IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Of course, the stories explicitly say per car, so ... :-/
Reuters:

Volkswagen can face civil penalties of $37,500 for each vehicle not in compliance with federal clean air rules. There are 482,000 four-cylinder VW and Audi diesel cars sold since 2008 involved in the allegations. If each car involved is found to be in noncompliance, the penalty could be $18 billion, an EPA official confirmed on the teleconference.


I need to fully wake up before posting. :-/

Cheers,
Scott.
New Yah, what he said! :)
Alex

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
     VW post 2008 diesels had "defeat device" software to avoid emissions scrutiny. - (Another Scott) - (56)
         how would the software know - (lincoln) - (4)
             It's plugged in - (drook) - (2)
                 Found another article. - (static)
                 Re: It's plugged in - (lincoln)
             Re: how would the software know - (hnick)
         Wonder who ratted that one out... - (scoenye) - (2)
             Ouch. Seems the CARB had it figured out. - (Another Scott)
             I heard a similar story even further back. - (static)
         Reuters: VW could face $18B in fines. - (Another Scott) - (3)
             Are diesels even a good idea? - (drook) - (2)
                 Rolling back - (scoenye)
                 TANSTAAFL. - (Another Scott)
         years ago in alaska diesels were exempt from emissions testing - (boxley)
         It's all OK now. The CEO said he's sorry! - (a6l6e6x) - (20)
             As I read it, the $37,500 is per day of non-compliance, not per car. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Of course, the stories explicitly say per car, so ... :-/ - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Yah, what he said! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             I think it's absurd to imagine that such a plan could possibly be implemented - (Ashton) - (15)
                 is it? - (boxley) - (14)
                     And is your "retired petro chemist" a Tea Party member? - (lincoln) - (5)
                         no, catholic liberal -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                             I've never met a liberal - (lincoln) - (3)
                                 your loss -NT - (boxley)
                                 You claim to be a "liberal" and yet support a Nixon created entity? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                     Hey, even crooks can do something good - (lincoln)
                     Doesn't smell right. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                         dunno about smell but sulpher burns hot, take it out harder to burn -NT - (boxley) - (6)
                             Not the way it works. - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                 kinda makes my point, regulators make the cars run like crap, what the retired guy said -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                     Um, modern diesels are great compared to, say, a 1980 Rabbit diesel. - (Another Scott)
                                     Burning point is no criterion for use in a Diesel engine - (scoenye) - (2)
                                         Neat stuff. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         very nice -NT - (boxley)
             The CEO is really sorry now! - (a6l6e6x)
         The problem is world wide -- 11 M vehicles. - (a6l6e6x)
         I'm convinced there's a joke in there ... - (mmoffitt)
         Here's how they caught them - (malraux) - (4)
             Good find! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
             What I cannot parse at all, though.. - (Ashton)
             Interesting reason - (scoenye)
             Maybe the EPA will update their tests, too. - (static)
         What I was thinking, in more detail - (drook) - (1)
             one piece has been around a few years - (boxley)
         We're gonna need a bigger probe - (scoenye) - (1)
             Interesting. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
         Four more carmakers join emissions rigging list - (lincoln) - (5)
             Not the same thing - (malraux) - (4)
                 Should it? - (drook) - (3)
                     Point being: - (malraux) - (2)
                         Your first two paragraphs, 100% agree, it's the third I question - (drook) - (1)
                             From what I remember, the test is that bad. - (malraux)
         There, fixed. - (scoenye) - (4)
             Interesting. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 The test was going to change in 2017 - (scoenye) - (1)
                     Ah. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
             BBC has you covered. - (a6l6e6x)

Hopefully it was a very temporary victory of the ignorant.
125 ms