Except that this isn't tax evasion by a big company, it's tax evasion by individuals. Many states have a use tax that you have to pay for items purchased out of state, but people don't seem too keen on paying them.
Corporate tax evasion is a serious issue, but Amazon not paying states it doesn't have locations in isn't an egregious violation. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about Exxon entirely dodging federal taxes by going offshore.
Nice job conflating non-violent civil disobedience (a DDOS attack is fundamentally no different than a sit in) with terrorism. There should be a corollary to Godwin's law for things like this.
Why is it so scary? People have been doing it in the real world for years. If there is a botnet behind the DDOS, that's one thing. But in the case of Anonymous, they're all choosing to run the software. It's more akin to a sit in than anything else.
Uh, no. Sync has only been around for a few years. BMW's iDrive has been around for a decade now (and for the record, it initially used Windows CE and currently uses QNX). I'm not sure if iDrive was the first, but it's definitely been prevalent for a lot longer than Sync.
The car has a fuel tank, needs fill ups, and runs on combustion. If the Top Gear folks (or just Clarkson, really) are biased, the Clarity is much closer to what they already know.
And in terms of helping the environment, fuel cell cars are essentially useless. If you're in the very small portion of the population that lives near a fueling station, great, more power to you. Most of us don't. However, we do all have electricity in our homes. We've spent too long sitting on our hands wrt. climate change and adopting greener technologies. We need to stop pining for the next big development (the one that's always 10/15 years away) and start adopting the technology we have now.
Basically what happened was Clarkson (at the time) admitted that the car hadn't run out of power, the reason they pushed it in was because you aren't allowed to drive cars in their building. Except since they didn't mention that fact in the episode and since they were moving it into the building to recharge, the viewers (you and me included) thought that the battery was dead.
If you'd like the links, they're in my post up thread.
I'm sorry, but yes it did. Remember that shot that showed them pushing the car into the warehouse? It happens about about 5 minutes in. They push it into the warehouse to recharge it. The impression I got at the time (and the one that many people got, see The Guardian) was that it ran out of power. Not so, according to Clarkson:
We never said once that the car had run out of power. The car had to be pushed into the warehouse because you are not allowed to drive cars into a building.
Ok, so in what other cases has the show used that shot? Oh wait, they haven't. They were clearly implying it was out of power. Top Gear never explicitly lied in the piece, but they made things appear to be different from what actually happened and then let the viewers make the logical assumption themselves. I don't mind that the challenges are scripted, but I expected some degree of truth from their actual reviews.
Outside of contribution to the greenhouse effect, coal plants do not have long-lasting (multi generational) dangers.
Except they do. I'd wager that they are just as many (if not more) exclusion zones from persistent coal mine fires as from nuclear disasters.
If you're just referring to nuclear waste, rather than nuclear disasters, that is also not taken in context. Coal has waste as well, it just escapes into the atmosphere. You can't get it back once it's been released as exhaust. In terms of hazardous waste, I'd prefer the one that can be contained.
The problem is you're viewing those nuclear accidents out of context. Consider how many people die from the normal operation of coal-fired power plants. 24,000 lives a year shortened, 22,000 of those preventable. Looking at your list, the last time there was an incident that qualified as an "accident" on the scale was in 1999, at Tokaimura (Level 4). Two people died. In the time between that and the next "accident" (i.e. Fukushima), pollution due to coal has caused 288,000 premature deaths, just in the United States.
The real number is probably more, since this was before Bush's changes to environmental law. The report in question estimated 4,000 more deaths per year if the law went forward. Another way of looking at it is in deaths per terawatt-hour. By that metric, Nuclear is 0.04, Coal is 128, and Oil is 36.
The simple fact is coal kills more people than nuclear. Even if there are nuclear "accidents" (on the INES) every decade or so, there will still be a net decrease in loss of life if those nuclear plants replaced coal plants. Nuclear is not a perfect option, but it's our best alternative to coal for the kind of large scale power generation our system currently needs.
Meijer doesn't have discount cards. They were even touting that fact in their ad campaigns when Kroger introduced them, IIRC. However, they only have stores in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan.
No, read it again. His wife gets Medicare, which is welfare. His job as a tax assessor is a different issue. They were trying to make the point that he is railing against taxation while earning a living because people have to pay taxes.
It's too bad we never see actual numbers on things like this. I haven't encountered either black screens or headaches while using the 3DS. I'd be curious to know what percentage of users have them, but all there is to go on right now is the "some people on the internet" metric.
I'm going to side with Penny Arcade on this one. If the NGP had a price point anywhere close to the 3DS, Sony would have made mention of that when they announced it. They certainly would have said something before the 3DS launched, to try and convince some people to hold off buying Nintendo's handheld until they could compare it to Sony's.
But beyond that, this seems like a rehash of the previous generation. Sony's supporters were slamming the DS for having inferior hardware, but the DS ended up winning by a wide margin. And it also continues that wonderful Sony trend of initially saying a technology is crap, and then showing up late to the party with it's own version. (see motion controls, rumble, wand controllers, and now touchscreens)
We never said once that the car had run out of power. The car had to be pushed into the warehouse because you are not allowed to drive cars into a building.
Which is all well and good, except Top Gear hasn't used that kind of shot in any of its other reviews (to my knowledge anyway, and I am a fan. even if I think they were in the wrong on this one).
That article didn't match my own recollection of the controversy, so I googled "top gear tesla review". I found a good article from Wired and another from The Guardian.
From the Wired article:
- The batteries on the cars "never fell below 20 percent charge".
- "They never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault," and it isn’t clear why the segment included footage showing exactly that, she said.
- Recharging in customers homes (albeit with specialized equipment) takes "as little as 3.5 hours".
- The blown fuse that caused the brake failure was replaced, and the car "was back up and running literally within minutes".
From the Guardian article:
But it has since emerged that the Tesla, which can be powered from an ordinary domestic plug, did not run out of electricity.
The car's California-based manufacturer said that the charge on neither of the two Teslas used in the Top Gear test fell below 20%.
The BBC today denied it had misled viewers, saying that the programme had "at no time" claimed that the car had run out of power. Programme-makers instead showed it slowing down to illustrate what would happen when the car did run out of charge.
But some viewers were left with a different impression. "I understand trying to make interesting TV, but when it materially changes the image or performance of the product, it's pretty underhanded," said one viewer on a car website.
Another said: "How pointless, in the same way if a car runs out of petrol I know what happens without a reconstruction of the event."
So to summarize: Top Gear makes it appear that the Tesla ran out of juice during testing. Tesla called them on it. The BBC claims that despite everyone thinking that is what happened, they never claimed it did. And then, inexplicably, Tesla waits 2 years to sue.
Except nuclear is here today. I've heard of small scale uses of algae as fuel, but nothing that could compare to nuclear or coal for the amount of power generation needed to be a viable alternative. If you have examples otherwise, please let me know. Biotech might be the future, but until it becomes the present nuclear isn't obsolete.
Nuclear isn't perfectly safe. Nothing is. But all the alternatives have risks and drawbacks as well. "People are fallible" isn't an argument that justifies removing nuclear power from the table.
That's irrelevant in the current state of the Federal Court system. All that matters is:
1. Is there a district that is more advantageous to the plaintiff? (Northern California in this case, because of the Judge's history ruling on the DMCA)
2. Can the plaintiff hire a team of lawyers big enough to out-bullshit the defendant's team of lawyers?
If the answer to both questions is yes, the trial is probably getting moved. Whether it's a "proper venue" doesn't really come into it.
Well, it finds my house just fine, but doesn't even list my ISP (the local cable company). Although it does make me feel good about my choice in providers, given that none of the other options are even half as fast as what I'm getting now.
Speedtest.net already does this and does a much better job. The.gov site should just link there.
The birth rate thing is changing now, but that's an accurate assessment of how things were, hence the disproportionate skew towards youth in the current Middle East.
Making education available for women may be the thing most responsible for the general political stability in the West.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it? Since when have Anonymous been progressives? If you want to call them anything, they're various flavors of anarchist. Leave it to a conservative to blame everything on progressivism. Every. Time.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that this isn't tax evasion by a big company, it's tax evasion by individuals. Many states have a use tax that you have to pay for items purchased out of state, but people don't seem too keen on paying them.
Corporate tax evasion is a serious issue, but Amazon not paying states it doesn't have locations in isn't an egregious violation. If you want to get angry about something, get angry about Exxon entirely dodging federal taxes by going offshore.
Nice job conflating non-violent civil disobedience (a DDOS attack is fundamentally no different than a sit in) with terrorism. There should be a corollary to Godwin's law for things like this.
Why is it so scary? People have been doing it in the real world for years. If there is a botnet behind the DDOS, that's one thing. But in the case of Anonymous, they're all choosing to run the software. It's more akin to a sit in than anything else.
First in-car computer system to take off.
Uh, no. Sync has only been around for a few years. BMW's iDrive has been around for a decade now (and for the record, it initially used Windows CE and currently uses QNX). I'm not sure if iDrive was the first, but it's definitely been prevalent for a lot longer than Sync.
The car has a fuel tank, needs fill ups, and runs on combustion. If the Top Gear folks (or just Clarkson, really) are biased, the Clarity is much closer to what they already know.
And in terms of helping the environment, fuel cell cars are essentially useless. If you're in the very small portion of the population that lives near a fueling station, great, more power to you. Most of us don't. However, we do all have electricity in our homes. We've spent too long sitting on our hands wrt. climate change and adopting greener technologies. We need to stop pining for the next big development (the one that's always 10/15 years away) and start adopting the technology we have now.
Basically what happened was Clarkson (at the time) admitted that the car hadn't run out of power, the reason they pushed it in was because you aren't allowed to drive cars in their building. Except since they didn't mention that fact in the episode and since they were moving it into the building to recharge, the viewers (you and me included) thought that the battery was dead.
If you'd like the links, they're in my post up thread.
We never said once that the car had run out of power. The car had to be pushed into the warehouse because you are not allowed to drive cars into a building.
Ok, so in what other cases has the show used that shot? Oh wait, they haven't. They were clearly implying it was out of power. Top Gear never explicitly lied in the piece, but they made things appear to be different from what actually happened and then let the viewers make the logical assumption themselves. I don't mind that the challenges are scripted, but I expected some degree of truth from their actual reviews.
Outside of contribution to the greenhouse effect, coal plants do not have long-lasting (multi generational) dangers.
Except they do. I'd wager that they are just as many (if not more) exclusion zones from persistent coal mine fires as from nuclear disasters.
If you're just referring to nuclear waste, rather than nuclear disasters, that is also not taken in context. Coal has waste as well, it just escapes into the atmosphere. You can't get it back once it's been released as exhaust. In terms of hazardous waste, I'd prefer the one that can be contained.
To be fair, they can be caused that way.
The problem is you're viewing those nuclear accidents out of context. Consider how many people die from the normal operation of coal-fired power plants. 24,000 lives a year shortened, 22,000 of those preventable. Looking at your list, the last time there was an incident that qualified as an "accident" on the scale was in 1999, at Tokaimura (Level 4). Two people died. In the time between that and the next "accident" (i.e. Fukushima), pollution due to coal has caused 288,000 premature deaths, just in the United States.
The real number is probably more, since this was before Bush's changes to environmental law. The report in question estimated 4,000 more deaths per year if the law went forward. Another way of looking at it is in deaths per terawatt-hour. By that metric, Nuclear is 0.04, Coal is 128, and Oil is 36.
The simple fact is coal kills more people than nuclear. Even if there are nuclear "accidents" (on the INES) every decade or so, there will still be a net decrease in loss of life if those nuclear plants replaced coal plants. Nuclear is not a perfect option, but it's our best alternative to coal for the kind of large scale power generation our system currently needs.
Meijer doesn't have discount cards. They were even touting that fact in their ad campaigns when Kroger introduced them, IIRC. However, they only have stores in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Michigan.
No, read it again. His wife gets Medicare, which is welfare. His job as a tax assessor is a different issue. They were trying to make the point that he is railing against taxation while earning a living because people have to pay taxes.
It's too bad we never see actual numbers on things like this. I haven't encountered either black screens or headaches while using the 3DS. I'd be curious to know what percentage of users have them, but all there is to go on right now is the "some people on the internet" metric.
I'm going to side with Penny Arcade on this one. If the NGP had a price point anywhere close to the 3DS, Sony would have made mention of that when they announced it. They certainly would have said something before the 3DS launched, to try and convince some people to hold off buying Nintendo's handheld until they could compare it to Sony's.
But beyond that, this seems like a rehash of the previous generation. Sony's supporters were slamming the DS for having inferior hardware, but the DS ended up winning by a wide margin. And it also continues that wonderful Sony trend of initially saying a technology is crap, and then showing up late to the party with it's own version. (see motion controls, rumble, wand controllers, and now touchscreens)
We never said once that the car had run out of power. The car had to be pushed into the warehouse because you are not allowed to drive cars into a building.
Which is all well and good, except Top Gear hasn't used that kind of shot in any of its other reviews (to my knowledge anyway, and I am a fan. even if I think they were in the wrong on this one).
That article didn't match my own recollection of the controversy, so I googled "top gear tesla review". I found a good article from Wired and another from The Guardian.
From the Wired article:
- The batteries on the cars "never fell below 20 percent charge".
- "They never had to push a car off the track because of lack of charge or a fault," and it isn’t clear why the segment included footage showing exactly that, she said.
- Recharging in customers homes (albeit with specialized equipment) takes "as little as 3.5 hours".
- The blown fuse that caused the brake failure was replaced, and the car "was back up and running literally within minutes".
From the Guardian article:
So to summarize: Top Gear makes it appear that the Tesla ran out of juice during testing. Tesla called them on it. The BBC claims that despite everyone thinking that is what happened, they never claimed it did. And then, inexplicably, Tesla waits 2 years to sue.
Except nuclear is here today. I've heard of small scale uses of algae as fuel, but nothing that could compare to nuclear or coal for the amount of power generation needed to be a viable alternative. If you have examples otherwise, please let me know. Biotech might be the future, but until it becomes the present nuclear isn't obsolete.
Even better is the fact that he counts iPads as PCs. My phone runs Windows Mobile. Is that a PC?
Why not just shorten it to "whether humans can do anything safely"? The BP oil spill had nothing to do with nuclear power. Nor does the vast amounts of fly ash produced by coal-based power plants. Those have problems as well, you know. Hell, just browse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Environmental_disasters_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Waste_disposal_incidents and see how many of them are related to nuclear power, or more importantly how many aren't.
Nuclear isn't perfectly safe. Nothing is. But all the alternatives have risks and drawbacks as well. "People are fallible" isn't an argument that justifies removing nuclear power from the table.
You've never worked with diesel generators, have you? You're essentially talking about putting several locomotive engines on the roof of a building.
That's irrelevant in the current state of the Federal Court system. All that matters is:
1. Is there a district that is more advantageous to the plaintiff? (Northern California in this case, because of the Judge's history ruling on the DMCA)
2. Can the plaintiff hire a team of lawyers big enough to out-bullshit the defendant's team of lawyers?
If the answer to both questions is yes, the trial is probably getting moved. Whether it's a "proper venue" doesn't really come into it.
I just googled "Scott Roeder's defense fund". Also, don't stay on Army of God's website too long; it gave me a headache.
http://www.kansas.com/2009/10/25/1026175/auction-planned-for-roeder-defense.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/POCScottRoederLawyerHelp.html
Well, it finds my house just fine, but doesn't even list my ISP (the local cable company). Although it does make me feel good about my choice in providers, given that none of the other options are even half as fast as what I'm getting now. Speedtest.net already does this and does a much better job. The .gov site should just link there.
The birth rate thing is changing now, but that's an accurate assessment of how things were, hence the disproportionate skew towards youth in the current Middle East. Making education available for women may be the thing most responsible for the general political stability in the West.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it? Since when have Anonymous been progressives? If you want to call them anything, they're various flavors of anarchist. Leave it to a conservative to blame everything on progressivism. Every. Time.