81–90 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weapons are defined by intent, not body count.
Criminal negligence doesn't require intent. If you fire your gun into the air because you are a jackass, and the bullet comes down somewhere and kills someone, the gun is still a weapon, even though you had no intent to kill.
Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. Their filter does a good job cleaning particles out of the cabin air. Good on them. Nevertheless, calling it "Bioweapon Defense Mode" is clearly a prize bit of marketing. A system designed to protect against an external bioagent wouldn't run huge amounts of outside air through the filter. That would just load the filter more quickly, impacting its perfo…
That would depend on your definition of a "bioweapon". How many people have to be killed by a toxic substance injected into the air to consider it a weapon? 1.2 million people died in China alone in 2010 from air pollution. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/air-pollution-l...
Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. Their filter does a good job cleaning particles out of the cabin air. Good on them. Nevertheless, calling it "Bioweapon Defense Mode" is clearly a prize bit of marketing. A system designed to protect against an external bioagent wouldn't run huge amounts of outside air through the filter. That would just load the filter more quickly, impacting its perfo…
its not like its new technology. It doesn't say how long the filter lasts, and crucially the failure mode for the filter. (will it bypass when its full? do you get a warning? etc etc etc )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weapons are defined by intent, not body count.
Criminal negligence doesn't require intent. If you fire your gun into the air because you are a jackass, and the bullet comes down somewhere and kills someone, the gun is still a weapon, even though you had no intent to kill.
A gun is created to kill. A taser to incapacitate. A knife is created to cut/stab things - and since human flesh is highly cuttable substance even kitchen knives are considered weapons. A car is created to transport people but can be used to kill. Cars are not weapons because in their conception there is no intent to harm someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is you can't maintain positive pressure in a battletank without high flow rate. Tanks are not fully sealed.
Are they not? Many tanks can traverse rivers driving on bottom with special attachment to the main hatch. Leopard 2 does that.
It appears the tank commander needs to guide the driver on directions, though...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that electricity can be produced any number of ways, not just by burning coal, and if some amazing eco-friendly battery alternative appears at some point in the future, existing EVs can easily be retrofitted with them. On the other hand, a fossil fuel vehicle bought today will still be a fossil fuel vehicle 100 years from now, regardless of technological advancements. No, EVs aren't perfect and may…
Yes, I always shrug reading convoluted arguments like that. In Norway all of the grid power comes from hydro, so the (sizeable by now) fleet of EVs does have zero carbon footprint without any fine print.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people read it too literally right now. If you say some road bollard is so strong it could survive a bomb explosion you usually don't expect bomb explosions. It's just that it survives large forces. This system stops particles as small as ones that could be used in bio weapons. It's a theoretic comparison, not a warfare ad.
> I think people read it too literally right now. Did you even read the article? It literally says this: "Bioweapon Defense Mode is not a marketing statement, it is real. You can literally survive a military grade bio attack by sitting in your car."
So that is a statement that cannot be put to the test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I always shrug reading convoluted arguments like that. In Norway all of the grid power comes from hydro, so the (sizeable by now) fleet of EVs does have zero carbon footprint without any fine print.
I agree with your sentiment. However, wouldn't a person pitching that argument then counter that Norway built their hydro grid in part using oil exports, ie that Norway is responsible for enabling a lot of global pollution per capita in order to pay for that grid (and the on-going vast per capita oil exports necessary to continue supporting it)? What's the counter to that premise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I always shrug reading convoluted arguments like that. In Norway all of the grid power comes from hydro, so the (sizeable by now) fleet of EVs does have zero carbon footprint without any fine print.
I agree with your sentiment. However, wouldn't a person pitching that argument then counter that Norway built their hydro grid in part using oil exports, ie that Norway is responsible for enabling a lot of global pollution per capita in order to pay for that grid (and the on-going vast per capita oil exports necessary to continue supporting it)? What's the counter to that premise?
Would countries use less energy if not for Norway's oil exports?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they not? Many tanks can traverse rivers driving on bottom with special attachment to the main hatch. Leopard 2 does that.
As this sounded intriguing, here's a video I've found of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26rJiOnKLk . It appears the tank commander needs to guide the driver on directions, though...