61–70 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual engineers don't make product decisions at big companies like Volkswagen. When I worked as an engineer at a big company, I couldn't even use a different text editor.
"James Robert Liang, leader of diesel competence for VW" He's not an individual engineer, he was a team lead from the sound of it. Also, your experience "at a big company" has no relevance here.
This feels a bit like the guy on Better Off Ted who always gets paid to admit fault, claim he has a drug problem, and then go to rehab so the company can move on blame-free.
Dr. Bamba! That show was so spot on for corporate culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual engineers don't make product decisions at big companies like Volkswagen. When I worked as an engineer at a big company, I couldn't even use a different text editor.
"James Robert Liang, leader of diesel competence for VW" He's not an individual engineer, he was a team lead from the sound of it. Also, your experience "at a big company" has no relevance here.
http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/
It turns out "VW almost exclusively promotes their engineers to managers."
Something away from the scandal itself, non-American here and I don't get plea deals. I mean, normally, a trial can result in acquittal even if the defendant admits their guilt if there's very strong objective evidence(DNA records etc.) disproving it. There has existed previous cases where some new evidence surfaced years after a plea deal and the defendant, previously found guilty, was released. So, why does a plea…
There are some major issues with this though; there are many people who are likely innocent but plea guilty because they can't afford bail, and if they miss work they will lose their jobs.
Plea deals happen a lot because of the sheer volume of criminal cases; from the prosecutors point of view they reduce the variability of outcome, as well as the work needed to get the outcome, which makes it possible to handle a larger caseload.
[edit]
Also as the paper posted by a sibling comment points out, jury trials in the US are incredibly resource intensive, and it is only in the last century or so that they have become so. 97% of federal convictions are from guilty pleas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diesel soot doesn't cause climate change, that's CO2 which is not regulated. I think it's ridiculous (at least in Canada) that I have to pay $30 every other year to have my car emissions tested while city buses and trucks spew black clouds unopposed. Just feels like a useless cash grab.
CO2 is regulated, and so is NOx. Buses and trucks are also regulated and have to adhere to emissions standards, and get tested regularly; at least, in the US, they are regulated more heavily than autos (or, at least have more paperwork and legal obligations involved in driving them, and have a higher tax burden). People riding a bus are, in aggregate, producing much less waste than if they were all driving automobile…
Right, but (per parent comment), you misrepresented the basis for the tradeoff behind the regulation -- you justified it by the need to prevent global warming, but the regulation pertained to NO2, not CO2, and satisfying the former typically makes the car less CO2-efficient.
So, you were justifying a GW-worsening regulation by the need to lessen GW.
(Your point about differing limits for buses vs cars is correct though, and the parent is wrong on that issue. But it would frankly be better if they were just charged per emission and each mode decides for itself whether the extra emissions are worth it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diesel soot doesn't cause climate change, that's CO2 which is not regulated. I think it's ridiculous (at least in Canada) that I have to pay $30 every other year to have my car emissions tested while city buses and trucks spew black clouds unopposed. Just feels like a useless cash grab.
CO2 is regulated, and so is NOx. Buses and trucks are also regulated and have to adhere to emissions standards, and get tested regularly; at least, in the US, they are regulated more heavily than autos (or, at least have more paperwork and legal obligations involved in driving them, and have a higher tax burden). People riding a bus are, in aggregate, producing much less waste than if they were all driving automobile…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"James Robert Liang, leader of diesel competence for VW" He's not an individual engineer, he was a team lead from the sound of it. Also, your experience "at a big company" has no relevance here.
"Leader of diesel competence" -- that sounds like one of those generated Silicon Valley job titles you get off of: http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/ It turns out "VW almost exclusively promotes their engineers to managers."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual engineers don't make product decisions at big companies like Volkswagen. When I worked as an engineer at a big company, I couldn't even use a different text editor.
"James Robert Liang, leader of diesel competence for VW" He's not an individual engineer, he was a team lead from the sound of it. Also, your experience "at a big company" has no relevance here.
Something away from the scandal itself, non-American here and I don't get plea deals. I mean, normally, a trial can result in acquittal even if the defendant admits their guilt if there's very strong objective evidence(DNA records etc.) disproving it. There has existed previous cases where some new evidence surfaced years after a plea deal and the defendant, previously found guilty, was released. So, why does a plea…
If you ask someone involved in the court system, they will tell you that plea deals are actually vital within the current court system. The judiciary is, in general, so underfunded in many jurisdictions that it would be simply impossible to try every case. Plea deals lessen the burden on the courts. Obviously, this shouldn't be seen as a defense of plea deals, merely an explanation of one of the incentives that curre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution prevents such things as being tried for the same crime twice...
From skimming on Wikipediea, there are exceptions: you can be tried for the same crime as a federal crime and a state crime if it is criminal in both jurisdictions (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime). You can also be tried for a crime multiple times if earlier trials were declared a mistrial (some exceptions apply).
A federal crime and a state crime, even if based on the same act, are different crimes. (Usually, even if they have similar popular names, with substantially different definitions.)
> (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime).
Puerto Rico is a federal territory, therefore that would be a "federal crime" and a "federal crime".
While Puerto Rico may have local government that looks a lot like a state in its relation to the federal government (and which is treated as a state under a lot of federal statutes), Constitutionally it is not a separate sovereignty like a State, but simply an appendage of the Federal government.