Yes, but the banks are subsidized and guaranteed to make those loans in the first place. That money is "unfairly taxed" from the citizens on this country. You think the bank makes any money on the $22k they loaned me at 2.6% fixed interest for 20 years? I can't very well call myself a Libertarian and accept that kind of aid at the same time, now can I?
Well, $22k with any form of interest produces a gain for the bank. Maybe not as much as they make off credit cards but still a profit. Also, I'm not sure about this "unfairly taxed" statement. Considering where our tax money goes, investment in education is noted to have one of the greatest returns on investment. Society should be happier to have their tax money spent on education than most other things.
I myself know an anarcho-capitalist that doesn't go to college because he can't fund it himself, and because he adamantly refuses to take federal aid as he would be taking far more than he has paid into the system with.
Federal aid is usually in the form of a loan so it's not really about taking out more than you've put in. Now, if he doesn't feel like taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt, that's fine, but it's not exactly like taking a handout.
Amen. I ran a windows computer of my own for four years and I ditched the anti-virus within about a month. If you're intelligent about your computer use you really don't have to worry about much at all. Fun little trick, I changed my main directory from c:\ to k:\ and that seemed to immediately and drastically decrease the chance of malware/spyware/etc. It seems they hardcode a lot of the directory information and not having any drive with c:\ worked quite nicely. I run a mac now and I still don't use AV software, no point.
So, what, I wonder, would be the correct statement? What is it about real numbers that makes them uncountable?
The simple explanation (and I'm leaving out a lot of detail) is to use a base-2 expansion of the real numbers. You can construct a countable set of numbers defined as x(k) such that the k-th digit is the only non-zero number.
x(0) = 0
x(1) = 1
x(2) = 10
x(3) = 100
...
x(10) = 10 0000 0000
This set is infinitely-countable but there still remains the set y(k) that is constructed similarly except with the y-th digit being the only non-1 number. This still will not cover the entire set and by expansion it is impossible to construct a complete cover of the set of real numbers with the set of natural numbers (the definition of Aleph-0). This results in the cardinality of the real numbers being defined as Aleph.
And once again forgetting to convert units strikes. I glanced up, saw 50 and assumed pounds (whoops). So make that consumption of greater than 1 (for supper skinny) and a third (for the heftier). My bad.
These tactics remind me of a trick on how to check out other girls with your significant other present: feigned outrage.
"Wow look at her shes wearing almost nothing at all. Will you look at that top? You can almost see right down her shirt. And look at those pants! They are so tight they show everything. Disgusting isn't it?"
And that actually worked for you? No offense, but you need to find smarter women to date.
Ah, advanced Calculus, where some infinities aren't quite as big as other infinities. That, like much of semiconductor physics, I take on faith and trust that smarter people have done their work correctly.
It's how much energy you consume vs how much you use which decide if you get fatter, stay the same or thinner.
Not the quality of the food.
Yes and no. The healthier the food you consumer (and healthier does not mean purely vegetables, just a well balanced diet) the better the chance of that consumed energy creating positive effects on the body. If you only consume BK Cheeseburgers then you're going to get a lot of fat in your system. If you only consume spinach, no matter how much, there's a good chance your system will just pass a lot of the spinach without much happening (other than some interesting bowel movements). Unlike how we esteem to view humans in society, not all food is created equal.
Though, if you have one cheeseburger a day and nothing else and you don't just sit and sleep the entire day there's a good chance that you will lose weight. And if you have a well balanced diet but consume 5000 kcals there's a good chance you'll gain lots of weight (and most likely fat unless you're a professional athlete, military person, or something akin). Though only having a cheeseburger a day will probably still lead to negative health issues even if you're losing weight considering the percentage of your diet that is going to consist in high cholesterol and fats.
Also, 10,000 kcals of spinach!? Do you know how much that is (considering you don't prepare each forkfull with a stick of butter? That's something like 50kg of spinach, or 110lbs for the uninitiated. If you can consume half (for the super skinny) to a sixth (for the heftier people) of your body weight in spinach that's pretty impressive.
When the laws specifically stipulate the printed word, and given that the internet is not printed, libels laws do not cover the internet
Electronic stuff is obviously print, that's why it's command println (or something like that, I'm an EE so sue me). But you could probably argue that it's not words on the internet judging by the majority of the stuff seen on twiter/youtube/facebook/etc.
still should be a tort crime (civil), rather than a police matter. Regardless of whats said, can't go to college? Become a cop! You'll be a big man then.
Campus Police != Police. Anyone who's been on a college campus knows that. Real police wouldn't waste their time with someone's sob story about someone calling them names.
The government is "giving" them the difference between the market interest rate, and the one the government would give them. If the market rate is 10%, and the government gives them the loan at 4%, the government is giving them the 6% difference as a handout. That's the equivalent of writing Tesla a check. It's a bailout.
The government is also the largest source of capital in the nation. That means that they can offer loans at lower rates than banks because of their ability to get cash. And that 6% difference that the government is "giving" to them is a hell of a lot less than those billions that the government gave to GM and Chrysler. You know the government gives tons of money to lots of other companies as well, it's the way the US works and Tesla is just playing the game.
The $50k pricetag already includes government subsidies, and now they want a below-market $350 million government loan to get into business.
Yeah, and the government program is for $25,000 million. Wow, I wonder where the rest of that money is going (hint, GM and Ford). Now $350 million doesn't sound like such a bad appropriation of funds considering neither GM or Ford have a working, production electric vehicle. Don't be mad at Tesla for wanting a piece of the pie (a small 1.5% piece at that), be mad at the government for instituting the program (although I happen to believe government investment into advanced vehicle design is a good thing, but that can be debated).
I think you mis-read me. I think the Tesla looks GREAT...compared to other alternate energy cars out there, to me the Prius is about as fugly as they get.
Not to mention, Tesla makes cars that are fugly like most of the current offerings out there today.
Actually, I think you left out a negation somewhere in your original post. I did think it slightly off that you would call the Tesla cars fugly so I simply assumed that you meant the opposite of what you typed and continued reading.
Read the thing again...they're asking for a loan, to be repaid...not a bailout.
And the difference is?
Either they don't have a business plan anyone is willing to invest in, in which case they're probably going to go bust and lose all that money, or they're going to the government to get a lower interest rate loan, in which case the taxpayer is subsidising their profits.
The difference is that all the money going into GM and Chrysler isn't being paid back. Those two (and everyone else who got a bailout) get to keep the money and use it without having to repay it.
So people aren't willing to invest right now. Surprise, surprise. Nobody is investing in anything now. The government infused the banks with money and the banks are sitting on it.
As for not having a business plan, show me a start up company (or any company for that matter) that doesn't rely on loans of some sort. The US Congress decided that they wanted to set aside billions of dollars to invest as loans in to high-efficiency transportation. If you have a problem with that then contact your congress person and complain. If the money is there it makes complete sense for Tesla to look for the best loan possible.
If the government is handing out free money, they would be stupid *not* to ask for some.
Except that it's not free money, it's a low interest loan. That means Tesla has to pay it all back (plus interest around 1.5%). I wouldn't call that free money.
Actually, they wouldn't. The Model S seats 7, believe it or not.
And a Mustang seats five. While there may be seven seats (two of which are trunk jumper seats, ouch) the functional seating is probably much closer to two adults and three children or four adults. I'm okay with this because most cars can only comfortably seat four people. A minivan seats seven and I don't think we're ever going to see anything smaller than that that has comparable seating.
when the grid is intelligent and can shift power where needed safelyand securely
Also according to the DOE, our current grid could handle a switchover of 84% of our vehicles.
I agree with most of your post but this statistic is just completely false. The grid might be able to handle an 84% switchover if it was made illegal to charge during anytime other than between midnight and 5AM. This is not to say that electrics are a bad thing, but without strong regulations on when people can charge the current grid could not handle it. An increase in generation, transmission or implementation of smart grid technologies will definitely remedy this problem but if even 33% of US drivers switched to electrics in the next ten years there would be serious concerns for grid reliability.
(I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)
First off, when it comes to combusting fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine is one of the least efficient ways of doing it. Then toss that in with the whole drive train and you lower its efficiency even more. You're right that Tesla isn't eliminating fossil fuels but pollution control and efficiency are a lot easier to attain at a power plant than in a car. And if power generation shifts to cleaner technologies then these cars are allowing for cleaner driving. As for recycling, the batteries are recyclable and aren't anything foreign to the world (we've been using Lithium batteries for a while now). I would hope that Tesla would at least facilitate (if not run) the recycling of these batteries for their customers.
If I were up there I'd be saying "I drive a Mitsubishi Eclipse because the cars you guys make all suck! Now get your asses in gear and make cars that people want to buy for a change!"
Of all the Japanese cars there are you chose that one, really.
These mistakes would be less common if people would use parenthesis where they can be used.
It's unlikely that anyone would write:
The name (which will not be publicly released until the program airs).
Commas are often seen (and taught) as superior to parenthesis in style. I disagree. I've been pleased to find that some authors use parenthesis. I've noticed in particular that the Nobel price winner, Orhan Pamuk, used plenty of parenthesis in his book, "Istanbul".
You shouldn't bash the comma, there were a few places where it would have worked quite nicely in your post. Though I agree wholeheartedly that parentheses get left out in grammar classes (if you're lucky enough to get them) in the US education system.
Keep in mind that the Model S, the sedan, is in some ways a publicity stunt. The company has used up all of its investor funding and now is turning to the government to bail it out. For it to do it, it needs to create a mass-market car.
I believe you're thinking of GM and Chrysler. Tesla is looking for a government loan from a multi-billion dollar congressional investment spending bill. Congress, 2 years ago, decided that it wanted to spur investment and development so they drafted a bill (that only got signed into law near the end of 2008) that would provide the DOE with the means to give out low interest (eg - low risk) loans to companies working on developing electric and/or high efficiency vehicles. The government often provides similar incentive measures to electric power distribution, telecommunications, and other markets. What GM and Chrysler are looking for is money to stay afloat, not money to invest and pay back.
Basically, Tesla is hoping to use the US government as a bank to get a low interest loan that they must pay back. GM and Chrysler are using the government as a sugar daddy to keep them from going broke.
Why does it have to be:
http://shiflett.org/blog/2009/apr/save-the-internet-with-rev-canonical
Though the final part of the url "save-the-internet-with-rev-canonical" could easily be shortened, everything else about the url makes sense and has a purpose (and that's 34 characters right there). Keeping a directory structure as opposed to having simply "http://shiftlett.org/###" makes sense. You could argue that you could construct your pages simply as "/###" and hold directory structure either by redirecting to the longer URL or by linking all relevant information to the directory structure, but that creates problems if you ever modify your directories, and not many people want to take the time to do that.
Twitter and IM clients (which can handle long urls, it just eats up a significant amount of space) should not be a reason to reconstruct your entire directory structure.
the Washington Post comment section really is a cesspit.
Well, that's what you get with internet news, complete and utter lack of concern for professionalism or quality. Now, I haven't been to the Washington Post's webpage but my experience with many other online news sites that are based on paper or television news are incredibly sub par. Grammar, spelling, lack of details, it's really appalling that a large news organization can't take the time to properly edit their online submissions (actual articles). And this lack of quality floods over into the comments section with a cheap knock-up of the youTube comment system.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the banks are subsidized and guaranteed to make those loans in the first place. That money is "unfairly taxed" from the citizens on this country. You think the bank makes any money on the $22k they loaned me at 2.6% fixed interest for 20 years? I can't very well call myself a Libertarian and accept that kind of aid at the same time, now can I?
Well, $22k with any form of interest produces a gain for the bank. Maybe not as much as they make off credit cards but still a profit. Also, I'm not sure about this "unfairly taxed" statement. Considering where our tax money goes, investment in education is noted to have one of the greatest returns on investment. Society should be happier to have their tax money spent on education than most other things.
I myself know an anarcho-capitalist that doesn't go to college because he can't fund it himself, and because he adamantly refuses to take federal aid as he would be taking far more than he has paid into the system with.
Federal aid is usually in the form of a loan so it's not really about taking out more than you've put in. Now, if he doesn't feel like taking on tens of thousands of dollars in debt, that's fine, but it's not exactly like taking a handout.
Amen. I ran a windows computer of my own for four years and I ditched the anti-virus within about a month. If you're intelligent about your computer use you really don't have to worry about much at all. Fun little trick, I changed my main directory from c:\ to k:\ and that seemed to immediately and drastically decrease the chance of malware/spyware/etc. It seems they hardcode a lot of the directory information and not having any drive with c:\ worked quite nicely. I run a mac now and I still don't use AV software, no point.
=
Simiarly, do new OS X users sit down at their shiny new Macbook Pro and try to install a bunch of Windows applications?
If that program is MS Office, yes, they probably do. That's the only MS software on my computer.
So, what, I wonder, would be the correct statement? What is it about real numbers that makes them uncountable?
The simple explanation (and I'm leaving out a lot of detail) is to use a base-2 expansion of the real numbers. You can construct a countable set of numbers defined as x(k) such that the k-th digit is the only non-zero number.
x(0) = 0
x(1) = 1
x(2) = 10
x(3) = 100
...
x(10) = 10 0000 0000
This set is infinitely-countable but there still remains the set y(k) that is constructed similarly except with the y-th digit being the only non-1 number. This still will not cover the entire set and by expansion it is impossible to construct a complete cover of the set of real numbers with the set of natural numbers (the definition of Aleph-0). This results in the cardinality of the real numbers being defined as Aleph.
And once again forgetting to convert units strikes. I glanced up, saw 50 and assumed pounds (whoops). So make that consumption of greater than 1 (for supper skinny) and a third (for the heftier). My bad.
These tactics remind me of a trick on how to check out other girls with your significant other present: feigned outrage.
"Wow look at her shes wearing almost nothing at all. Will you look at that top? You can almost see right down her shirt. And look at those pants! They are so tight they show everything. Disgusting isn't it?"
And that actually worked for you? No offense, but you need to find smarter women to date.
Ah, advanced Calculus, where some infinities aren't quite as big as other infinities. That, like much of semiconductor physics, I take on faith and trust that smarter people have done their work correctly.
It's how much energy you consume vs how much you use which decide if you get fatter, stay the same or thinner.
Not the quality of the food.
Yes and no. The healthier the food you consumer (and healthier does not mean purely vegetables, just a well balanced diet) the better the chance of that consumed energy creating positive effects on the body. If you only consume BK Cheeseburgers then you're going to get a lot of fat in your system. If you only consume spinach, no matter how much, there's a good chance your system will just pass a lot of the spinach without much happening (other than some interesting bowel movements). Unlike how we esteem to view humans in society, not all food is created equal.
Though, if you have one cheeseburger a day and nothing else and you don't just sit and sleep the entire day there's a good chance that you will lose weight. And if you have a well balanced diet but consume 5000 kcals there's a good chance you'll gain lots of weight (and most likely fat unless you're a professional athlete, military person, or something akin). Though only having a cheeseburger a day will probably still lead to negative health issues even if you're losing weight considering the percentage of your diet that is going to consist in high cholesterol and fats.
Also, 10,000 kcals of spinach!? Do you know how much that is (considering you don't prepare each forkfull with a stick of butter? That's something like 50kg of spinach, or 110lbs for the uninitiated. If you can consume half (for the super skinny) to a sixth (for the heftier people) of your body weight in spinach that's pretty impressive.
When the laws specifically stipulate the printed word, and given that the internet is not printed, libels laws do not cover the internet
Electronic stuff is obviously print, that's why it's command println (or something like that, I'm an EE so sue me). But you could probably argue that it's not words on the internet judging by the majority of the stuff seen on twiter/youtube/facebook/etc.
still should be a tort crime (civil), rather than a police matter. Regardless of whats said, can't go to college? Become a cop! You'll be a big man then.
Campus Police != Police. Anyone who's been on a college campus knows that. Real police wouldn't waste their time with someone's sob story about someone calling them names.
The government is "giving" them the difference between the market interest rate, and the one the government would give them. If the market rate is 10%, and the government gives them the loan at 4%, the government is giving them the 6% difference as a handout. That's the equivalent of writing Tesla a check. It's a bailout.
The government is also the largest source of capital in the nation. That means that they can offer loans at lower rates than banks because of their ability to get cash. And that 6% difference that the government is "giving" to them is a hell of a lot less than those billions that the government gave to GM and Chrysler. You know the government gives tons of money to lots of other companies as well, it's the way the US works and Tesla is just playing the game.
The $50k pricetag already includes government subsidies, and now they want a below-market $350 million government loan to get into business.
Yeah, and the government program is for $25,000 million. Wow, I wonder where the rest of that money is going (hint, GM and Ford). Now $350 million doesn't sound like such a bad appropriation of funds considering neither GM or Ford have a working, production electric vehicle. Don't be mad at Tesla for wanting a piece of the pie (a small 1.5% piece at that), be mad at the government for instituting the program (although I happen to believe government investment into advanced vehicle design is a good thing, but that can be debated).
And you have to replace the batteries once a year
Citation Needed.
I think you mis-read me. I think the Tesla looks GREAT...compared to other alternate energy cars out there, to me the Prius is about as fugly as they get.
Not to mention, Tesla makes cars that are fugly like most of the current offerings out there today.
Actually, I think you left out a negation somewhere in your original post. I did think it slightly off that you would call the Tesla cars fugly so I simply assumed that you meant the opposite of what you typed and continued reading.
Read the thing again...they're asking for a loan, to be repaid...not a bailout.
And the difference is?
Either they don't have a business plan anyone is willing to invest in, in which case they're probably going to go bust and lose all that money, or they're going to the government to get a lower interest rate loan, in which case the taxpayer is subsidising their profits.
The difference is that all the money going into GM and Chrysler isn't being paid back. Those two (and everyone else who got a bailout) get to keep the money and use it without having to repay it.
So people aren't willing to invest right now. Surprise, surprise. Nobody is investing in anything now. The government infused the banks with money and the banks are sitting on it.
As for not having a business plan, show me a start up company (or any company for that matter) that doesn't rely on loans of some sort. The US Congress decided that they wanted to set aside billions of dollars to invest as loans in to high-efficiency transportation. If you have a problem with that then contact your congress person and complain. If the money is there it makes complete sense for Tesla to look for the best loan possible.
If the government is handing out free money, they would be stupid *not* to ask for some.
Except that it's not free money, it's a low interest loan. That means Tesla has to pay it all back (plus interest around 1.5%). I wouldn't call that free money.
Actually, they wouldn't. The Model S seats 7, believe it or not.
And a Mustang seats five. While there may be seven seats (two of which are trunk jumper seats, ouch) the functional seating is probably much closer to two adults and three children or four adults. I'm okay with this because most cars can only comfortably seat four people. A minivan seats seven and I don't think we're ever going to see anything smaller than that that has comparable seating.
when the grid is intelligent and can shift power where needed safelyand securely
Also according to the DOE, our current grid could handle a switchover of 84% of our vehicles.
I agree with most of your post but this statistic is just completely false. The grid might be able to handle an 84% switchover if it was made illegal to charge during anytime other than between midnight and 5AM. This is not to say that electrics are a bad thing, but without strong regulations on when people can charge the current grid could not handle it. An increase in generation, transmission or implementation of smart grid technologies will definitely remedy this problem but if even 33% of US drivers switched to electrics in the next ten years there would be serious concerns for grid reliability.
(I'm not sure that it actually is though. It moves the burning of fossil fuels to somewhere else, but doesn't eliminate it. I'm also curious as to what plans they have for recycling the batteries at the end of the vehicles life span, what is the potential for environmental contamination in the event of an accident or car fire, etc)
First off, when it comes to combusting fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine is one of the least efficient ways of doing it. Then toss that in with the whole drive train and you lower its efficiency even more. You're right that Tesla isn't eliminating fossil fuels but pollution control and efficiency are a lot easier to attain at a power plant than in a car. And if power generation shifts to cleaner technologies then these cars are allowing for cleaner driving. As for recycling, the batteries are recyclable and aren't anything foreign to the world (we've been using Lithium batteries for a while now). I would hope that Tesla would at least facilitate (if not run) the recycling of these batteries for their customers.
If I were up there I'd be saying "I drive a Mitsubishi Eclipse because the cars you guys make all suck! Now get your asses in gear and make cars that people want to buy for a change!"
Of all the Japanese cars there are you chose that one, really.
These mistakes would be less common if people would use parenthesis where they can be used.
It's unlikely that anyone would write:
The name (which will not be publicly released until the program airs).
Commas are often seen (and taught) as superior to parenthesis in style. I disagree. I've been pleased to find that some authors use parenthesis. I've noticed in particular that the Nobel price winner, Orhan Pamuk, used plenty of parenthesis in his book, "Istanbul".
You shouldn't bash the comma, there were a few places where it would have worked quite nicely in your post. Though I agree wholeheartedly that parentheses get left out in grammar classes (if you're lucky enough to get them) in the US education system.
Keep in mind that the Model S, the sedan, is in some ways a publicity stunt. The company has used up all of its investor funding and now is turning to the government to bail it out. For it to do it, it needs to create a mass-market car.
I believe you're thinking of GM and Chrysler. Tesla is looking for a government loan from a multi-billion dollar congressional investment spending bill. Congress, 2 years ago, decided that it wanted to spur investment and development so they drafted a bill (that only got signed into law near the end of 2008) that would provide the DOE with the means to give out low interest (eg - low risk) loans to companies working on developing electric and/or high efficiency vehicles. The government often provides similar incentive measures to electric power distribution, telecommunications, and other markets. What GM and Chrysler are looking for is money to stay afloat, not money to invest and pay back.
Basically, Tesla is hoping to use the US government as a bank to get a low interest loan that they must pay back. GM and Chrysler are using the government as a sugar daddy to keep them from going broke.
Why does it have to be: http://shiflett.org/blog/2009/apr/save-the-internet-with-rev-canonical
Though the final part of the url "save-the-internet-with-rev-canonical" could easily be shortened, everything else about the url makes sense and has a purpose (and that's 34 characters right there). Keeping a directory structure as opposed to having simply "http://shiftlett.org/###" makes sense. You could argue that you could construct your pages simply as "/###" and hold directory structure either by redirecting to the longer URL or by linking all relevant information to the directory structure, but that creates problems if you ever modify your directories, and not many people want to take the time to do that.
Twitter and IM clients (which can handle long urls, it just eats up a significant amount of space) should not be a reason to reconstruct your entire directory structure.
the Washington Post comment section really is a cesspit.
Well, that's what you get with internet news, complete and utter lack of concern for professionalism or quality. Now, I haven't been to the Washington Post's webpage but my experience with many other online news sites that are based on paper or television news are incredibly sub par. Grammar, spelling, lack of details, it's really appalling that a large news organization can't take the time to properly edit their online submissions (actual articles). And this lack of quality floods over into the comments section with a cheap knock-up of the youTube comment system.