Except that in this case the domain name portion wasn't to the "right" website, at least if the article's "the embedded link went to a third-party site with 'educause' embedded in the URL along with a sequence of meaningless characters" claim is correct.
a patent on soluble print materials - license it or come up with a different technique (using different chemicals for example) if you want to do that.
distributed rapid prototyping - don't use a web server. The diagnostics over a network interface is harder to work around. This does seem rather broad and non-inventive...
printing using a powder and a binding material - wait for it to expire. That shouldn't be hard since you only have to wait until 2012.
Because rather than just having the name and how much they spent on an ad in the yellow pages to go on it would be nice when making what could quite possibly be the most important decision in your life to be able to do at least the research you would do before choosing which restaurant to have lunch at.
And you can't get it right. Find a job more suited to your lack of ability already (though I admit it's going to be hard to find a job that requires less).
Yes, because when you are afraid of things outside your "comfy world" the first thing you want to do is give up your means of defending yourself. It's so obvious!
But it was accessible in Canada, and there have been some crazy court ruling on publishing on the internet. No idea if Canada has had any.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html is the Australian example - if you put something on the internet the publication takes place when someone views it and hence you have published it in whatever jurisdiction the viewer is in.
Of course suing a university with no involvement at all makes no sense.
If someone exercises a stock option the company has to give them a share for $X. Since the company could have sold that share for $Y that has cost the company $Y-X (if X>Y then the option isn't getting exercised). That reduces the amount of tax the company pays since it is an expense, if they have already paid an estimated tax which didn't get the stock price at exercise time exactly right (GAAP counts the expense at option issue time and without a time machine isn't going to get it perfect) then they are now owed those taxes back.
And yes if your employer pays you $100 he gets to count that $100 as an expense is then deducted when calculating taxes. If he paid estimated taxes in advance and didn't expect to be paying you that he's getting a refund.
I agree if he did what the support reps said, then that's tesla's problem and reflects poorly on them. The problem is, so you take his word that that's what they told him to do? If there were no inconsistencies then sure, but since there appear to be it's a little harder.
Though I'm not in the market for an expensive car so it's not like i've put effort into checking the details.
Batteries don't work as well when they are cold. Surely this is common knowledge to everyone over 12 years old (and younger if they happen to have taken up any hobbies that use batteries like say RC cars).
It's why the "charge it a little to recondition the batteries" isn't completely nonsensical (well the terminology is wrong) since charging will warm up the batteries.
A lot of the journalists story makes sense, and Tesla support could very well have given him bad advice. That's significantly undermined by it being pretty obvious he lied about some things (or at least didn't recollect them correctly) making it harder to take his claims about what he was told to do at face value.
Dollars to donuts he was pressing the accelerator instead of the brake.
And even with stupid cars that don't let you turn them off because electronics is better than a key, stick it neutral. Sure you might blow the engine, but that sounds like it has higher survival chances. Of course if he really was stamping on the brake then and the engine was winning, then you want to do that before you destroy your brakes.
The "standard" sci-fi method I recall was your robot mining/refining/etc machine lands on the asteroid and does it's thing. So you need the fuel to get that device onto the asteroid - which compared with changing the trajectory of the asteroid significantly is tiny.
While your machine is doing its thing the waste material can be used as reaction mass and solar power as the energy to change the trajectory of the asteroid by basically throwing chunks of rock off it (at as high a velocity as you can manage). So that the significantly smaller asteroid makes a more convenient pass by Earth in order to get the stuff off it.
Of course we don't have the technology to do that currently, but there's no "magic" required.
Another option might be to tweak the trajectory enough for a collision with the moon. A much smaller target than the earth, but much cheaper to launch from than the earth. Then mine and refine it on the moon (something we are closer to be able to do than a mining/refining robot that runs for a decade or two autonomously without failing.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that in this case the domain name portion wasn't to the "right" website, at least if the article's "the embedded link went to a third-party site with 'educause' embedded in the URL along with a sequence of meaningless characters" claim is correct.
Because it's not like the MAC addresses that are allowed get broadcast over the air when they are in use or anything.
a patent on soluble print materials - license it or come up with a different technique (using different chemicals for example) if you want to do that.
distributed rapid prototyping - don't use a web server. The diagnostics over a network interface is harder to work around. This does seem rather broad and non-inventive...
printing using a powder and a binding material - wait for it to expire. That shouldn't be hard since you only have to wait until 2012.
http://fabiensanglard.net/quakeSource/index.php and http://fabiensanglard.net/quake2/index.php as hinted by the summary.
He could have done that by whistling into the phone.
Because rather than just having the name and how much they spent on an ad in the yellow pages to go on it would be nice when making what could quite possibly be the most important decision in your life to be able to do at least the research you would do before choosing which restaurant to have lunch at.
And you can't get it right. Find a job more suited to your lack of ability already (though I admit it's going to be hard to find a job that requires less).
Yes, because when you are afraid of things outside your "comfy world" the first thing you want to do is give up your means of defending yourself. It's so obvious!
But it was accessible in Canada, and there have been some crazy court ruling on publishing on the internet. No idea if Canada has had any.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html is the Australian example - if you put something on the internet the publication takes place when someone views it and hence you have published it in whatever jurisdiction the viewer is in.
Of course suing a university with no involvement at all makes no sense.
Depends on the details. Either at their marginal income tax rate or as capital gains if they are qualified options and are then held for a year.
If someone exercises a stock option the company has to give them a share for $X. Since the company could have sold that share for $Y that has cost the company $Y-X (if X>Y then the option isn't getting exercised). That reduces the amount of tax the company pays since it is an expense, if they have already paid an estimated tax which didn't get the stock price at exercise time exactly right (GAAP counts the expense at option issue time and without a time machine isn't going to get it perfect) then they are now owed those taxes back.
And yes if your employer pays you $100 he gets to count that $100 as an expense is then deducted when calculating taxes. If he paid estimated taxes in advance and didn't expect to be paying you that he's getting a refund.
Maybe invest in a dictionary? The word "too" isn't just a random bunch of letters, it means something.
I agree if he did what the support reps said, then that's tesla's problem and reflects poorly on them. The problem is, so you take his word that that's what they told him to do? If there were no inconsistencies then sure, but since there appear to be it's a little harder.
Though I'm not in the market for an expensive car so it's not like i've put effort into checking the details.
Batteries don't work as well when they are cold. Surely this is common knowledge to everyone over 12 years old (and younger if they happen to have taken up any hobbies that use batteries like say RC cars).
It's why the "charge it a little to recondition the batteries" isn't completely nonsensical (well the terminology is wrong) since charging will warm up the batteries.
A lot of the journalists story makes sense, and Tesla support could very well have given him bad advice. That's significantly undermined by it being pretty obvious he lied about some things (or at least didn't recollect them correctly) making it harder to take his claims about what he was told to do at face value.
And there are many more solar powered homes now than there were 10 years ago.
Dollars to donuts he was pressing the accelerator instead of the brake.
And even with stupid cars that don't let you turn them off because electronics is better than a key, stick it neutral. Sure you might blow the engine, but that sounds like it has higher survival chances. Of course if he really was stamping on the brake then and the engine was winning, then you want to do that before you destroy your brakes.
I'm pretty sure there is no such word in English.
Sometimes it's not easy to find a parking spot!
Maybe read the subject?
It means they take a unit someone else has returned as broken. Wipe it with a rag to get rid of the finger prints and send it to you.
Yes, they used a time machine to file a lawsuit about the Apple iTunes in 1978.
No, they pay that much for convenience in small volumes of water. They don't flush their toilets with it, or grow their wheat with it.
And if you are willing to pay $5/gallon water won't be a problem either.
I don't see how it doesn't make sense.
For all drivers X, X drives at 5 miles over the speed limit on average.
Doesn't seem nonsensical.
The "standard" sci-fi method I recall was your robot mining/refining/etc machine lands on the asteroid and does it's thing. So you need the fuel to get that device onto the asteroid - which compared with changing the trajectory of the asteroid significantly is tiny.
While your machine is doing its thing the waste material can be used as reaction mass and solar power as the energy to change the trajectory of the asteroid by basically throwing chunks of rock off it (at as high a velocity as you can manage). So that the significantly smaller asteroid makes a more convenient pass by Earth in order to get the stuff off it.
Of course we don't have the technology to do that currently, but there's no "magic" required.
Another option might be to tweak the trajectory enough for a collision with the moon. A much smaller target than the earth, but much cheaper to launch from than the earth. Then mine and refine it on the moon (something we are closer to be able to do than a mining/refining robot that runs for a decade or two autonomously without failing.