The problem is not power transmission, it is cost. If wind is cheap enough to make running the wires worth the costs then natural market forces will make it happen. Until then we will burn coal, because cheap power means lives. Expensive power means people die.
Also, as someone that lives in the Great Plains I can tell you that people do in fact live here.
The letter Mr. Jarlstrom received stated he violated two laws. The first was claiming to be an engineer without being registered as an engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction in the USA. The second was "practicing engineering" without a license. By writing his letter stating he did a study on traffic patterns and the layout of the roadway he "testified" or "investigated" on matters concerning "public utilities, processes, works, or projects" as defined in 2007 ORS 672.005.
What is worse is that the law defines such acts on private property as "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering without a license is a violation of the law. So, you measure a room and compute the wall area so that you can make sure you buy enough paint to cover the walls you are "practicing engineering" under the law. If you take those calculations to the hardware store to buy paint, and you are not a licensed engineer in Oregon, then you have violated the law.
If you measure out your yard so that you can buy enough fertilizer for your grass then you have done "surveying to determine area or topography" or "surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials required, removed or in place" as defined by the law. Even on private property this applies. Since Mr. Jarlstrom did some surveying on public property, the intersection in question, and stated so in his letters to the various government agencies then he's been "practicing engineering" without a license.
The $500 fine he paid was for claiming to be an engineer when he was not, under the law. What got him in trouble in the first place was showing expertise in engineering and using that knowledge to complain, or "testify"", to the government. It seems they thought they could not get him on that law, or they didn't want to bother arguing that to a judge. I lost where I saw it but it seems there is a statute of limitations of two years on this violation. Since he keeps talking about the problems with the traffic lights to anyone that asks him about it the clock keeps getting reset on this violation and/or he is committing multiple violations of this law. Each violation carries a possible fine of up to $1000.
After receiving these letters the Oregon state government could have done one of two things, fine him for violating the law, or shut up and listen to what he was telling them. If they didn't fine him then others would have got the crazy idea in their head that they could use devices that measure time and distance, and "apply special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" to check the work of government "engineers". I suspect the government wants him to shut up so that they can keep collecting fines on people running red lights.
He's paid his fine, can the government come back and fine him again if he doesn't stop talking? I guess that's why the federal courts are now involved.
As I propose it the UBI fund would only pay out if there are funds to pay out.
Then it's not 'Universal' anymore, now is it? If people can't count on it then what would be the point? You're living in a fantasy world.
Of course it's universal, everyone gets the same pay out. It's just the pay out equals zero dollars if no one is making money.
If no one is paying in then no one is working. Creating money out of thin air to pay out won't change that. We can say that everyone gets a million dollars but that does not mean it's worth anything. If the government just prints money to make up for the shortfall then the value of the dollar, like any other commodity, adjusts through market forces.
Claiming that money has inherent value is a fantasy. This fantasy is why UBI will fail unless there is a cap on the payout. This fantasy that the value of money does not change is why, for example, minimum wages are a failure. If people get money for nothing then it loses value.
At least with what I propose, that the UBI payout is based on available funds, the effect on the value of a dollar is capped. People that can work will not be able to just stop working and live off the UBI since as more and more people remove themselves from the working pool the payout diminishes. There will be an incentive to work and therefore contribute to the UBI fund through taxes. Those taxes don't have to be income taxes, and in fact it would be best if they weren't since even those living on the UBI will be contributing back to the UBI from buying stuff, paying rent, or whatever.
As I propose it people can rely on the UBI as long as there is an economy to support it. Having a UBI that does not adjust with the ability of the economy to carry it means it cannot be relied upon at all, since it will in time kill the economy or the currency, or quite possibly both.
The rich and corporations will weasel out of paying, and the people it's intended to help will end up footing the bill. So-called 'UBI' would FAIL.
TL,DR: That's bullshit.
As I propose it the UBI fund would only pay out if there are funds to pay out. If no one pays then no one collects. Also, the tax rates and the income levels I proposed were just examples. If the "rich" aren't paying then adjust the levels of income and tax rates until they do. These people make something, somewhere, somehow, therefore it can be taxed.
I've had discussions with contractors before and they know a lot of tax tricks to avoid paying taxes. One memorable example was to create a corporation where the only employees are the contractor himself and his wife. His paycheck goes to the corporation and he gets a cut, so does his wife, and he diverts some of his expenses to the corporation, and what's left is a sort of "bank account" he can draw from in the times he's not working. Assuming his contract pays $120k/yr and he gets $50k of that, as does his wife, then he and his wife do not show in the $120k tax bracket but in the lower $50k bracket. This person is not under the poverty line by any means. This person is still paying taxes, just less than if he didn't "weasel" out of paying.
This kind of "weaseling" only works for a certain set of people, those in the margins of the progressive tax brackets. For those making less there is nothing to gain with this kind of complexity. For those making more they can create some other forms of "weaseling" but that can only "hide" so much from the taxman.
I guess this only exposes the problems of a progressive tax. People will have an incentive to hide their income from the taxman. One solution is not tax income. If we derive our tax revenue from property taxes and/or sales taxes then we don't have to worry about how much people make, only how much they spend. Another is a flat tax rate. The complexities of "weaseling" out of a higher tax bracket is pointless if it gains nothing in tax savings.
This is all assuming the "rich" are not paying taxes. A quick Google search tells me that the top 1% of wage earners in the USA pay nearly half of the federal income taxes. If the "rich" are "weaseling" out of paying taxes then they must be doing a real shitty job of it.
Also, we have these tax structures to benefit the poor. If a small business owner had to show all of their $120k income as personal income then they'd be paying a considerable tax burden, especially if a large portion of this was used to pay an employee or two, where that would be taxed again as that employee would show it as income. If we don't allow that contract engineer to "weasel" out of his tax burden with a corporation then we'd destroy the structure by which a small business like a bakery or whatever could make a profit.
Those are the rules we've made and the "rich" have to follow the same rules. If it bothers you so much that the "rich" get to keep so much of their money then change the rules. Just be careful what you wish for. If we tax people too much then I know several of those contractors will just pack up and go back to the country they immigrated from. Then we lose ALL of their taxable income.
I believe that UBI can work but only if there are fail safe measures installed to prevent underfunding and overspending. One way to do this is create the UBI such that those that receive the UBI get a fraction of the UBI funds and not a set amount, or is at least capped at some level based on the funds available.
Let's say that the government sets the poverty level, and therefore UBI, and $10,000/year. We don't want anyone in poverty and so we define poverty at some set level and set the UBI so that no one goes below that. Set income tax at progressively higher rates. It could be something like 0% for any income below $20,000, 5% for 60,000, 10% for 120,000, 20% for 240,000, and 30% for income above one million.
If too many people aren't paying in to the UBI "bucket" then the UBI is automatically lowered. The argument is not only that the government is unable to fund this but also that if the value of the dollar, downturn in the economy, or whatever, are such that people are not making as much taxable income then everyone gets a little off the top of the UBI since the cost of living and/or standard of living is reduced that people can live on less money. If things are well then the UBI goes up to the specified cap. If the cap is determined to be too low for some reason then it should take a new law or regulation to increase it.
If the money going out is more than what is going in then it will fail one way or another. If structured in a way that the outgoing money cannot be greater than the incoming then it can be sustainable. Since I have no confidence of people that are elected by the people receiving this UBI to keep this balance then I do not see it happening.
A solution to that, which seems obvious to me, is that unless you are paying more taxes than you receive in benefits then you cannot vote.
I've actually looked into getting an app that could amplify the sounds around me. I've worked in a cubicle that could deaden the noise reasonably well but I could hear people talk in the next aisle and sometimes on things I was interested in. Not interested enough to stop my work and join them but interested enough I'd like to hear.
I have some big headphones that block out sounds well and if I'm focused on my work I can get into my own little world. This has lead to people surprising me by tapping on my shoulder since they tried to get my attention by calling my name but I did not reply.
I've come to often leave an ear exposed so I can hear if people are coming or using headphones that don't block out sound as well. If I want to signal that I want to get some work done I put on my big headset and cover both ears. If people are trying to interrupt my work then I'm not hearing them.
What would be nice is an app for my Apple iDevices that allow me to listen to my music or internet streams while also being able to have some volume control on the outside world. Any suggestions?
1) The cop did not plan on doing anything wrong, criminal, evil or stupid. He did what he did with the best of intentions (as evidence by the fact that he told the truth when questioned about it.)
Can we know this is true? It is also possible that he knew what he was dong was wrong but only gave up on the ruse when it became clear to him that this could be evidence against him of contempt of court, falsifying evidence, and/or some other crime. It is also not beyond doubt that he planted the evidence against the suspect. Maybe this officer has a history with this suspect and he created the whole event to get this guy in jail. I know that sounds like it might be out of a movie plot but it has happened. We just do not know.
3) No real change will happen. They won't teach that cop, or other cops that "your job is NOT to get a conviction, but aid civilans, and honestly report what happened." They won't change the culture of being "in charge" rather than "of service". They will continue using the Dirty Harry (mean, angry, takes no crap, there to kill the bad guy) stereotype rather than the Columbo stereotype (self effacing, polite, there to ask questions)
If this does not change something then the police officers involved simply lack the intelligence to learn their lesson. If the police "culture" is as you describe then it is because the police and those in charge of them are not doing their job. The courts did their job to catch this improper handling of evidence and dropping the case. That's the "cost" of violating people's rights.
2) The cop was so ignorant, so arrogant, so focused on getting the arrest, that he did not know it was wrong, why it was wrong, and probably still does not understand the principle (but I bet he knows not to do that exact same thing again.)
While it is a common error to equate bad behavior to malice rather than ignorance I'm not so sure this is a case of ignorance. Police officers know how to handle evidence. They are trained on how to act in court. I find it difficult to place his failure to state this recording as a re-enactment from the start as a case of ignorance. I know some law enforcement. I've watched that "Cops" TV show, fictional police procedural shows, and mystery movies. It is well known in our culture about what happens when police mishandle evidence. This should not be something the officer can claim ignorance.
If I understand the article correctly it was showing this video as "true events" to a judge that got the arrest warrant. The judge likely threw this case out based on the false pretenses of the warrant application alone. Again, this is how I understand the events, this officer created this ruse long before it came to trial and no doubt had a long time and many instances when he could have made it clear what was in the video was a re-enactment. Allowing this video to be portrayed as a real time event until cornered on it has to be an act of malice, not ignorance.
I'm not sure what kind of punishment this officer should get. Perhaps losing this case is enough. I do believe that this is something that needs to be made a note of by his supervisors because if something like this happens again then there should be no doubt that he's incapable of performing the duties of law enforcement honorably. If I were his boss then I'd give him the choice to leave or be fired. If he's a good cop then he can be a good cop somewhere else. If not then I want nothing to do with him.
I have a similar disdain for Wal-Mart. I have not entered the store willingly in a very long time. The last time I went to Wal-Mart willingly was when I was in college and had to buy some stuff for my apartment. I didn't know the difference between Wal-Mart and the other stores yet. I figured that out when I bought a plastic waste basket that stunk up my apartment. After I discovered Target, Sears, JC Penney, Best Buy, and so on I went back only when taken there by someone else, they were the only store open at the time (late at night or early morning), or when shopping at an attached shop (like Subway, or for glasses). Even with my past problems with Best Buy I'd go there first, at least Best Buy seemed to improve things over time. Wal-Mart seemed to get a bit better too but not enough to get me back.
It seems to me that those rules are fine in the law, so long as this is made clear from the start. The catch is if this is done in secret or not. If you tell your child that the phone is monitored then it seems nothing is wrong. Where the issue arises is of the "snooping" is done in secret since even children have the right of privacy.
Your policy sounds quite similar to what Dad did with my youngest sister. We lived on a farm far from town and so Dad bought a car so she could get to and from school, after school events, and so forth. He told her that while she had wide latitude on using the car it was not her car, he owned the car and she was merely allowed to use it. I didn't get this "talk" since I'm the middle child and when I had to drive it was often to take myself and my siblings to school or wherever, it was obvious I did not "own" the car. Since she was the last to leave the house this was not so clear as she had no one to share the car with, Dad often drove the truck places and Mom took the "nice" car.
A cell phone is an inherently personal device, people do not often share them especially now that they've become so inexpensive. A parent giving a child a phone and yet claiming ownership might seem as foreign as giving a child a pair of shoes and claiming that the child did not "own" them. Obviously the parent has the ability to dictate certain behaviors. Legally speaking a minor cannot own property. Assuming the clothes would even fit it's unusual for a parent to wear the same clothes as the child.
I can see it like this. A child will be able to go to their bedroom and close the door, and assume they cannot be seen by their parents. If a parent puts a camera in the bedroom, and fails to tell the child it is there, then this can be a problem legally. That's probably a much better analogy than my car or clothes example. That may be your child in your house but you could still be guilty of a crime for snooping on your children in "their" bedroom and not telling them that you might.
So, the cop offered the "fake" video to a judge to get an arrest warrant but when it came to trial it became clear the video was a "re-enactment" of the original event? I think that is what the article is trying to tell me.
While this seems to be a dirty trick on the judge to get the arrest warrant it does not seem the officer actually lied during the trial. Seems to me that the officer tried to let everyone assume the video was what happened in real time but when actually cornered and asked about it he was honest about the re-enactment.
Perhaps what the officer said was true, that there was a firearm and drugs in the car, but failing to have the camera on when conducting the search created enough of a doubt that the footage was inadmissible. It seems to me that the only person that knows if this is planted evidence or not is the officer. Had the technology not existed to record the event as it happened the suspects would likely be in jail right now. Since the ability to record video in real time existed, and the cop did something suspicious with the technology, the suspects are now free.
I'm not sure this meets the test of "news for nerds" since the technological aspect is pretty small, IMHO. It's just another case of a cop not handling evidence by the book so the suspects are off the hook. Sounds a lot like when I was in college and read an article about an officer that put the wrong date on all the parking tickets he wrote that day so all of them were considered invalid. The scale of the offense is different of course, this was a case of multiple felonies and not something that would be punished with "$50 fine and time served" but even little mistakes can mean people walk away.
It is irrelevant what their mother tongue is, it matters what common language all the parties in the conversation speak.
When I visited Germany it was quite common to find people that spoke English. I spoke no German but I had a translation booklet. I know some Spanish but found no use for it. When in the vicinity of a major airport the signs had both German and English, because English is the mandated language for international pilots. Most everyone around the American military bases spoke English well enough to do business, there were even English language radio and TV stations. Even the French guy at the wine shop in Germany spoke English, which might have had something to do with its vicinity to the EU central bank in Frankfurt.
OPEC member nations use English as its official language, even though none of the member nations have it as their "mother tongue".
International banking is done in English. International air travel is in English. International oil trade is in English. English is the closest thing we have to a universal language right now. If some EU snob thinks that the "brexit" is going to diminish the importance of the English language in international trade then he's going to find himself getting corrected quickly. The UK may be leaving the EU but that does not mean that trade to the UK stops. Trade with other English speaking nations also continues.
When I visited my Army buddy in Germany I made a conscious effort to not look "American" since I knew Americans are often targets for violence and pickpockets. I did not wear any blue jeans, only khaki style slacks. I wore Doc Marten boots. The coat I wore was an Australian/Western style duster. I guess it worked because when in the airport security line to head back home I was in line behind a British family, which I thought might lead the people to at least ask what language I spoke when it came to my turn. The lady with the metal detector started to talk to me in German. When I replied in English she said, "Oh, you're English!" Yep, I'm "English". I'm of German ancestry so this tall and thin guy, with (then) jet black hair, and snow white skin follows a group of Brits I guess I looked more German than English. They were shorter, rounder, with a hint of red to their brown hair and faint freckles on their skin. That was the most memorable moment of knowing I fit in, people generally seemed to assume I spoke German but more often than not they switched to English when I tried to speak German back.
Another memorable moment was going to a restaurant to sit and have a drink while walking with my friend. We were greeted by a rather curvacious waitress and shown a table. We ordered in broken German and paid for our drinks. When we wanted a second drink a rather flat chested waitress started to take our order but she ran off suddenly. We were confused for a minute until she returned with the buxom one which spoke to us in English. I was doubly pleased with this, I didn't have to try to speak German and I got another look at the pretty girl.
That was another thing that struck me. Even though I apparently looked "German" enough that people thought nothing of it until I looked confused when spoken to, they switched immediately to English. I thought that given the proximity to France and Italy that people might first try French or Italian, maybe even Spanish which I studied in high school and college and thought I might have to rely upon. Nope, English was their immediate fall back.
I recall seeing a recent video on the French election in which the commenter made the observation that while the video was in English he knew it might get a lot of views in France since 40% of the people in France spoke English. So, I suspect even the French in Germany speak English. In every EU nation at least 20% of the population speak English, perhaps not as their "mother tongue" but they do speak it. A quick Wikipedia search tells me that roughly half of the EU population speaks English.
Where do you think the Americans got their language from? Why do you think that language Americans speak is called "English" and not "American" or something else?
Sure, people often make the distinction between "American English" and what many call "Queen's English" but the difference is so small that it's still "English".
Other than that, I have found that 100 percent of the calls on my soon to be gone land line are scammers.
I used to have a land line, but I'm thinking of restoring service. I would simply turn off the ringer on all attached devices to avoid the scams and political calls. I don't want it so people can call me, but so I can call others. I'd also want it for fax service and for dial-up internet when my cable service fails (which seems to happen often). I don't send faxes often but there were times when it came in real handy, usually when dealing with some government agency. Faxes are secure while e-mails are not, and just as fast as e-mail which means not waiting for the postal service to get important documents somewhere.
My last cell phone had spotty service while at home, which made the land line necessary until I switched phones and providers. With Wi-Fi calling now existing it's rare for me to not have service through some cell tower or Wi-Fi base, at home or elsewhere. I do see the utility in a land line, it's a nice back-up and allows me to send and receive faxes.
The few people I know that got rid of their land line ended up getting it back at some point. it's a small expense with many advantages, especially now that the phone utilities learned that they cannot charge the rates they used to be able to get away with.
I will disagree on amateur radio "always" working. I have an amateur radio license and I will take a radio with me when I travel long distances. I can recall several cases when I could contact a local UHF or VHF repeater and no one was listening. It's gotten to a point that I find my CB radio more useful. Long haul truckers still use CB radio to discuss weather, road hazards, etc. I can imagine CB radio being more useful even when not traveling. FRS/GMRS radios might even be more useful than amateur radios in many cases.
I will say that in the case of severe weather or similar situations where people or property are generally threatened that amateurs will likely be listening, including myself. In the case of a traffic accident, a medical emergency, or other isolated incident, that an amateur radio is a means of last resort because of this.
In my basement I have an amateur radio and a CB radio connected to a rooftop antenna. In severe weather I'll turn them on to listen for things happening, and to offer my own reports if relevant. I don't leave them on at all hours to listen for people needing assistance because unless there is a storm or something the conversations are usually very mundane. If done at odd hours these conversations can interrupt something important, like my weekend naps.
Also, if you can show me a D-STAR radio for less then $100 then I'd be very surprised. I'll see "D-STAR ready" radios for that much but that just means that for an additional cost you can buy the add-on to decode the digital signal.
Medical emergencies for one. If calling from home on a land line the location is known based on the phone number. If calling from home on a cell phone, even with the GPS systems required in phones now, the location has a fairly large error zone. There's several examples of this kind of failure being demonstrated.
Extended power outages for another. Because of the costs of burying power lines overhead lines are still the norm in many places. Also due to costs telephone lines are typically buried. Ice, snow, wind, fires, can all bring down power for days while battery backed phone lines still work. Your home might not have been damaged in the disaster so you are fine, just without power. If the phone lines work then you can usually stay home, in relative safety, while the utility works to restore power. Cell phone towers are vulnerable to the same things that can bring down power lines. Assuming one is able to keep a cell phone charged with things like a generator, solar panel, or whatever, that does not mean the cell tower survived or is repaired quickly.
Kids. Children are notorious for losing and breaking things, this includes cell phones. If too young to be responsible enough to maintain a cell phone they can still be trained to operate a land line phone in an emergency. Also, I recall several instances of people having issues contacting family at home when a baby-sitter/house-sitter fails in someway in the cell phone department (changes phone number without telling someone, did not charge phone, forgets it, etc.) and someone wants to check on things. A land line always works in this case. Not a specific "disaster" in this case but a number of scenarios could come to mind which could apply.
Festivals, conventions, other large gatherings. In cases of unusual numbers of people in a location cell phone service can be spotty due to numbers even if people are doing nothing particularly unusual. If there is anything unusual, a fight breaking out, some sort of attack, fire, medical issue, etc. then cell phone towers can get flooded quickly. By using a land line you have a reliable connection, your location is known, etc. by virtue of being connected to a fixed device. Again not a specific disaster, but a case where a bad situation can become worse if a land line is unavailable.
So, you are saying that government is the problem? I can agree with that.
If coal was regulated like nuclear then we'd be shutting down every coal plant based upon radiation leakage to the environment alone. The level of radiation in Grand Central terminal in NYC is higher than would be allowed in any nuclear power plant control room. Does anyone consider that train station a radiation hazard?
The regulations that nuclear power needs to meet to get a permit in the USA is insanity upon insanity. The rules are arbitrary and based on bad science. If we get some sane rules then we'd get nuclear power going again. Nuclear power is safe, inexpensive (government regulations aside), plentiful, reliable, and as "green" as wind or solar.
Anyone that claims we can have "green" energy but does not include nuclear power is insane, ignorant, or perhaps both. These people will claim that "any day now" solar power will be cheaper than coal, we can store up our wind and solar power in big batteries, and "smart grids" will connect it all. What do we do until this technology comes? I say we use nuclear power. It does everything that people claim wind and solar will do some day but we've seen nuclear do this already for 40 years.
Unfortunately we'd need to see one new gigawatt scale nuclear power plant go online in the USA every month to meet the demands of retired coal and nuclear plants. It's likely we'd have to exceed that to meet growth demands in the future. The way nuclear power plants are approved now simply cannot match that rate. We need to fix the rules on licensing nuclear power or bad things will happen in the coming decades. What are those "bad things"? Regional brownouts and blackouts, prices skyrocketing, perhaps a deadly failure in a power plant that has been forced to limp along well beyond its designed life span.
I do believe that if we do see prices get high enough, blackouts start to occur, that it will be resolved quickly. People will forget about Fukushima and Three Mile Island when the power goes out in the middle of winter. At that point I expect that we'll do like we did in the 1950s and be able to bring a nuclear power plant on line, from ground breaking to producing power, in 24 months.
It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant right now only because we deemed it so. When we no longer deem it necessary to create such delays then things can move quickly.
In what situation would you find a need to push this car? We're talking about a very rare situation, even rarer than a mechanical parking brake getting frozen while engaged.
I kind of see your point but why would anyone need to push an electric car? What would the destination be? Maybe someone might need to disengage the brakes for a tow but any tow truck I've seen would have the ability to provide 12 volt power with sufficient current and duration to do so. It's also not all that uncommon for a "tow truck" to actually be a flatbed capable of getting all wheels off the ground.
I'm not saying what you propose is impossible, only that it is such an exceedingly rare situation that I do not believe it to be a reasonable case against electric brakes. If we're going there then I can name all kinds of ways mechanical brakes can fail and leave people in a worse situation.
"Nobody wants a tablet with iPad 2 vintage components in it. "
If that were true then Apple would not feel any motivation to specify that they be destroyed. If Apple did not see them as potentially valuable to competitors then they'd do nothing since it would avoid any friction from potential recycling contractors and also avoid any possibility of bad press if this contractual obligation got out. My guess is that there were many people at Apple that did this math but perhaps did not anticipate all the factors properly because we are talking about it now.
As much as people are upset about this there is a very logical solution to this, get in the recycling business. I imagine that a lot of people out there can't just get in the recycling business themselves but they have the choice on how they recycle their aged and/or broken electronics. You don't have to send your old MacBook to Apple, find a recycler that will not simply shred it into confetti. A question comes to mind, how did we get ourselves in this interesting situation?
Here's a problem that I see. The government decided that to make sure old electronics did not end up in landfills they forced the manufacturers to accept old devices and have them "recycled". There are many forms of recycling, as made clear in the article, but the government did not specify the form of this recycling and/or did not prevent the manufacturers to place conditions on third party recyclers they hired out.
Seems to me that if we want to see this practice stop then we should remove the requirement that manufacturers recycle their old devices. The problem is the government got involved. Without government getting involved in this the producers of these electronics would not be in a position to shred their competition.
I see more and more examples as time goes on where Ronald Reagan got it right. Government is quite often not the solution, it is the problem.
With an electric car the risk is not only low it is nearly non-existent.
To activate the brakes the car has to have had enough charge to propel itself. There is perhaps a very small chance that the car could lose power in the exact moment where it was unable to engage the brake before power to the system was lost. Once the battery is discharged though that car is not moving under its own power, electric parking brakes or not. If it has enough power to move then it has enough power to engage/disengage the brakes.
Every car that is allowed on public roads is required to have two independent braking systems. In the case of a failure of the parking brake to activate there is another system. Loss of power likely also means loss of power brakes but that diminishes braking power based on pressure applied to the pedal, not complete loss.
My first response to reading about electrically activated brakes was much like yours. After thinking it through though I don't see this as any more problematic than any mechanical system.
"Tesla estimates that about 2 percent of the vehicles recalled contain the improperly manufactured gear. It should be noted that the parking brake assembly is from a third-party supplier, as well."
If this is from a third party then it seems probable that this assembly was offered to other car makers. Have other car makes used this assembly? This is a voluntary recall from Tesla so it is possible that this is left unresolved by anyone with a car made by someone other than Tesla and has electrically activated parking brakes.
I'm sure Tesla will get some bad press from the recall but I imagine that this is much less damaging to their reputation than news reports of Tesla vehicles being unable to move due to parking brakes locking up on drivers.
My truck has an automatic transmission and yet I use the parking brake quite regularly. Do I still fit in your two "buckets" of people?
Someone might ask why I bother with the parking brake if I have an automatic transmission. Where I live there are quite a few hills and if I park on a hill and fail to engage the parking brake this puts pressure on the transmission such that it can take an "uncomfortable" amount of force to shift out of park. What do I mean by "uncomfortable"? I mean in that it's enough force that I have to wonder if I could damage and/or wear some part prematurely. I also don't like the idea of the possibility that there is considerable and constant force on the transmission while it is parked, and if there is a failure in the transmission my truck could roll down a hill and damage itself, something else, or SOMEONE else. With the transmission in park, and the parking brake engaged, I'm quite certain that my truck will not roll downhill excepting some highly unlikely event.
I also make an effort to point the steering wheel in a way that if my truck should roll down the hill it will do so in a way to minimize damage. This usually means pointing the front wheels towards the curb so that if my truck rolls downhill it will hit the curb first.
Some might call me paranoid but I think this is just good practice. It takes only a split second to engage and disengage the brake and I've been doing this for so long I don't even think about it, it's reflex.
Many popular music artists will freely admit they are not musicians. Lionel Ritchie admitted in an interview on how he could barely play the piano. In music videos he'd be shown playing the same chord over and over as the camera zoomed in on his face and then he'd start to sing, and someone else would play the piano from there. I saw a TMBG concert and Flansburgh made a joke that he didn't really know how to play guitar, and ever since then when I see him perform I can't help but notice how little he actually plays. Jim Morrison considered himself a poet, not a musician. I could go on.
Point is that to be a successful person in the music business does not mean one must know how to play a musical instrument. I'm not saying I'm any expert on this but I got a few peaks behind the curtain, literally and figuratively, over the years. Music is not my profession, I just ran into a lot of people that did things behind the scenes. My brother was a stage hand in a college town, I've taken music lessons from professionals, I got to talk to a lot of musicians, and I like to read history. There are many aspects to selling music, and having a pretty face and knowing how to dance certainly helps.
If your experience with music is from Super Bowl half-time shows and performances from awards ceremonies then I can see why you'd think that concerts are just backtracks and dancing. If you go to a real concert you will see the people perform in real time, and often not a lot of dancing.
People that don't have any real ability and rely on backing tracks may find success but it will be fleeting, just ask Milli Vanilli. Music fanatics will spot a fake pretty quick. Milli Vanilli got away with their ruse for only two years and only with considerable effort. I believe a lot of people learned from that and that is a trick that can lead to financial ruin.
I believe the music business is pretty honest with it's consumers. They might exaggerate someone's ability with a guitar when they sing but they don't call that person the guitar player, they call them the singer. If you are going to concerts and are disappointed that all you get is a dance routine set to the band's latest album then stop going to those concerts. It's not that hard to find real musicians in any city in the USA. I've lived in small towns in the Midwest most of my life and if I want to see a "real" concert then I can on a regular basis.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not power transmission, it is cost. If wind is cheap enough to make running the wires worth the costs then natural market forces will make it happen. Until then we will burn coal, because cheap power means lives. Expensive power means people die.
Also, as someone that lives in the Great Plains I can tell you that people do in fact live here.
The letter Mr. Jarlstrom received stated he violated two laws. The first was claiming to be an engineer without being registered as an engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction in the USA. The second was "practicing engineering" without a license. By writing his letter stating he did a study on traffic patterns and the layout of the roadway he "testified" or "investigated" on matters concerning "public utilities, processes, works, or projects" as defined in 2007 ORS 672.005.
What is worse is that the law defines such acts on private property as "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering without a license is a violation of the law. So, you measure a room and compute the wall area so that you can make sure you buy enough paint to cover the walls you are "practicing engineering" under the law. If you take those calculations to the hardware store to buy paint, and you are not a licensed engineer in Oregon, then you have violated the law.
If you measure out your yard so that you can buy enough fertilizer for your grass then you have done "surveying to determine area or topography" or "surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials required, removed or in place" as defined by the law. Even on private property this applies. Since Mr. Jarlstrom did some surveying on public property, the intersection in question, and stated so in his letters to the various government agencies then he's been "practicing engineering" without a license.
The $500 fine he paid was for claiming to be an engineer when he was not, under the law. What got him in trouble in the first place was showing expertise in engineering and using that knowledge to complain, or "testify"", to the government. It seems they thought they could not get him on that law, or they didn't want to bother arguing that to a judge. I lost where I saw it but it seems there is a statute of limitations of two years on this violation. Since he keeps talking about the problems with the traffic lights to anyone that asks him about it the clock keeps getting reset on this violation and/or he is committing multiple violations of this law. Each violation carries a possible fine of up to $1000.
After receiving these letters the Oregon state government could have done one of two things, fine him for violating the law, or shut up and listen to what he was telling them. If they didn't fine him then others would have got the crazy idea in their head that they could use devices that measure time and distance, and "apply special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" to check the work of government "engineers". I suspect the government wants him to shut up so that they can keep collecting fines on people running red lights.
He's paid his fine, can the government come back and fine him again if he doesn't stop talking? I guess that's why the federal courts are now involved.
Maybe he's a Mormon?
As I propose it the UBI fund would only pay out if there are funds to pay out.
Then it's not 'Universal' anymore, now is it? If people can't count on it then what would be the point? You're living in a fantasy world.
Of course it's universal, everyone gets the same pay out. It's just the pay out equals zero dollars if no one is making money.
If no one is paying in then no one is working. Creating money out of thin air to pay out won't change that. We can say that everyone gets a million dollars but that does not mean it's worth anything. If the government just prints money to make up for the shortfall then the value of the dollar, like any other commodity, adjusts through market forces.
Claiming that money has inherent value is a fantasy. This fantasy is why UBI will fail unless there is a cap on the payout. This fantasy that the value of money does not change is why, for example, minimum wages are a failure. If people get money for nothing then it loses value.
At least with what I propose, that the UBI payout is based on available funds, the effect on the value of a dollar is capped. People that can work will not be able to just stop working and live off the UBI since as more and more people remove themselves from the working pool the payout diminishes. There will be an incentive to work and therefore contribute to the UBI fund through taxes. Those taxes don't have to be income taxes, and in fact it would be best if they weren't since even those living on the UBI will be contributing back to the UBI from buying stuff, paying rent, or whatever.
As I propose it people can rely on the UBI as long as there is an economy to support it. Having a UBI that does not adjust with the ability of the economy to carry it means it cannot be relied upon at all, since it will in time kill the economy or the currency, or quite possibly both.
The rich and corporations will weasel out of paying, and the people it's intended to help will end up footing the bill. So-called 'UBI' would FAIL.
TL,DR: That's bullshit.
As I propose it the UBI fund would only pay out if there are funds to pay out. If no one pays then no one collects. Also, the tax rates and the income levels I proposed were just examples. If the "rich" aren't paying then adjust the levels of income and tax rates until they do. These people make something, somewhere, somehow, therefore it can be taxed.
I've had discussions with contractors before and they know a lot of tax tricks to avoid paying taxes. One memorable example was to create a corporation where the only employees are the contractor himself and his wife. His paycheck goes to the corporation and he gets a cut, so does his wife, and he diverts some of his expenses to the corporation, and what's left is a sort of "bank account" he can draw from in the times he's not working. Assuming his contract pays $120k/yr and he gets $50k of that, as does his wife, then he and his wife do not show in the $120k tax bracket but in the lower $50k bracket. This person is not under the poverty line by any means. This person is still paying taxes, just less than if he didn't "weasel" out of paying.
This kind of "weaseling" only works for a certain set of people, those in the margins of the progressive tax brackets. For those making less there is nothing to gain with this kind of complexity. For those making more they can create some other forms of "weaseling" but that can only "hide" so much from the taxman.
I guess this only exposes the problems of a progressive tax. People will have an incentive to hide their income from the taxman. One solution is not tax income. If we derive our tax revenue from property taxes and/or sales taxes then we don't have to worry about how much people make, only how much they spend. Another is a flat tax rate. The complexities of "weaseling" out of a higher tax bracket is pointless if it gains nothing in tax savings.
This is all assuming the "rich" are not paying taxes. A quick Google search tells me that the top 1% of wage earners in the USA pay nearly half of the federal income taxes. If the "rich" are "weaseling" out of paying taxes then they must be doing a real shitty job of it.
Also, we have these tax structures to benefit the poor. If a small business owner had to show all of their $120k income as personal income then they'd be paying a considerable tax burden, especially if a large portion of this was used to pay an employee or two, where that would be taxed again as that employee would show it as income. If we don't allow that contract engineer to "weasel" out of his tax burden with a corporation then we'd destroy the structure by which a small business like a bakery or whatever could make a profit.
Those are the rules we've made and the "rich" have to follow the same rules. If it bothers you so much that the "rich" get to keep so much of their money then change the rules. Just be careful what you wish for. If we tax people too much then I know several of those contractors will just pack up and go back to the country they immigrated from. Then we lose ALL of their taxable income.
I believe that UBI can work but only if there are fail safe measures installed to prevent underfunding and overspending. One way to do this is create the UBI such that those that receive the UBI get a fraction of the UBI funds and not a set amount, or is at least capped at some level based on the funds available.
Let's say that the government sets the poverty level, and therefore UBI, and $10,000/year. We don't want anyone in poverty and so we define poverty at some set level and set the UBI so that no one goes below that. Set income tax at progressively higher rates. It could be something like 0% for any income below $20,000, 5% for 60,000, 10% for 120,000, 20% for 240,000, and 30% for income above one million.
If too many people aren't paying in to the UBI "bucket" then the UBI is automatically lowered. The argument is not only that the government is unable to fund this but also that if the value of the dollar, downturn in the economy, or whatever, are such that people are not making as much taxable income then everyone gets a little off the top of the UBI since the cost of living and/or standard of living is reduced that people can live on less money. If things are well then the UBI goes up to the specified cap. If the cap is determined to be too low for some reason then it should take a new law or regulation to increase it.
If the money going out is more than what is going in then it will fail one way or another. If structured in a way that the outgoing money cannot be greater than the incoming then it can be sustainable. Since I have no confidence of people that are elected by the people receiving this UBI to keep this balance then I do not see it happening.
A solution to that, which seems obvious to me, is that unless you are paying more taxes than you receive in benefits then you cannot vote.
I've actually looked into getting an app that could amplify the sounds around me. I've worked in a cubicle that could deaden the noise reasonably well but I could hear people talk in the next aisle and sometimes on things I was interested in. Not interested enough to stop my work and join them but interested enough I'd like to hear.
I have some big headphones that block out sounds well and if I'm focused on my work I can get into my own little world. This has lead to people surprising me by tapping on my shoulder since they tried to get my attention by calling my name but I did not reply.
I've come to often leave an ear exposed so I can hear if people are coming or using headphones that don't block out sound as well. If I want to signal that I want to get some work done I put on my big headset and cover both ears. If people are trying to interrupt my work then I'm not hearing them.
What would be nice is an app for my Apple iDevices that allow me to listen to my music or internet streams while also being able to have some volume control on the outside world. Any suggestions?
1) The cop did not plan on doing anything wrong, criminal, evil or stupid. He did what he did with the best of intentions (as evidence by the fact that he told the truth when questioned about it.)
Can we know this is true? It is also possible that he knew what he was dong was wrong but only gave up on the ruse when it became clear to him that this could be evidence against him of contempt of court, falsifying evidence, and/or some other crime. It is also not beyond doubt that he planted the evidence against the suspect. Maybe this officer has a history with this suspect and he created the whole event to get this guy in jail. I know that sounds like it might be out of a movie plot but it has happened. We just do not know.
3) No real change will happen. They won't teach that cop, or other cops that "your job is NOT to get a conviction, but aid civilans, and honestly report what happened." They won't change the culture of being "in charge" rather than "of service". They will continue using the Dirty Harry (mean, angry, takes no crap, there to kill the bad guy) stereotype rather than the Columbo stereotype (self effacing, polite, there to ask questions)
If this does not change something then the police officers involved simply lack the intelligence to learn their lesson. If the police "culture" is as you describe then it is because the police and those in charge of them are not doing their job. The courts did their job to catch this improper handling of evidence and dropping the case. That's the "cost" of violating people's rights.
2) The cop was so ignorant, so arrogant, so focused on getting the arrest, that he did not know it was wrong, why it was wrong, and probably still does not understand the principle (but I bet he knows not to do that exact same thing again.)
While it is a common error to equate bad behavior to malice rather than ignorance I'm not so sure this is a case of ignorance. Police officers know how to handle evidence. They are trained on how to act in court. I find it difficult to place his failure to state this recording as a re-enactment from the start as a case of ignorance. I know some law enforcement. I've watched that "Cops" TV show, fictional police procedural shows, and mystery movies. It is well known in our culture about what happens when police mishandle evidence. This should not be something the officer can claim ignorance.
If I understand the article correctly it was showing this video as "true events" to a judge that got the arrest warrant. The judge likely threw this case out based on the false pretenses of the warrant application alone. Again, this is how I understand the events, this officer created this ruse long before it came to trial and no doubt had a long time and many instances when he could have made it clear what was in the video was a re-enactment. Allowing this video to be portrayed as a real time event until cornered on it has to be an act of malice, not ignorance.
I'm not sure what kind of punishment this officer should get. Perhaps losing this case is enough. I do believe that this is something that needs to be made a note of by his supervisors because if something like this happens again then there should be no doubt that he's incapable of performing the duties of law enforcement honorably. If I were his boss then I'd give him the choice to leave or be fired. If he's a good cop then he can be a good cop somewhere else. If not then I want nothing to do with him.
I have a similar disdain for Wal-Mart. I have not entered the store willingly in a very long time. The last time I went to Wal-Mart willingly was when I was in college and had to buy some stuff for my apartment. I didn't know the difference between Wal-Mart and the other stores yet. I figured that out when I bought a plastic waste basket that stunk up my apartment. After I discovered Target, Sears, JC Penney, Best Buy, and so on I went back only when taken there by someone else, they were the only store open at the time (late at night or early morning), or when shopping at an attached shop (like Subway, or for glasses). Even with my past problems with Best Buy I'd go there first, at least Best Buy seemed to improve things over time. Wal-Mart seemed to get a bit better too but not enough to get me back.
It seems to me that those rules are fine in the law, so long as this is made clear from the start. The catch is if this is done in secret or not. If you tell your child that the phone is monitored then it seems nothing is wrong. Where the issue arises is of the "snooping" is done in secret since even children have the right of privacy.
Your policy sounds quite similar to what Dad did with my youngest sister. We lived on a farm far from town and so Dad bought a car so she could get to and from school, after school events, and so forth. He told her that while she had wide latitude on using the car it was not her car, he owned the car and she was merely allowed to use it. I didn't get this "talk" since I'm the middle child and when I had to drive it was often to take myself and my siblings to school or wherever, it was obvious I did not "own" the car. Since she was the last to leave the house this was not so clear as she had no one to share the car with, Dad often drove the truck places and Mom took the "nice" car.
A cell phone is an inherently personal device, people do not often share them especially now that they've become so inexpensive. A parent giving a child a phone and yet claiming ownership might seem as foreign as giving a child a pair of shoes and claiming that the child did not "own" them. Obviously the parent has the ability to dictate certain behaviors. Legally speaking a minor cannot own property. Assuming the clothes would even fit it's unusual for a parent to wear the same clothes as the child.
I can see it like this. A child will be able to go to their bedroom and close the door, and assume they cannot be seen by their parents. If a parent puts a camera in the bedroom, and fails to tell the child it is there, then this can be a problem legally. That's probably a much better analogy than my car or clothes example. That may be your child in your house but you could still be guilty of a crime for snooping on your children in "their" bedroom and not telling them that you might.
So, the cop offered the "fake" video to a judge to get an arrest warrant but when it came to trial it became clear the video was a "re-enactment" of the original event? I think that is what the article is trying to tell me.
While this seems to be a dirty trick on the judge to get the arrest warrant it does not seem the officer actually lied during the trial. Seems to me that the officer tried to let everyone assume the video was what happened in real time but when actually cornered and asked about it he was honest about the re-enactment.
Perhaps what the officer said was true, that there was a firearm and drugs in the car, but failing to have the camera on when conducting the search created enough of a doubt that the footage was inadmissible. It seems to me that the only person that knows if this is planted evidence or not is the officer. Had the technology not existed to record the event as it happened the suspects would likely be in jail right now. Since the ability to record video in real time existed, and the cop did something suspicious with the technology, the suspects are now free.
I'm not sure this meets the test of "news for nerds" since the technological aspect is pretty small, IMHO. It's just another case of a cop not handling evidence by the book so the suspects are off the hook. Sounds a lot like when I was in college and read an article about an officer that put the wrong date on all the parking tickets he wrote that day so all of them were considered invalid. The scale of the offense is different of course, this was a case of multiple felonies and not something that would be punished with "$50 fine and time served" but even little mistakes can mean people walk away.
It is irrelevant what their mother tongue is, it matters what common language all the parties in the conversation speak.
When I visited Germany it was quite common to find people that spoke English. I spoke no German but I had a translation booklet. I know some Spanish but found no use for it. When in the vicinity of a major airport the signs had both German and English, because English is the mandated language for international pilots. Most everyone around the American military bases spoke English well enough to do business, there were even English language radio and TV stations. Even the French guy at the wine shop in Germany spoke English, which might have had something to do with its vicinity to the EU central bank in Frankfurt.
OPEC member nations use English as its official language, even though none of the member nations have it as their "mother tongue".
International banking is done in English. International air travel is in English. International oil trade is in English. English is the closest thing we have to a universal language right now. If some EU snob thinks that the "brexit" is going to diminish the importance of the English language in international trade then he's going to find himself getting corrected quickly. The UK may be leaving the EU but that does not mean that trade to the UK stops. Trade with other English speaking nations also continues.
When I visited my Army buddy in Germany I made a conscious effort to not look "American" since I knew Americans are often targets for violence and pickpockets. I did not wear any blue jeans, only khaki style slacks. I wore Doc Marten boots. The coat I wore was an Australian/Western style duster. I guess it worked because when in the airport security line to head back home I was in line behind a British family, which I thought might lead the people to at least ask what language I spoke when it came to my turn. The lady with the metal detector started to talk to me in German. When I replied in English she said, "Oh, you're English!" Yep, I'm "English". I'm of German ancestry so this tall and thin guy, with (then) jet black hair, and snow white skin follows a group of Brits I guess I looked more German than English. They were shorter, rounder, with a hint of red to their brown hair and faint freckles on their skin. That was the most memorable moment of knowing I fit in, people generally seemed to assume I spoke German but more often than not they switched to English when I tried to speak German back.
Another memorable moment was going to a restaurant to sit and have a drink while walking with my friend. We were greeted by a rather curvacious waitress and shown a table. We ordered in broken German and paid for our drinks. When we wanted a second drink a rather flat chested waitress started to take our order but she ran off suddenly. We were confused for a minute until she returned with the buxom one which spoke to us in English. I was doubly pleased with this, I didn't have to try to speak German and I got another look at the pretty girl.
That was another thing that struck me. Even though I apparently looked "German" enough that people thought nothing of it until I looked confused when spoken to, they switched immediately to English. I thought that given the proximity to France and Italy that people might first try French or Italian, maybe even Spanish which I studied in high school and college and thought I might have to rely upon. Nope, English was their immediate fall back.
I recall seeing a recent video on the French election in which the commenter made the observation that while the video was in English he knew it might get a lot of views in France since 40% of the people in France spoke English. So, I suspect even the French in Germany speak English. In every EU nation at least 20% of the population speak English, perhaps not as their "mother tongue" but they do speak it. A quick Wikipedia search tells me that roughly half of the EU population speaks English.
My bet is on English being the primary language but all the curse words will be in Chinese.
I think I saw this in a TV show once.
Where do you think the Americans got their language from? Why do you think that language Americans speak is called "English" and not "American" or something else?
Sure, people often make the distinction between "American English" and what many call "Queen's English" but the difference is so small that it's still "English".
Other than that, I have found that 100 percent of the calls on my soon to be gone land line are scammers.
I used to have a land line, but I'm thinking of restoring service. I would simply turn off the ringer on all attached devices to avoid the scams and political calls. I don't want it so people can call me, but so I can call others. I'd also want it for fax service and for dial-up internet when my cable service fails (which seems to happen often). I don't send faxes often but there were times when it came in real handy, usually when dealing with some government agency. Faxes are secure while e-mails are not, and just as fast as e-mail which means not waiting for the postal service to get important documents somewhere.
My last cell phone had spotty service while at home, which made the land line necessary until I switched phones and providers. With Wi-Fi calling now existing it's rare for me to not have service through some cell tower or Wi-Fi base, at home or elsewhere. I do see the utility in a land line, it's a nice back-up and allows me to send and receive faxes.
The few people I know that got rid of their land line ended up getting it back at some point. it's a small expense with many advantages, especially now that the phone utilities learned that they cannot charge the rates they used to be able to get away with.
I will disagree on amateur radio "always" working. I have an amateur radio license and I will take a radio with me when I travel long distances. I can recall several cases when I could contact a local UHF or VHF repeater and no one was listening. It's gotten to a point that I find my CB radio more useful. Long haul truckers still use CB radio to discuss weather, road hazards, etc. I can imagine CB radio being more useful even when not traveling. FRS/GMRS radios might even be more useful than amateur radios in many cases.
I will say that in the case of severe weather or similar situations where people or property are generally threatened that amateurs will likely be listening, including myself. In the case of a traffic accident, a medical emergency, or other isolated incident, that an amateur radio is a means of last resort because of this.
In my basement I have an amateur radio and a CB radio connected to a rooftop antenna. In severe weather I'll turn them on to listen for things happening, and to offer my own reports if relevant. I don't leave them on at all hours to listen for people needing assistance because unless there is a storm or something the conversations are usually very mundane. If done at odd hours these conversations can interrupt something important, like my weekend naps.
Also, if you can show me a D-STAR radio for less then $100 then I'd be very surprised. I'll see "D-STAR ready" radios for that much but that just means that for an additional cost you can buy the add-on to decode the digital signal.
Medical emergencies for one. If calling from home on a land line the location is known based on the phone number. If calling from home on a cell phone, even with the GPS systems required in phones now, the location has a fairly large error zone. There's several examples of this kind of failure being demonstrated.
Extended power outages for another. Because of the costs of burying power lines overhead lines are still the norm in many places. Also due to costs telephone lines are typically buried. Ice, snow, wind, fires, can all bring down power for days while battery backed phone lines still work. Your home might not have been damaged in the disaster so you are fine, just without power. If the phone lines work then you can usually stay home, in relative safety, while the utility works to restore power. Cell phone towers are vulnerable to the same things that can bring down power lines. Assuming one is able to keep a cell phone charged with things like a generator, solar panel, or whatever, that does not mean the cell tower survived or is repaired quickly.
Kids. Children are notorious for losing and breaking things, this includes cell phones. If too young to be responsible enough to maintain a cell phone they can still be trained to operate a land line phone in an emergency. Also, I recall several instances of people having issues contacting family at home when a baby-sitter/house-sitter fails in someway in the cell phone department (changes phone number without telling someone, did not charge phone, forgets it, etc.) and someone wants to check on things. A land line always works in this case. Not a specific "disaster" in this case but a number of scenarios could come to mind which could apply.
Festivals, conventions, other large gatherings. In cases of unusual numbers of people in a location cell phone service can be spotty due to numbers even if people are doing nothing particularly unusual. If there is anything unusual, a fight breaking out, some sort of attack, fire, medical issue, etc. then cell phone towers can get flooded quickly. By using a land line you have a reliable connection, your location is known, etc. by virtue of being connected to a fixed device. Again not a specific disaster, but a case where a bad situation can become worse if a land line is unavailable.
So, you are saying that government is the problem? I can agree with that.
If coal was regulated like nuclear then we'd be shutting down every coal plant based upon radiation leakage to the environment alone. The level of radiation in Grand Central terminal in NYC is higher than would be allowed in any nuclear power plant control room. Does anyone consider that train station a radiation hazard?
The regulations that nuclear power needs to meet to get a permit in the USA is insanity upon insanity. The rules are arbitrary and based on bad science. If we get some sane rules then we'd get nuclear power going again. Nuclear power is safe, inexpensive (government regulations aside), plentiful, reliable, and as "green" as wind or solar.
Anyone that claims we can have "green" energy but does not include nuclear power is insane, ignorant, or perhaps both. These people will claim that "any day now" solar power will be cheaper than coal, we can store up our wind and solar power in big batteries, and "smart grids" will connect it all. What do we do until this technology comes? I say we use nuclear power. It does everything that people claim wind and solar will do some day but we've seen nuclear do this already for 40 years.
Unfortunately we'd need to see one new gigawatt scale nuclear power plant go online in the USA every month to meet the demands of retired coal and nuclear plants. It's likely we'd have to exceed that to meet growth demands in the future. The way nuclear power plants are approved now simply cannot match that rate. We need to fix the rules on licensing nuclear power or bad things will happen in the coming decades. What are those "bad things"? Regional brownouts and blackouts, prices skyrocketing, perhaps a deadly failure in a power plant that has been forced to limp along well beyond its designed life span.
I do believe that if we do see prices get high enough, blackouts start to occur, that it will be resolved quickly. People will forget about Fukushima and Three Mile Island when the power goes out in the middle of winter. At that point I expect that we'll do like we did in the 1950s and be able to bring a nuclear power plant on line, from ground breaking to producing power, in 24 months.
It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant right now only because we deemed it so. When we no longer deem it necessary to create such delays then things can move quickly.
In what situation would you find a need to push this car? We're talking about a very rare situation, even rarer than a mechanical parking brake getting frozen while engaged.
I kind of see your point but why would anyone need to push an electric car? What would the destination be? Maybe someone might need to disengage the brakes for a tow but any tow truck I've seen would have the ability to provide 12 volt power with sufficient current and duration to do so. It's also not all that uncommon for a "tow truck" to actually be a flatbed capable of getting all wheels off the ground.
I'm not saying what you propose is impossible, only that it is such an exceedingly rare situation that I do not believe it to be a reasonable case against electric brakes. If we're going there then I can name all kinds of ways mechanical brakes can fail and leave people in a worse situation.
"Nobody wants a tablet with iPad 2 vintage components in it. "
If that were true then Apple would not feel any motivation to specify that they be destroyed. If Apple did not see them as potentially valuable to competitors then they'd do nothing since it would avoid any friction from potential recycling contractors and also avoid any possibility of bad press if this contractual obligation got out. My guess is that there were many people at Apple that did this math but perhaps did not anticipate all the factors properly because we are talking about it now.
As much as people are upset about this there is a very logical solution to this, get in the recycling business. I imagine that a lot of people out there can't just get in the recycling business themselves but they have the choice on how they recycle their aged and/or broken electronics. You don't have to send your old MacBook to Apple, find a recycler that will not simply shred it into confetti. A question comes to mind, how did we get ourselves in this interesting situation?
Here's a problem that I see. The government decided that to make sure old electronics did not end up in landfills they forced the manufacturers to accept old devices and have them "recycled". There are many forms of recycling, as made clear in the article, but the government did not specify the form of this recycling and/or did not prevent the manufacturers to place conditions on third party recyclers they hired out.
Seems to me that if we want to see this practice stop then we should remove the requirement that manufacturers recycle their old devices. The problem is the government got involved. Without government getting involved in this the producers of these electronics would not be in a position to shred their competition.
I see more and more examples as time goes on where Ronald Reagan got it right. Government is quite often not the solution, it is the problem.
With an electric car the risk is not only low it is nearly non-existent.
To activate the brakes the car has to have had enough charge to propel itself. There is perhaps a very small chance that the car could lose power in the exact moment where it was unable to engage the brake before power to the system was lost. Once the battery is discharged though that car is not moving under its own power, electric parking brakes or not. If it has enough power to move then it has enough power to engage/disengage the brakes.
Every car that is allowed on public roads is required to have two independent braking systems. In the case of a failure of the parking brake to activate there is another system. Loss of power likely also means loss of power brakes but that diminishes braking power based on pressure applied to the pedal, not complete loss.
My first response to reading about electrically activated brakes was much like yours. After thinking it through though I don't see this as any more problematic than any mechanical system.
"Tesla estimates that about 2 percent of the vehicles recalled contain the improperly manufactured gear. It should be noted that the parking brake assembly is from a third-party supplier, as well."
If this is from a third party then it seems probable that this assembly was offered to other car makers. Have other car makes used this assembly? This is a voluntary recall from Tesla so it is possible that this is left unresolved by anyone with a car made by someone other than Tesla and has electrically activated parking brakes.
I'm sure Tesla will get some bad press from the recall but I imagine that this is much less damaging to their reputation than news reports of Tesla vehicles being unable to move due to parking brakes locking up on drivers.
My truck has an automatic transmission and yet I use the parking brake quite regularly. Do I still fit in your two "buckets" of people?
Someone might ask why I bother with the parking brake if I have an automatic transmission. Where I live there are quite a few hills and if I park on a hill and fail to engage the parking brake this puts pressure on the transmission such that it can take an "uncomfortable" amount of force to shift out of park. What do I mean by "uncomfortable"? I mean in that it's enough force that I have to wonder if I could damage and/or wear some part prematurely. I also don't like the idea of the possibility that there is considerable and constant force on the transmission while it is parked, and if there is a failure in the transmission my truck could roll down a hill and damage itself, something else, or SOMEONE else. With the transmission in park, and the parking brake engaged, I'm quite certain that my truck will not roll downhill excepting some highly unlikely event.
I also make an effort to point the steering wheel in a way that if my truck should roll down the hill it will do so in a way to minimize damage. This usually means pointing the front wheels towards the curb so that if my truck rolls downhill it will hit the curb first.
Some might call me paranoid but I think this is just good practice. It takes only a split second to engage and disengage the brake and I've been doing this for so long I don't even think about it, it's reflex.
Many popular music artists will freely admit they are not musicians. Lionel Ritchie admitted in an interview on how he could barely play the piano. In music videos he'd be shown playing the same chord over and over as the camera zoomed in on his face and then he'd start to sing, and someone else would play the piano from there. I saw a TMBG concert and Flansburgh made a joke that he didn't really know how to play guitar, and ever since then when I see him perform I can't help but notice how little he actually plays. Jim Morrison considered himself a poet, not a musician. I could go on.
Point is that to be a successful person in the music business does not mean one must know how to play a musical instrument. I'm not saying I'm any expert on this but I got a few peaks behind the curtain, literally and figuratively, over the years. Music is not my profession, I just ran into a lot of people that did things behind the scenes. My brother was a stage hand in a college town, I've taken music lessons from professionals, I got to talk to a lot of musicians, and I like to read history. There are many aspects to selling music, and having a pretty face and knowing how to dance certainly helps.
If your experience with music is from Super Bowl half-time shows and performances from awards ceremonies then I can see why you'd think that concerts are just backtracks and dancing. If you go to a real concert you will see the people perform in real time, and often not a lot of dancing.
People that don't have any real ability and rely on backing tracks may find success but it will be fleeting, just ask Milli Vanilli. Music fanatics will spot a fake pretty quick. Milli Vanilli got away with their ruse for only two years and only with considerable effort. I believe a lot of people learned from that and that is a trick that can lead to financial ruin.
I believe the music business is pretty honest with it's consumers. They might exaggerate someone's ability with a guitar when they sing but they don't call that person the guitar player, they call them the singer. If you are going to concerts and are disappointed that all you get is a dance routine set to the band's latest album then stop going to those concerts. It's not that hard to find real musicians in any city in the USA. I've lived in small towns in the Midwest most of my life and if I want to see a "real" concert then I can on a regular basis.