All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If corporations are people, then all corporations and individuals have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In short, if the corporations can do it, so can individual citizens; just cite the court case and the 14th Amendment as precedent.
I did a fair amount of searching for by-model/per-year figures on fires, so we could have a legitimate comparison, but so far have come up with bupkis.
What I did find is that the total number of Model S vehicles sold in the last 2 years is about 18,200; According to Musk, 1 in every 6,066 cars has caught fire.
Compare that to the Ford Fusion, which sells 250,000 units each year; it would take 41 2012 - 2013 Fusions catching fire to match the volume by which the Model S has immolated.
Now, if only someone can find out exactly how many 2012 - 2013 Fusions have caught fire...
Not that knowing would make it any less stupid of an argument - car + speed + big fucking hunk of metal == one bad day, regardless of what fuel the car uses.
Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.
If being off by three entire orders of magnitude (3/20=15%, 3/20000=0.015%) constitutes an "honest mistake" that "happens to [you] a lot", how could you possibly function in any part of an industrialized society? Even Walmart cashiers who routinely give change in $1000 bills rather than $1 bills don't last long.
Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change.
Maths that don't matter, such as bullshit v bullshit arguments on a website, I don't really fret over. Namely, because I have more important things to do with my life than ensure that I'm always 100% correct in internet discussions.
By the by, when you decided to obsess over an obvious mistake, you blinded yourself to the points I was trying to make. I recommend, in the future, spending less time thinking up snarky, smart ass retorts and more time actually absorbing the meaning of what's written, rather than pore over the words themselves.
Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.
Unlike a certain somebody, who throws bullshit figures out on purpose, hoping that fanboyism will trump reason and that no one with better math skill will take the time to point out that while, in 2 years, 1 in every 6,067 cars he sells catches fire, almost 100 Ford Fusions (or any other model that sells a quarter million units annually) would have to immolate every year to match the Model S' when it comes to 'percentage of the line that catches fire.'
So, yea, intellectual dishonesty vs an honest mistake.
The CoG on the Tesla is already so low that the NTSB had to resort to "extreme measures" (using a ramp for one wheel) to even convince the car to roll during safety testing.
Did that safety test include the still-not-released software update Tesla is planning to push OTA? No?
Then it's apples-and-oranges.
That leads me to wonder: if an auto maker pushes some sort of post-NTSB-safety-test update, shouldn't they have to recertify the vehicle with the new parameters before making the update public?
Right out of my ass, like everyone else claiming factual statements with no empirical data to back them - Elon Musk included. Except I never claimed my statement was factual.
Musk is using the figures he came up with that makes his company look better; it's pretty run-of-the-mill in terms of bullshit.
Instead of taking his word as gospel, do your own research:
- How many Tesla Model S vehicles are on the road? Of of that number, how many have caught fire? Next divide the second number by the first to get the percentage of Tesla Model S vehicles that have caught fire. Finally, ask the same question of any other vehicle that started production in 2012.
To wit:
Per Wikipedia, somewhere around 18,200 Model S' have been sold since 2012; 3-4 of them have caught on fire.
Ford sold over 250,000 Fusions in 2013 alone, and if you can find a figure for how many of those caught on fire, I'd bet dollars to pesos that the percentage will be far lower than that of the Model S.
If you can't see how comparing stats for a car that's sold less than 20,000 units in a 2 year period with every single gas-powered automobile, ever, is intellectually dishonest, I don't think I can do much to help you.
An excellent description of the remainder of your post. Unless you've actually talked to the people involved in making that decision, or conducted your own equivalent investigation, you have no idea whether it's justified or not. Your knee is jerking because you've found an excuse to grind your favorite axe.
Yea... or, he has owned a cell phone and/or video game console, and thus is aware of how corporations like to jerk customers around with OTA "updates" that do things the consumer wouldn't necessarily agree to.
It's a legitimate concern, one Tesla could put to rest by offering it as an optional DIY update (via local media) instead of pushing it out to all models over the air, without explicit permission from the owners.
"Highway speeds" is when you'd most want a low center-of-mass in terms of improving driving quality. If you're going to increase it for highway speeds, maybe just make it higher, always.
So... less prone to fires caused by highway debris, more prone to high speed rollovers?
Musk is comparing a population of new, low milage , well maintained cars driven short distances by caring owners to the general population of cars including 10 year old 80,000 mile rustbuckets driven by teens who haven't had it serviced in years.
Precisely - it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
If Musk wasn't so keen on trying to use intellectual dishonesty and general ignorance to his advantage, he wouldn't have said anything, since there's a very strong chance that no other single 2014 model of automobile is seeing 15% of their production line burning up once they hit the roads.
If you think an Internet connection is "not worth it" then it's a choice.
If you cannot even afford a basic Internet connection of around 1~5 Mbps then you probably can't afford a PS4 either.
I'm getting ready to spend the weekend in a fairly remote part of my state.
There's electricity and running water, sure, but to get internet access out to where we'll be it would cost the residents somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 - $40,000, because there isn't any broadband infrastructure within several miles.
Sounds pretty damn "not worth it" to me, and it's not like a farmer who owns 250+ acres is broke.
Sigh... city kids.
Side note: the juxtaposition of your comment with your sig is wonderfully ironic, you know that?
.. Presuming it has at least a 1500 lb weight rating, can tow 30,000 lbs, all while maintaining a range of 250+ miles. Oh, and I'll need to be able to go from 0% - 100% charge in less than 30 minutes (preferably less than 5).
The problem is you're laboring under the false assumption that DUI laws are for the purpose of keeping people safe. They're not.
DUI laws are to generate revenue and to condition the public to accept laws to prevent people from doing things that MIGHT EVENTUALLY cause someone harm, even though the actual harm carries consequences already. Its a step on the road of thought crime.
You have posited what has to be the worst attempt to justify drunk driving I've ever heard. And a fair portion of my family are alcoholics, so that's saying a lot.
Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.
Can I state that this law sucks? I'd rather have a drunk sleeping in the car than on the road driving.
I agree it's a bit too vague, but the reason for that is, back in the late 1980's/early 90's, there was a rash of incidents where some drunk asshole would pull a hit-and-run then park in a nearby alley and hide in the backseat. I presume the legislature figured they had to cover all the possible angles.
How many drunks decide to go the extra mile just so they can get home rather than sleep it off in the back seat?
If you've ever been inebriated enough to be dangerous behind the wheel, you'll understand when I say, "not many."
Alcohol makes a lot of people think they're ten feet tall and bulletproof.
Something tells me the US government has little to no interest in having the ability to shut down internet access outside its own borders, for a variety of reasons.
First, they know that their affiliate clandestine organizations in said other countries (like the GCHQ) will happily do that for them.
Secondly, this is DHS we're talking about - their entire purview of authority is within US borders.
Finally, the kinds of shit DHS would pull that would give them cause to shut down communications are pretty much exclusively American problems (Not that dissent or a violent reaction to the declaration of martial law couldn't happen in other countries, but rather, unless it happens State-side DHS wouldn't give half a fuck).
DNS is irrelevant, in my opinion. It's important, no doubt, but shutting DNS does not shut the internet. Just makes it substantially harder to use.
Your opinion doesn't matter here; "substantially harder to use" effectively means "shut down" in this case, as the vast, vast, vast majority of internet users lack the technical know-how to surf without DNS.
Plus, you seem to be ignoring the whole "NSA backdoors in every ISP terminal room" angle. That one matters too.
Real reason: So they can shut down the internet in the vicinity of major protests, and thus keep people from tweeting and streaming video when the police start firing chemical weapons into the crowd and breaking a few bones.
FTFY.
Getting tired of society trying to wrap a nice, pretty bow on that particularly ugly duck.
If you were the US Government, how would you go about completely (or functionally completely) shutting off the Internet? Could it be done?
Considering that the US government has nigh exclusive control over the core DNS servers (not to mention countless backdoors in every ISP's terminal room), yea, it could totally be done.
I see cops typing in shit on their computer and staring at it nearly every time I see them... they can't drive 10 feet without at least glancing at it. I would feel infinitely more safe if they made cops follow the law too.
Use car cams, take pictures, and send copies of the stills to the police chief, mayor, and every visual media outlet in your broadcast area.
Make sure you get good shots of the cop car's license and/or call numbers:)
More laws aren't going to keep us from doing this.
No, but real punishment might.
Think about it this way: what do you think would be an appropriate legal response to a person who loads a revolver with a random assortment of blanks and live ammo, then proceeds to walk down the sidewalk with a blindfold on, holding the gun in front and squeezing the trigger over and over again?
Because when you play with your little toy when driving, that's exactly what you're doing - except for the fact that even the "blanks" in this scenario are made of 1.5 tons of steel, glass, fire, and incendiary fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
Section 1:
If corporations are people, then all corporations and individuals have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
In short, if the corporations can do it, so can individual citizens; just cite the court case and the 14th Amendment as precedent.
I live in Europe...
And, apparently, had Sarah Palin as a Geography teacher.
I did a fair amount of searching for by-model/per-year figures on fires, so we could have a legitimate comparison, but so far have come up with bupkis.
What I did find is that the total number of Model S vehicles sold in the last 2 years is about 18,200; According to Musk, 1 in every 6,066 cars has caught fire.
Compare that to the Ford Fusion, which sells 250,000 units each year; it would take 41 2012 - 2013 Fusions catching fire to match the volume by which the Model S has immolated.
Now, if only someone can find out exactly how many 2012 - 2013 Fusions have caught fire...
Not that knowing would make it any less stupid of an argument - car + speed + big fucking hunk of metal == one bad day, regardless of what fuel the car uses.
Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.
If being off by three entire orders of magnitude (3/20=15%, 3/20000=0.015%) constitutes an "honest mistake" that "happens to [you] a lot", how could you possibly function in any part of an industrialized society? Even Walmart cashiers who routinely give change in $1000 bills rather than $1 bills don't last long.
Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change.
Maths that don't matter, such as bullshit v bullshit arguments on a website, I don't really fret over. Namely, because I have more important things to do with my life than ensure that I'm always 100% correct in internet discussions.
By the by, when you decided to obsess over an obvious mistake, you blinded yourself to the points I was trying to make. I recommend, in the future, spending less time thinking up snarky, smart ass retorts and more time actually absorbing the meaning of what's written, rather than pore over the words themselves.
Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.
Unlike a certain somebody, who throws bullshit figures out on purpose, hoping that fanboyism will trump reason and that no one with better math skill will take the time to point out that while, in 2 years, 1 in every 6,067 cars he sells catches fire, almost 100 Ford Fusions (or any other model that sells a quarter million units annually) would have to immolate every year to match the Model S' when it comes to 'percentage of the line that catches fire.'
So, yea, intellectual dishonesty vs an honest mistake.
The CoG on the Tesla is already so low that the NTSB had to resort to "extreme measures" (using a ramp for one wheel) to even convince the car to roll during safety testing.
Did that safety test include the still-not-released software update Tesla is planning to push OTA? No?
Then it's apples-and-oranges.
That leads me to wonder: if an auto maker pushes some sort of post-NTSB-safety-test update, shouldn't they have to recertify the vehicle with the new parameters before making the update public?
Erm--where did you get that figure?
Right out of my ass, like everyone else claiming factual statements with no empirical data to back them - Elon Musk included. Except I never claimed my statement was factual.
Musk is using the figures he came up with that makes his company look better; it's pretty run-of-the-mill in terms of bullshit.
Instead of taking his word as gospel, do your own research:
- How many Tesla Model S vehicles are on the road? Of of that number, how many have caught fire? Next divide the second number by the first to get the percentage of Tesla Model S vehicles that have caught fire. Finally, ask the same question of any other vehicle that started production in 2012.
To wit:
Per Wikipedia, somewhere around 18,200 Model S' have been sold since 2012; 3-4 of them have caught on fire.
Ford sold over 250,000 Fusions in 2013 alone, and if you can find a figure for how many of those caught on fire, I'd bet dollars to pesos that the percentage will be far lower than that of the Model S.
If you can't see how comparing stats for a car that's sold less than 20,000 units in a 2 year period with every single gas-powered automobile, ever, is intellectually dishonest, I don't think I can do much to help you.
This is probably all a stupid kneejerk reaction.
An excellent description of the remainder of your post. Unless you've actually talked to the people involved in making that decision, or conducted your own equivalent investigation, you have no idea whether it's justified or not. Your knee is jerking because you've found an excuse to grind your favorite axe.
Yea... or, he has owned a cell phone and/or video game console, and thus is aware of how corporations like to jerk customers around with OTA "updates" that do things the consumer wouldn't necessarily agree to.
It's a legitimate concern, one Tesla could put to rest by offering it as an optional DIY update (via local media) instead of pushing it out to all models over the air, without explicit permission from the owners.
"Highway speeds" is when you'd most want a low center-of-mass in terms of improving driving quality. If you're going to increase it for highway speeds, maybe just make it higher, always.
So... less prone to fires caused by highway debris, more prone to high speed rollovers?
Not sure that's the wisest tradeoff...
You don't understand the stats either.
Musk is comparing a population of new, low milage , well maintained cars driven short distances by caring owners to the general population of cars including 10 year old 80,000 mile rustbuckets driven by teens who haven't had it serviced in years.
Precisely - it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
If Musk wasn't so keen on trying to use intellectual dishonesty and general ignorance to his advantage, he wouldn't have said anything, since there's a very strong chance that no other single 2014 model of automobile is seeing 15% of their production line burning up once they hit the roads.
If you think an Internet connection is "not worth it" then it's a choice.
If you cannot even afford a basic Internet connection of around 1~5 Mbps then you probably can't afford a PS4 either.
I'm getting ready to spend the weekend in a fairly remote part of my state.
There's electricity and running water, sure, but to get internet access out to where we'll be it would cost the residents somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 - $40,000, because there isn't any broadband infrastructure within several miles.
Sounds pretty damn "not worth it" to me, and it's not like a farmer who owns 250+ acres is broke.
Sigh... city kids.
Side note: the juxtaposition of your comment with your sig is wonderfully ironic, you know that?
.. Presuming it has at least a 1500 lb weight rating, can tow 30,000 lbs, all while maintaining a range of 250+ miles. Oh, and I'll need to be able to go from 0% - 100% charge in less than 30 minutes (preferably less than 5).
In rural Missouri.
The problem is you're laboring under the false assumption that DUI laws are for the purpose of keeping people safe. They're not.
DUI laws are to generate revenue and to condition the public to accept laws to prevent people from doing things that MIGHT EVENTUALLY cause someone harm, even though the actual harm carries consequences already. Its a step on the road of thought crime.
You have posited what has to be the worst attempt to justify drunk driving I've ever heard. And a fair portion of my family are alcoholics, so that's saying a lot.
Depends on the state/municipality.
Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.
Can I state that this law sucks? I'd rather have a drunk sleeping in the car than on the road driving.
I agree it's a bit too vague, but the reason for that is, back in the late 1980's/early 90's, there was a rash of incidents where some drunk asshole would pull a hit-and-run then park in a nearby alley and hide in the backseat. I presume the legislature figured they had to cover all the possible angles.
How many drunks decide to go the extra mile just so they can get home rather than sleep it off in the back seat?
If you've ever been inebriated enough to be dangerous behind the wheel, you'll understand when I say, "not many."
Alcohol makes a lot of people think they're ten feet tall and bulletproof.
I wonder how many lives it has cost.
Likely an unquantifiable figure.
Something tells me the US government has little to no interest in having the ability to shut down internet access outside its own borders, for a variety of reasons.
First, they know that their affiliate clandestine organizations in said other countries (like the GCHQ) will happily do that for them.
Secondly, this is DHS we're talking about - their entire purview of authority is within US borders.
Finally, the kinds of shit DHS would pull that would give them cause to shut down communications are pretty much exclusively American problems (Not that dissent or a violent reaction to the declaration of martial law couldn't happen in other countries, but rather, unless it happens State-side DHS wouldn't give half a fuck).
DNS is irrelevant, in my opinion. It's important, no doubt, but shutting DNS does not shut the internet. Just makes it substantially harder to use.
Your opinion doesn't matter here; "substantially harder to use" effectively means "shut down" in this case, as the vast, vast, vast majority of internet users lack the technical know-how to surf without DNS.
Plus, you seem to be ignoring the whole "NSA backdoors in every ISP terminal room" angle. That one matters too.
I would make a wisecrack about Thomas Edison being put in charge of making these videos, but it appears no elephants were harmed.
Real reason: So they can shut down the internet in the vicinity of major protests, and thus keep people from tweeting and streaming video when the police start firing chemical weapons into the crowd and breaking a few bones.
FTFY.
Getting tired of society trying to wrap a nice, pretty bow on that particularly ugly duck.
It's also approximately the same percentage of Americans who suffer from some form of mental retardation.
I know, I know, correlation is not causation, but still...
If you were the US Government, how would you go about completely (or functionally completely) shutting off the Internet? Could it be done?
Considering that the US government has nigh exclusive control over the core DNS servers (not to mention countless backdoors in every ISP's terminal room), yea, it could totally be done.
But you're at least smart enough to program the GPS before you start driving there, right?
You are proving my point by mentioning a type of behavior which is not specifically prohibited by law, the way texting is...
Where the hell do you live, where public masturbation and brandishing Class II firearms are legal????
I wonder if you even know what your "point" actually is.
I see cops typing in shit on their computer and staring at it nearly every time I see them... they can't drive 10 feet without at least glancing at it. I would feel infinitely more safe if they made cops follow the law too.
Use car cams, take pictures, and send copies of the stills to the police chief, mayor, and every visual media outlet in your broadcast area.
Make sure you get good shots of the cop car's license and/or call numbers :)
No need to ban the behavior; just add it to the list of things that make up "attempted manslaughter" charges, and prosecute accordingly.
The problem will fix itself in short order, I assure you.
More laws aren't going to keep us from doing this.
No, but real punishment might.
Think about it this way: what do you think would be an appropriate legal response to a person who loads a revolver with a random assortment of blanks and live ammo, then proceeds to walk down the sidewalk with a blindfold on, holding the gun in front and squeezing the trigger over and over again?
Because when you play with your little toy when driving, that's exactly what you're doing - except for the fact that even the "blanks" in this scenario are made of 1.5 tons of steel, glass, fire, and incendiary fuel.