If sugar were illegal, would criminal organizations start sugar-trafficking like drug cartels?
It would be very, very difficult to ban sugar. For one thing, it's in almost any food and is an essential nutrient to give your brain energy. Of course, you could stick to banning candy and soda, but that would be stupid. Sugar is nowhere near as dangerous as many legal things, like cigarettes or suicide. Sugary food can also serve a medicinal purpose to someone who is suffering from low blood-sugar levels. It's also a cultural thing. Haven't you heard of birthday parties or holidays? There is no way to not have sugar at those times.Lets say sugary food became illegal in the U.S. Once the law is instituted, many food companies would instantly go out of business. Many recipes for food would become illegal to use because they require sugar. Most people would be rioting on the streets because a major class of products suddenly are illegal for no good reason.The reason illegal drugs would be different from illegal sugar is that sugar is necessary to life. Sugar is absolutely vital to give energy to cells and without it, we die. They also don't interact with the brain the same way. Typical psychoactive substances mess with the receptors in the brain to produce responses. For example, cocaine binds to dopamine receptors in the brain. This does a lot of things. In cases like illegal drugs, it tends to inhibit brain function and cause erratic, sometimes fatal, behavior. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't affect the brain in the same way. It can increase dopamine levels in the brain, but not by mimicking a neurotransmitter. So, occasional candy bars and treats probably won't get you addicted and definitely won't cause hallucinations, but other (sometimes legal) drugs can. It's hard to justify making a drug illegal if it doesn't endanger others and yourself and isn't addictive in moderate amounts.
Why can't the military do reverse engineering on the weapons/jets bought from another country? Why does the military buy these in large numbers instead of just buying one of each and then replicating it?
Purchasing one piece and reverse engineer it ! Good question. It is not done because of any or all of the following:a. A seller may not be willing to sell just one piece to you - All military equipment whether a weapon, a weapon platform or an accessory undergo extensive user trials (under different terrain, climactic and operational conditions), maintainability evaluation trials and quality assurance trials all of which is all usually at the vendors cost. No vendor will be ready to invest in all these trials to sell just one piece.b. The exact metallurgy or chemical composition used may not yield to reverse engineering. One may copy a design but formulating materials to implement that design isn’t easy. Such reverse engineering may not be cost effective either.c. Vendor contracts often include clauses to prevent exactly such attempts at copying. There are design copyright issues. If violated, the vendor may take the government to court which if the vendor were to win the case would not only cost the government more than it would to buy a full consignment of the items but also cause terrible international embarassment.d. The vendor will usually not part with the know-how unless it is specifically contracted for (at a price of course). When such know-how is contracted it is known as ToT (Transfer of Technology) in the jargon.e. Reverse engineering often calls for better facilities and brains than developing the design independently.
I dont get this article and the questions?
SCM Corporation v. Xerox Corporation U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1981 In the 1930s, a patent attorney turned inventor, named Chester Carlson, invented a process, subsequently called xerography . . . Xerox, which later came to control Carlson’s patents and all of the xerographic improvement patents, . . . refused to grant licenses for [other companies to provide] plain-paper copying. The result was that from 1960 to 1970, when IBM introduced its first plain-paper copier, Xerox enjoyed an absolute monopoly in the plain-paper copying segment of the industry . . . In March 1960, Xerox made initial deliveries of the 914, its first automatic plain-paper copier. The 914 was a resounding success. Between 1960 and 1970, Xerox’s revenues rose from $47 million to $1.7 billion . . . Xerox refused, however, to extend licenses to SCM that would enable it to manufacture its own plain-paper copier . . . The conflict between the antitrust and patent laws arises in the methods they embrace that were designed to achieve reciprocal [opposite] goals . . . When the patented product, as is often the case, represents merely one of many products that effectively compete in a given product market, few antitrust problems arise. When, however, the patented product is so successful that it evolves into its own economic market, as was the case here, . . . the patent and antitrust laws necessarily clash . . . No court has ever held that the antitrust laws require a patent holder to forfeit the exclusionary power inherent in his patent the instant his patent monopoly affords him monopoly power over a relevant product market . . . Based on the evidence presented we are convinced that none of Xerox’s patent-related conduct contributed to any antitrust violation and that, therefore, SCM is not entitled to recover any monetary damages in connection with that claim. 1. Summarize the conflicting goals of antitrust law and patent law. 2. Predict how IBM’s introduction of a copier in 1970 most likely affected consumers. Explain your prediction. Use the names of two market structures in your explanation. 3. Analyze how the term market failure applies to the situation described in this court case.
What is a simple non biased definition of a republican and a democrat?
Republicans believe in smaller government, self sufficiency, individual responsibility, the opportunity for individuals to succeed in this country, limited entitlement programs, lower taxes, increasing revenues by economic growth and jobs, believe in the rights of the individual. Have a better grasp of how business and the economy work. Republicans tend to be more logical and analytical. Republicans are accused of not caring about the poor or needy. In reality they believe that each individual has the ability and potential for success and that any assistance should be to help that individual get on their own feet. Democrats believe in big government, believe the government is the one that needs to solve all our problems, believe in higher taxes in order to generate revenue, are big on entitlement programs, believe it is ok to take from the rich and give to the poor (even though the individuals hard earned money is theirs not the governments), do not seem to have faith in the ability of the American people to succeed without government intervention, do not seem to believe in individual responsibility but instead tend to blame society or others for a persons failures. Bigger government equals an erosion of individual rights. Liberals tend to make decisions based more on emotion and I think that is why they want to solve everyones problems with government programs instead of letting the individual learn to succeed on their own ability. They are probably not the people who believe in tough love. If you watch comments in YA you will soon be able to tell which is which by the types of answers people give.
Can I drive my automatic car if it only goes forward and not reverse?
You certainly “can” drive your car, with no reverse gear, but you probably shouldn’t. Aside from the fact that this severely limits your ability to safely park and maneuver, it could also indicate a serious problem with your transmission, which could leave you dangerously stranded.There actually were some early “microcars,” which were never equipped with reverse gears. To back up, the driver would exit the car and push or pull. The vast majority of motorcycles also don’t have reverse gears, even though some of them weigh over 800 pounds.However in an automatic, if something isn’t functioning correctly, it should be immediately inspected and repaired. If caught early, the repair could be relatively minor and inexpensive. If not, the entire transmission could fail, which could cost thousands of dollars to repair or replace.
What would happen if a US flag with inverted colors was publicly displayed in the United States?
Upside-down flags are a distress signal. Somebody would probably call the police and you would have the police coming to your place to ask you what was wrong. Occasionally, somebody without access to a phone has managed to call for help this way, which is pretty clever. Don’t do it unless you actually do need help. It’s as bad as prank-calling 911.“Distress signal” does not mean “I am upset”, by the way. If you want to use your flag to mourn something, you fly it at half-staff. It’s usually done when people die or tragedies happen, or to commemorate tragedies; or the President can order it to be done if something particularly sad has happened, like a disaster. The person who died has to be pretty important or the disaster has to be pretty severe; it’s not something that’s ordered lightly.If you needed a way to display your flag to say “I am really upset about what my country is doing right now”, flying it at half-staff would be okay as a form of protest/mourning. It’s not often done, but it’s feasible.Never use the upside-down flag as anything but a “come help me I am in trouble” distress signal. Otherwise it becomes ambiguous and loses its value as an SOS, and you’re liable for any confusion that results. You might even be arrested and charged, or at least fined, for wasting the time of emergency services.Using the flag in just about any way you like is legal in the US, even burning it if you want to protest in a very extreme way, because that counts as free speech and the US constitution protects free speech. But there are exceptions to free speech, including the sort of speech that could hurt somebody. Flying an upside-down flag when you’re not actually in trouble counts as hurting people, because when you tie up emergency services you risk the life of anybody else who might be in danger and can’t get help because you’re wasting the emergency responders’ time.
I don t understand politics....help!?
On most issues, you sound liberal. I am an Independent and I think that's the way to go. I am a liberal but don't like some of the liberal crap that's out there. There are a few things I agree with cons on but only a very few. Being an Independent will be more likely to give you an open mind. There are so many things going on in politics and it is up to you to do research and come to your own conclusions if you are to understand politics.
Is it possible to reverse/decrease the number of miles driven on a car? If yes, how?
In the every old days, car odometers did not have one-way clutches, so you could lift up a rear wheel and put it into reverse and undo some miles. Jeeps had this until the late 1950's, that was a major plot point in an episode of "Perry Mason".After that a lot of odometers were very easy to turn back, a wire coat-hanger would do the job, at worst, you had to spend 20 minutes disassembling the odometer. Now with electronic odometers it's a bit harder, you have to open up the odometer, identify the memory chip, unsolder it, dump it out with a EPROM reader, and change a few bytes. The better cars have the value encrypted so its difficult to impossible to change the reading.