Travis In Austin

Yours is way better than mine. I figured that was what you meant.I don't know if the buyer is moral or not, he certainly isn't immoral. I would say the vendor could be either immoral, if he had knowledge that he was selling poison. Whether he had knowledge or not, whether he was negligent or not. It is strict liability in that case, the vendor pays, at a minimum, regardless of whether there is any negligence or not. This is because the capitalist system is constrained (at least it used to be) by an evolving legal system which is based on moral judgements. It is actually a great example, it is pretty much what the tobacco litigation was all about, the Deep Horizon/BP litigation, punitive damages, etc. Does the law provide a remedy? is that enough of a deterrent to prevent immoral behavior? It won't eliminate it, nothing ever will, but does a realistic job of discouraging that conduct. My example was meant to show intentionally immoral behavior on the one side, and moral on the other. The vendor in my example knew it was poisonous and sold it anyway. The buyer accepted the offer and paid in full. That was his moral obligation. As to the law, I have not been making a case for the law. There are enough legal experts that I needn't make that case. My case revolves around moral behavior, not legal. Usually, the law exerts less influence on behavior than morality, which encompasses ideas like the greater good, or do no harm, and do what's the interest of clients. I propose, that we are only accept the amoral economics of capitalism because capitalists** have the most power to drive whatever system they prefer. People seem not to see that many businesses today are NOT capitalist businesses, but rather are operated as individual enterprises wherein the owner applies a moral code, or ethical code, of his own choosing. Whereas, there may be no companies in the S&P 500 who have any moral code written into their corporate charter. I've never seen it, but admittedly have not read ALL of them. I do know that stockholders regularly sue executives for NOT maximizing profit, and the law is on their side. **People who amass capital to finance the building of factories and machinery that employ wage earners. e.g. I exclude "hired hands" like CEO, who work for wages and bonuses. There I think you are blurring the line between the economice system and form of government. Capitalists have the power, or lack of it, depending upon what form of government they operate under. If the political system they operate inder has a legal system, they are constrained by that legal system. If it political "system" is an individual, like a monarch or despot, they are constrained by that individual, if they are allowed to exist at all. In the US, the economic system, whatever you want to call it, operates within the boundaries established by the legal framework at every level, local, state and federal. The economic system doesn't operate in a vacuum, it is shaped and exists in accordance with the public policy and moral code established and allowed at each of those levels.

Yours is way better than mine. I figured that was what you meant. I don't know if the buyer is moral or not, he certainly isn't immoral. I would say the vendor could be either immoral, if he had knowledge that he was selling poison. Whether he had knowledge or not, whether he was negligent or not. It is strict liability in that case, the vendor pays, at a minimum, regardless of whether there is any negligence or not. This is because the capitalist system is constrained (at least it used to be) by an evolving legal system which is based on moral judgements. It is actually a great example, it is pretty much what the tobacco litigation was all about, the Deep Horizon/BP litigation, punitive damages, etc. Does the law provide a remedy? is that enough of a deterrent to prevent immoral behavior? It won't eliminate it, nothing ever will, but does a realistic job of discouraging that conduct.

Mike, I think you present a great point/question, is compensation set strictly by the law of supply and demand in the US? It is in theory, but not in practical application depending on the type of job, industry, certification and educational requirements. I read Jeff's comments to your original post, and thought, as usual they were excellent. I just wanted to throw out another part of the equation when it comes to setting the price for labor. The reason why NFL players make what the market will bear is not because of supply and demand, it is collective bargaining. An individual, rarely, has enough bargaining power to demand "what the market will bear." The concept that a person has the option to either accept the position, or not, is really a fiction in the lower economic strata. The job for those people is the difference between being homeless, feeding their kids, etc. In a bad economy the demand for labor goes way down, and what jobs are available get flooded with applications. NFL players did not begin to receive pay indicative with their scarcity until the players began to organize and demand collective bargaining in 1968. The only reason they were able to get that going is because there was a competing league until 1970. Prior to 1968 players were not paid for training camp, and paid for preseason games, had to pay for their own equipment, and were stuck for life with the team that drafted. After many, many years and court battles, the NFL had to negotiate with them because they have the option to strike. Supply and demand just doesn't apply in a direct relationship like it does with a particular product on the market because the "need" for a job is entirely different then for a particular product.

I fully expect it to be so. Same for those. Irrelevant. Moral decisions may be made within amoral systems...like capitalism or communism...but the system itself remains amoral.Dave I disagree. Here's an example from the healthcare system, as practiced in the west.Quote The Hippocratic Oath is anoath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk Here's the difference: In a "free market" (a phrase I use lightly, okay?), moral results are obtained because the rules of transacting allow people to choose. This was Albright's point. Maybe the rules of capitalism are amoral, but it does not follow that the results are likewise, amoral. When I can choose not to buy from a fraudster, it is because I can choose. Thus, it tends to compel a moral result. When the system is monopolized (by government or whomever), the connection breaks down, and immorality (not just amorality) can be exacerbated quickly. Both sides choose. The vendor supplies poison but calls it "vitamins". The buyer thinks vitamins are good and buys.One side acted immorally, the other side acted immorally, with a result of sickness or death. That's an artifact of amoral systems. Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk Both sides are immoral? Or just the vendor? Is the vendor immoral if it purchases the vitamins from a manufacturer and had no idea it contained poison? Is the manufacturer immoral if it added poison by an honest mistake? I think most people would agree that the vendor is not immoral if the poison was put in by a manufacturer and they had no knowledge. Likewise, if the manufacturer added the poison by an honest mistake, most would say it was not being immoral. Public policy would make the vendor and manufacturer both liable for damages under all of those situations under our legal system. Public policy, as set forth in statutes, regulations, and the common law are moral decisions that constrain the economic system. If the poison was put in by intent, or reckless conduct, then criminal liability would attach. Criminal laws are moral decisions and set forth in statutes and regulations. Putting poison in vitamins, with any knowledge, is immoral, and it is immoral regardless of the economic system that it may be distributed under. Whether it is supplied by a government producer or a private one. It is immoral even if it is distributed outside of an economic system, for example if it was donated to the poor. I don't think there is a moral economic system, because "moral" is a value judgement that is going to vary according to the individual. There is, however, moral, immoral, and amoral public policy, which results in laws and regulations. Depending on your viewpoint, the resulting laws fit into one of those three categories. They have nothing to do with the economic system they happen to operate under. Locke, who pretty much described and advocated for what we consider to be capitalism and liberalism (this does not mean "liberal" in the political sense) today, was very clear that capitalism must be restrained in order to be successful.

From Vocabulary.com Begin quote: amoral/ immoral Both have to do with right and wrong, but amoral means having no sense of either, like a fish, but the evil immoral describes someone who knows the difference, doesn't care, and says "mwah ha ha" while twirling a mustache. If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong. In the 1800s, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (among other treasures), coined the word amoral to differentiate from immoral. Amoral is generally more descriptive, rather than judgmental: In an age enamored of machines, life becomes amoral, without moral bearings, devoid of moral categories. (Edith Sizoo) Amoral nature committed the crime "the man" could not. (Eye for Film) Immoral is having no morality, being wicked or evil. If you are immoral, you know what society considers right and wrong, yet you do wrong anyway. It's a judgment, no doubt: The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings: greedy, selfish, and immoral. (Business Week) At best, it is in bad taste and worse, flatly immoral. (Scientific American) If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better. If you call him amoral, you are saying that person does wrong but doesn't understand that it is wrong. It can be a fine line, other times it's clear: If a giant wave turns your boat over, that wave isn't being mean, it's amoral. If another boat rams into you and does the same thing, that is an immoral act, especially if the immoral captain laughs instead of helping you out of the water. End quote

Which is a state and/or local system. The percentage of state money to local money varies from state to state. New Hampshire used to have highest percentage of local money.No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2001, it started the testing requirements. It was a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Currently, right now, NCLB is in the process of being overhauled by Congress. Both Houses have passed different versions, the Senate in July by a vote of about 80 to 20 if I recall. It remains to be seen whether anything will come out of Conference. Every issue regarding education discussed in this thread is up for debate and will be impacted by that legislation, either by sweeping changes, or no action. Yet, it isn't discussed at all, or just in passing here. The time for parents to have the most input on federal involvement in public school education was this Spring and Summer, but there is still time left. I think that anyone who has a child in elementary, middle or high school should know at least what highlights are in the two versions and what they think is best for their situation. Travis The Senate is voting right now on whethet to proceed to conference with the House to see if they can work out an agreement on a bill that both chambers can vote on. It just passed and appears it will be heading to conference. Now is the time, if you have a dog in this hunt, to advise your Congressman and Senators what your views are on ESEA, NCLB, Headstart, Common Core, federal K-12 education policy. Note: I am not advocating for or against any particular provision or policy. Only advocating that you necome involved in the process if these issues concern you. If you want Congress to do something, let them know, or forever hold your peace.

Can't wait to hear about the article.

Travis, go back and read my first post. The other benefits will take a number years and will be a gradual thing. Last paradigm shift took about 10 years from horses to automobiles and similar claims that they shouldn't be allowed on the streets and were deadly (they were right about that one...amazing how much carnage we can get used to if we really want to), etc. I claimed two things: autonomy by the commonly used (industry and people as well) definition of hands free and less than 5k within 5 years. Tesla met that. Again, end of story. I am sure there are many things I mentioned over the past god knows how many pages that could be taken out of context but the first post is what it was all about. What you were hoping for will be here before you know it and will creep up on us all. It's already happening. I am not sure we will really know the cost of autonomy as it is already being gradually added. Tesla owners didn't even know it was there until it was turned on. Dave I went and read first post, Delphi Audi. The Tesla isn't one-forth of that Audi unless I am missing something. Delphi Audi features; Recently demonstrated on the streets of Las Vegas at CES 2015, Delphi’s automated driving vehicle leverages a full suite of technologies and features to make this trip possible, including: Radar, vision and Advanced Drive Assistance Systems (ADAS) Multi-domain controller: High-end microprocessor to seamlessly drive multiple features and functions V2V/V2X: Wireless vehicle communication technology extends the range of existing ADAS functionality Intelligent software that enables the vehicle to make complex, human-like decisions for real-world automated driving Traffic Jam Assist Automated Highway Pilot with Lane Change (on-ramp to off-ramp highway pilot) Automated Urban Pilot Automated Parking and Valet We are not even half-way there yet, which I would settle for. But there is still 3 years to go.

This is what I thought we were getting: "Recently demonstrated on the streets of Las Vegas at CES 2015, Delphi’s automated driving vehicle leverages a full suite of technologies and features to make this trip possible, including: Radar, vision and Advanced Drive Assistance Systems (ADAS) Multi-domain controller: High-end microprocessor to seamlessly drive multiple features and functions V2V/V2X: Wireless vehicle communication technology extends the range of existing ADAS functionality Intelligent software that enables the vehicle to make complex, human-like decisions for real-world automated driving Traffic Jam Assist Automated Highway Pilot with Lane Change (on-ramp to off-ramp highway pilot) Automated Urban Pilot Automated Parking and Valet" If we are truly there, I will be the first to pop the corks on the champagne and bring one to Dave.

Well my recollection of what you were considering to be autonomus is clearly wrong. However, the benefits you are expecting from "autonomus" vehicles won't derive from these assistive features. I am pretty sure you said that drunk driving would be a thing of the past pretty quickly because of hands free driving. Where we are now is don't take your hands off the wheel but you can let it change lanes and slow down for you if you want? It isn't far enough at all to make any actuarial difference that will translate into insurance savings, in fact it will probably have the reverse effect initially. This level will have zero effect on traffic, conjestion or commute time. I think the self-parallel parking feature is way more advanced technologically than what Tesla says you can or can't do with their current system. How much is the Mercedes-Benz option? They seem to be backing theirs.

Thank you for that. I guess one question would be, how do you know which 20% to look at?

It is by their definition, and it works for me. Actually, all articles I read used the term. If one wants to get silly you can insist that it has to fuel itself, take itself to the garage, and air up its own tires to be truly "autonomous." I think no driver intervention while underway except in exceptional circumstances is generally accepted. It's been made clear that the function requiring the occupants hands be on the wheel is entirely to acclimate people to the idea. I haven't seen fine details, but I rather suspect the Tesla is quite able to follow navigation. Compared to the rest, that's no trick at all. Dave I think your target of what autonomus is has shifted over the course of your thread. We were talking about the Google car, the Audi car, cities that have made it legal for development. I think the fair definition is the one you suggest, when we can go to an event 2 hours away, have a great time, hop back in the car and say "home" (or punch it in, we don't have to be too technical) and it will drive you home while you enjoy the scenery. We are clearly not there yet, at any price. How much is the MB option? They are going to have it in Europe next year right, on those leased vehicles? Who else is offering assistive features for under 5k? Or is anyone?

I think he has to specifically invoke Article 5, "agaisnt one, against all" and it has attached financial consequences. I think it is a much more complex issue because Russia is in the mix. 20 bombs is a joke, what's a bigger joke is that all of the target packages came from US. It was a photo op.

For starters, it was $5 per DAY not per hourThe $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. Sorry, I didn't see someone had already caught this.

Unfortunately, these gangsters are very unpredictable. That's what makes them dangerous, and the reason that world powers are in reaction mode. They are practicing a form of warfare that has not been seen in this scale before. Yes, these current ones are real Evildoers. Not like the ones in the 60s, or 70s, or come to think of it the 80s or 90s.

2015 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONS IN FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD POVERTY GUIDELINE For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,160 for each additional person. 1 $11,770 2 $15,930 3 $20,090 4 $24,250 5 $28,410 6 $32,570 7 $36,730 8 $40,890

$5 an hour? Henry Ford? I don't think so. You may want to go back and check your facts on that. I think you will also find that the raise had nothing at all to do with creating a workforce that could afford to buy his product. It was to cut the turnover and training time of the labor force and avoid downtime from people walking off the job. In other words, he raised wages in order to decrease costs. The Ford raise is a case study that is taught in business schools all across America, or at least it was when I went, as an example of when raising wages can actually result in lower overall labor costs. The raise was not automatic, it was partly, or mostly, a bonus. The employees had to meet many conditions. One of which was to have to open their homes to inspection by Ford representatives.

Of course it's rigged.

Disagree with you here....You do know that the church in the US takes in more money than the NFL right? "The church"? Which church? If it is the Catholic Church, I think they have been paying out more than they have been taking in recently. What is the minimum player salary in the NFL these days? What benefits do they get on top of that? How did players achieve the incomes they do?

You give it much weight than they do. Yeah. Make no mistake; they intend to do the same over here in the US - many times over. Have they not declared their intent on several occasions? It's unbelievable that this is considered an acceptable risk of having open borders for refugees. Who has open borders for refugees?

When I lived in the SF Bay area, I used to drive across Oakland and most of Berkeley to get a burger from a little joint I liked. Which one?

That, too. Tainted dog food. Fraudulent knock-offs. Lead-painted children's toys. Much less regard for others than we show. But why is that? It isn't because of morality. Our legal system is what keeps things in check, especially in the area of products.

That was great, extreamly funny.

"What are we supposed to do? Ya moron?"

agreed. figure it out amongst yourselves! You are almost as useful as **** on a boar