There is always at least one screw up that does everything wrong all the time, and often enough management thinks this guy is the smartest person in the world. As long as you don't use him as the model all is well. Sometimes the hard part is finding out who "that guy" is before you start a project.
They are not named oh "thee of great ignorance!" They are simply called "Secret Courts" in the UK and they deal with many areas that the US FISA does not. Such as family issues where family members have been placed into custody "for their own protection" against their own, family, and doctor recommendations.
And no, "thee of great ignorance" is not and ad hominem, it's a well earned title!
There was no evasion, that is you imagining things. Numerous people have responded that there are secret courts in the UK just like FISA in the US, and you choose to ignore them. I gave you a link so that you could do some research, and you ignore that too.
The only evasion going on is _you_ evading reality. I also find it amusing how numerous people have told you that secret courts in the UK are legit, and now you imagine that I created dozens of sock puppets to point out a fact which is easily verifiable.
Miss some medication today? Or perhaps you are not a shill and reality is starting to cause cognitive dissonance.
On a serious note, I mentioned before that I believe we agree on numerous principles. I also think you are either used to people being disagreeable, so jump to a defensive posture quickly during dialogue.
Reading many of your posts, I believe the first to be truthful though admit that we disagree on details. The latter, take for what it's worth. I do the same on occasion, but try to improve my temperament.
Are you claiming that giving you links on how to search for "Secret Courts in the UK" only deals with the USA? Are you trying to claim that it is impossible for a person to have knowledge of more than their home country? Are you really trying to claim that a person can have no knowledge of World Politics if they argue local politics?
Obviously all of those claims are false, in addition to being rather delusional.
Perhaps _you_ are ignorant to the turnings of the world, but don't presume that everyone is ignorant to the turnings of the world. If you only read what I post about the US, you don't bother to read very much of what I post.
This site skews so hard to the right that they'd be just as well off scanning an NRA forum. Saying that it accurately gauges public opinion on a whole is laughable.
I never claimed that this site was the whole of the public, take my generalization "sites" very literally. The generalization should have been obvious due to listing other potential sites to target.
If we can't see what they do I have no trust in them.
If you can see what they do then so can the people they are trying to spy on. That is self-defeating.
Wrong, simply wrong. 20 years ago a warrant was required. We did not need to know the target name, but could see the judges name that signed the warrant and the agency or office name associated with the wiretap. Most importantly we could see and scrutinize the compelling arguments for the warrant. Without giving up agent names, this allowed oversight. Judge A approving every warrant would have been questionable, and probably removed from the bench. Judge B that had approvals and denials would still not be off the hook, but we could see what was being done without the detail that would have jeopardized officers.
Today, there is no oversight. Looking at a nearly rubber stamp approval without knowing judges names, or having power to remove them from the bench, what can the public do? Nothing, obviously. The only thing we have is overall request and approval numbers. Maybe every single request submitted is valid, maybe not. We don't see the compelling arguments for warrants, we just know that 99.99% of them are approved. Knowing the numbers of approved does not allow oversight.
If they are capable of what we "know", they are capable of attempting to silence critics.
"Capable of" and "intend to" are completely different questions, as well as matters of legal interest.
Nice word twisting, let me rephrase more carefully. "We know some of the illegal activities that the Government has been involved in, acting in secrecy. There is no reason to assume that they are not acting in other illegal ways. The only way to clear them is to open everything up."
What can't you understand in people's responses? Since you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept, here is a link. I never mentioned FISA in my post! The UK has the same (or perhaps worse) "secret" court system.
But you cannot say it will never happen because of how these fires actually start.
Yeah, go read how these fires have started. Hint: It has nothing to do with a short, but has everything to do with massive damage from either big heavy road debris (no, not a pothole but huge chunks of metal and high speeds) or hitting trees. Your hypothetical is wrong. You may as well compare to how much damage each can do with a car-bomb, because it's the same imaginary situation.
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.
Bullshit! The Government investigations didn't force changes or find the faults, the companies did because people stopped buying their cars. The Government may have pushed the global recalls, and that would be a fair speculation. To claim that these companies didn't care however is wrong. They would not have remained in business telling people "we don't care if you die" and making such a statement shows a very distorted view of the world.
Generally, they dent and that is all.
Then you go on a complete fabrication spree. A dent from hitting a tree? Sorry, go back and read what I mentioned about Michael Hastings. I won't bother with the rest of the fabrications except to point out that you are not telling the truth. It's not even a little lie, it's absolutely verifiable false information.
I never mentioned "secrets", like your example of trial evidence, I said "secret" as in know outside knowledge of ruling/decision. If the rulings are all secret, oversight is impossible. It's not just the US FISA courts that make "secret" rulings, but the UK has numerous secret courts as well.
We have had a similar discussion before. I _agree_ that some things should not be public knowledge. Plans for making weapons, locations of CIA houses, lists of operative names, etc.. are all fine to be restricted from the public. We don't need those to be available to have discussion on mass surveillance. The public should be aware of the Government plans to scoop all data from everyone everywhere using ever possible means including those that are considered illegal by their respective countries laws.
For example, if you start dumping all of the traffic from a site you could (and perhaps would depending on the target) go to jail based on numerous wiretapping laws related to computers. The list of laws is extensive, I'll suggest you get a book on CEH, CISSP, etc.. that explain those all of those laws. If the Government is going to break all of those laws, that should be a matter of public knowledge and debate. Not the agents names, and maybe not even the agency doing the work. The actions are what is important.
I mean, the government's using circular logic, and that's wrong. But the people raging against it are using equally broken logic. And there's perfectly good discussion not happening because everyone flung themselves to the polar extremes. Why?
I don't agree with there only being two extremes, and I don't agree that the majority of the discussion about mass surveillance is using broken logic. Most of the discussion against it has been using law which is not circular. The Government debate for mass surveillance is mostly that they don't have to follow the law, which is also not circular logic.
Re-read my post. Whether it was mandatory or not, it was still happening due to market pressure. Claiming the Government made it "mandatory" does not change the fact that most cars already had seat belts and most people used them. When Air bags were developed there were no laws requiring air-bags. Numerous cars were already getting them installed, all without a regulation. Market pressure sped up the development and implementation long before the Government made a law to make them mandatory.
I have a hard time believing that someone convinced them this site was worthwhile. Was this just some kind of training exercise for them, to make sure that they could handle the traffic volume from a dying site before they go and try to intercept traffic from one that is relevant?
Sites like Slashdot and Reddit are very legit targets. If you want to measure public opinion you actually need sites like this. I'm sure that they also scan forums on intellectual sites like Science, etc... How do you know how to spin things, or continue to spin things, if you don't know how much information the public has.
Do I think they use it to track individual users? I have no evidence of this, but that does not mean it does not happen. If we can't see what they do I have no trust in them. If they are capable of what we "know", they are capable of attempting to silence critics.
The Stasi said the same thing in East Germany. But that's circular logic: We're authorized to do this because we authorized it.
Exactly! They claim that they use laws to control what they snoop, and have oversight. When the laws are "secret", the courts are "secret", and the oversight is internal how much should we trust them? None at all!
Western governments are almost single-handedly responsible for the massive improvement in both car and road safety over the last 40yrs, free market competition has worked out how to put those legal requirements into a car without it looking like a 1970's Volvo.
I would give some credit to Western Governments for fuel emissions, but not safety. Ford changed the Pinto not because the Government made them, but because the public would not purchase a Ford vehicle when they started catching fire from any rear end collision. Even fuel emissions is questionable mind you, it is impossible to know what the free market impact would be simply by media bringing attention to the problem of emissions. Leaded vs. unleaded cars were not developed due to Government emission regulations, they were developed before that because at the time people were being made aware of environmental impact.
Examples of public awareness. An elementary school project I still remember was to try and design a method of cleaning up oil from spills. CFCs were already being denied by the free market long before the Government bans. Adopt a Highway programs started, and I still remember the TV commercial with the American Indian with a tear running down his cheek as he looked at the dumping and pollution.
The government in my opinion gets little credit for mileage laws as well. In the early 70s and before Government regulation, mileage was improving on it's own. Once the gas price wars ended, it became expensive to drive. MPG became something on the sticker. Regulations had more to do with denying certain people with too much money the ability to drive a 8 gallon to the mile tank down the road than it did getting 20MPG.
It's really incredible what public awareness can do. Too bad today the public is more aware of twerking than ocean dead zones.
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!
The 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.
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.
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? How about the engines? Sounds to me like they have armor plating around the batteries, maybe this type of thing won't be preventable. That does not make the EVs a failure, or even more dangerous than combustion. You are not seeing these fires from "normal" driving or "normal" accidents and road debris. If the car gets totaled by debris, whether it catches fire or not is kind of a mute point. Quite frankly, I have seen combustion cars catch fire from hitting road debris as well.
The point we should be debating is whether or not the company did enough to keep people and roads are safe. Additionally, we can point out where they should improve. Those points however should be unbiased, and not what we are seeing today because there is no fair debate.
Since it's impossible to tell if this is a question from ignorance or if you are trolling, I'll play along as if you were asking from ignorance.
First amendment is virtually gone. Read up on "Free speech zones" and you will understand, maybe. Sure, those don't stop us from ranting individually. Individual ranting does not make change. Prior to "Free Speech Zones" permission was required for large gatherings. Go check some history on when they added "permit required" to gatherings in Washington DC for protests.
Second amendment. Numerous locations deny you your rights to bear arms. Chicago for example, you know, the most corrupt city in the USA where criminals can have guns but you get to be a victim. Courts have upheld State and City rights to ban your 2nd amendment rights, so it's obviously no longer a "right".
Fourth amendment. Two acronyms sum up your fourth amendment rights today, TSA and NSA. Those are the big ones of course, but there are more I won't spend time on.
Fifth amendment. Double jeopardy has been legal for quite a while, OJ is a perfect example. Don't argue your own belief of guilt vs. innocence. He wad found not guilty in criminal court then tried in civil court for the same crime which is exactly the definition of Double Jeopardy. For the remainder of the 5th, see how Journalists have been forced to either give up source names or face penalty.
Sixth amendment. Pretty much the whole set of rights has been scrapped. Speedy trials are extremely rare, but that's not the big one. In cases of the Government, people are often unable to see and question evidence. FISA courts obliterate that concepts in the 6th.
Eighth amendment. Gitmo and Drones are all you need to consider here.
And of course the tenth. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The US Government has no constitutional right to impose the ACA for example, none! But the people in office don't give a rats ass, and the majority of the people are kept ignorant so they don't know they should be fighting against things like ACA. If the Government has no power, they can't simply grab it. They have, they do, and we are paying the price for our ignorance and complacency.
When they crash into trees? Michael Hastings, enough said because his Mercedes was not old. When they have massive steel debris punched into them? Okay pally, you keep right on shilling.
Remove your biases for a moment and read TFA. All this bullshit doom and gloom is nonsense propaganda, or at least most of it. Most likely, brought to you by several groups of people that don't benefit (enough) from EVs, and stand to lose a whole lot of money if they begin to be successful.
Accident 1. It apparently occurred after the Model S ran over a piece of road debris later described as a "curved section that fell off a semi-trailer." That item punched a 3-inch hole through the 1/4-inch-thick armor plate protecting the pack, with a force of 25 tons, according to a report by Tesla. The car alerted the driver of a fault, and he pulled over and exited the car.
Emphasis is mine. It should not take a rocket scientist to guess that this is a big fucking piece of steel. It may not have made your Combustion car catch fire, but your car would have most taken tremendous damage at least. Your car does not have 1/4-inch armor plating, so you may not have lived through it.
Accident 2. It apparently occurred after the Model S driver jumped a curb, took out several feet of a concrete wall, and then hit a tree.
Ever hear of Michael Hastings who died in a new Mercedes that hit a tree and caught fire? It happened very recently, so you can save the "it never happens with gas cars" lines. I don't think the mention of the guy being drunk makes a lick of difference to the point. The point is, this guy was driving very fast and crashed into a bunch of hard stuff.
Accident 3. It too apparently occurred after the Model S ran over a piece of road debris, this time reportedly described by police as a tow hitch that pierced the undercarriage. Tesla issued this statement: “We have been in contact with the driver, who was not injured and believes the car saved his life. Our team is on its way to Tennessee to learn more about what happened in the accident.”
So once again, we have a massive piece of road debris that would have totaled any other car on the road as the culprit, and as of yet an unknown cause of fire. Note the drivers opinion that the car saved his life and received no injuries. Sure, he's not an expert but you were not there so are not an expert either.
All this shit keeps pointing to some people wanting bad press for EVs because, you know.. we kill a whole lot of people to get this oil that should be able to transfer a good chunk of your money to them!
Slashdot Mirror
There is always at least one screw up that does everything wrong all the time, and often enough management thinks this guy is the smartest person in the world. As long as you don't use him as the model all is well. Sometimes the hard part is finding out who "that guy" is before you start a project.
They are not named oh "thee of great ignorance!" They are simply called "Secret Courts" in the UK and they deal with many areas that the US FISA does not. Such as family issues where family members have been placed into custody "for their own protection" against their own, family, and doctor recommendations.
And no, "thee of great ignorance" is not and ad hominem, it's a well earned title!
There was no evasion, that is you imagining things. Numerous people have responded that there are secret courts in the UK just like FISA in the US, and you choose to ignore them. I gave you a link so that you could do some research, and you ignore that too.
The only evasion going on is _you_ evading reality. I also find it amusing how numerous people have told you that secret courts in the UK are legit, and now you imagine that I created dozens of sock puppets to point out a fact which is easily verifiable.
Miss some medication today? Or perhaps you are not a shill and reality is starting to cause cognitive dissonance.
On a serious note, I mentioned before that I believe we agree on numerous principles. I also think you are either used to people being disagreeable, so jump to a defensive posture quickly during dialogue.
Reading many of your posts, I believe the first to be truthful though admit that we disagree on details. The latter, take for what it's worth. I do the same on occasion, but try to improve my temperament.
Are you claiming that giving you links on how to search for "Secret Courts in the UK" only deals with the USA? Are you trying to claim that it is impossible for a person to have knowledge of more than their home country? Are you really trying to claim that a person can have no knowledge of World Politics if they argue local politics?
Obviously all of those claims are false, in addition to being rather delusional.
Sieg Heil?
Because the link provided to Google search UK Secret courts has nothing to do with the UK? Shake your head really really hard, your thinker is stuck!
Perhaps _you_ are ignorant to the turnings of the world, but don't presume that everyone is ignorant to the turnings of the world. If you only read what I post about the US, you don't bother to read very much of what I post.
This site skews so hard to the right that they'd be just as well off scanning an NRA forum. Saying that it accurately gauges public opinion on a whole is laughable.
I never claimed that this site was the whole of the public, take my generalization "sites" very literally. The generalization should have been obvious due to listing other potential sites to target.
If we can't see what they do I have no trust in them.
If you can see what they do then so can the people they are trying to spy on. That is self-defeating.
Wrong, simply wrong. 20 years ago a warrant was required. We did not need to know the target name, but could see the judges name that signed the warrant and the agency or office name associated with the wiretap. Most importantly we could see and scrutinize the compelling arguments for the warrant. Without giving up agent names, this allowed oversight. Judge A approving every warrant would have been questionable, and probably removed from the bench. Judge B that had approvals and denials would still not be off the hook, but we could see what was being done without the detail that would have jeopardized officers.
Today, there is no oversight. Looking at a nearly rubber stamp approval without knowing judges names, or having power to remove them from the bench, what can the public do? Nothing, obviously. The only thing we have is overall request and approval numbers. Maybe every single request submitted is valid, maybe not. We don't see the compelling arguments for warrants, we just know that 99.99% of them are approved. Knowing the numbers of approved does not allow oversight.
If they are capable of what we "know", they are capable of attempting to silence critics.
"Capable of" and "intend to" are completely different questions, as well as matters of legal interest.
Nice word twisting, let me rephrase more carefully. "We know some of the illegal activities that the Government has been involved in, acting in secrecy. There is no reason to assume that they are not acting in other illegal ways. The only way to clear them is to open everything up."
I responded above, but just to be sure you read it.
What can't you understand in people's responses? Since you can't seem to grasp such a simple concept, here is a link. I never mentioned FISA in my post! The UK has the same (or perhaps worse) "secret" court system.
But you cannot say it will never happen because of how these fires actually start.
Yeah, go read how these fires have started. Hint: It has nothing to do with a short, but has everything to do with massive damage from either big heavy road debris (no, not a pothole but huge chunks of metal and high speeds) or hitting trees. Your hypothetical is wrong. You may as well compare to how much damage each can do with a car-bomb, because it's the same imaginary situation.
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.
Bullshit! The Government investigations didn't force changes or find the faults, the companies did because people stopped buying their cars. The Government may have pushed the global recalls, and that would be a fair speculation. To claim that these companies didn't care however is wrong. They would not have remained in business telling people "we don't care if you die" and making such a statement shows a very distorted view of the world.
Generally, they dent and that is all.
Then you go on a complete fabrication spree. A dent from hitting a tree? Sorry, go back and read what I mentioned about Michael Hastings. I won't bother with the rest of the fabrications except to point out that you are not telling the truth. It's not even a little lie, it's absolutely verifiable false information.
First, thanks for paying attention to which country we are talking about. Congress does not have oversight over the UKs GCHQ.
Second, even if we were talking about the NSA you would be dishonest. Congress has no oversight of FISA rulings, none, zero, zip, nada!
I never mentioned "secrets", like your example of trial evidence, I said "secret" as in know outside knowledge of ruling/decision. If the rulings are all secret, oversight is impossible. It's not just the US FISA courts that make "secret" rulings, but the UK has numerous secret courts as well.
We have had a similar discussion before. I _agree_ that some things should not be public knowledge. Plans for making weapons, locations of CIA houses, lists of operative names, etc.. are all fine to be restricted from the public. We don't need those to be available to have discussion on mass surveillance. The public should be aware of the Government plans to scoop all data from everyone everywhere using ever possible means including those that are considered illegal by their respective countries laws.
For example, if you start dumping all of the traffic from a site you could (and perhaps would depending on the target) go to jail based on numerous wiretapping laws related to computers. The list of laws is extensive, I'll suggest you get a book on CEH, CISSP, etc.. that explain those all of those laws. If the Government is going to break all of those laws, that should be a matter of public knowledge and debate. Not the agents names, and maybe not even the agency doing the work. The actions are what is important.
I mean, the government's using circular logic, and that's wrong. But the people raging against it are using equally broken logic. And there's perfectly good discussion not happening because everyone flung themselves to the polar extremes. Why?
I don't agree with there only being two extremes, and I don't agree that the majority of the discussion about mass surveillance is using broken logic. Most of the discussion against it has been using law which is not circular. The Government debate for mass surveillance is mostly that they don't have to follow the law, which is also not circular logic.
Re-read my post. Whether it was mandatory or not, it was still happening due to market pressure. Claiming the Government made it "mandatory" does not change the fact that most cars already had seat belts and most people used them. When Air bags were developed there were no laws requiring air-bags. Numerous cars were already getting them installed, all without a regulation. Market pressure sped up the development and implementation long before the Government made a law to make them mandatory.
This Holiday does not get them trinkets you insensitive clod! The participants receive headaches the next day, mingled with disappointment and regret.
It had to be prior to that, because we knew of the great wizards of Canada "Geddy Lee", "Neil Peart", and "Alex Lifeson" in 1974.
I have a hard time believing that someone convinced them this site was worthwhile. Was this just some kind of training exercise for them, to make sure that they could handle the traffic volume from a dying site before they go and try to intercept traffic from one that is relevant?
Sites like Slashdot and Reddit are very legit targets. If you want to measure public opinion you actually need sites like this. I'm sure that they also scan forums on intellectual sites like Science, etc... How do you know how to spin things, or continue to spin things, if you don't know how much information the public has.
Do I think they use it to track individual users? I have no evidence of this, but that does not mean it does not happen. If we can't see what they do I have no trust in them. If they are capable of what we "know", they are capable of attempting to silence critics.
The Stasi said the same thing in East Germany. But that's circular logic: We're authorized to do this because we authorized it.
Exactly! They claim that they use laws to control what they snoop, and have oversight. When the laws are "secret", the courts are "secret", and the oversight is internal how much should we trust them? None at all!
Western governments are almost single-handedly responsible for the massive improvement in both car and road safety over the last 40yrs, free market competition has worked out how to put those legal requirements into a car without it looking like a 1970's Volvo.
I would give some credit to Western Governments for fuel emissions, but not safety. Ford changed the Pinto not because the Government made them, but because the public would not purchase a Ford vehicle when they started catching fire from any rear end collision. Even fuel emissions is questionable mind you, it is impossible to know what the free market impact would be simply by media bringing attention to the problem of emissions. Leaded vs. unleaded cars were not developed due to Government emission regulations, they were developed before that because at the time people were being made aware of environmental impact.
Examples of public awareness. An elementary school project I still remember was to try and design a method of cleaning up oil from spills. CFCs were already being denied by the free market long before the Government bans. Adopt a Highway programs started, and I still remember the TV commercial with the American Indian with a tear running down his cheek as he looked at the dumping and pollution.
The government in my opinion gets little credit for mileage laws as well. In the early 70s and before Government regulation, mileage was improving on it's own. Once the gas price wars ended, it became expensive to drive. MPG became something on the sticker. Regulations had more to do with denying certain people with too much money the ability to drive a 8 gallon to the mile tank down the road than it did getting 20MPG.
It's really incredible what public awareness can do. Too bad today the public is more aware of twerking than ocean dead zones.
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!
The 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.
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.
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? How about the engines? Sounds to me like they have armor plating around the batteries, maybe this type of thing won't be preventable. That does not make the EVs a failure, or even more dangerous than combustion. You are not seeing these fires from "normal" driving or "normal" accidents and road debris. If the car gets totaled by debris, whether it catches fire or not is kind of a mute point. Quite frankly, I have seen combustion cars catch fire from hitting road debris as well.
The point we should be debating is whether or not the company did enough to keep people and roads are safe. Additionally, we can point out where they should improve. Those points however should be unbiased, and not what we are seeing today because there is no fair debate.
Really? Which rights have been eliminated?
Since it's impossible to tell if this is a question from ignorance or if you are trolling, I'll play along as if you were asking from ignorance.
First amendment is virtually gone. Read up on "Free speech zones" and you will understand, maybe. Sure, those don't stop us from ranting individually. Individual ranting does not make change. Prior to "Free Speech Zones" permission was required for large gatherings. Go check some history on when they added "permit required" to gatherings in Washington DC for protests.
Second amendment. Numerous locations deny you your rights to bear arms. Chicago for example, you know, the most corrupt city in the USA where criminals can have guns but you get to be a victim. Courts have upheld State and City rights to ban your 2nd amendment rights, so it's obviously no longer a "right".
Fourth amendment. Two acronyms sum up your fourth amendment rights today, TSA and NSA. Those are the big ones of course, but there are more I won't spend time on.
Fifth amendment. Double jeopardy has been legal for quite a while, OJ is a perfect example. Don't argue your own belief of guilt vs. innocence. He wad found not guilty in criminal court then tried in civil court for the same crime which is exactly the definition of Double Jeopardy. For the remainder of the 5th, see how Journalists have been forced to either give up source names or face penalty.
Sixth amendment. Pretty much the whole set of rights has been scrapped. Speedy trials are extremely rare, but that's not the big one. In cases of the Government, people are often unable to see and question evidence. FISA courts obliterate that concepts in the 6th.
Eighth amendment. Gitmo and Drones are all you need to consider here.
And of course the tenth. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The US Government has no constitutional right to impose the ACA for example, none! But the people in office don't give a rats ass, and the majority of the people are kept ignorant so they don't know they should be fighting against things like ACA. If the Government has no power, they can't simply grab it. They have, they do, and we are paying the price for our ignorance and complacency.
When they crash into trees? Michael Hastings, enough said because his Mercedes was not old. When they have massive steel debris punched into them? Okay pally, you keep right on shilling.
Remove your biases for a moment and read TFA. All this bullshit doom and gloom is nonsense propaganda, or at least most of it. Most likely, brought to you by several groups of people that don't benefit (enough) from EVs, and stand to lose a whole lot of money if they begin to be successful.
Accident 1. It apparently occurred after the Model S ran over a piece of road debris later described as a "curved section that fell off a semi-trailer." That item punched a 3-inch hole through the 1/4-inch-thick armor plate protecting the pack, with a force of 25 tons, according to a report by Tesla. The car alerted the driver of a fault, and he pulled over and exited the car.
Emphasis is mine. It should not take a rocket scientist to guess that this is a big fucking piece of steel. It may not have made your Combustion car catch fire, but your car would have most taken tremendous damage at least. Your car does not have 1/4-inch armor plating, so you may not have lived through it.
Accident 2. It apparently occurred after the Model S driver jumped a curb, took out several feet of a concrete wall, and then hit a tree.
Ever hear of Michael Hastings who died in a new Mercedes that hit a tree and caught fire? It happened very recently, so you can save the "it never happens with gas cars" lines. I don't think the mention of the guy being drunk makes a lick of difference to the point. The point is, this guy was driving very fast and crashed into a bunch of hard stuff.
Accident 3. It too apparently occurred after the Model S ran over a piece of road debris, this time reportedly described by police as a tow hitch that pierced the undercarriage. Tesla issued this statement: “We have been in contact with the driver, who was not injured and believes the car saved his life. Our team is on its way to Tennessee to learn more about what happened in the accident.”
So once again, we have a massive piece of road debris that would have totaled any other car on the road as the culprit, and as of yet an unknown cause of fire. Note the drivers opinion that the car saved his life and received no injuries. Sure, he's not an expert but you were not there so are not an expert either.
All this shit keeps pointing to some people wanting bad press for EVs because, you know.. we kill a whole lot of people to get this oil that should be able to transfer a good chunk of your money to them!