Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries

On May 13, 10:12*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-05-13, Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 3:35*pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-05-13, Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 13, 8:40*am, Brent > wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-05-13, Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On May 12, 11:20*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >until I know more, I'm not going to disagree.... *but if true - and we
> >> >> >> >really don't have a way to deal with this kind of blowout if the
> >> >> >> >preventor does fail - then the whole idea of whether or not we should
> >> >> >> >be drilling under those conditions is a question. How many more spills
> >> >> >> >like this do we want?
>
> >> >> >> If your standard is zero risk, you can't accomplish anything at all.
>
> >> >> > I totally agree.. but as always the devil is in the details. Does
> >> >> > anyone really think that this is not going to lead to a demand for
> >> >> > changes?
>
> >> >> You want real change? Stop your loving government from using taxpayer
> >> >> money to clean up their messes and have them pay for their messes.
> >> >> They'll get more careful than you ever dreamed of without regulations.
>
> >> > Brent - whose going to make them pay?
>
> >> What, you don't trust your loving government's court system? You don't
> >> trust your loving government to protect property rights, one of the very
> >> very few things it was supposed to do? That's all it has to do. The very
> >> basics. If you can't expect them to do that, how in the hell do you
> >> think they could ever come up with fair regulation and enforcement that
> >> doesn't distort markets? Regulation is several factors of ten more
> >> difficult to do properly (assuming a well intentioned competent
> >> all knowing government doing it) than protecting property rights.
>
> > govt is what it is guy - the world over. If it is more or less
> > Democratically elected, there is some degree of accountability but
> > it's a long way from perfect on property rights or regulation as we
> > all know.
>
> Blah blah blah. Just say it, you love being a slave. You love being
> owned by massa. Accountability? What changed with throwing out democrats
> for republicans and republicans for democrats? Nothing of any
> significance. Once every 25 years or so we get something like NMSL
> repealed. Something minor that took tons and tons of work but nothing
> significantly changes. If voting could change anything it would be
> illegal.
>
> > But without govt.. those do offshore drilling would likely not be held
> > accountable at all.
>
> You mean big oil's friends in government wouldn't have put a 75 million
> dollar cap on what they had to pay.
>
> > I don't see you offering any kind of a reasonable alternative only a
> > continuing diatribe against govt and govt regulation.
>
> I just did and have several times over. The altnernative to the crony
> capitalist and fascist system of regulation is freedom and property
> rights. Your loving government's regulation is what you fell for and
> accepted after government failed to protect property rights. They fail
> and you accept giving them more and more power.
>
> > You want less govt? Go to a place like Hati or Somalia where the govt
> > and regulations are minimal and property rights defended by weapons.
>
> And finally, the ultimate bull**** argument, 'love it or leave it'. If
> you had half a clue you'd realize Hati and Somalia and Zimbabwe are
> representive of the end game of the parasitical system you endorse. If I
> want to live like that I don't have to go anywhere, I just can sit here
> and wait.

but if you do that, we have to listen to your complaining!

In article >,
Larry G > wrote:
>On May 12, 11:20=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article .=
>com>,
>> Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >until I know more, I'm not going to disagree.... =A0but if true - and we
>> >really don't have a way to deal with this kind of blowout if the
>> >preventor does fail - then the whole idea of whether or not we should
>> >be drilling under those conditions is a question. How many more spills
>> >like this do we want?
>>
>> If your standard is zero risk, you can't accomplish anything at all.
>
>I totally agree.. but as always the devil is in the details. Does
>anyone really think that this is not going to lead to a demand for
>changes?

It's being used by the usual suspects as an excuse to try to stop
drilling entirely.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On May 15, 11:28*pm, (Matthew Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 12, 11:20=A0pm, (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article .=
> >com>,
> >> Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> >until I know more, I'm not going to disagree.... =A0but if true - and we
> >> >really don't have a way to deal with this kind of blowout if the
> >> >preventor does fail - then the whole idea of whether or not we should
> >> >be drilling under those conditions is a question. How many more spills
> >> >like this do we want?
>
> >> If your standard is zero risk, you can't accomplish anything at all.
>
> >I totally agree.. but as always the devil is in the details. Does
> >anyone really think that this is not going to lead to a demand for
> >changes?
>
> It's being used by the usual suspects as an excuse to try to stop
> drilling entirely.

I don't think it will stop drilling where it is already taking place
and, in fact, if they actually end up developing a technique to stop
this blowout - they will use that fact to essentially say that they
NOW KNOW how to stop blowout like this and that it will be even safer
than before. How's that for "spin"?