Engines, while loud, produce a monotonous sound are much easier ignored.
Individual voices in a otherwise already loud environment are also easy to ignore... unless you actively concentrate to hear what someone else is saying and pick out individual voices, you should be able to ignore them just as easily.
by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said
While that might ordinarily be the case, unless there is some law of statute which says that only dealers can offer test drives in Iowa, his conclusion is fallacious.
I don't live in Iowa, but I happen to have personally met someone a couple of months ago who owns a Tesla Model S which he offered to let my wife and I test drive that he had absolutely no intention of selling. He wasn't offering to sell the car, but he was definitely arranging test drives for it. Steier's conclusion is false.
Except the two reasons that they gave for that, that Tesla isn't licensed as an auto dealer in Iowa and state law prohibits carmakers from selling directly to the public, have do not mention test drives at all.... so why would they cite test drives being illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with test driving?
Just because the law they are citing as a reason may happen to be an actual law on the books doesn't mean that it should somehow be applicable to things that the law does not mention.
Unless there is also an Iowa statute which dictates that only those that have legal permission to sell a vehicle can have any authorization to permit a test drive of the vehicle, any other laws that they cite as reasons that such test drives may be illegal are completely irrelevant. And if such a statute existed, it is a rather important one to have left out, since the entire case that it would be illegal for Tesla to arrange such test drives depends on that pivotal point... if it even exists.
I would think that a bigger assumption would be assuming that it would stop the vehicle from self-restarting, considering they explicitly say that it will not stop the vehicle while it is being operated, and even with start-stop technology, where the engine has shut off while the vehicle is not moving, one is definitely operating a vehicle if they are holding their foot on the brake while the car is still in drive. Since this is an explicitly intended feature of such a vehicle, I consider that there is no reasonable basis beyond paranoia to suggest that it would be otherwise.
It isn't that the dealer would ding you for paying cash, it is simply that your credit report would not reflect a long term loan which was serviced properly.
I get that... but that's more an issue of successful payments for it not actually helping your credit score more than it is that paying in cash is actually harmful to it. Ultimately, paying for something like a car in cash would not actually lower your credit score one iota below whatever it already otherwise was.
I actually wasn't trying to be pedantic.... I genuinely did not see the point that was being made. If they imposed a debt above and beyond everything he owned, then yeah... I can see how that is "and then some", but when I read the sentence, I was quite thoroughly baffled as to how that could have been without them taking things from other people (presumably relatives or something).
Now if I *were* to be pedantic, I might have pointed out that since the uncle was in a position to be giving that advice in the first place, it is patently obvious that they did *NOT* take everything that he owned.... since he still had his own life, and the wisdom he acquired through the experience being discussed, arguing that both of these are certainly just as much things that he owns as any material possessions could be.
But I'm not trying to be pedantic, so while I've admittedly mentioned it here in passing, I don't intend to dispute the point.
Then it would be more correct to say that not getting any loans never improves your credit score, which of course I can easily see would be much worse for your credit rating than if you had a loan and paid it off, but that's still not not because not getting a loan actually ever really hurt your credit score.
The only downside to that is that it actually hurts your credit score to not have a car loan. Yes, it makes no fucking sense, but that's how credit works.
Mind explaining how that is remotely possible? Payinig in cash is anonymous... how would the credit company know whose credit score to ding?
Actually, permitting it would in no way be akin to 'essentially allowing companies outside of Canada to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be'. Repeal of the law would simply mean that they trust their citizens enough to let them decide what to watch privately
Just because you happen to perceive what you imagine as the outcome as a beneficial thing does not mean that it does not amount to a foreign company that happens to have enough influence with Canadians essentially blackmailing Canada into changing their laws to more amenable to that company's business model.
For what it's worth, I happen to deeply value the Canadian content restrictions that exist here for broadcasters... we are almost overwhelmed with American culture as it is up here, the restrictions that exist help greatly to preserve what distinction we still have... and whether or not you believe that to be important, that distinction has always been valuable to Canada as a whole, or else that law would not be there in the first place.
12kw would not typically be enough for an apartment unless it were just a quadplex. If you lived in a hi-rise or generally even a low-rise apartment complex, forget it.
I'd be more worried about the impact that a loss of Google would have.
And people don't use VPN to get around the limited Canadian selection, they simply change their DNS settings to use a static dns IP that is located in the USA instead of whichever DNS server their ISP offers them. I imagine that if Netflix is actually made to comply with Canadian law when dealing with Canadian subscribers, that little loophole is probably going to get plugged quite thoroughly, which will piss off a *LOT* of people.
Another option for Netflix would be to actually comply to Canadian regulation for Canadian subscribers. This may not be desirable, but it's probably still technically doable.
I have no idea what they expect from Google though.... content uploaded to Youtube is being put there by and large by individuals, not by broadcasters who would have paid any sort of broadcast license in the first place. If Canada wants more Canadian content on youtube, then perhaps Canadians should be putting it there.
I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that that the average power from the sun hitting earth is just over 1kw per square meter. How can they get 20kw without using about 20 square meters, exactly?
How would that affect Canada if Google search were not available there? I know that the matter at hand does not involve Google search, but it does involve Google, and if they do not want to comply with Canadian law, they could potentially withdraw all of their services from being accessed within Canada, which does, admittedly seem a lot like blackmailing Canada into allowing a foreign company to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be.
It's not that it's inferior... it's that it's outnumbered.
If the USA were immediately bordered by an industrialized country ten times *IT'S* size in terms of population it would probably be dealing with the same sorts of issues.
And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law? Please also bear in mind that one of these companies is Google.
If the supreme court decides that they are if they want to service Canadians, then they are.... their choice at that time will be to either comply with that, or to opt out of servicing Canada entirely. I expect they will probably choose the latter, and this will piss off a lot of people.
But the alternative would be to permit it, and essentially allow companies outside of Canada to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be.
And I honestly couldn't begin to speculate which way the Supreme Court of Canada will decide on this one.
If I may interject my own thoughts on the matter, however... it seems to me that if they rule that Netflix, et al, must be subject to CRTC's authority if they make their service available to Canadians, Netflix may well opt out entirely of serving Canada. Google might make the same decision. This would be bad for Canadians. If the court rules otherwise simply because of the economic impact of that, then the ramifications of this essentially give a foreign commercial entity that has enough of a Canadian presence power over Canada to dictate what Canadian laws are actually allowed to be. How would the USA feel if a foreign company that happened to have a significant influence in America, or with Americans essentially blackmailed them into changing their laws to be favorable to their chosen business model?
I'm not sure whether I'm more terrified or interested to see what the outcome of this is going to be.
*CURRENTLY*.... under the new legislation, they would be subject to them.
... businesses will be subject to the same 10 percent threshold but will get two warnings before they are fined. A third violation will result in a $50 fine
Slashdot Mirror
Individual voices in a otherwise already loud environment are also easy to ignore... unless you actively concentrate to hear what someone else is saying and pick out individual voices, you should be able to ignore them just as easily.
While that might ordinarily be the case, unless there is some law of statute which says that only dealers can offer test drives in Iowa, his conclusion is fallacious.
I don't live in Iowa, but I happen to have personally met someone a couple of months ago who owns a Tesla Model S which he offered to let my wife and I test drive that he had absolutely no intention of selling. He wasn't offering to sell the car, but he was definitely arranging test drives for it. Steier's conclusion is false.
Except the two reasons that they gave for that, that Tesla isn't licensed as an auto dealer in Iowa and state law prohibits carmakers from selling directly to the public, have do not mention test drives at all.... so why would they cite test drives being illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with test driving?
Just because the law they are citing as a reason may happen to be an actual law on the books doesn't mean that it should somehow be applicable to things that the law does not mention.
Unless there is also an Iowa statute which dictates that only those that have legal permission to sell a vehicle can have any authorization to permit a test drive of the vehicle, any other laws that they cite as reasons that such test drives may be illegal are completely irrelevant. And if such a statute existed, it is a rather important one to have left out, since the entire case that it would be illegal for Tesla to arrange such test drives depends on that pivotal point... if it even exists.
I would think that a bigger assumption would be assuming that it would stop the vehicle from self-restarting, considering they explicitly say that it will not stop the vehicle while it is being operated, and even with start-stop technology, where the engine has shut off while the vehicle is not moving, one is definitely operating a vehicle if they are holding their foot on the brake while the car is still in drive. Since this is an explicitly intended feature of such a vehicle, I consider that there is no reasonable basis beyond paranoia to suggest that it would be otherwise.
Okay, but if a vehicle is actually equipped with such technology, then it would be unlikely to be prevented from self-restarting.
A lot? Which ones? Name 5.
I get that... but that's more an issue of successful payments for it not actually helping your credit score more than it is that paying in cash is actually harmful to it. Ultimately, paying for something like a car in cash would not actually lower your credit score one iota below whatever it already otherwise was.
I actually wasn't trying to be pedantic.... I genuinely did not see the point that was being made. If they imposed a debt above and beyond everything he owned, then yeah... I can see how that is "and then some", but when I read the sentence, I was quite thoroughly baffled as to how that could have been without them taking things from other people (presumably relatives or something).
Now if I *were* to be pedantic, I might have pointed out that since the uncle was in a position to be giving that advice in the first place, it is patently obvious that they did *NOT* take everything that he owned.... since he still had his own life, and the wisdom he acquired through the experience being discussed, arguing that both of these are certainly just as much things that he owns as any material possessions could be.
But I'm not trying to be pedantic, so while I've admittedly mentioned it here in passing, I don't intend to dispute the point.
"and then some"?
What.... did they take stuff from other people too?
Then it would be more correct to say that not getting any loans never improves your credit score, which of course I can easily see would be much worse for your credit rating than if you had a loan and paid it off, but that's still not not because not getting a loan actually ever really hurt your credit score.
Mind explaining how that is remotely possible? Payinig in cash is anonymous... how would the credit company know whose credit score to ding?
Not being able to receive any signal for a particularly prolonged period (say a month) could potentially also make such a car unable to start at all.
Why would you figure it would shut the car off while it was driving instead of simply making the car unable to be started?
Just because you happen to perceive what you imagine as the outcome as a beneficial thing does not mean that it does not amount to a foreign company that happens to have enough influence with Canadians essentially blackmailing Canada into changing their laws to more amenable to that company's business model.
For what it's worth, I happen to deeply value the Canadian content restrictions that exist here for broadcasters... we are almost overwhelmed with American culture as it is up here, the restrictions that exist help greatly to preserve what distinction we still have... and whether or not you believe that to be important, that distinction has always been valuable to Canada as a whole, or else that law would not be there in the first place.
12kw would not typically be enough for an apartment unless it were just a quadplex. If you lived in a hi-rise or generally even a low-rise apartment complex, forget it.
I'd be more worried about the impact that a loss of Google would have.
And people don't use VPN to get around the limited Canadian selection, they simply change their DNS settings to use a static dns IP that is located in the USA instead of whichever DNS server their ISP offers them. I imagine that if Netflix is actually made to comply with Canadian law when dealing with Canadian subscribers, that little loophole is probably going to get plugged quite thoroughly, which will piss off a *LOT* of people.
I have no idea what they expect from Google though.... content uploaded to Youtube is being put there by and large by individuals, not by broadcasters who would have paid any sort of broadcast license in the first place. If Canada wants more Canadian content on youtube, then perhaps Canadians should be putting it there.
Ah.... okay, that'd do the trick.
Not exactly something that would be viable for a person's home then.... especially if they lived in an apartment.
I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that that the average power from the sun hitting earth is just over 1kw per square meter. How can they get 20kw without using about 20 square meters, exactly?
How would that affect Canada if Google search were not available there? I know that the matter at hand does not involve Google search, but it does involve Google, and if they do not want to comply with Canadian law, they could potentially withdraw all of their services from being accessed within Canada, which does, admittedly seem a lot like blackmailing Canada into allowing a foreign company to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be.
It's not that it's inferior... it's that it's outnumbered.
If the USA were immediately bordered by an industrialized country ten times *IT'S* size in terms of population it would probably be dealing with the same sorts of issues.
And just what do you propose that Canadians do if or when they withdraw their services from Canada entirely because they do not want to comply with Canadian law? Please also bear in mind that one of these companies is Google.
If the supreme court decides that they are if they want to service Canadians, then they are.... their choice at that time will be to either comply with that, or to opt out of servicing Canada entirely. I expect they will probably choose the latter, and this will piss off a lot of people.
But the alternative would be to permit it, and essentially allow companies outside of Canada to dictate what Canadian law is allowed to be.
This is the crux of the matter.
And I honestly couldn't begin to speculate which way the Supreme Court of Canada will decide on this one.
If I may interject my own thoughts on the matter, however... it seems to me that if they rule that Netflix, et al, must be subject to CRTC's authority if they make their service available to Canadians, Netflix may well opt out entirely of serving Canada. Google might make the same decision. This would be bad for Canadians. If the court rules otherwise simply because of the economic impact of that, then the ramifications of this essentially give a foreign commercial entity that has enough of a Canadian presence power over Canada to dictate what Canadian laws are actually allowed to be. How would the USA feel if a foreign company that happened to have a significant influence in America, or with Americans essentially blackmailed them into changing their laws to be favorable to their chosen business model?
I'm not sure whether I'm more terrified or interested to see what the outcome of this is going to be.