The last umpteen media potshots at Tesla have been over fires that were either not started by the roadster, or were caused by colissions. One was caused by the roadster running over a trailer hitch at highway speeds, and there were zero injuries, but the headline conveniently implied that the fires were spontaneous.
As I read these articles I dont get the impression that theres a problem with anything Tesla makes, other than Musk being really poor at interacting with journalists in a non-inflamatory way. The impression i get is that the media is determined to find a reason to drive everyone into a hysteria over phantom fires caused by the tesla.
Even in this story, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the Tesla caused the fire-- particularly as it seems to be the only thing in the garage that isnt touched. But apparently that doesnt stop the headline writers from claiming that the tesla "caught fire" (look at those pics and tell me that it was on fire?)
I still dont understand why the media hates the tesla.
I would think conservatives (like me) are a fan because Musk is an incredibly successful businessman, free market yadda yadda. He sells a good product, he makes successful companies, he shows how the private market is supposed to work.
I would think liberals would love tesla because its the environmentalist dream-- its a desirable product that is environmentally friendly AND viable in the real world.
What grinches are looking at tesla and grinding their teeth, and when did they get such influence in the media? And dont even say "big petro", we saw how much the media loved them during the BP spill and with all the fracking coverage.
Sounds like they were trying to get an advantage with better gear, and it turned into a disadvantage. What, do you only want the good parts of having non-equivalent gear, and not the bad?
Seems like we should look into standardizing the gear across competitors-- if not, doesnt seem like theres much room for complaining.
In fact not only are they unsourced, at least one (late onset adrenal hyperplasia) is flat out wrong. Its incidence rate is 1/15000, not 1/66-- see here http://rarediseases.info.nih.g... Under "basic information": How common is 21-hydroxylase deficiency? The classic forms of 21-hydroxylase deficiency occur in 1 in 15,000 newborns. The prevalence of the non-classic form of 21-hydroxylase deficiency is estimated to be 1 in 1,000 individuals.
This whole thread is filled with BS. The missing source for GP's stats aside, when I actually look into things the "differ from standard" is incredibly misleading.
For one, Klinefelter is apparently the most common one, listed at 1/1000 incidence-- except that "most" (64% according to wikipedia) have no noticeable traits indicating them as such, so that drops to 1/3000. 0.03% is a heck of a long way from the 1% number that everyone is throwing around.
For another, the "late onset adrenal hyperplasia" which GP lists as having a 1/66 incidence rate (unsourced), is listed by NIH's Office of Rare Disease Research as having an incidence rate of 1/15000. Not only that, but the listed symptoms arent that the gender is ambiguous, just that some commonly male attributes are exaggerated-- women may be taller, experience "male pattern baldness", and have irregular menstruation-- not that they arent clearly women.
Those are just the first two I looked into, who knows what other BS is being thrown around in this thread as fact. Heres a tip-- if its not coming from the NIH, an EDU, or a proper publication, disregard it as not reliable, especially if the publishing organization has an easily identified self interest (Ie, Intersex society of North America).
Search as I might, I cant actually find any stats. The one page linked here (from Intersex Society of NA) doesnt have a source (the link is 404 notfound)
In a surprise move today, the IETF (also known as the Elders of the Internet) rejected a demand from IT professionals that Edward Snowden be granted asylum everywhere that has an internet uplink. While Snowden has gained widespread support from concerned IT professionals, the IETF indicated that it was incompatible with their goals.
'The IETF is committed to creating strong standards and RFCs for internet-related tasks,' they wrote. 'It is neither in our interest nor our mission scope to grant asylum to people, nor do we have the authority to do so.'
Political activists around the world have condemned their stance as shortsighted and disappointing. Slashdot Editor Samzenpus however expressed hope that the move would generate sufficient backlash to drive clickthroughs.
Renowned OS developer Linus Torvalds and Google CEO Larry Page also denied an appeal for asylum, indicating both that they had no sovereign territory and that they were corporations, not nations.
If someone doesnt get a job, theres a good chance theyre going to be supported by taxpayer dollars for a long time. Good luck getting payment on that debt. Good luck even drafting the bill that will assign tax debt to someone who makes no money.
These are problems with relatively easy solutions if you give it more than about 2 seconds thought.
I hadnt realized that you could pay taxes in excess of what you make / own.
"Thats all in the details" is a really good way to draft a crappy law with lots of unintended consequences. What happens when those folks dont graduate, and thus dont pay the tax? What happens when they dont get a job-- does that mean that the people who succeed are in effect subsidizing those who failed?
I dont know, that seems like a pretty fundamental flaw of the idea. Its actually the fundamental flaw of any idea that seeks to indiscriminately share wealth-- what happens when half the populace decides to abuse the free ride, is the other half just on the hook for it? Where's their incentive to uphold such a system?
To sum it up, it has never in history actually occurred to anyone from Cuba to Russia to China to Vietnam to Cambodia to NK to actually try to implement Communism. Instead, from the get-go, the people's revolutions were actually headed up by Stalin (for example), hiding in the background waiting to grab power.
Thats an interesting take on history, but its
However, in the context of claimed ignorance, I'd have to ask if you have any unique qualifications regarding this subject.
Not unique, not that anyone who's taken history wouldnt have. Id ask whether you have any that the majority of history teachers / poly sci academics lack, since your assessment that communism is viable disagrees with the majority of them. Its certainly not arguable that the vast majority of opinion (both academic and otherwise) is that communism doesnt work, so if youre claiming it can that would require some pretty special justification.
Being a polish expat almost certainly gives you unique experiences, but it doesnt make you any more qualified than anyone else to talk about the viability of political systems that, by your own admission, have never been successfully implemented.
You don't appear interested in having your opinion swayed,
If you want to sway my opinion, show me a successful people's revolution. You complain that I ignore your points (which I am not trying to do), but you havent addressed my point-- the difficulty in trusting any future people's revolution not to become a murderous regime. To put it another way, it would be some kind of madness to watch another people's uprising and expect anything other than what has happened every other time-- regardless of why you seem to think it happened every other time.
And at the root of it, youre basically saying that it hasnt worked for the same reason that I say it cant work: communism tends to be abused by Bad People who break it. You just seem to hold out hope that a pure group of Good People will get a hold of it and make it work, while I dont think such a group exists. Of course, if it did, maybe political systems would be irrelevant regardless.
I feel like Im getting dumber by reading this thread. Do any of you have anything relevant to the real world to say, or do you want to continue your fantasyland posturing?
Id imagine its because, from what Im hearing, Chip+Pin moves a lot of liability to the customer and doesnt solve people purchasing goods with just the number (online, telling a store clerk "I forgot my card but know my number").
It solves people cloning physical cards and making physical purchases with it, but im not clear how big a threat that is; generally my understanding is that people want to burn thru the credit ASAP before you notice and shut the card down, and online purchases are a pretty easy way to do that.
Slashdot Mirror
They want a success case for environmentalism, and Tesla is about the only "green initiative" that is remotely successful right now.
The good is not the enemy of the perfect.
The last umpteen media potshots at Tesla have been over fires that were either not started by the roadster, or were caused by colissions. One was caused by the roadster running over a trailer hitch at highway speeds, and there were zero injuries, but the headline conveniently implied that the fires were spontaneous.
As I read these articles I dont get the impression that theres a problem with anything Tesla makes, other than Musk being really poor at interacting with journalists in a non-inflamatory way. The impression i get is that the media is determined to find a reason to drive everyone into a hysteria over phantom fires caused by the tesla.
Even in this story, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the Tesla caused the fire-- particularly as it seems to be the only thing in the garage that isnt touched. But apparently that doesnt stop the headline writers from claiming that the tesla "caught fire" (look at those pics and tell me that it was on fire?)
I still dont understand why the media hates the tesla.
I would think conservatives (like me) are a fan because Musk is an incredibly successful businessman, free market yadda yadda. He sells a good product, he makes successful companies, he shows how the private market is supposed to work.
I would think liberals would love tesla because its the environmentalist dream-- its a desirable product that is environmentally friendly AND viable in the real world.
What grinches are looking at tesla and grinding their teeth, and when did they get such influence in the media? And dont even say "big petro", we saw how much the media loved them during the BP spill and with all the fracking coverage.
How the heck can a parked electric car even start a fire without involving its electric system?
Sounds like they were trying to get an advantage with better gear, and it turned into a disadvantage. What, do you only want the good parts of having non-equivalent gear, and not the bad?
Seems like we should look into standardizing the gear across competitors-- if not, doesnt seem like theres much room for complaining.
He also missed the part where, if your income is nonexistant, you dont pay taxes, so there IS no debt.
Ive not yet heard of a tax that is assessed on income you dont have.
I dont think you understand how welfare works. What, are you going to garnish the money that we're giving people in the first place?
In fact not only are they unsourced, at least one (late onset adrenal hyperplasia) is flat out wrong. Its incidence rate is 1/15000, not 1/66-- see here
http://rarediseases.info.nih.g...
Under "basic information":
How common is 21-hydroxylase deficiency?
The classic forms of 21-hydroxylase deficiency occur in 1 in 15,000 newborns. The prevalence of the non-classic form of 21-hydroxylase deficiency is estimated to be 1 in 1,000 individuals.
This whole thread is filled with BS. The missing source for GP's stats aside, when I actually look into things the "differ from standard" is incredibly misleading.
For one, Klinefelter is apparently the most common one, listed at 1/1000 incidence-- except that "most" (64% according to wikipedia) have no noticeable traits indicating them as such, so that drops to 1/3000. 0.03% is a heck of a long way from the 1% number that everyone is throwing around.
For another, the "late onset adrenal hyperplasia" which GP lists as having a 1/66 incidence rate (unsourced), is listed by NIH's Office of Rare Disease Research as having an incidence rate of 1/15000. Not only that, but the listed symptoms arent that the gender is ambiguous, just that some commonly male attributes are exaggerated-- women may be taller, experience "male pattern baldness", and have irregular menstruation-- not that they arent clearly women.
Those are just the first two I looked into, who knows what other BS is being thrown around in this thread as fact. Heres a tip-- if its not coming from the NIH, an EDU, or a proper publication, disregard it as not reliable, especially if the publishing organization has an easily identified self interest (Ie, Intersex society of North America).
Search as I might, I cant actually find any stats. The one page linked here (from Intersex Society of NA) doesnt have a source (the link is 404 notfound)
That second link not only has a vested interest, but the place where they get their statistics is 404 not found.
Can we get something thats actually sourced? Right now its "Intersex society of North America pulled these numbers out of thin air".
Im willing to bet iTunes is pretty profitable, and that the assumption is that Pandora etc all cut directly into iTunes profits.
IETF rejects demand for asylum for Snowden
In a surprise move today, the IETF (also known as the Elders of the Internet) rejected a demand from IT professionals that Edward Snowden be granted asylum everywhere that has an internet uplink. While Snowden has gained widespread support from concerned IT professionals, the IETF indicated that it was incompatible with their goals.
'The IETF is committed to creating strong standards and RFCs for internet-related tasks,' they wrote. 'It is neither in our interest nor our mission scope to grant asylum to people, nor do we have the authority to do so.'
Political activists around the world have condemned their stance as shortsighted and disappointing. Slashdot Editor Samzenpus however expressed hope that the move would generate sufficient backlash to drive clickthroughs.
Renowned OS developer Linus Torvalds and Google CEO Larry Page also denied an appeal for asylum, indicating both that they had no sovereign territory and that they were corporations, not nations.
If someone doesnt get a job, theres a good chance theyre going to be supported by taxpayer dollars for a long time. Good luck getting payment on that debt. Good luck even drafting the bill that will assign tax debt to someone who makes no money.
These are problems with relatively easy solutions if you give it more than about 2 seconds thought.
I hadnt realized that you could pay taxes in excess of what you make / own.
Do you have a source for that statistic? I see a lot of info being thrown around, but very little to actually back it up.
Ill note you didnt answer the question of "how many people actually have it".
Lets be real: What percent of the population is that?
Venezuela and North Korea are "75 years ago"? Quick, someone tell Reuters and the BBC, they have it all wrong!
If you can convert energy to matter and have a near limitless source of energy, where's your limitation?
Labor and time, like its always been.
"Thats all in the details" is a really good way to draft a crappy law with lots of unintended consequences. What happens when those folks dont graduate, and thus dont pay the tax? What happens when they dont get a job-- does that mean that the people who succeed are in effect subsidizing those who failed?
I dont know, that seems like a pretty fundamental flaw of the idea. Its actually the fundamental flaw of any idea that seeks to indiscriminately share wealth-- what happens when half the populace decides to abuse the free ride, is the other half just on the hook for it? Where's their incentive to uphold such a system?
Being linked is not the same as being causally linked. There is a massive difference, and ignoring it requires a huge leap.
To sum it up, it has never in history actually occurred to anyone from Cuba to Russia to China to Vietnam to Cambodia to NK to actually try to implement Communism. Instead, from the get-go, the people's revolutions were actually headed up by Stalin (for example), hiding in the background waiting to grab power.
Thats an interesting take on history, but its
However, in the context of claimed ignorance, I'd have to ask if you have any unique qualifications regarding this subject.
Not unique, not that anyone who's taken history wouldnt have. Id ask whether you have any that the majority of history teachers / poly sci academics lack, since your assessment that communism is viable disagrees with the majority of them. Its certainly not arguable that the vast majority of opinion (both academic and otherwise) is that communism doesnt work, so if youre claiming it can that would require some pretty special justification.
Being a polish expat almost certainly gives you unique experiences, but it doesnt make you any more qualified than anyone else to talk about the viability of political systems that, by your own admission, have never been successfully implemented.
You don't appear interested in having your opinion swayed,
If you want to sway my opinion, show me a successful people's revolution. You complain that I ignore your points (which I am not trying to do), but you havent addressed my point-- the difficulty in trusting any future people's revolution not to become a murderous regime. To put it another way, it would be some kind of madness to watch another people's uprising and expect anything other than what has happened every other time-- regardless of why you seem to think it happened every other time.
And at the root of it, youre basically saying that it hasnt worked for the same reason that I say it cant work: communism tends to be abused by Bad People who break it. You just seem to hold out hope that a pure group of Good People will get a hold of it and make it work, while I dont think such a group exists. Of course, if it did, maybe political systems would be irrelevant regardless.
I feel like Im getting dumber by reading this thread. Do any of you have anything relevant to the real world to say, or do you want to continue your fantasyland posturing?
Id imagine its because, from what Im hearing, Chip+Pin moves a lot of liability to the customer and doesnt solve people purchasing goods with just the number (online, telling a store clerk "I forgot my card but know my number").
It solves people cloning physical cards and making physical purchases with it, but im not clear how big a threat that is; generally my understanding is that people want to burn thru the credit ASAP before you notice and shut the card down, and online purchases are a pretty easy way to do that.
Doesnt that mean the security is "opt-in" by each vendor? That sounds strongly like security theatre.