Teslas probably use some combination of regenerative braking and traditional friction brakes with brake pads. This smells like the automated system isn't aggressive enough in engaging the friction brakes when the pedal is hit hard -- they probably prioritize using the brakes to recharge the batteries and not wearing out the brake pads. Maybe the software needs to be rewritten to prioritize friction braking when the pedal is pressed "suddenly."
As far as the giant LCD, it's abominable. It intrudes into the passenger and driver seat spaces and is likely easily broken due to its design. I've often put furniture or even lumber into a car's front passenger seat -- in the Tesla, this would virtually guarantee damage to the screen. It's also not tactile and hard to use with gloves on in winter.
The 2018 Leaf has a much more practical interior, even if it's not artsy-fartsy minimalist.
I'm all for job creation. But quality should be as important as quantity. Sticking people in dead-end jobs without opportunities to improve their lot in life (if you're working 50 hr/wk for $10/hr, who has time for that?) isn't the solution.
Property rights? LOL. Don't make me larf. "Law and order" conservatives in the US are more in favor of civil forfeiture (legalized robbery by cops) and "blight removal" than liberal Democrats.
Safe spaces? That's not a political agenda, that's a fringe concept -- it's not a platform of any mainstream candidate in the US.
Hate speech laws? They're a good thing within a limited context. Want to blather disproven drivel about IQ differences between races? Fine. But the moment you trot out a symbol of the Klan or call for the disenfranchisement of fellow citizens, you're inciting to a crime, if not to violence.
Free markets? They're not truly free -- they're heavily biased in favor of large corporations.
"Average" GDP is basically a bullshit statistic, pardon my English.
It's only useful in context. (1) What % of income is paid in tax? What services are given to taxpayers? i.e. if health care is subsidized or free, it means lower costs of living since people aren't paying private insurance premiums on top of taxes. (2) What are costs of living? Housing costs? Does each family need two cars? Is university education free or cheap? (3) What is the MEDIAN income? Not average, which can be skewed higher by a few very high incomes. But the median is a useful measure of standard of living. (4) Other non-monetary means of measuring standard of living. Free time. Time spent with family. Etc and so forth.
Thing is, there's a right team and a wrong team in 2018.
Democratic Party in 2018 effectively supports marijuana legalization (not jailing adults for what they put into their own bodies), worker rights (freedom from corporate abuse), reasonable restrictions on guns (part of the reason for trigger-happy US cops is that every idiot can get a gun), environmental regulations.
WTF does the GOP have that appeals to younger freedom-minded people in 2018?
Problem with this are other voters -- most American voters are ignorant and prefer supporting the interests of the rich over their own interests. After all, there's an 0.000001% chance they'll make it big and become the next Bill Gates, so got to plan ahead.
Problem is you'll then be competing with a bunch of dirtbags who expect their employees to work 60hr/wk with a week of vaca per year. Employee protections set minimum levels of employee rights so that decent employers don't have to compete with cutthroat assholes. Rising tide lifts all boats.
... or caught smoking pot and caught in the criminal system, unemployability due to a record makes a person more likely to turn to theft and other crime.... or bullied into a plea bargain by being jailed for a crime they were accused of. Etc.
I think laws against polygamy should be struck down, and hopefully this will be the next step after same-sex marriage. Consenting adults. It doesn't have to be one man with multiple women, it can be poly families of multiple people of different genders. None of the state's damn business -- and it's not like it doesn't happen unofficially anyway.
Your other examples: "close relatives" has genetic issues when having kids. Minors aren't consenting adults.
Interracial and same-sex marriage between adults have none of those issues.
Are you saying that a ban on interracial marriage is a GOOD (or not bad) thing? If so, why? Shouldn't the government stay out of people's private business unless it's harming someone else?
Consenting adults should have the right to marry, make love to, associate, etc with anyone they choose, provided they're also a consenting adult.
On a more personal note, it would affect me personally if it were still the law -- though I'd probably not be living a benighted state that chose to keep such a law.
I'd be willing to pay more tax to pay teachers more. But only if we got rid of unneeded other government personnel. Fire 50% of cops by lottery -- no need to set speed traps or enforce antiquated marijuana/vice laws. Restrict the military to domestic defense.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights confers rights to people directly, and applies to non-Federal governments as well (state and local). Settled case law for the last 100 years or so.
The poor and middle class aren't exempt from the court system and lawsuits. I see no reason why employers (the wealthy) should get any better treatment.
There's a fundamental imbalance of power -- your employer can find a new employee more easily than you can find a new job, and meanwhile you need to make the bills. Thus the little guy needs to be protected from the bigger guys by the government.
The Constitution is a good framework, but it's also an outdated document and not the be-all-and-end-all of personal rights that many American think that it is. The more rights given the average worker and citizen, the better! I love Ruth Bader Ginsberg because she recognizes an implicit right to privacy, even if it's not explicit to the Constitution.
The Founders couldn't have imagined things like smartphones and Big Data in the 1700s, so the courts must adapt.
That's an argument for making it more difficult to get out of jury duty. Also, I know quite a few people who got called for jury duty in NYC and don't fit your description. The city made it much more difficult to get out of jury duty sometime in the 90s, and the system is apparently working.
No, I'm advocating against pure democracy, which is otherwise known as "lynch law." Remember: people VOTED for segregation and anti-mixed-marriage laws.
Venezuela is just authoritarianism calling itself socialism. It's a stupid strawman to bring to an argument.
I raise you France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Sweden as countries that have stronger worker protections than the US, but aren't starving to death either.
No, they should be subject to the discretion of the courts, and ideally of a jury of working people with some level of empathy. Not to some so-called impartial arbitrator chosen by the employer itself. The latter is nothing but a "kangaroo court."
Much better to have a court system to protect minority rights from mob rule. Remember that most people in the South (and certain other states) in the 1950s supported segregation. It took the courts to give members of minorities their rights.
Unions abroad make sure that the workplace protections remain in force. e.g. in France, if the government tries to "reform" workplace protections... time for a general strike, baby! Trains don't move, trucks don't run, city centers fill up with demonstrators, and the country grinds to a halt. Enforcement of workers' rights through mass paralysis.
It was "legislating from the bench" in the sense that bad laws on a State level were struck down. Virginia law literally said that people of different races could be jailed if they married. The law was actually on the books (though not enforceable) until some time in the 1990s.
If the end is more freedom for the public, any means justify that end. Even if it means bypassing a bunch of (mostly) old men who managed to con the public into voting for them.
Freedom is more important than "democracy." Remember, that a lynch mob often represents the will of a majority of the people, but I think we've moved beyond lynch law.
Slashdot Mirror
Teslas probably use some combination of regenerative braking and traditional friction brakes with brake pads. This smells like the automated system isn't aggressive enough in engaging the friction brakes when the pedal is hit hard -- they probably prioritize using the brakes to recharge the batteries and not wearing out the brake pads. Maybe the software needs to be rewritten to prioritize friction braking when the pedal is pressed "suddenly."
As far as the giant LCD, it's abominable. It intrudes into the passenger and driver seat spaces and is likely easily broken due to its design. I've often put furniture or even lumber into a car's front passenger seat -- in the Tesla, this would virtually guarantee damage to the screen. It's also not tactile and hard to use with gloves on in winter.
The 2018 Leaf has a much more practical interior, even if it's not artsy-fartsy minimalist.
I'm all for job creation. But quality should be as important as quantity. Sticking people in dead-end jobs without opportunities to improve their lot in life (if you're working 50 hr/wk for $10/hr, who has time for that?) isn't the solution.
Property rights? LOL. Don't make me larf. "Law and order" conservatives in the US are more in favor of civil forfeiture (legalized robbery by cops) and "blight removal" than liberal Democrats.
Safe spaces? That's not a political agenda, that's a fringe concept -- it's not a platform of any mainstream candidate in the US.
Hate speech laws? They're a good thing within a limited context. Want to blather disproven drivel about IQ differences between races? Fine. But the moment you trot out a symbol of the Klan or call for the disenfranchisement of fellow citizens, you're inciting to a crime, if not to violence.
Free markets? They're not truly free -- they're heavily biased in favor of large corporations.
"Average" GDP is basically a bullshit statistic, pardon my English.
It's only useful in context.
(1) What % of income is paid in tax? What services are given to taxpayers? i.e. if health care is subsidized or free, it means lower costs of living since people aren't paying private insurance premiums on top of taxes.
(2) What are costs of living? Housing costs? Does each family need two cars? Is university education free or cheap?
(3) What is the MEDIAN income? Not average, which can be skewed higher by a few very high incomes. But the median is a useful measure of standard of living.
(4) Other non-monetary means of measuring standard of living. Free time. Time spent with family. Etc and so forth.
Thing is, there's a right team and a wrong team in 2018.
Democratic Party in 2018 effectively supports marijuana legalization (not jailing adults for what they put into their own bodies), worker rights (freedom from corporate abuse), reasonable restrictions on guns (part of the reason for trigger-happy US cops is that every idiot can get a gun), environmental regulations.
WTF does the GOP have that appeals to younger freedom-minded people in 2018?
Problem with this are other voters -- most American voters are ignorant and prefer supporting the interests of the rich over their own interests. After all, there's an 0.000001% chance they'll make it big and become the next Bill Gates, so got to plan ahead.
Problem is you'll then be competing with a bunch of dirtbags who expect their employees to work 60hr/wk with a week of vaca per year. Employee protections set minimum levels of employee rights so that decent employers don't have to compete with cutthroat assholes. Rising tide lifts all boats.
... or caught smoking pot and caught in the criminal system, unemployability due to a record makes a person more likely to turn to theft and other crime. ... or bullied into a plea bargain by being jailed for a crime they were accused of. Etc.
Oh, and feck off with the racist tripe.
I think laws against polygamy should be struck down, and hopefully this will be the next step after same-sex marriage. Consenting adults. It doesn't have to be one man with multiple women, it can be poly families of multiple people of different genders. None of the state's damn business -- and it's not like it doesn't happen unofficially anyway.
Your other examples: "close relatives" has genetic issues when having kids. Minors aren't consenting adults.
Interracial and same-sex marriage between adults have none of those issues.
Are you saying that a ban on interracial marriage is a GOOD (or not bad) thing? If so, why? Shouldn't the government stay out of people's private business unless it's harming someone else?
Consenting adults should have the right to marry, make love to, associate, etc with anyone they choose, provided they're also a consenting adult.
On a more personal note, it would affect me personally if it were still the law -- though I'd probably not be living a benighted state that chose to keep such a law.
I'd be willing to pay more tax to pay teachers more. But only if we got rid of unneeded other government personnel. Fire 50% of cops by lottery -- no need to set speed traps or enforce antiquated marijuana/vice laws. Restrict the military to domestic defense.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights confers rights to people directly, and applies to non-Federal governments as well (state and local). Settled case law for the last 100 years or so.
The poor and middle class aren't exempt from the court system and lawsuits. I see no reason why employers (the wealthy) should get any better treatment.
America is the land of "senseless rules." Hence their prison population of approximately 1% of all American adults.
In Western Europe, they don't normally bother with you unless you're caught harming someone.
There's a fundamental imbalance of power -- your employer can find a new employee more easily than you can find a new job, and meanwhile you need to make the bills. Thus the little guy needs to be protected from the bigger guys by the government.
The Constitution is a good framework, but it's also an outdated document and not the be-all-and-end-all of personal rights that many American think that it is. The more rights given the average worker and citizen, the better! I love Ruth Bader Ginsberg because she recognizes an implicit right to privacy, even if it's not explicit to the Constitution.
The Founders couldn't have imagined things like smartphones and Big Data in the 1700s, so the courts must adapt.
That's an argument for making it more difficult to get out of jury duty. Also, I know quite a few people who got called for jury duty in NYC and don't fit your description. The city made it much more difficult to get out of jury duty sometime in the 90s, and the system is apparently working.
No, I'm advocating against pure democracy, which is otherwise known as "lynch law." Remember: people VOTED for segregation and anti-mixed-marriage laws.
Venezuela is just authoritarianism calling itself socialism. It's a stupid strawman to bring to an argument.
I raise you France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Sweden as countries that have stronger worker protections than the US, but aren't starving to death either.
No, they should be subject to the discretion of the courts, and ideally of a jury of working people with some level of empathy. Not to some so-called impartial arbitrator chosen by the employer itself. The latter is nothing but a "kangaroo court."
Much better to have a court system to protect minority rights from mob rule. Remember that most people in the South (and certain other states) in the 1950s supported segregation. It took the courts to give members of minorities their rights.
Unions abroad make sure that the workplace protections remain in force. e.g. in France, if the government tries to "reform" workplace protections ... time for a general strike, baby! Trains don't move, trucks don't run, city centers fill up with demonstrators, and the country grinds to a halt. Enforcement of workers' rights through mass paralysis.
It was "legislating from the bench" in the sense that bad laws on a State level were struck down. Virginia law literally said that people of different races could be jailed if they married. The law was actually on the books (though not enforceable) until some time in the 1990s.
If the end is more freedom for the public, any means justify that end. Even if it means bypassing a bunch of (mostly) old men who managed to con the public into voting for them.
Freedom is more important than "democracy." Remember, that a lynch mob often represents the will of a majority of the people, but I think we've moved beyond lynch law.
Brown vs Board of Ed. was before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.