No problem. The BBC will hire him in a heartbeat. They, too, seem to have tarted up electric car reviews as well.
...or NBC. On their "Dateline NBC" show they were trying to show how 'dangerous' Chevrolet pickup trucks were. So they rigged the truck with explosives to make it appear as if the gas tank had ruptured (which it had not.)
Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.
Broder has a negative bias about electrics, and the flap no doubt sells papers.
In an article he wrote March of last year he said: "Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.”
1) can be certain of a full charge every time they leave the house; 2) never take detours, or get forced into detours by road construction; 3) never go above the speed limit;
Given that, I'm absolutely shocked that this isn't already a mass-market blockbuster - it's clearly suitable for all the common use cases!
It would still be a great commuter car. Most people have a short range trip to work and back every day. If your employer lets you charge for free, it would be way cheaper than the current cost of gas.
I've got 2000 years worth of observed data that convinced me it is correct...
Wow! You've been alive 2000 years? Awesome!
In case I'm misreading this, and you are referring to a bunch of second-hand fables written by a bunch of uneducated, nomadic, desert guys, which have been constantly mistranslated and revised by another bunch of anonymous guys for centuries.
...in which case, you have as much "observed data" as people who believe in Horus, Ra, and Isis.
Actually, you have much less; because they have 3563 years of observed data on their side.
Never listen to a philosophical arguments from a person that follows the religion they were born under, because you know they came to it not through intellectual analysis, but through pure laziness.
Intellectual analysis says not to make generalizations, assumptions or ad hominem attacks.
It's not ad hominem if it's true. It's just descriptive.
If you believe the same thing your parents raised you to believe, then the odds are you never bothered to critically study taoism, or shinto, or igbo, or babism... or real science for that matter.
It's OK to be lazy. Just don't think that things are true just because you heard them from mom and dad. They may have been lazy too.
Cavemen didn't know shit about science, but they still made it around the world with tools made out of rocks while worshipping the Krom the Twelve-headed Monkey Thunder God.
Please do not mock mighty Krom, the Twelve-headed Monkey Thunder God.
Some of us true believers have not been swayed from the true faith of Krom by these "Johnny-come-lately" religions like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism (and it's two minor offshoots), Taoism, etc.
Where evolution falls flat is trying to claim that a dinosaur evolved into a bird, or an ape evolved into a human. There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species.
What I find interesting is that most atheists are just like religious extremists. Their belief is right and no amount of facts will change their mind.
You have that sort of backwards. It is only the facts that makes up atheists mind.
The bible 'prove' the existence of a god as much as Spider Man comics prove the existence of Spider Man. There are no facts that prove the existence of a god.
I think that's very racist. And very wrong... But "wrong" and "illegal" are not and should not be synonyms...
So, just to be clear, you think it should be completely legal for, say: McDonald's' to refuse service to anyone who is black? An airline to refuse to carry any black passengers? Any private hospital to refuse care to anyone who is black? A real estate development to refuse to sell houses to any black family? Any private college or school to refuse entry to any child because they are black? It's OK for a company to hire a less qualified white applicant over a black applicant? It's OK for a company to pay a female employee less than a male employee for the same work?
I understand you think it's 'wrong,' but you think a black, or hispanic, or jewish, or female refused service at a restaurant, or hospital like this, should have have no legal recourse for being treated this way?
I think a business owner ought to be able to hire and fire based on whatever stupid reasons she wants without the government dictating those reasons, But of course you can't oppose the government interference without being called a racist.
I think the owner of an apartment building or a hotel ought be allowed to decide who she is willing to rent her rooms to....
So, you're cool with, say, every business owner in Mississippi refusing to hire anyone who is black, regardless of qualifications; or every apartment owner in Alabama refusing to rent to anyone who is black?
Take your smartphone, tablet, kindle, whatever... that device you don't consider to a be a "PC". Now stick it in a Time Machine and send it back to 1985...
Now, get back in your time machine and go back to 1929. Show your device to someone and ask them if it's a computer.
They would say, "Don't be ridiculous. A 'computer' is a person."
The definitions of words change constantly in any living language.
I stand as follows: Apple has constantly emphasized the difference between their products, and what they themselves called "PCs." (Remember all those "I'm a Mac." "I'm a PC." ads?)
So, by their own definition, Apple does not make PCs.
Now, that's the ultimate definition of "personal". We all agree that pretty much anything that is Turing Complete is a computer. The personal part seems to be the point of contention. If you can view porn, it's personal.
Rule 34.
I'm glad we've solved this little problem.
Cool! Now I can just tell my wife it's not a 'magazine,' I have a subscription to "Big Juggs PC."
Slashdot Mirror
They need you to come by in person so they can implant the tracker in your skull.
Google pays well. Go apply.
Actually, this will cost you $1500
No problem. The BBC will hire him in a heartbeat. They, too, seem to have tarted up electric car reviews as well.
...or NBC. On their "Dateline NBC" show they were trying to show how 'dangerous' Chevrolet pickup trucks were. So they rigged the truck with explosives to make it appear as if the gas tank had ruptured (which it had not.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC#General_Motors_vs._NBC
This is just another example of a journalist trying to fabricate a 'shocking' story.
Of course Elon has proof to back up his claims.
(not that these can't be faked but...) There are Vehicle Logs graphs at the bottom of the Musk rebuttal that discredit Broder's account:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speeddistance0.jpg
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/socdistance0.jpg
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/ratedrangeremaining0.jpg
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/speedmph0.jpg
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/norwichtrip.jpg
Also, why would he try to tarnish this car? He doesn't appear to own an oil company.
Broder has a negative bias about electrics, and the flap no doubt sells papers.
In an article he wrote March of last year he said: "Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.”
Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/sunday-review/the-electric-car-unplugged.html?pagewanted=all&_r=4&
Another difference is, with a gas car, $42. With an all electric, free.
Who's your electric supplier? Mine keeps charging money.
Sorry - thought you had read the article.
http://gigaom.com/2012/09/24/tesla-unveils-free-solar-powered-car-charging-stations-for-model-s-owners/
It's actually one of the bigger issues: how to prevent people from turning this into a weapon?
Easy. Give it to a big defense contractor to develop into a weapon.
Then it will never happen.
So the Tesla is only suitable for people who:
1) can be certain of a full charge every time they leave the house;
2) never take detours, or get forced into detours by road construction;
3) never go above the speed limit;
Given that, I'm absolutely shocked that this isn't already a mass-market blockbuster - it's clearly suitable for all the common use cases!
It would still be a great commuter car. Most people have a short range trip to work and back every day. If your employer lets you charge for free, it would be way cheaper than the current cost of gas.
"Everyone" can't do anything "on average".
Sure we can! I have 2.4 children, Mary, Mark and little 'Stubs.'
any car will not start without a battery, so the car you own doesnt work then?
Works fine.
My pit crew push starts it...
A more obvious one: do you want a car that you have to remember to fill up with gas?
The difference is, with a gas car, once a week. With an all electric, every day.
Another difference is, with a gas car, $42. With an all electric, free.
...I would welcome the demise of the progress bar if it were replaced with an activity animation along with Andy Rooney quotes.
Or even some Andy Rooney animation:
"You ever wonder why they call it a 'computer?' We don't really do any computing with it. Maybe they should call it a 'time-wastey box'..."
But I still cannot get my "Cambrian Explosion in a Peanut Butter Jar" experiment to work. Maybe I need a really big jar :-(
Try using the 'chunky' Peanut Butter...
It is called Intelligent Falling.
Citation:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/
I've got 2000 years worth of observed data that convinced me it is correct...
Wow! You've been alive 2000 years? Awesome!
In case I'm misreading this, and you are referring to a bunch of second-hand fables written by a bunch of uneducated, nomadic, desert guys, which have been constantly mistranslated and revised by another bunch of anonymous guys for centuries.
Actually, you have much less; because they have 3563 years of observed data on their side.
Never listen to a philosophical arguments from a person that follows the religion they were born under, because you know they came to it not through intellectual analysis, but through pure laziness.
Intellectual analysis says not to make generalizations, assumptions or ad hominem attacks.
It's not ad hominem if it's true. It's just descriptive.
If you believe the same thing your parents raised you to believe, then the odds are you never bothered to critically study taoism, or shinto, or igbo, or babism... or real science for that matter.
It's OK to be lazy.
Just don't think that things are true just because you heard them from mom and dad.
They may have been lazy too.
Cavemen didn't know shit about science, but they still made it around the world with tools made out of rocks while worshipping the Krom the Twelve-headed Monkey Thunder God.
Please do not mock mighty Krom, the Twelve-headed Monkey Thunder God.
Some of us true believers have not been swayed from the true faith of Krom by these "Johnny-come-lately" religions like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism (and it's two minor offshoots), Taoism, etc.
Praise Krom!
Where evolution falls flat is trying to claim that a dinosaur evolved into a bird, or an ape evolved into a human. There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species.
Really? No solid evidence?
You may want to check out that whole 'DNA' thang.
It's been in the papers.
What I find interesting is that most atheists are just like religious extremists. Their belief is right and no amount of facts will change their mind.
You have that sort of backwards. It is only the facts that makes up atheists mind.
The bible 'prove' the existence of a god as much as Spider Man comics prove the existence of Spider Man. There are no facts that prove the existence of a god.
I think that's very racist. And very wrong... But "wrong" and "illegal" are not and should not be synonyms...
So, just to be clear, you think it should be completely legal for, say:
McDonald's' to refuse service to anyone who is black?
An airline to refuse to carry any black passengers?
Any private hospital to refuse care to anyone who is black?
A real estate development to refuse to sell houses to any black family?
Any private college or school to refuse entry to any child because they are black?
It's OK for a company to hire a less qualified white applicant over a black applicant?
It's OK for a company to pay a female employee less than a male employee for the same work?
I understand you think it's 'wrong,' but you think a black, or hispanic, or jewish, or female refused service at a restaurant, or hospital like this, should have have no legal recourse for being treated this way?
I think a business owner ought to be able to hire and fire based on whatever stupid reasons she wants without the government dictating those reasons, But of course you can't oppose the government interference without being called a racist.
I think the owner of an apartment building or a hotel ought be allowed to decide who she is willing to rent her rooms to ....
So, you're cool with, say, every business owner in Mississippi refusing to hire anyone who is black, regardless of qualifications; or every apartment owner in Alabama refusing to rent to anyone who is black?
You don't think that's racist?
What do you think 'racist' is?
Take your smartphone, tablet, kindle, whatever... that device you don't consider to a be a "PC". Now stick it in a Time Machine and send it back to 1985...
Now, get back in your time machine and go back to 1929.
Show your device to someone and ask them if it's a computer.
They would say, "Don't be ridiculous. A 'computer' is a person."
http://www.officemuseum.com/Computing_Section_Computing_Division.jpg
The definitions of words change constantly in any living language.
I stand as follows:
Apple has constantly emphasized the difference between their products, and what they themselves called "PCs."
(Remember all those "I'm a Mac." "I'm a PC." ads?)
So, by their own definition, Apple does not make PCs.
A Mac is a PC.
Not as defined by Apple. They were very careful to distinguish the two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpOvzGiheOM
Clearly, Justin Long is a Mac, and John Hodgman is a PC.
I think you might have nailed it here.
Porn.
Now, that's the ultimate definition of "personal". We all agree that pretty much anything that is Turing Complete is a computer. The personal part seems to be the point of contention. If you can view porn, it's personal.
Rule 34.
I'm glad we've solved this little problem.
Cool!
Now I can just tell my wife it's not a 'magazine,' I have a subscription to "Big Juggs PC."
I'm a PC!
Yes you are, Sir...
http://www.diagonalthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/computing.jpg