to assess operating fees and indicate that healthcare providers must provide a baseline of X% service to the public. Let doctors roll into the location they're at, so a private practice taking in $10M/year has to supply 1% of $10M or $0.1M, while a $100B hospital has to supply $1B of public service. Specify that the service supplied has to be actual cost (so a $150k heart surgery that the hospital spends all of $5000 on after salaries, equipment, medications, etc. cuts in by $5000), and that a baseline of general healthcare services (vaccination, bone and sprain sets, etc) must be supplied and all else is elective. Thus it's not any better for the hospital to supply 1 chemo treatment to waste $1B than it is to give 100 million cold vaccinations at $10 each total cost.
Why is this one of the best ways? Because it satisfies the need for a baseline public healthcare system to keep the labor force viable and to prevent the spread of debilitating disease; but it imposes as little government fuckery on the healthcare industry as possible. The business already has to do accounting (you can't run a business without doing this, your business will fail even if the government stays out of it); we're just asking to see a certain set of pages out of their books. The hospitals and doctors are being told to be hospitals and doctors, nothing more. Taxes aren't levied. Business is adjusted, the market decides how. The whole thing becomes a cost of entry into a certain market (like paying for the lease on the building and land), with a minimal of actual regulation and dictation of how to be a hospital or a doctor.
Instead, we have Obamacare, which is Romneycare, which is a cash cow for insurance providers (and even then, the insurance providers hate it because it's expensive as hell for them to comply with) and bad for taxpayers and consumers. Canada, England, etc have their own iffy systems. Germany seems to do okay. Canada gets by because it's a private healthcare system: Canada
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component.
The theory exists without the political component. The practice exists... when you're on Gilligan's Island and can't survive in any other form (yeah, full-scale socialism is the only viable way for a group to survive when there's all of 6 of you and resources are extremely low... once you're bigger than a classroom full of school children, not so much). Trying to quantify that the practice can't exist without the political component is short-sighted in two ways: First off the practice doesn't exist in any meaningful way; and second, in the extreme situations where such practices do exist (a few people stranded on a remote island), the natural leader is essentially elected--when he becomes bad for the group, he is swiftly removed. It seems that, perhaps, socialism *only* exists with strong democratic rights... though it only exists in effectively meaningless situations.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
You mean like the Police, the US. Department of Agricultural; the Federal Food and Drug Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Communications Commission; the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration; Congress; etc?
I'm going to show up at your house and steal your truck (no, your little shotgun won't help; I'll watch from 2 miles away with binoculars and steal it when you're preoccupied elsewhere out with your buddy tailgating in HIS truck, I'm not dumb), and when the police show up I'll tell them I'm being oppressed and they can't tromp on my rights because they're part of a socialist empire of regulations funded by money stolen by the government.
Someone who advocates socialism as a complete system is a socialist. That much is pretty much clear: you join the socialist party, you say the Government should control and dictate all economic behaviors.
Someone who advocates capitalism is a capitalist. That much is pretty clear: you join the capitalists party (I guess there really is none--the Libertarians sometimes pretend theirs is, but it's not really), you advocate the removal of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, you advocate that businesses should do whatever they want, non-interference, laisse faire.
The problem is (we agree that Socialism doesn't work, so we'll ignore this completely) that capitalism doesn't work. Free market capitalism means Microsoft doesn't abuse its monopoly and Disney doesn't own everything... because John D. Rockerfeller got there first and bought Carnegie Steel (nice try, Andy, but you're the smaller giant). John D. Rockerfeller's estate, now in the hands of people several generations down the line, later acquired Disney, IBM, Microsoft, Ford, Chrysler, GM, General Foods, Kraft, Monsanto, all the farm land, the New York Stock Exchange, the banks, etc. If you want to eat, you do business with the surviving estate of John D. Rockerfeller. Rockerfeller everything.
And I'm wrong. Roads cost too much money and are uncontrollable; Rockerfeller Rail would have sponsored mass transit. For a constant fee. Ford wouldn't be a thing because cars wouldn't be a thing because rail is the only thing and Rockerfeller Rail owns rail.
To avert this, we had anti-trust laws; but anti-trust laws didn't exactly do it. The Government laid roads and continues to maintain them with Taxpayer money. Now mass transit kind of fails and the railroads barely exist; those that do exist are largely subsidized by government. Now, if you ask any socialist, they'll tell you that public transit and rail are a good thing, and the Government should step in and take over all rail, build rail lines, and just raise taxes to pay for it. You know, socialism applied specifically to rail transit just as socialism has been applied to road transit.
While we're at it, how about we also put the socialist hat on and have the Government take over all US airline companies and control air travel? Sea travel? The government controls water; why not Government phone, Government electricity? While we're doing power and utilities, why not Government gas, and thus Government oil, and Government mining for Government coal?
That's socialism.
However, what private enterprise could maintain roads? How would we feel about private enterprise maintaining roads? What would be the downsides? Do we instead want the Government to maintain the roads? We have socialist road infrastructure, and socialist public school, and semi-socialist farms and universities. Some of this is good, some is bad. You call it "Public Infrastructure," but it's really just "Applied Socialism in moderation". The Government has taken away a market and chosen to run it itself, with money it takes away from the people, and with restrictions on the people running in that market. Like the Post Office.
Notice this is all economics, not really so much individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc. This is a matter of infrastructure and of business, not of established individual rights. We, as a people, could vote to have the Government throw out the banks, the auto makers, and the utility companies, so that we have socialized Internet, phone, energy, gas, healthcare, roads, banking, and so on. Some would be by fee (like water, energy, etc) and some would be by tax (like roads). We would still be a free, democratic people with individual rights and due process and all; just with a socialist economic system. Too much socialism, really.
We could vote it back away, too... but the transition would be hard, and people abhor change.
One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.
You respond to my discussion about socialism vs authoritarianism by pretending I wrote "Socialist" instead of "Authoritarian".
Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists. That means Republicans are more for free market capitalism, but more for social control--for arresting people and jailing them for shit like sex and drugs, for offending their puritin values, etc. Democrats are more for more government control of the economy, but the more liberal democrats tend to be hippies who want drugs legalized (and want free everything for everyone).
Monarchies, dictatorships, and the like can be capitalistic economically. Democracies can be socialistic in nature--Germany just before WW2 was quickly becoming a Socialist Democratic state, which is what Hitler reversed (he deduced that people were becoming Social Democrats because of the Jewish run media, so decided to exterminate the Jews and implement fascism). America is becoming a Socialist Democratic state as well--one where we ostensibly have Due Process, Rights, etc, but are spiraling toward bigger government with more government services such as socialized healthcare and socialized economic bounding (i.e. "bail-outs" because "big businesses can't fail, it hurts jobs", among other stupid shit like the government purchasing 400,000 pounds of CANE SUGAR to KEEP SUGAR PRICES HIGH because "we need to support the sugar industry" ugh... at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in GDP economic activity).
You don't understand systems of government and systems of economics. At all.
We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.
Categorically false. Chromosome counts are the lay-explanation; but notably, DNA comes in pairs. You have a gene for blue eyes... on one set of your DNA. You also have a second complete set of human DNA, the entire genome, which is matched and sequenced correctly. In this set is the gene for brown eyes. This determines your eye color.
If your genetics don't match up properly, your chromosomes can't pair correctly and they can't do the job of supplying genetic data. You need a complete set of homologous chromosomes to create offspring, aside from the gender-determining chromosomes which are slightly different (i.e. an XX pair for male seagulls versus an XY pair for female seagulls).
Chromosome counts being wrong obviously means the data's incompatible, either by being wrong or being theoretically compatible but mismatched and incapable of aligning and interacting. Also the chromosomes may have different structure--the crossing vertex may occur at a different point (i.e. the intersection of the X is higher/lower), or at the ends (producing a V or a straight line); the position of genes may be completely wrong, shuffled around different chromosomes, or there may be non-existent genes etc; the chromosomes may even just be larger/smaller. Obviously, drastic changes must occur to have different chromosome counts--different genes, different layout of the same genes (i.e. more compact, less junk, longer/shorter chromosomes), and the like. Drastic changes may occur without changing the number or even major structure of the chromosomes, yet produce something completely incompatible.
Honestly, some women die when impregnated, because they're too small for babies. Are these women who cannot give birth without dying and killing the baby as well a different species? Do they need smaller men?
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens
If the sperm from one can create fertile offspring in the other, it's the same species...
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Try not paying your taxes and not going to court. The IRS sends OIG to your house. With guns.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights.
Actually that system is called 'totalitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and is an administrative system whereas socialism is an economic system. You can have a totalitarian dictator in a free market capitalist state. As long as your glorious leader has no qualms with your business operations, you can do what you want; when he does, his all-mighty decree immediately bans that action, or simply jails those responsible for offending his sensibilities.
This is actually a common form of government. Socialist leaders ostensibly claim concern for the people they govern; while authoritarian leaders do not need to. Therefor, evil dictators generally do whatever the hell they want and leave everyone else to do "anything that doesn't offend me." Their religious beliefs, their egomania, or other personal issues are the law of the land; beyond that, the economic influence is nil.
It's not really a confusion; it's domain-specific vocabulary. If the government takes your money for $economic_pursuit_A, it's "Public Infrastructure". Unless socialism. For example, "Public communications infrastructure"--the Government control of telecommunications--and "public utilities"--the government control of electricity and water--are accepted terms; however in both cases, private enterprise also exists in other models: private businesses provide electricity, gas, and even water service in some municipalities. All a "Public" utility such as roads, phones, Internet, power, or water is is a socialized economic function--the government decides what the market needs, hires workers, etc.
Semantics. It's not very "capitalist" "Free Market" "lazze faire" whatever to have the Government control your utilities, rather than private enterprise. Those utilities "belong to the taxpayers," they are "The Peoples'", etc. Socialized, socialism.
Wolves are a serious keystone species and the population collapse will be the most significant species loss ever. Everything else is basically fluff. Pandas wtf?
It's called a "workable range". You know, temperature fluctuations change the pressure in your tires--even WHILE DRIVING--and they leak air, so they have to work over a range. Otherwise you'd need precision pressure gauges and nitrogen.
Yes, the FBI should be present at all soccer games to make sure you don't molest the 8 year old little league girls. Don't you watch the news? 87% of the country is pedophiles and the other 13% is kids.
Have you noticed that any given passenger vehicle tire works for your sedan or coupe; any given truck tire works on your truck; and any given SUV tire works on your SUV? Yet all your cars--the 2500 pound Mazda and the 4000 pound GTO--running the same size tire can run the same tire, and the car has a rating on it for how much pressure to put in the tire? The tire is made to function under that load/pressure profile. If it were made differently, it would lowspot or highspot. So, they've found a standard. "Who" doesn't much matter.
The number isn't arbitrary. The car weighs so much, the tires are such a size, and there will be so much load per wheel. They give you a figure representative of the correct inflation pressure for a de-facto standard tire under those conditions. Load a bunch of shit in the trunk and yes you need more air; similarly, a heavier car needs more air.
I think we can claim that the semantic of "overinflating" the tire is because manufacturers standardize on a certain amount of load for a certain type of application, so tires are designed to retain a particular shape at that load, and so if your car weighs X you should inflate the tire to Y. Since my tires are designed to meet those requirements, yet are built to continue to retain the same shape when inflated closer to their maximum rating, can you really call them "overinflated"? The 35PSI number is kind of arbitrary suddenly.
To be more clear, a car which weighs around 3200 pounds with 15 inch wheels will specify 35PSI for the tires; the tires may be rated for 50PSI. A similar vehicle with the same wheels and tires but with 4200 pound kerb weight may require 40PSI or so to keep the tires in the same shape--at 35PSI, they lowspot just like if you had them at 25PSI on the 3200 pound vehicle. This is all about keeping the same contact patch and keeping the tire from being flexed such that it bends out of shape and produces an uneven contact patch--the actual amount of force involved is less important, except that the tire may explode above 50PSI so you need a different tire for a 5000+ pound vehicle.
Now, in theory, you could design the tire different such that at 35PSI it would lowspot on the 3200 pound vehicle, and would need to be at 45PSI instead to wear evenly. More usefully, a tire could be designed to wear evenly over a range of pressures and loads, such that it wears properly at 35PSI, but also at 50PSI on the same vehicle. (A lot of bicycle tires are like this--in fact I've ridden on some that recommend running 80-90PSI on the road, but going as low as 40PSI for a 'softer ride'. Two-wheel contact profiles are different than four-wheel).
A lot of well-designed tires actually do work that way. The contact patch becomes longitudinally narrower, but in the transverse axis it retains the same profile and experiences the same wear pattern. The tires I buy tend not to highspot when overinflated, yet perform better in wet conditions due to more immediate pressure on the water surface, which moves water faster and gives road contact. So can you really call that overinflated?
We have direct socialized infrastructure for roads, as well as socialized power--Nuclear power plants are propped up by government subsidies, always have been. They're a Government function pretending to be private enterprise, by way of the Government giving money to private enterprise on a smoke-and-mirrors type dance. Would you like to move to capitalism, where the private enterprise fixing the roads won't allow you to pass without paying a toll? They have to get the money to fix roads and turn a profit somehow. Also your town is useless and stupid, so no roads for you rednecks.
No, they get a rounder profile. They shouldn't have a bulge in the middle of the tread. The tread stays nice and flat, but the tire is more circular and its contact patch is flat and even (but smaller).
Interesting. I was doing research on the Model S and people talk about the CVT in it online. I mean hell, http://www.carbuzz.com/Tesla/2013_Tesla_Model-S/ but more googling says that this is wrong and it is indeed direct drive.
You have a lower contact area, but higher *pressure*. If you have 4 tires with a 3 x 3 inch contact area at 30PSI, that's 9 x 4 = 36 square inches of contact. This happens if you have a 1080 pound car. If you have a 3000 pound car, your total contact area will be (surprise...) 3 times bigger, think 5 x 5 inches per tire. Raising the PSI to 50PSI gets you 15 square inches per tire instead of 25, for a 3000 pound car. The normal force increases and the total force of friction stays roughly the same; but the pressure put on a layer of water also increases and so the water moves out of the way faster and gives you better ground contact, meaning better traction when wet. Dry... probably not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I would say he should be held accountable for manslaughter if faulty equipment sold under false pretenses caused anyone's death. Not Murder 1 sure, but it fits: by your actions someone died, your actions weren't intended to cause death but could have those consequences, your actions were illegal and harmful and malicious, therefor you are responsible for death.
Categorically false. When the United States decided to levy an income tax, it was and is still considered possibly unconstitutional (but accepted). One of the biggest factors was that the government doesn't have a right to know how much money you make--the government does not have a constitutional grant of power to know how much an individual is being paid, and indeed an individual is supposed to have immunity from such warrantless demands of information on their personal lives. Businesses have to disclose what business they do (and thus tariffs are levied), but not how much they bring in or what they pay workers, and so this is very well protected.
Not protected anymore: we accepted income tax. Income and property tax used to not be a thing. We still don't have an asset tax because, for the moment, we still believe the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to stick its nose in your purse and see how much money you have. Apparently we let them watch when you move it around, though.
No, Twitter will show up halfway through the trial and the French will immediately surrender.
Those organizations are not beyond reproach, nor are the 'po po' as you put it. In fact modern police are militarized assholes and the modern prison system is effectively a source of slave labor for private enterprise, essentially an economic subsidy by which American jobs are undermined by locking up Americans and forcing them to work for a quarter an hour doing a job that would normally be filled by an un-incarcerated American at $15/hr. This is vastly less capital-intensive for businesses, hence why it's a 'subsidy'.
I'm sure you don't want to abolish the police and prison systems, though. Just as well, the number of government economic functions we have are in some cases overreach and in other cases not enough; we need to trim the overreach and prop up the ones doing not enough--without giving them more powers they're not supposed to have in the process.
Healthcare is one of the best examples, because it's so tricky to get right. Socialized healthcare systems are either expensive or ineffective (or both); privatized healthcare systems tend to develop into a web of terrible, terrible problems. Some measure of insurance regulation has kept our systems from spiraling out of control into a mess of rent-seeking behavior, but it's still fugly; and then there's the litigation machine that attacks doctors for not being perfect (and often for not making any mistakes, just not magically curing the incurable). Further, even in a healthy private system, a baseline of public healthcare additionally provides great benefits to the economy: it reduces the spread of disease and the incidence of crippling injury (i.e. an untreated sprain, something that simple, can disable you for life), providing a bigger and more stable labor base and reducing sickness among the upper class (who can pay for healthcare, but are always getting infected by diseases that fester among the poor); yet a full-scale public health system is, again, expensive and/or ineffective.
One of the best ways to handle public healthcare services is to assess operating fees and indicate that healthcare providers must provide a baseline of X% service to the public. Let doctors roll into the location they're at, so a private practice taking in $10M/year has to supply 1% of $10M or $0.1M, while a $100B hospital has to supply $1B of public service. Specify that the service supplied has to be actual cost (so a $150k heart surgery that the hospital spends all of $5000 on after salaries, equipment, medications, etc. cuts in by $5000), and that a baseline of general healthcare services (vaccination, bone and sprain sets, etc) must be supplied and all else is elective. Thus it's not any better for the hospital to supply 1 chemo treatment to waste $1B than it is to give 100 million cold vaccinations at $10 each total cost.
Why is this one of the best ways? Because it satisfies the need for a baseline public healthcare system to keep the labor force viable and to prevent the spread of debilitating disease; but it imposes as little government fuckery on the healthcare industry as possible. The business already has to do accounting (you can't run a business without doing this, your business will fail even if the government stays out of it); we're just asking to see a certain set of pages out of their books. The hospitals and doctors are being told to be hospitals and doctors, nothing more. Taxes aren't levied. Business is adjusted, the market decides how. The whole thing becomes a cost of entry into a certain market (like paying for the lease on the building and land), with a minimal of actual regulation and dictation of how to be a hospital or a doctor.
Instead, we have Obamacare, which is Romneycare, which is a cash cow for insurance providers (and even then, the insurance providers hate it because it's expensive as hell for them to comply with) and bad for taxpayers and consumers. Canada, England, etc have their own iffy systems. Germany seems to do okay. Canada gets by because it's a private healthcare system: Canada
Why America is the greatest country in the world huh?
I prefer a stick, but the Tesla has no transmission.
There is the rub. Socialism doesn't exist without the political component.
The theory exists without the political component. The practice exists ... when you're on Gilligan's Island and can't survive in any other form (yeah, full-scale socialism is the only viable way for a group to survive when there's all of 6 of you and resources are extremely low... once you're bigger than a classroom full of school children, not so much). Trying to quantify that the practice can't exist without the political component is short-sighted in two ways: First off the practice doesn't exist in any meaningful way; and second, in the extreme situations where such practices do exist (a few people stranded on a remote island), the natural leader is essentially elected--when he becomes bad for the group, he is swiftly removed. It seems that, perhaps, socialism *only* exists with strong democratic rights... though it only exists in effectively meaningless situations.
The state has no power to address economics without those central parts being under the thumb of the state. Capitalism has no such political component.
You mean like the Police, the US. Department of Agricultural; the Federal Food and Drug Administration; the Federal Aviation Administration; the Federal Communications Commission; the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Administration; Congress; etc?
I'm going to show up at your house and steal your truck (no, your little shotgun won't help; I'll watch from 2 miles away with binoculars and steal it when you're preoccupied elsewhere out with your buddy tailgating in HIS truck, I'm not dumb), and when the police show up I'll tell them I'm being oppressed and they can't tromp on my rights because they're part of a socialist empire of regulations funded by money stolen by the government.
Someone who advocates socialism as a complete system is a socialist. That much is pretty much clear: you join the socialist party, you say the Government should control and dictate all economic behaviors.
Someone who advocates capitalism is a capitalist. That much is pretty clear: you join the capitalists party (I guess there really is none--the Libertarians sometimes pretend theirs is, but it's not really), you advocate the removal of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, you advocate that businesses should do whatever they want, non-interference, laisse faire.
The problem is (we agree that Socialism doesn't work, so we'll ignore this completely) that capitalism doesn't work. Free market capitalism means Microsoft doesn't abuse its monopoly and Disney doesn't own everything... because John D. Rockerfeller got there first and bought Carnegie Steel (nice try, Andy, but you're the smaller giant). John D. Rockerfeller's estate, now in the hands of people several generations down the line, later acquired Disney, IBM, Microsoft, Ford, Chrysler, GM, General Foods, Kraft, Monsanto, all the farm land, the New York Stock Exchange, the banks, etc. If you want to eat, you do business with the surviving estate of John D. Rockerfeller. Rockerfeller everything.
And I'm wrong. Roads cost too much money and are uncontrollable; Rockerfeller Rail would have sponsored mass transit. For a constant fee. Ford wouldn't be a thing because cars wouldn't be a thing because rail is the only thing and Rockerfeller Rail owns rail.
To avert this, we had anti-trust laws; but anti-trust laws didn't exactly do it. The Government laid roads and continues to maintain them with Taxpayer money. Now mass transit kind of fails and the railroads barely exist; those that do exist are largely subsidized by government. Now, if you ask any socialist, they'll tell you that public transit and rail are a good thing, and the Government should step in and take over all rail, build rail lines, and just raise taxes to pay for it. You know, socialism applied specifically to rail transit just as socialism has been applied to road transit.
While we're at it, how about we also put the socialist hat on and have the Government take over all US airline companies and control air travel? Sea travel? The government controls water; why not Government phone, Government electricity? While we're doing power and utilities, why not Government gas, and thus Government oil, and Government mining for Government coal?
That's socialism.
However, what private enterprise could maintain roads? How would we feel about private enterprise maintaining roads? What would be the downsides? Do we instead want the Government to maintain the roads? We have socialist road infrastructure, and socialist public school, and semi-socialist farms and universities. Some of this is good, some is bad. You call it "Public Infrastructure," but it's really just "Applied Socialism in moderation". The Government has taken away a market and chosen to run it itself, with money it takes away from the people, and with restrictions on the people running in that market. Like the Post Office.
Notice this is all economics, not really so much individual rights, authoritarianism, democracy, due process, elections, etc. This is a matter of infrastructure and of business, not of established individual rights. We, as a people, could vote to have the Government throw out the banks, the auto makers, and the utility companies, so that we have socialized Internet, phone, energy, gas, healthcare, roads, banking, and so on. Some would be by fee (like water, energy, etc) and some would be by tax (like roads). We would still be a free, democratic people with individual rights and due process and all; just with a socialist economic system. Too much socialism, really.
We could vote it back away, too... but the transition would be hard, and people abhor change.
One cannot have a free market economy in a socialist state. By the very definition of socialism free markets cannot exist because socialism does not allow it to exist.
You respond to my discussion about socialism vs authoritarianism by pretending I wrote "Socialist" instead of "Authoritarian".
Let's simplify: Republicans are Authoritarian Capitalists. Democrats are Libertarian Socialists. That means Republicans are more for free market capitalism, but more for social control--for arresting people and jailing them for shit like sex and drugs, for offending their puritin values, etc. Democrats are more for more government control of the economy, but the more liberal democrats tend to be hippies who want drugs legalized (and want free everything for everyone).
Monarchies, dictatorships, and the like can be capitalistic economically. Democracies can be socialistic in nature--Germany just before WW2 was quickly becoming a Socialist Democratic state, which is what Hitler reversed (he deduced that people were becoming Social Democrats because of the Jewish run media, so decided to exterminate the Jews and implement fascism). America is becoming a Socialist Democratic state as well--one where we ostensibly have Due Process, Rights, etc, but are spiraling toward bigger government with more government services such as socialized healthcare and socialized economic bounding (i.e. "bail-outs" because "big businesses can't fail, it hurts jobs", among other stupid shit like the government purchasing 400,000 pounds of CANE SUGAR to KEEP SUGAR PRICES HIGH because "we need to support the sugar industry" ugh... at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in GDP economic activity).
You don't understand systems of government and systems of economics. At all.
Yes, but Jobs knew how to market. He didn't have great skill in the same area that Woz had great skill, but he did have great skill.
We all use DNA, so it would not be difficult to interbreed any two species on the planet together. How a species puts together its sperm and eggs prevents most species from interbreeding, but that is a tiny part of an organism and not particularly important when defining species.
Categorically false. Chromosome counts are the lay-explanation; but notably, DNA comes in pairs. You have a gene for blue eyes... on one set of your DNA. You also have a second complete set of human DNA, the entire genome, which is matched and sequenced correctly. In this set is the gene for brown eyes. This determines your eye color.
If your genetics don't match up properly, your chromosomes can't pair correctly and they can't do the job of supplying genetic data. You need a complete set of homologous chromosomes to create offspring, aside from the gender-determining chromosomes which are slightly different (i.e. an XX pair for male seagulls versus an XY pair for female seagulls).
Chromosome counts being wrong obviously means the data's incompatible, either by being wrong or being theoretically compatible but mismatched and incapable of aligning and interacting. Also the chromosomes may have different structure--the crossing vertex may occur at a different point (i.e. the intersection of the X is higher/lower), or at the ends (producing a V or a straight line); the position of genes may be completely wrong, shuffled around different chromosomes, or there may be non-existent genes etc; the chromosomes may even just be larger/smaller. Obviously, drastic changes must occur to have different chromosome counts--different genes, different layout of the same genes (i.e. more compact, less junk, longer/shorter chromosomes), and the like. Drastic changes may occur without changing the number or even major structure of the chromosomes, yet produce something completely incompatible.
Honestly, some women die when impregnated, because they're too small for babies. Are these women who cannot give birth without dying and killing the baby as well a different species? Do they need smaller men?
Now you know that's not true. What about Steve Jobs?
As THE creator, I still think you're a bunch of hippies; but Adam and Eve were created naked so.
A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens
If the sperm from one can create fertile offspring in the other, it's the same species...
False. If the government takes your money you are in a political system such as a monarchy or a socialist state because either you never actually had a right to the money because it belongs to the crown/state or you belong to the crown/state ... or both. It would be the Crown's/State's Infrastructure.
Try not paying your taxes and not going to court. The IRS sends OIG to your house. With guns.
Right. In socialism the government controls everything. Period. No representation. No vote. No rights.
Actually that system is called 'totalitarianism' and 'authoritarianism', and is an administrative system whereas socialism is an economic system. You can have a totalitarian dictator in a free market capitalist state. As long as your glorious leader has no qualms with your business operations, you can do what you want; when he does, his all-mighty decree immediately bans that action, or simply jails those responsible for offending his sensibilities.
This is actually a common form of government. Socialist leaders ostensibly claim concern for the people they govern; while authoritarian leaders do not need to. Therefor, evil dictators generally do whatever the hell they want and leave everyone else to do "anything that doesn't offend me." Their religious beliefs, their egomania, or other personal issues are the law of the land; beyond that, the economic influence is nil.
It's not really a confusion; it's domain-specific vocabulary. If the government takes your money for $economic_pursuit_A, it's "Public Infrastructure". Unless socialism. For example, "Public communications infrastructure"--the Government control of telecommunications--and "public utilities"--the government control of electricity and water--are accepted terms; however in both cases, private enterprise also exists in other models: private businesses provide electricity, gas, and even water service in some municipalities. All a "Public" utility such as roads, phones, Internet, power, or water is is a socialized economic function--the government decides what the market needs, hires workers, etc.
Semantics. It's not very "capitalist" "Free Market" "lazze faire" whatever to have the Government control your utilities, rather than private enterprise. Those utilities "belong to the taxpayers," they are "The Peoples'", etc. Socialized, socialism.
We need some of it. We don't need all of it.
Wolves are a serious keystone species and the population collapse will be the most significant species loss ever. Everything else is basically fluff. Pandas wtf?
It's called a "workable range". You know, temperature fluctuations change the pressure in your tires--even WHILE DRIVING--and they leak air, so they have to work over a range. Otherwise you'd need precision pressure gauges and nitrogen.
Yes, the FBI should be present at all soccer games to make sure you don't molest the 8 year old little league girls. Don't you watch the news? 87% of the country is pedophiles and the other 13% is kids.
Have you noticed that any given passenger vehicle tire works for your sedan or coupe; any given truck tire works on your truck; and any given SUV tire works on your SUV? Yet all your cars--the 2500 pound Mazda and the 4000 pound GTO--running the same size tire can run the same tire, and the car has a rating on it for how much pressure to put in the tire? The tire is made to function under that load/pressure profile. If it were made differently, it would lowspot or highspot. So, they've found a standard. "Who" doesn't much matter.
The number isn't arbitrary. The car weighs so much, the tires are such a size, and there will be so much load per wheel. They give you a figure representative of the correct inflation pressure for a de-facto standard tire under those conditions. Load a bunch of shit in the trunk and yes you need more air; similarly, a heavier car needs more air.
I think we can claim that the semantic of "overinflating" the tire is because manufacturers standardize on a certain amount of load for a certain type of application, so tires are designed to retain a particular shape at that load, and so if your car weighs X you should inflate the tire to Y. Since my tires are designed to meet those requirements, yet are built to continue to retain the same shape when inflated closer to their maximum rating, can you really call them "overinflated"? The 35PSI number is kind of arbitrary suddenly.
To be more clear, a car which weighs around 3200 pounds with 15 inch wheels will specify 35PSI for the tires; the tires may be rated for 50PSI. A similar vehicle with the same wheels and tires but with 4200 pound kerb weight may require 40PSI or so to keep the tires in the same shape--at 35PSI, they lowspot just like if you had them at 25PSI on the 3200 pound vehicle. This is all about keeping the same contact patch and keeping the tire from being flexed such that it bends out of shape and produces an uneven contact patch--the actual amount of force involved is less important, except that the tire may explode above 50PSI so you need a different tire for a 5000+ pound vehicle.
Now, in theory, you could design the tire different such that at 35PSI it would lowspot on the 3200 pound vehicle, and would need to be at 45PSI instead to wear evenly. More usefully, a tire could be designed to wear evenly over a range of pressures and loads, such that it wears properly at 35PSI, but also at 50PSI on the same vehicle. (A lot of bicycle tires are like this--in fact I've ridden on some that recommend running 80-90PSI on the road, but going as low as 40PSI for a 'softer ride'. Two-wheel contact profiles are different than four-wheel).
A lot of well-designed tires actually do work that way. The contact patch becomes longitudinally narrower, but in the transverse axis it retains the same profile and experiences the same wear pattern. The tires I buy tend not to highspot when overinflated, yet perform better in wet conditions due to more immediate pressure on the water surface, which moves water faster and gives road contact. So can you really call that overinflated?
We have direct socialized infrastructure for roads, as well as socialized power--Nuclear power plants are propped up by government subsidies, always have been. They're a Government function pretending to be private enterprise, by way of the Government giving money to private enterprise on a smoke-and-mirrors type dance. Would you like to move to capitalism, where the private enterprise fixing the roads won't allow you to pass without paying a toll? They have to get the money to fix roads and turn a profit somehow. Also your town is useless and stupid, so no roads for you rednecks.
No, they get a rounder profile. They shouldn't have a bulge in the middle of the tread. The tread stays nice and flat, but the tire is more circular and its contact patch is flat and even (but smaller).
Interesting. I was doing research on the Model S and people talk about the CVT in it online. I mean hell, http://www.carbuzz.com/Tesla/2013_Tesla_Model-S/ but more googling says that this is wrong and it is indeed direct drive.
You have a lower contact area, but higher *pressure*. If you have 4 tires with a 3 x 3 inch contact area at 30PSI, that's 9 x 4 = 36 square inches of contact. This happens if you have a 1080 pound car. If you have a 3000 pound car, your total contact area will be (surprise...) 3 times bigger, think 5 x 5 inches per tire. Raising the PSI to 50PSI gets you 15 square inches per tire instead of 25, for a 3000 pound car. The normal force increases and the total force of friction stays roughly the same; but the pressure put on a layer of water also increases and so the water moves out of the way faster and gives you better ground contact, meaning better traction when wet. Dry... probably not so much.
Front wheel drive does suck.