 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / December 2006Tort Caps On Renewable Tech Tragedies
I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive: If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will never see more than $100K per head. Bret Cahill > I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one > exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive: > > If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will > never see more than $100K per head. When the law of the land is up for sale to the highest bidder, you have to expect this. People got what they voted for, and no new Congress will be able, or have the will, to straighten it all out. Is that $100k punitive or total award? Sooner or later, two people will be listening to the same cell phone when it blows up. What will the courts do with two plaintiffs. Or better yet, if one cell phone battery explodes and brings down a plane or burns a high-end private school, what then? Will the survivors of all the little spawn of the elite have to split the $100K? Dangerous Bill > > I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one > > exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive: > > If someone's supercap or Li ion battery explodes, trial lawyers will > > never see more than $100K per head. > When the law of the land is up for sale to the highest bidder, you have > to expect this. > People got what they voted for, and no new Congress will be able, or > have the will, to straighten it all out. > Is that $100k punitive or total award? That's the maximum the _lawyers_ can get. If a jury wants to give the victims/survivors a billion dollars, then they'll have to be persuaded by a more public spirited [less greedy] lawyer than the Hammer. > Sooner or later, two people will be listening to the same cell phone > when it blows up. What will the courts do with two plaintiffs. > Or better yet, if one cell phone battery explodes and brings down a > plane or burns a high-end private school, what then? Will the survivors > of all the little spawn of the elite have to split the $100K? The computer industry grew up in 30 years in part because the worst calamity that could happen was someone blowing a chip. Torts weren't an issue. We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil. Energy isn't like info processing, however. Blowing a 60 farad capacitor is a bigger issue than blowing an 8080A. The proper way to drain the nonsense out of tort awards is to level wealth. Then the trial lawyers have no poor for juries and no deep pockets to sue. Tort reform is then no longer necessary. But we might not have time for that. Bret Cahill The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have little respect for them. What happens if one of these batteries blows up in the cabin of a 747 over the Atlantic, or in baggage in the hold? A billion dollars wont bring back a loved one any more that a hundred thousand... > The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have > little respect for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A billion dollars wont bring back a loved one any more that a hundred > thousand... What the f.ck are you dumb idiots talking about? The only Li-Ion batteries that explode are the ones that use cobalt oxide. The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. Ted > The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't > explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery. We can't afford that. We need to do some cost-benefit risk analysis. The benefit of some trial lawyers getting rich off of a few tragedies just isn't worth the risk of losing humanity. Bret Cahill > > The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't > > explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We can't afford that. Absolute rubbish. Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent on the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel. A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today. If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually. And people's lifestyles will change, to adapt. Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is required to be mobile. We have lots of cheap ways of generating power, like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid gasoline has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries, etc. but not cheap ways. So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form of power available - gasoline - we will all have lifestyles heavily dependent on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have to invent a cheap replacement. If we can't do it, then we will then have to change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power, for vehicles, and we will indeed do that. It might be that we all end up spending a lot more time a lot closer to home, and end up walking all over the place or taking electric trolleys or some such, but people have had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this, and only about a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap gasoline has brought. Ted PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at midnight. I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that? It was only an hour of walking! >>>The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't >>>explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that? > It was only an hour of walking! Well, depending on where you are that could be 4-5 miles; a lot of people simply aren't in shape to walk that far! (sad, but there you have it.) But more importantly "the east side" of any city seems to be the less desirable area, maybe your wife had some concern about you walking through a "bad" neighborhood? I've done it before, but now that I can afford to ride, I'd prefer not to have to walk through my local open air crack market to get home :( nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't > >>>explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > I can afford to ride, I'd prefer not to have to walk through my local > open air crack market to get home :( Well, I was wearing a black leather jacket at the time, that might have helped. I've walked through some bad areas before, never been bothered, except by panhandlers asking for money (never say yes, of course). Generally the trick is to keep your head up and don't make eye contact, keep moving, and wear grey or black, preferably bulky garmets. A leather jacket over a sweater works well, or a thick coat. That kind of clothing can easily hide a weapon and the crooks generally don't want to take a risk when there's easier targets available. Being a women skimpily dressed, or a middle-aged male loitering around in a suit with a bewildered axpression on his face is definitely the wrong approach. And of course, say nothing to nobody. When you start talking to the people loitering around these areas, some of them may be dealers looking to sell drugs and if they get the idea that your looking to buy, your going to be in trouble. Ted > "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Absolute rubbish. Actually 10c / mile sounds pretty good. Graham > > > The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't > > > explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that? > It was only an hour of walking! Well, that's a problem with the Democrats, not cars, Since we invented automatic transmissions for highways and racetracks, not downtown morgues, > > > The new generation of Li-Ion batteries use Saphion and can't > > > explode. Those are the batteries used in the Segway, for example. > > Over the life of the battery, they cost over 10 cents / mile in an EV > > and that doesn't include the energy necessary to recharge the battery. > > We can't afford that. > Absolute rubbish. Nope. I just checked my wallet. > Right now people's lifestyles in the United States are utterly dependent on > the availability of quick, inexpensive, vehicle travel. The entire infrastructure is based on cheap transportation. > A century ago when the country was run on horseback, it wasn't this > way. When the average person had to go out and unhitch the horse from > the plow so they could ride to town, their lifestyles were not dependent > on quick, inexpensive vehicle travel. They MIGHT HAVE been dependent > on some way on vehicle travel, but not to the extent they are today. They didn't have 8 billion people on the planet back then. > If the cost of vehicle travel increases greatly to that 10 cents a mile > level that you claim is unaffordable, then it will do it gradually. It will happen over the next decade or so, faster than the info age revolution. > And > people's lifestyles will change, to adapt. The political system cannot even adapt to the _beneficial_ changes of _cheap_ information. The national Democratic Party, for example, still behaves as though the _New York Times_ is still influential politically when it won't even exist in 10 years. What is expensive transportation going to do to the system? It's _already_ got us into a geo quagmire. Supposing the next administration is even crazier than Cheney/Bush and decides to steal _Russia's_ oil? > Fundamentally, the only difference between a vehicle power source and > a power source for a home or office is that a vehicle power source is > required to be mobile. That's a _big_ difference. > We have lots of cheap ways of generating power, > like electrical generation, that pretty much depend on the generator and > the consumer being stationary. What we don't have are cheap ways of > storing power in a mobile form, of the energy density that liquid gasoline > has. We have expensive ways of doing it - alcohol, hydrogen, batteries, > etc. but not cheap ways. That's the problem. The solution is to cap tort awards in renewable technology tragedies. > So, in the next 20 or 50 or 100 years that we have the cheap mobile form > of power available - gasoline - There won't be a drop of oil left in 40 years. Long before then most humans won't be able to afford it. We need this situation addressed _yesterday_. We really should have become frantic several decades ago. > we will all have lifestyles heavily > dependent > on cheap vehicle travel, and if we want to maintain that, we will have to > invent a cheap replacement. We need to cast as large a net as possible for new technology. > If we can't do it, then we will then have to > change our lifestyle to accomodate an expensive mobile form of power, > for vehicles, and we will indeed do that. You are looking at all kinds of opportunities demagogues, political strife. > It might be that we all end up > spending a lot more time a lot closer to home, You still need to get the produce and the people to the market. > and end up walking > all over the place That takes up more fuel in the form of energy required to produce food than driving a SUV. Going back in time is _not_ fuel efficient. Boeing's Dreamliner will get 125 passenger miles / gallon -- more than any moped, more than any cyclist when you consider modern food production and distribution is energy intensive. > or taking electric trolleys or some such, Mass transportation is almost as inflexible as the American commuter. > but people have > had 3-4 thousand years of experience living like this, To expect modern humans to be able to go back in time and live on acorns and bark . . . that's Hollywood. The countryside would be stripped bare in weeks, even assuming it was politically acceptable. > and only about > a century of experience living with the high mobility that cheap gasoline > has brought. We're oil leveraged out on Malthus' limb with no way back. > PS Here's an example of how rediculous things are. 2 weeks ago I > accidentally got my car locked into a downtown parking garage at midnight. > I elected to simply walk the 50 blocks from downtown to my home on > the east side. It took an hour. When I got home my wife couldn't > understand why I hadn't called a cab. Why in the hell would I do that? > It was only an hour of walking! It would have been a smaller impact on the oil supply if you called a cab. Bret Cahill > The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have > little respect for them. > > What happens if one of these batteries blows up in the cabin of a 747 over > the Atlantic, or in baggage in the hold? It'll be blamed on Al Qaeda of course ! Heck, there's nothing better than setting up a fall guy to take the rap is there ? Graham > > The lawyers typically try to work both sides of the streets, and I have > > little respect for them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Heck, there's nothing better than setting up a fall guy to take the rap is there I dont know if there is any risk or not, but have wondered about it. There have been documented cases of cell phone batteries bursting into flames, and there are lots of cell phones on board commercial aircraft. Also this issue with the computer batteries that can fail catastrophically have been of some concern. I have a relatively new Dell that came with the batteries in question. What may not be an emergency in normal situations can become one on a transcontinental flight. > We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil. ROTFL! You must be extremely young and stoopid. I've been hearing nonsense about "running out of oil in 20-30 years" for the last 50 years, at least. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10 for email.) > Bret Cahill wrote in <1166674174.031975.96460@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, : >> We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil. [Blake] > ROTFL! You must be extremely young and stoopid. I've been hearing > nonsense about "running out of oil in 20-30 years" for the last > 50 years, at least. > Roger Blake [hanson] ahahaha.. yeah, you are right, Blake. The green sh.ts have that strange paranioa, especially the class 3 enviros who do the bidding of the class 1 & 2 greenies AND HELP the oil boys to raise the oil price... ahahaha... Little do these little green idiots know that this oil game is going to be played for a very long time to come. VERY LONG.... ahahaha... Even if the oil prices reach a level where alternative green fuels become competetive the fossil ***oil boys will still be in control ***... ahahaha... See in here, how: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226 wherein chem 101 shows that "no EARLIER than in 150'000 years from now will all the fossil carbon be burned off..... ahahaha..... ahahaha... But remember, the greenies operate according to the green bible that says: = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people = believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ...... = "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and... = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest." = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer) ---- & the Green Scam they sponge off/from as seen in ----- Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications: ========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green sh.t(s): ...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize, institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING! ========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s): ... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly. ========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s): .. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do something for the "environment", when in fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted. ---------- Views after 40 years of green criminality -------- =1= In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"! =2= The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the nation. =3= Myriads of good, rational & HARD WORKING folks had enough from environmentalism and began to raise their voices as did E. Gisin in news:d8j4df01n0o@enews1.newsguy.com... wherein it sounds like this: "f.cking greens should be shot...." ahahahaha... BTW, do copy and use these above clarifications often and profusely. There is no permit charge or user fee associated with it. and nobody will accuse you of plagiarism. It's a free public service announcement... Use it. Have fun! ...and as an encore do never forget that = Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, notably = global warming, green sh.t, tobacco & meds now. Great lies = in service for/of a "noble cause" do trump now truth & fact. = = Enviros use the same great lies of yore. Only the color changed. = (A) Environmentalism is Communism in Green... = (B) Environmentalism is Nazism in Green... = (C) Environmentalism makes the Poor poorer and the Rich richer. Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography, pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc., whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down, johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers. Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology, promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic, unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks and demand grants to generate more enviro sh.t. Now then, you green mooches, do you finally get it? ahahahaha... ahahahanson ref 32 gr lopez | > We have about the same amount of time to get almost entirely off oil. | | ROTFL! You must be extremely young and stoopid. I've been hearing | nonsense about "running out of oil in 20-30 years" for the last | 50 years, at least. Hmm.... well, I certainly remember "coal gas" or "town gas" and I'm hearing we are now running out of North Sea methane which it was anticipated would last 12 years when it was introduced. > > > I'm generally opposed to "tort reform" for a lot of reasons but one > > > exception needs to be carved out for humanity to survive: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > wealth. Then the trial lawyers have no poor for juries and no deep > pockets to sue. Tort reform is then no longer necessary. But tort reform is moving ahead extremely rapidly because of the idiot computer industry, Since they're just i as greedy as any other industry. And so the syncopated legal cranks just had to invent DVD's. MP-3 and mini-cams to go along with the chips, > But we might not have time for that. > > Bret Cahill . . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the steam boat boiler. That's your only hope. We are in just such a situation. Bret Cahill >. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the > steam boat boiler. That's your only hope. > > We are in just such a situation. > > Bret Cahill Don't do that. The relief valve is there for a reason. The secondary relief may be the boiler wall. Michael > >. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the > > steam boat boiler. That's your only hope. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Don't do that. The relief valve is there for a reason. The secondary > relief may be the boiler wall. Both are impossible, Since the only thing the idiot chip industry is more igorant of than how boliers work is how cruise missiles find boliers, > Michael |. . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the | steam boat boiler. That's your only hope. | | We are in just such a situation. | | Bret Cahill The operation was a success but the patient died. Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards page... Mike > . . . and you have no choice but to tie down the relief valve on the > steam boat boiler. That's your only hope. > > We are in just such a situation. > > Bret Cahill > Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards > page... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Bret Cahill I believe he's referring to his tort-reform concept (namely "cap all claims") and how it's one of those "Yeah, it ain't the best solution, but it's the only one that looks like it has even a slim chance". Not literally sealing the relief valve of a real-world steamboat - More along the lines of "OK, we're in the middle of nowhere, and we're going to stay here 'cause that damned valve keeps popping - It may not be the RIGHT way, but it's the only currently PRACTICAL way to get us home, so nail that puppy shut". And I have to agree with him - Unchecked lawsuits are killing this country - the only "winners" are the lawyers. The rest of us are losing our collective a.ses to the increased costs that we have to soak up for every bajillion-dollar award that gets handed out. Almost always at the instigation of some shyster lawyer - "Oh, you dumped hot coffee in your lap and burned your little cooter? SUE SOMEBODY! Don't believe the reality that you're a braindead fuckup that shouldn't be allowed to breed - Look for whoever has the deepest pockets, and see how much you can squeeze out of them for the misery you inflicted on yourself by being a dumbass! And make sure to hand me a 40% cut of whatever you get!" It's time to "seal the valve" by putting a cap on how much "pain and suffering" is worth - In particular, how much it's worth to the lawyers. SignatureDon Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist, or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow" somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info > Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards > page... The "idiots deserve to die" mentality is generally _opposed_ to tort litigation which tends to be paternalistic. Recently some idiots climbed over a fence clearly marked "No Trespassing" and "High Voltage" and got electrocuted in a substation. They sued and won. A lot of people were outraged at the verdict. I was indifferent. Anyway, I never suggested I'd develop unsafe technology myself -- I have no personal conflicts of interest on this issue -- just that it was now necessary to cast a much larger net for tech breakthroughs for humanity to survive. Bret Cahill > > Have someone let us know when to post your name up on the Darwin Awards > > page... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bret Cahill My reader showed this post to be the start of a new thread because it sorts by date. I was not following any other, your point was missed. Mike |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.