The UN power structure inside the organization itself has proven to be corrupt
Every organizations has some form of corruption; the larger it gets, the worse it is.
secrete oil deals that defeated the purpose of the UN sanctions
Economic sanctions never work unless the goal is to destroy the general population.
...which in turn allowed Saddam to pretend to still have WMDs which lead the world to the same belief.
The world did not have the belief that Saddam had WMDs. That may be a U.S. view. The rest of the world was listening to the experts. True, some states in Europe went along with the U.S. That had more to do with alliances and arm twisting than reality.
it's entirely possible that the intended goals of the sanctions would have worked
There has never been a case where economic sanctions worked.
concerns over their actions after 9/11 would have not been present.
News flash, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. And that was the consensus from credible sources (outside the Bush administration).
Finally, try using commas to break up run-on sentences.
If you think that's just a coincidence, or the Man coming down hard on leftists, you're wrong
Doubtful. The Bush Jr administration allowed pre-cleared supporters to demostrate near the president, whereas those dissenting where caged in free speech zones. Bush often made comments that he never saw much dissent to his policies when he was out in the public. That was a result of keeping the dissenters out of his and the media's view.
It is true that free speech zones existed under prior administrations. They were used minimally prior to Bush Jr, but greatly expanded during his administration to control and minimize dissent.
Reminiscent of Wells Fargo, the bold SF bank that got eated by the very cautious Minnesota-based Norwest Corporation in 1998.
Eated? Is stupidity that infectious?
It is not reminiscent at all. After the merger, the acquiring company (Norwest) moved its headquarters from Minneapolis to San Fransisco, the existing home of Wells Fargo.
There is a legal definition of a right; you are using right in layman terms.
My rebutal is about your instance that a person has a right to free speech (to take photographs) on private property. You have refused to cite federal case law on this topic because there are no cases that support your argument. I mentioned SCOTUS defining a narrow standard, which is in Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
Free speech rights do not extend to private entities. In Pruneyard v. Robins, SCOTUS stated that nothing in the federal constiution gives a person a right to free speech on private property, although a state constitution can extend a right as long as it does not conflict with the federal consitution. That is why they ruled in Robins favor; the state of California grants people the right to free speech only in the common area of a shopping center. The common area is treated as a modern day town square.
A right, whether constitutional or statutory, cannot be revoked by a private entity. You cannot have a right to free speech in Sears, while at the time, Sears has a right to remove you. You do have a right to speech in the common area of a mall in Calfornia (and maybe other states). The management of the mall cannot remove you for excercising your right.
I will give you an example of a statutory right in California. Your landlord has a clause in your lease stating that the property can be entered at any time for inspection. It makes no difference that you agreed to that clause and signed the lease, that clause is invalid.
My statement was not abput trespass. AK Marc was talking about the rights to take pictures on private property. A person does not a RIGHT to photography in a store. He was confusing the requirement for a store that is open to the general public to accept all patrons into that store vs with the right to take pictures. You have absolutely no free speech rights on private property except where state consitutions allow them via Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). I was making that point.
You are right and wrong. You have no rights on their private property, but you have all rights you have on public property at the same time.
You are not making sense in this comment. It is gibberish.
You have the "right" to take pictures.
Stop putting the word rights in quotes. You either have a right or you do not. Assuming you have rights does not make you have them. Taking a picture until you get caught is not a right. You have absolutely no right to take a picture on private property. Cite a federal court case. I have looked at Lexis and cannot find any.
They can't hold you. They can't arrest you. They can't take your camera. They can't touch you. They can't touch your property. They can ask you to leave. They can call the police if you don't. That is all. If you continue to take pictures and they touch you in an attempt to stop you, they committed assault. The owners give up almost all rights when they invite you in. They get to uninvite you, and they get to have the police enforce the uninviting, and that's all.
I am not sure what those statements have to do with a right to take a picture on private property. Also, in the United States, assault would depend on the statute.
You have the right to say anything that you could say in public.
Not on a federal level. Each state would need to allow that through their own consituttion. In California, that only applies to shopping centers, as in the center itself but not the stores; you can stand in the common area of a mall and hand out fliers protesting Prop 8, but you cannot do the same thing in Sears.
Also, if you do indeed take pictures on private property and they include people, make sure you get a model release if you decide to use those pictures commercially.
Finally, stop being an armchair lawyer. You are horrible at it. Spend the $100k and go to law school.
I never said asking somebody to leave is the same as cuffing. Do you see that in my statement? I was trying to separate the distinction between free speech rights, which do not extend into a store, and the right of store, that is open to the public, to restrict people unless prohibited by law.
then you are public (with some extra rights)...but they essentially have all the rights of being in public...As he was never asked to leave, he was in public (for all legal purposes, even if he was standing on privately owned property).
Incorrect. You are confusing the right of the public to purchase goods vs the right to take pictures.
You actually have fewer rights than being in a public space. SCOTUS has defined a narrow right to free speech in regards to shopping centers (not individual stores). That right must come from state constitution, such as California. Furthermore, people can be removed if they are causing a disturbance or during non-business hours.
Stores that are open to the public must sell to the public, although they can remove people for whatever reason as long as the reason is not a wholesale restriction against a protected class. They can remove you because you do not have a shirt, you are too loud, you smell, you are causing a mess, you have been bad in the past and are banned from the store. They can also disguise their reason to make it seem valid, such as when a store owner does not want to serve black folks.
There are plenty of companies using FreeBSD in the embedded market and many give back. Netgraph is a good example. FreeBSD does not have companies on the scale of HP, IBM, or Sun, providing world-wide support. At best, small VARs offer support with the hardware they sell.
The 25 points consisted of a mixture of exaggerated nationalistic demands, corruptions of socialist ideas, and racist and anti-Semitic doctrines. That is not what I would call ideas of the far left, and explains why you did not reprint all the points. This was a great propaganda campaign. I highly recommend learning something of this history rather than quote mining.
Indeed. I have a client that is running an application on SunOS 5.10 that it wrote in 1994 for 5.3. That is one of the major selling points of Solaris. I am simply amazed that it is readily dismissed by the Linux camp.
Stop rewriting history. Borland's management is solely responsible for Borland's performance. It is the same for WordPerfect Corp, Netscape, Sun (I am not exactly sure why Sun is even on your list), etc...
If you are going to name a company, I would say the closest would be Stac Electonics, whose downfall is somewhat related to Micosoft. Although, like everything in life, you need to adapt to market changes or die on the vine.
You are indeed correct, although better administration makes operations easier in fail-over/debug scenerios. I was making a general statement about the package. I had to approach it from a release management and operations angle. When somebody brings up IBM MQ, the hair on my neck stands up and I start sweating.
Ah, the MQseries. Pure shit! Let me count the ways:
1) Must be installed as root. 2) Pollutes/usr - cannot install it anywhere else. 3) Cannot move the bits to its own directory because file paths are hard coded. 4) Must run as the mqm user 5) It has no problem starting itself. When stopping, you have to wait until all processes except the listener are no longer running, then you can manually kill the listener. 6) Zombies everywhere.
Now compare that experience with the SwiftMQ, which was a dream on warm, fluffy clouds. This was a few years ago, when I worked for a forex platform. UBS forced us to use MQserver for their integration. Thankfully, they acknowledged it was shit and were going to move off it. Of course, when a bank says it is planning to change technology, the completion of that change is measured in decades.
A follow up to my prior comments. I think you are very confused with the idea of limited liability. I want to comment further on the matter.
When a company is found to be violating civil rights, there can be a monetary judgement and/or a court order for remedy. Violation of the court order can lead to fines and additional sanctions. At no time does a busniness with limited liability lose that right. A municipality can revoke a business license but the business still maintains limited liability.
Also, one correction on my prior comment. It is allowed on a federal level. Should read It is not allowed on the federal level.
I want to stress that the any reason is outside of protected classes or specific prohibitions on the state level. Of course, the fact is businesses routinely disriminate against protected classes. And, much like employment discrimination, it is tough to prove without blantant actions. Telling a group of black teenagers to get out of the store because they smell or are messing up the shelves is reasonable. A store owner could even vary their reasons to exclude blacks. Much like an employer disriminating against older workers.
It is allowed on a federal level. The reason for restricted access cannot be to discriminate against a protected class. The classes are the same as employment protection. States can widen those classes or place additional restrictions.
A business can prevent people from entering a store because they are not wearing a shirt or shoes, or they have a history with causing disturbances, or they are consuming food items. A store can remove patrons under the pretense of the above reasons when in reality they do not want the patronage of the protected class. It happens all time and it very difficult to prove unless monitored.
would you mind finding me an example of a limited liability corporation with a business in a commercially zoned area that has successfully argued their right to free association, establishing any kind of precedence, anywhere in the United States?
You made the claim, The opposite of that is the right to free association, but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives. It is up to you to provide proof.
Limited liabilty comes from either the corporate or LLC business structure. Both are based on state law and there are fifty states. There is nothing in California law regarding corporations or LLCs losing their limited liability status when they discriminate. Corporations are sued regularly for civil rights violations. I highly doubt other states have such laws. In Calfornia, corporations and LLCs pay an $800 per year franchise fee. LLCs can elect to be taxed as a corporation by the IRS (and that election is passed down to the state level), therefore I am not sure what tax breaks they get.
don't shopping centers most always have their own zoning with special rules and such that are agreements made between the mall business and the city.
Shopping centers are considered public meeting places akin to town squares. They must allow free access (during normal business hours) to the public and cannot discriminate based on speech, although they can remove patrons that are causing a disturbance.
There are some minor points that need correcting. P has to wait 14 days after they send Y the counter notice from X before they are allowed to restore X's material. It is within that time period that Y must file a suit in federal district court to keep the material offline. If Y does file, the material stays down pending the outcome.
Open to the public is not the proper definition. This would put most businesses in the category and that is not the case. Case law on this mainly surrounds private shopping centers. There is a narrow standard that SCOTUS defined. Each state may widen that standard based on their own constitution. A business in a center is still free to restrict access for any reason unless state laws provide protected classes or specific prohibitions.
...but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives.
That statement is incorrect. Stop playing an armchair lawyer, you are bad at it.
They do not have to be reimbursed, it is called civil forteiture. It is a common tool used by enforcement agencies on both the federal and state level. The government sues the property not a person. The property owner is not a party in the suit. All the governement needs to do is establish probable cause that the property was used in a crime. It can be invoked without a formal criminal charge of an individual. The property owner acts as a third party to the suit and must prove that the item(s) are not subject to foreiture. It is a vile legal remedy, heavily used to fund enforcement agencies. Luckily, it is not used in many countries outside the United States.
First you said I was lying. I gave you references and you ignore those. Then you give information that has been refuted. When I point this out to you, you continue to ignore. You need to address my points:
1) State which issues the press have raised that are grossly misrepresenting the source material or making uninformed speculation.
2) What would give you idea they are about to secure a DOE loan since Musk has lied about this before?
3) They never gained GE as an investor as you have said. Please tell me why you said this.
4) Why do you believe the Roadster production ramping up at an exponential rate if Musk has been caught in repeated lies in the past?
5) I said, "Musk has said that the deposts are at risk unless they get a federal loan." You said, "That's simply a lie; he has personally guaranteed all of the deposits [google.com] from his own fortune." Musk made conflicting statements about the deposits. Which statment is correct and why?
grossly misrepresenting the source material or making uninformed speculation.
Such as?
about to secure a DOE loan
Based on what? Oh, I see, Musk.
gained GE as an investor
No, they never did. That was lie.
Roadster production ramping up at an exponential rate
More drivel out of Musk I presume.
Musk has said that the deposts are at risk unless they get a federal loan.
That's simply a lie; he has personally guaranteed all of the deposits [google.com] from his own fortune.
It is a lie only if you ignore what Musk said in the NY times peice. Let me quote it for you again.
For those who are worried about what will happen to their deposits if the car is never produced, since the money will be spent on development and not held in escrow, Mr. Musk said: "The worst-case scenario is they would lose their money. They are at risk."
Either Musk lied to the NY Times or he lied to Car & Driver. Both his statements cannot be correct. He has lied plenty of times in the past about Tesla. As I have said before, I have no idea why people like you continue to believe him.
Slashdot Mirror
The UN power structure inside the organization itself has proven to be corrupt
Every organizations has some form of corruption; the larger it gets, the worse it is.
secrete oil deals that defeated the purpose of the UN sanctions
Economic sanctions never work unless the goal is to destroy the general population.
...which in turn allowed Saddam to pretend to still have WMDs which lead the world to the same belief.
The world did not have the belief that Saddam had WMDs. That may be a U.S. view. The rest of the world was listening to the experts. True, some states in Europe went along with the U.S. That had more to do with alliances and arm twisting than reality.
it's entirely possible that the intended goals of the sanctions would have worked
There has never been a case where economic sanctions worked.
concerns over their actions after 9/11 would have not been present.
News flash, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. And that was the consensus from credible sources (outside the Bush administration).
Finally, try using commas to break up run-on sentences.
If you think that's just a coincidence, or the Man coming down hard on leftists, you're wrong
Doubtful. The Bush Jr administration allowed pre-cleared supporters to demostrate near the president, whereas those dissenting where caged in free speech zones. Bush often made comments that he never saw much dissent to his policies when he was out in the public. That was a result of keeping the dissenters out of his and the media's view.
It is true that free speech zones existed under prior administrations. They were used minimally prior to Bush Jr, but greatly expanded during his administration to control and minimize dissent.
Reminiscent of Wells Fargo, the bold SF bank that got eated by the very cautious Minnesota-based Norwest Corporation in 1998.
Eated? Is stupidity that infectious?
It is not reminiscent at all. After the merger, the acquiring company (Norwest) moved its headquarters from Minneapolis to San Fransisco, the existing home of Wells Fargo.
They decided who they wanted from the eated company...
I think you are looking for the word acquired. I recommend some remedial classes.
...they could own acres of land with three thousand square foot homes...
Ah yes, what America needs, more sprawl.
There is a legal definition of a right; you are using right in layman terms.
My rebutal is about your instance that a person has a right to free speech (to take photographs) on private property. You have refused to cite federal case law on this topic because there are no cases that support your argument. I mentioned SCOTUS defining a narrow standard, which is in Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
Free speech rights do not extend to private entities. In Pruneyard v. Robins, SCOTUS stated that nothing in the federal constiution gives a person a right to free speech on private property, although a state constitution can extend a right as long as it does not conflict with the federal consitution. That is why they ruled in Robins favor; the state of California grants people the right to free speech only in the common area of a shopping center. The common area is treated as a modern day town square.
A right, whether constitutional or statutory, cannot be revoked by a private entity. You cannot have a right to free speech in Sears, while at the time, Sears has a right to remove you. You do have a right to speech in the common area of a mall in Calfornia (and maybe other states). The management of the mall cannot remove you for excercising your right.
I will give you an example of a statutory right in California. Your landlord has a clause in your lease stating that the property can be entered at any time for inspection. It makes no difference that you agreed to that clause and signed the lease, that clause is invalid.
My statement was not abput trespass. AK Marc was talking about the rights to take pictures on private property. A person does not a RIGHT to photography in a store. He was confusing the requirement for a store that is open to the general public to accept all patrons into that store vs with the right to take pictures. You have absolutely no free speech rights on private property except where state consitutions allow them via Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). I was making that point.
You don't lose your right to free speech just because you enter private property.
I am done. That statement alone finished it for me. Seriously, get professioanl advice before you keep spouting this nonsense.
You are right and wrong. You have no rights on their private property, but you have all rights you have on public property at the same time.
You are not making sense in this comment. It is gibberish.
You have the "right" to take pictures.
Stop putting the word rights in quotes. You either have a right or you do not. Assuming you have rights does not make you have them. Taking a picture until you get caught is not a right. You have absolutely no right to take a picture on private property. Cite a federal court case. I have looked at Lexis and cannot find any.
They can't hold you. They can't arrest you. They can't take your camera. They can't touch you. They can't touch your property. They can ask you to leave. They can call the police if you don't. That is all. If you continue to take pictures and they touch you in an attempt to stop you, they committed assault. The owners give up almost all rights when they invite you in. They get to uninvite you, and they get to have the police enforce the uninviting, and that's all.
I am not sure what those statements have to do with a right to take a picture on private property. Also, in the United States, assault would depend on the statute.
You have the right to say anything that you could say in public.
Not on a federal level. Each state would need to allow that through their own consituttion. In California, that only applies to shopping centers, as in the center itself but not the stores; you can stand in the common area of a mall and hand out fliers protesting Prop 8, but you cannot do the same thing in Sears.
Also, if you do indeed take pictures on private property and they include people, make sure you get a model release if you decide to use those pictures commercially.
Finally, stop being an armchair lawyer. You are horrible at it. Spend the $100k and go to law school.
I never said asking somebody to leave is the same as cuffing. Do you see that in my statement? I was trying to separate the distinction between free speech rights, which do not extend into a store, and the right of store, that is open to the public, to restrict people unless prohibited by law.
then you are public (with some extra rights)...but they essentially have all the rights of being in public ...As he was never asked to leave, he was in public (for all legal purposes, even if he was standing on privately owned property).
Incorrect. You are confusing the right of the public to purchase goods vs the right to take pictures.
You actually have fewer rights than being in a public space. SCOTUS has defined a narrow right to free speech in regards to shopping centers (not individual stores). That right must come from state constitution, such as California. Furthermore, people can be removed if they are causing a disturbance or during non-business hours.
Stores that are open to the public must sell to the public, although they can remove people for whatever reason as long as the reason is not a wholesale restriction against a protected class. They can remove you because you do not have a shirt, you are too loud, you smell, you are causing a mess, you have been bad in the past and are banned from the store. They can also disguise their reason to make it seem valid, such as when a store owner does not want to serve black folks.
...like at immigration checkpoints.
Immigration checkpoints can be up to 100 miles inside the United States.
There are plenty of companies using FreeBSD in the embedded market and many give back. Netgraph is a good example. FreeBSD does not have companies on the scale of HP, IBM, or Sun, providing world-wide support. At best, small VARs offer support with the hardware they sell.
The 25 points consisted of a mixture of exaggerated nationalistic demands, corruptions of socialist ideas, and racist and anti-Semitic doctrines. That is not what I would call ideas of the far left, and explains why you did not reprint all the points. This was a great propaganda campaign. I highly recommend learning something of this history rather than quote mining.
and Solaris does an exceptional job.
Indeed. I have a client that is running an application on SunOS 5.10 that it wrote in 1994 for 5.3. That is one of the major selling points of Solaris. I am simply amazed that it is readily dismissed by the Linux camp.
Stop rewriting history. Borland's management is solely responsible for Borland's performance. It is the same for WordPerfect Corp, Netscape, Sun (I am not exactly sure why Sun is even on your list), etc...
If you are going to name a company, I would say the closest would be Stac Electonics, whose downfall is somewhat related to Micosoft. Although, like everything in life, you need to adapt to market changes or die on the vine.
The government has limited business telling people what they can and cannot agree to in a contract.
There are many statutory rights you cannot invalidate with a contract.
Here are some examples in California:
1) Your landlord cannot put a clause in your rental/lease agreement that they can enter the property at anytime to check its condition.
2) An employer cannot place conditions on a severance in regards to suing for back wages or filing a complaint to the state.
3) Because California is a no-fault divorce state, both pre and post nuptials cannot use faults of character or behavior as conditions.
You are indeed correct, although better administration makes operations easier in fail-over/debug scenerios. I was making a general statement about the package. I had to approach it from a release management and operations angle. When somebody brings up IBM MQ, the hair on my neck stands up and I start sweating.
Ah, the MQseries. Pure shit! Let me count the ways:
1) Must be installed as root. /usr - cannot install it anywhere else.
2) Pollutes
3) Cannot move the bits to its own directory because file paths are hard coded.
4) Must run as the mqm user
5) It has no problem starting itself. When stopping, you have to wait until all processes except the listener are no longer running, then you can manually kill the listener.
6) Zombies everywhere.
Now compare that experience with the SwiftMQ, which was a dream on warm, fluffy clouds. This was a few years ago, when I worked for a forex platform. UBS forced us to use MQserver for their integration. Thankfully, they acknowledged it was shit and were going to move off it. Of course, when a bank says it is planning to change technology, the completion of that change is measured in decades.
A follow up to my prior comments. I think you are very confused with the idea of limited liability. I want to comment further on the matter.
When a company is found to be violating civil rights, there can be a monetary judgement and/or a court order for remedy. Violation of the court order can lead to fines and additional sanctions. At no time does a busniness with limited liability lose that right. A municipality can revoke a business license but the business still maintains limited liability.
Also, one correction on my prior comment. It is allowed on a federal level. Should read It is not allowed on the federal level.
I want to stress that the any reason is outside of protected classes or specific prohibitions on the state level. Of course, the fact is businesses routinely disriminate against protected classes. And, much like employment discrimination, it is tough to prove without blantant actions. Telling a group of black teenagers to get out of the store because they smell or are messing up the shelves is reasonable. A store owner could even vary their reasons to exclude blacks. Much like an employer disriminating against older workers.
...but arbitrary discrimination isn't allowed.
It is allowed on a federal level. The reason for restricted access cannot be to discriminate against a protected class. The classes are the same as employment protection. States can widen those classes or place additional restrictions.
A business can prevent people from entering a store because they are not wearing a shirt or shoes, or they have a history with causing disturbances, or they are consuming food items. A store can remove patrons under the pretense of the above reasons when in reality they do not want the patronage of the protected class. It happens all time and it very difficult to prove unless monitored.
would you mind finding me an example of a limited liability corporation with a business in a commercially zoned area that has successfully argued their right to free association, establishing any kind of precedence, anywhere in the United States?
You made the claim, The opposite of that is the right to free association, but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives. It is up to you to provide proof.
Limited liabilty comes from either the corporate or LLC business structure. Both are based on state law and there are fifty states. There is nothing in California law regarding corporations or LLCs losing their limited liability status when they discriminate. Corporations are sued regularly for civil rights violations. I highly doubt other states have such laws. In Calfornia, corporations and LLCs pay an $800 per year franchise fee. LLCs can elect to be taxed as a corporation by the IRS (and that election is passed down to the state level), therefore I am not sure what tax breaks they get.
don't shopping centers most always have their own zoning with special rules and such that are agreements made between the mall business and the city.
Shopping centers are considered public meeting places akin to town squares. They must allow free access (during normal business hours) to the public and cannot discriminate based on speech, although they can remove patrons that are causing a disturbance.
There are some minor points that need correcting. P has to wait 14 days after they send Y the counter notice from X before they are allowed to restore X's material. It is within that time period that Y must file a suit in federal district court to keep the material offline. If Y does file, the material stays down pending the outcome.
Open to the public is not the proper definition. This would put most businesses in the category and that is not the case. Case law on this mainly surrounds private shopping centers. There is a narrow standard that SCOTUS defined. Each state may widen that standard based on their own constitution. A business in a center is still free to restrict access for any reason unless state laws provide protected classes or specific prohibitions.
...but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives.
That statement is incorrect. Stop playing an armchair lawyer, you are bad at it.
They do not have to be reimbursed, it is called civil forteiture. It is a common tool used by enforcement agencies on both the federal and state level. The government sues the property not a person. The property owner is not a party in the suit. All the governement needs to do is establish probable cause that the property was used in a crime. It can be invoked without a formal criminal charge of an individual. The property owner acts as a third party to the suit and must prove that the item(s) are not subject to foreiture. It is a vile legal remedy, heavily used to fund enforcement agencies. Luckily, it is not used in many countries outside the United States.
First you said I was lying. I gave you references and you ignore those. Then you give information that has been refuted. When I point this out to you, you continue to ignore. You need to address my points:
1) State which issues the press have raised that are grossly misrepresenting the source material or making uninformed speculation.
2) What would give you idea they are about to secure a DOE loan since Musk has lied about this before?
3) They never gained GE as an investor as you have said. Please tell me why you said this.
4) Why do you believe the Roadster production ramping up at an exponential rate if Musk has been caught in repeated lies in the past?
5) I said, "Musk has said that the deposts are at risk unless they get a federal loan." You said, "That's simply a lie; he has personally guaranteed all of the deposits [google.com] from his own fortune." Musk made conflicting statements about the deposits. Which statment is correct and why?
grossly misrepresenting the source material or making uninformed speculation.
Such as?
about to secure a DOE loan
Based on what? Oh, I see, Musk.
gained GE as an investor
No, they never did. That was lie.
Roadster production ramping up at an exponential rate
More drivel out of Musk I presume.
Musk has said that the deposts are at risk unless they get a federal loan.
That's simply a lie; he has personally guaranteed all of the deposits [google.com] from his own fortune.
It is a lie only if you ignore what Musk said in the NY times peice. Let me quote it for you again.
For those who are worried about what will happen to their deposits if the car is never produced, since the money will be spent on development and not held in escrow, Mr. Musk said: "The worst-case scenario is they would lose their money. They are at risk."
Either Musk lied to the NY Times or he lied to Car & Driver. Both his statements cannot be correct. He has lied plenty of times in the past about Tesla. As I have said before, I have no idea why people like you continue to believe him.