Proof that Government Regulation is needed to make Corpration’s products safe for consumers?
Question by I VOTE: Proof that Government Regulation is needed to make Corpration’s products safe for consumers?
The cars roll endlessly off the local assembly lines of the industry’s biggest automakers, more than 10,000 a day, into the eager hands of Brazil’s new middle class. The shiny new Fords, Fiats, and Chevrolets tell the tale of an economy in full bloom that now boasts the fourth largest auto market in the world.
What happens once those vehicles hit the streets, however, is shaping up as a national tragedy, experts say, with thousands of Brazilians dying every year in auto accidents that in many cases shouldn’t have proven fatal.
The culprits are the cars themselves, produced with weaker welds, scant safety features and inferior materials compared to similar models manufactured for U.S. and European consumers, say experts and engineers inside the industry.
Brazilian death rate from passenger car accidents that is nearly four times that of the United States.
The country’s few safety activists perceive a deadly double standard, with automakers earning more money from selling cars that offer drivers fewer safeguards.
“The manufacturers do this because the cars are a little cheaper to make and the demands of the Brazilian consumers are less; their knowledge of safety issues is lower than in Europe or the U.S.”
Manufacturers earn a 10 percent profit on Brazilian-made cars, compared with 3 percent in the U.S. and a global average of 5 percent, according to IHS Automotive, an industry consulting firm.
Only next year will laws require frontal air bags and anti-lock braking systems on all cars, safety features that have been standard in industrial countries for years.
An engineer for a major U.S. automaker, speaking only on condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said he has watched for years as his company failed to implement more advanced safety features in Brazil, simply because the law did not require them.
“”The automakers are pleased to make more profitable cars for countries where the demands, whatever they may be, are less rigorous,” he said. “It happens everywhere — India, China and Russia, for example.”
The dangers come down to basics, engineers said: the lack of body reinforcements, lower-quality steel in car bodies, weaker or fewer weld spots to hold the vehicles together and car platforms designed decades before modern safety advances.
Over the years Ward said he has watched the same battles play out over auto safety — the only thing that changes is the location.
“The sad thing is, this has been the experience in the 1960s in the U.S., in the 1990s in Europe and now in Latin America,” Ward said. “The industry does the least it can get away with until they’re forced to do something different. It’s maddening.”
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ap-impact-cars-made-brazil-191853931.html
Why don’t Corporations voluntary make cars that are more safer evev after there is demand for it???
Best answer:
Answer by Progress
If there were no regulations forbidding toxic dumping, the Koch Brothers and most other polluters would be having a field day. Say goodbye to your ground water.
Even WITH REGULATIONS, companies like BP had over 500 safety violations. Then they killed a dozen men and ruined an ecosystem.
We need rules. Plain and simple. Without them, the greedy, and the criminal, will take advantage of good people every time.
Bush deregulated Wall STreet – which led to the Great Recession in 2008.
Give your answer to this question below!
conclusive proof in Intelligent Design? The advance of a new theory?
Question by Sly Fox [King of Fools]: conclusive proof in Intelligent Design? The advance of a new theory?
Is the appendix conclusive proof that the theory of intelligent design is fallible?
And if so can we now reconsider it as being more a form of roughly intelligent design with a certain error rate?
And should school be teaching the greater complexities of roughly Intelligent design, and the error rate which occurs within it?
Just for greater understanding.
Some people are talking about this!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
That’s the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School,
The press report is simplistic. but read the paper and you will see that it is where gems live and not a place which produces them!
No difference you may think, but there is a world of difference!
The Appendix exist in other animals and serve a purpose just as the stomach. but if you remove the appendix people don’t have health problems, however it would be very difficult to live without a stomach.
And as for talking about it, if it wasn’t there????
Best answer:
Answer by tylertxan
Nope, the courts have already decided that creationism and I>D. are religion in disguise and can not be taught in public school science classes. If you want kids taught ID or creationism enroll them in the religious school of your choice. A private school may teach anything it wishes.
Add your own answer in the comments!
The proof that we are soulmates
Share this video with your soulmate! Written by Drake Martinet withdrake.com Illustration and Animation by Emanuele Colombo emanuelecolombo.it Music: Monday – Jon Brion Some week ago I found on Visual.ly this amazing infographic written by Drake Martinet: visual.ly/proposal-infographic I asked Drake the permission to realize an animated version, and this is the result. Hope you like it! This project does not have any kind of commercial purpose.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Undeniable Proof of Real Aliens
FUCK ALIENS, WE GOT SHIT TO FIX HERE ON EARTH FIRST.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Q&A: How far does the design argument remain a continuing proof despite its weaknesses?
Question by Lucy B: How far does the design argument remain a continuing proof despite its weaknesses?
This is a 9 mark question- I’m a little stuck with this. Any help appreciated (no stupid answers though! =P)
Best answer:
Answer by Scott
The first analogy to describe this argument (the design argument, also known as the telelogical argument) for the existence of God goes like this…
Imagine you are walking alone through the desert and found an analog watch. You pick it up and examine all of its fantastic, little working and moving parts. To your amazement the watch works. It has stunning levels and complexity. You conjecture to yourself that there is no way the sand just swirled together coincidentally one morning to create all this working parts. Not only because each one is so complex but more importantly because of the improbability of all of them working in unison together (being interdependent on the design functionality of every other part) by chance. You therefore (correctly in this case) infer that there must be a design to this watch and therefore also a designer.
In this analogy, the design of the watch infers the existence of a watch-maker. This logic is sound. At least, insofar as it applies to level of the watch, the logic is sound. But does this logic also apply upwards to level of God and His universe? Furthermore, why is the logic sound even at the level of the watch analogy?
Dealing with this second question first (why the logic holds) I would like to refer to the debate about whether an infinite amount of monkeys at an infinite amount of typewriters, smashing their monkey fists into the keys would ever produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The old answer to the question was that, given a sufficiently long enough period of time, they would produce a Shakespearean eventually. The logic is that:
Infinite period of time = infinite chance to produce every possible permutation.
_______________________________________________________________
Therefore, it is possible a Shakespearean sonnet could be re-produced by a monkey
+
Therefore, it is possible a watch could be re-produced by an accidental swirling of sand particles
The scientific non-feasibility of this prospect is not relevant. No one who advocates for this position actually believes that science would predict such an event. Indeed, such an event it quintessentially unscientific. The point, however, is that it is possible.
Thus, even if we allow for infinite permutation from infinite time at this theoretical level we must remind ourselves that (in our world, at least as far as we know) time is not infinite. Therefore, these hypotethical monkey/watch metaphors do not explain the incredible complexity and design of the watch.
That is to say, our hypothetical monkey authors do not explain God out of the picture. Because time is finite, it seems more probable that a designer was involved in the process of creating that watch/world/universe.
The question now is how to define that designer. Is it a religious entity? A natural process? An infinity we can barely grasp or understand?
Whether you are religious or atheistic/agnostic I believe humility is wisest intellectual course of action on this topic?
I would much rather discuss these issues with somone who claims that they are:
(1) not convince either way, but…
(2) extremely curious and passionate about the question,
than someone who is entirely convinced of their answer and so sure of themselves that the door to further knowledge is closed shut forever.
That is to say, I am humble enough to admit that I do not have all the answers with certainty. And because I believe that there are many people like me alive today (and will continue to be for years to come) I therefore believe that the telelogical proof for the existence of God will continue to illicit insightful debate no matter how many scientific papers are published on the subject of evolution and no matter how many author claim they have disproved the design argument for once and for all.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – Evolution Disproved, Refuted by Biologists and Scientists from Cambridge, Chicago, Munich universities ! Creation proved by Scientists ! Part 3 / 7
Intelligent Design proved by – Biologists, Scientists from Cambridge, Chicago, Munchen – debating and refuting Evolution Theory ! Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – Disproved, Refuted by Biologists and Scientists ! Creation proved by Scientists ! Please watch all parts of this movie: Part 1: www.youtube.com Part 2: www.youtube.com Part 3: www.youtube.com Part 4: www.youtube.com Part 5: www.youtube.com Part 6: www.youtube.com Part 7: www.youtube.com Thank you for watching ! Tags: % can science prove that evolution in wrong? %* can science prove Existence of God? New York Times can science prove the the – universe was created? () (_)can science prove creation? can science disprove God? can science disprove creation? can science disprove evolution? Who created the universe? % What created the universe? How did everything begin? How did everything start? Is there a God who created the earth? Is there a God who created the universe? Do we %_ -,- % know everything about evolution? Tags (-): Do we know everything about creation? %* Is there a proof of creation? % Is there anybody out there? Is the truth is out there? Can we rely on science . regarding the evolution? Can we rely on Bible regarding the creation? Can we understand the creation of all things? ^*%$ Can we understand the evolution of all things?
Video Rating: 0 / 5