To clarify, I was half joking with this question since the guilty parties may very well be the politicians themselves. But it will be interesting to see exactly how the politicians react. Will they close the loopholes (and thereby screwing themselves over -- highly unlikely)? Will the rich (including said politicians) find new loopholes? (Most likely). Or will they be so bold as to pass laws to try to cover up their track despite the fact that everyone knows, now? (Now that would piss a lot of folks off, but we've seen where that went: Occupy Wallstreet anyone?)
Why rent from the private sector when we can just own the satellites? The cost of billions in the production, divided by the lifespan of the satellites, may actually be cheaper in the long run. And then what happens when the company is bought out? Or goes belly? While I think the government is pretty inefficient, somehow I feel a bit more secure when non-weather data is being passed through government-owned satellites as opposed to privately owned satellites. In the former case, I can at least pretend to have some ownership through my tax dollars and voting habits.
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the
President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in
combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
The key words here are: the president, weaponized, kill, American and on American soil. The answer is so direct that it actually raises many more questions:
Can the president authorize to kill non-Americans? On American soil? Oversees? Using drones?
While he cannot authorize the use of weaponized drones to kill Americans, can he authorize non-weaponized drones to spy on Americans?
Does he have the authority to kill an American using other means (not a drone)?
I don't like ANY company data mining my emails or searches or documents and then using that to bombard me with ads. In this particular case, I'm not sure what's worse: being Scroogled, or using the alternative -- Bing. From the ad, it seems like using google will lead you to end up with a kitchen fire. But if Bing's results are scraped from google (see link below), then I don't see how the alternative is any better.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html
The 27th amendment only DELAYS the effects of any laws which affect salaries. It DOES NOT PREVENT salary changes. It works just like contracts in that if you are employed for a contracted period of time, you expect your pay to stay fixed according to your contract during said period of time. The 27th amendment says:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
It is quite possible that voters can vote to keep an incumbent, but limit his salary for his next term. Moreover, removing someone from office does not fix the problem of congressmen being overpaid if that is indeed the case.
...not just for corporations but also for the folks in Congress. While the former may theoretically happen, I do not see any Congressman voting for any measure that would limit his pay.
Did you completely ignore the part where trolls now have to put aside money before they can proceed with their suit?
Notably, once a party is deemed to be an NPE early in the litigation, they will be required to post a bond to cover the defendants' litigation costs before going forward.
Even if they declare bankruptcy, there's money already set aside to help cover the defender's attorney fees.
I cannot help but wonder if UEFI is now Microsoft's backup plan to force casual PC users into Windows 8. There seems to be some resistance (the degree of which is debatable) to Windows 8 adoption. Perhaps users will, in the end, still be forced into Windows 8 if they lack the know-how to use alternate OSes?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if the any two countries are working together, then there must be SOME secure communication link between them, right? Why can't the pilot of one aircraft relay his message home via his home country's secure link, then use the secure link between the two countries to pass it from one country to the other, and then the other country sends the message via their secure link to the other pilot? Sure it's some latency there, but is there some obvious reason I am not seeing why this would not be feasible?
I am simply wondering it if was possible to accuse both of them since it is not even clear whether one or both brothers carried out the crimes. In other words, if both guys are prime suspects, what prevents the authorities from moving forward to put them both on trial? Many of the responses automatically assume that only one of them is actually guilty, whereas the articles I have read indicated that the evidence suggests at least one of them is guilty.
Would it be possible to use the evidence to accuse both of them since they both fit the description of the culprit. If they have evidence, but don't know which one did it, then aren't BOTH prime suspects?
It's not just writing, it's also in mathematics. The the worst part is that many students who do poorly in mathematics do so because of their poor writing (and hence poor reading comprehension). The main issue today is that many people feel that a higher education is essential to a "better future", and that it should be available to everyone -- and I agree with both sentiments. However, not very many people are willing to admit to the fact that many folks entering college are simply not well prepared. Almost every university offers a pre-caclulus class (and some even offer lower level mathematics courses). The problem is that such a course should really have been taken at the high school level (and usually by the sophomore year at the latest). The reality is that there are too many students who come into college and in some cases graduating with only pre-cacalculus as their highest mathematics course! The same goes with writing/reading. When email and texting has become the preferred method of communication, it is not uncommen to see textspeak in emails, with little to no proper punctuation.
Just wanted to also add that if the task is only going to take a few minutes, it seems really hard justifying the $60 pricetag for something you are only going to use for "just a few minutes." And if you had lots and lots of tasks that each only take "just a few minutes" then wouldn't you be better off using "the real deal" (i.e. an actual computer with the full application suite)?
You're correct on all points. However, those external keyboards aren't cheap. On average, they even cost more than the suggested $60 for the office suite. (Most of the ones I'm seeing from both Google and reviews average around $100.) Let's just say the total package is somewhere between $100 and $150 for both keyboard and office suite. If you compare that to the total cost of using any one of the popular apps on iOS devices, it doesn't seem so appealing. I'm not saying that it can't work for some. However, I don't think that it will amount to billions of dollars.
Unless everyone using an iOS device also has an external keyboard and mouse, an office suite (whether my MS or Google, or ) just does not work. No one is going to type up any sort of real-world document using their two thumbs on their iPhone. Even with a large screen on the iPad, typing is much more efficient using a keyboard. Navigating neighboring cells in a spreadsheet is quicker with the arrow keys than pointing with one's finger. I could go on and on about the ergonomics of doing office-application work on iOS. And then there's the isolation of every app inside their own sandbox that makes importing objects between applications a bit more difficult.
I think the reason that all these tablet devices do not have true office suites is because the current means of inputting data are best left for devices with real keyboards.
> We can only speculate what is meant by "cleared." Did they clear the battery conditioning, so that he simply needed to continue with normal procedures to complete his trip? Or did they clear him in the sense that he could stop charging as well and should just head back, disregarding any future messages from the vehicle?
He was on a shepherded trip in the EV, with Tesla personnel dancing in attendance and verifying that what was planned would work. There is not a lot of doubt that "cleared" in this context means "advised him that continuing would not result in any problems." Assuming anything less also assumes incompetence on the part of the Tesla personnel, since their purpose was to ensure that the trip showed Tesla in a good light.
Again, even the word "continuing" does not give a clear picture. Continue in the sense of "pick up where you left off"? If this were the case, he'd have to ensure that the car was topped off. On the other hand, if continue means "ok, the conditioning is done, and we can probably even stop charging too" then you'd be right. If I was told "you're ok to continue" and I see that my gauge says "you're not going to make it" -- I would definitely bring this up with the support team to clarify what they mean by continue or cleared. "Should I still top off the battery?" "But what if my gauge says I'm short on distance?" All of this would have also been a part of my report -- especially if the support team specifically asked me to drive despite the gauge warning me otherwise, since this would be another shortcoming from Tesla. Now, not only does their car not drive the advertised range, their gauges also have issues. In my report, I would have mentioned how I was told to drive despite the gauge showing insufficient mileage, and that Tesla likely needed to tweak their sensors. However, the gauge was clearly fine, as the car did stop running just as the gauge had predicted. Going only off of what was originally written, my guess was that both the reporter and the support team should have done a better job of making sure the car would make it. Instead, what likely happened was that both sides probably assumed some level of competency of the other. And now neither side is willing to admit that they could have been better at evaluating the situation. That's just my hunch.
There is clearly an issue for Tesla given that a user was unable to complete a planned trip. I'm not trying to defend Tesla. I'm trying to hold this reporter to a basic standard of objective and clear reporting.
The more people like you try to defend Tesla, the more ridiculously unrealistic their cars start to look.
I doubt the average user is going to get a hotline through to Tesla technical support. And if they do need to, that in itself shows how far from being mature products they are.
If these are just tests, they should have done them before the cars went on sale to the public.
I'm not defending Tesla. What I am asking for is that reporters be a little bit more honest and not get so carried away in writing a sensational article to get more readers. All we have so far is this reporter's word whether Tesla's vehicle is as advertised. How are consumers supposed to make informed decisions if the reporter fails at his job? It's fine to pick and choose your words to make headlines, but at least proof read your own writing so that there aren't holes so large you can drive a truck through. I'm not a reporter, but I have the common sense to ask basic questions. If the reporter supposedly did make some hoopla about the distance gauge showing less miles than the distance to Milford, _and_ Tesla still instructed him to drive on, don't you think that would be in the article? That would make bigger news than the fact that the car fell short of advertised performance. Instead, he writes (and in the following order) that:
(1) he was "cleared" after having been asked to condition the battery
(2) he drove the vehicle even though the distance gauge showed that he would not make it
If there was some dispute with respect to (2), don't you think that would have been included in his article?
Just because the asteroid has metals that may be useful to us, what about materials mixed within that may pose as threats to the life on Earth? Even if we could mine the asteroid by somehow catching it, I sure hope the folks doing the planning have also considered the possible detriments to life that may also be an outcome of successfully catching this asteroid.
Mod parent down for mis-information. When the reporter got up in the morning, 2/3 of the miles did indeed disappear from the care overnight. Why did you leave out the rest of the article that would essentially refute your post? Here's the rest:
1) He was instructed to then condition the battery. After some time, the support team "cleared [him] to resume the trip to Milford." We can only speculate what is meant by "cleared." Did they clear the battery conditioning, so that he simply needed to continue with normal procedures to complete his trip? Or did they clear him in the sense that he could stop charging as well and should just head back, disregarding any future messages from the vehicle?
2) From the article: Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away. If the display clearly showed that there was not enough range, why did the reporter not bring this up with the support team? Instead, he drove anyway. Is it a surprise, then, that he never made it back?
Slashdot Mirror
No I did not read the article; yes I know what was meant by "crabs." Now get off my lawn!
To clarify, I was half joking with this question since the guilty parties may very well be the politicians themselves. But it will be interesting to see exactly how the politicians react. Will they close the loopholes (and thereby screwing themselves over -- highly unlikely)? Will the rich (including said politicians) find new loopholes? (Most likely). Or will they be so bold as to pass laws to try to cover up their track despite the fact that everyone knows, now? (Now that would piss a lot of folks off, but we've seen where that went: Occupy Wallstreet anyone?)
I appreciate the response; I was being facetious.
The biggest question I have, now that the general public is also aware of how the ultra rich "hide" their money (and oftentimes to avoid taxation):
What are the politicians going to do to address these loopholes?
Why rent from the private sector when we can just own the satellites? The cost of billions in the production, divided by the lifespan of the satellites, may actually be cheaper in the long run. And then what happens when the company is bought out? Or goes belly? While I think the government is pretty inefficient, somehow I feel a bit more secure when non-weather data is being passed through government-owned satellites as opposed to privately owned satellites. In the former case, I can at least pretend to have some ownership through my tax dollars and voting habits.
It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.
The key words here are: the president, weaponized, kill, American and on American soil. The answer is so direct that it actually raises many more questions:
There are more questions, but you get the idea...
I forgot; this is Slashdot.
I don't like ANY company data mining my emails or searches or documents and then using that to bombard me with ads. In this particular case, I'm not sure what's worse: being Scroogled, or using the alternative -- Bing. From the ad, it seems like using google will lead you to end up with a kitchen fire. But if Bing's results are scraped from google (see link below), then I don't see how the alternative is any better. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html
The 27th amendment only DELAYS the effects of any laws which affect salaries. It DOES NOT PREVENT salary changes. It works just like contracts in that if you are employed for a contracted period of time, you expect your pay to stay fixed according to your contract during said period of time. The 27th amendment says:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
It is quite possible that voters can vote to keep an incumbent, but limit his salary for his next term. Moreover, removing someone from office does not fix the problem of congressmen being overpaid if that is indeed the case.
...not just for corporations but also for the folks in Congress. While the former may theoretically happen, I do not see any Congressman voting for any measure that would limit his pay.
Did you completely ignore the part where trolls now have to put aside money before they can proceed with their suit?
Notably, once a party is deemed to be an NPE early in the litigation, they will be required to post a bond to cover the defendants' litigation costs before going forward.
Even if they declare bankruptcy, there's money already set aside to help cover the defender's attorney fees.
I cannot help but wonder if UEFI is now Microsoft's backup plan to force casual PC users into Windows 8. There seems to be some resistance (the degree of which is debatable) to Windows 8 adoption. Perhaps users will, in the end, still be forced into Windows 8 if they lack the know-how to use alternate OSes?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if the any two countries are working together, then there must be SOME secure communication link between them, right? Why can't the pilot of one aircraft relay his message home via his home country's secure link, then use the secure link between the two countries to pass it from one country to the other, and then the other country sends the message via their secure link to the other pilot? Sure it's some latency there, but is there some obvious reason I am not seeing why this would not be feasible?
Mod parent up -- until users learn to not fall for even the more advanced phishinig schemes, we will never be rid of the problem.
I am simply wondering it if was possible to accuse both of them since it is not even clear whether one or both brothers carried out the crimes. In other words, if both guys are prime suspects, what prevents the authorities from moving forward to put them both on trial? Many of the responses automatically assume that only one of them is actually guilty, whereas the articles I have read indicated that the evidence suggests at least one of them is guilty.
Would it be possible to use the evidence to accuse both of them since they both fit the description of the culprit. If they have evidence, but don't know which one did it, then aren't BOTH prime suspects?
...keep looking, Watson!
It's not just writing, it's also in mathematics. The the worst part is that many students who do poorly in mathematics do so because of their poor writing (and hence poor reading comprehension). The main issue today is that many people feel that a higher education is essential to a "better future", and that it should be available to everyone -- and I agree with both sentiments. However, not very many people are willing to admit to the fact that many folks entering college are simply not well prepared. Almost every university offers a pre-caclulus class (and some even offer lower level mathematics courses). The problem is that such a course should really have been taken at the high school level (and usually by the sophomore year at the latest). The reality is that there are too many students who come into college and in some cases graduating with only pre-cacalculus as their highest mathematics course! The same goes with writing/reading. When email and texting has become the preferred method of communication, it is not uncommen to see textspeak in emails, with little to no proper punctuation.
Just wanted to also add that if the task is only going to take a few minutes, it seems really hard justifying the $60 pricetag for something you are only going to use for "just a few minutes." And if you had lots and lots of tasks that each only take "just a few minutes" then wouldn't you be better off using "the real deal" (i.e. an actual computer with the full application suite)?
You're correct on all points. However, those external keyboards aren't cheap. On average, they even cost more than the suggested $60 for the office suite. (Most of the ones I'm seeing from both Google and reviews average around $100.) Let's just say the total package is somewhere between $100 and $150 for both keyboard and office suite. If you compare that to the total cost of using any one of the popular apps on iOS devices, it doesn't seem so appealing. I'm not saying that it can't work for some. However, I don't think that it will amount to billions of dollars.
Unless everyone using an iOS device also has an external keyboard and mouse, an office suite (whether my MS or Google, or ) just does not work. No one is going to type up any sort of real-world document using their two thumbs on their iPhone. Even with a large screen on the iPad, typing is much more efficient using a keyboard. Navigating neighboring cells in a spreadsheet is quicker with the arrow keys than pointing with one's finger. I could go on and on about the ergonomics of doing office-application work on iOS. And then there's the isolation of every app inside their own sandbox that makes importing objects between applications a bit more difficult.
I think the reason that all these tablet devices do not have true office suites is because the current means of inputting data are best left for devices with real keyboards.
> We can only speculate what is meant by "cleared." Did they clear the battery conditioning, so that he simply needed to continue with normal procedures to complete his trip? Or did they clear him in the sense that he could stop charging as well and should just head back, disregarding any future messages from the vehicle?
He was on a shepherded trip in the EV, with Tesla personnel dancing in attendance and verifying that what was planned would work. There is not a lot of doubt that "cleared" in this context means "advised him that continuing would not result in any problems." Assuming anything less also assumes incompetence on the part of the Tesla personnel, since their purpose was to ensure that the trip showed Tesla in a good light.
Again, even the word "continuing" does not give a clear picture. Continue in the sense of "pick up where you left off"? If this were the case, he'd have to ensure that the car was topped off. On the other hand, if continue means "ok, the conditioning is done, and we can probably even stop charging too" then you'd be right. If I was told "you're ok to continue" and I see that my gauge says "you're not going to make it" -- I would definitely bring this up with the support team to clarify what they mean by continue or cleared. "Should I still top off the battery?" "But what if my gauge says I'm short on distance?" All of this would have also been a part of my report -- especially if the support team specifically asked me to drive despite the gauge warning me otherwise, since this would be another shortcoming from Tesla. Now, not only does their car not drive the advertised range, their gauges also have issues. In my report, I would have mentioned how I was told to drive despite the gauge showing insufficient mileage, and that Tesla likely needed to tweak their sensors. However, the gauge was clearly fine, as the car did stop running just as the gauge had predicted. Going only off of what was originally written, my guess was that both the reporter and the support team should have done a better job of making sure the car would make it. Instead, what likely happened was that both sides probably assumed some level of competency of the other. And now neither side is willing to admit that they could have been better at evaluating the situation. That's just my hunch.
There is clearly an issue for Tesla given that a user was unable to complete a planned trip. I'm not trying to defend Tesla. I'm trying to hold this reporter to a basic standard of objective and clear reporting.
The more people like you try to defend Tesla, the more ridiculously unrealistic their cars start to look.
I doubt the average user is going to get a hotline through to Tesla technical support. And if they do need to, that in itself shows how far from being mature products they are.
If these are just tests, they should have done them before the cars went on sale to the public.
I'm not defending Tesla. What I am asking for is that reporters be a little bit more honest and not get so carried away in writing a sensational article to get more readers. All we have so far is this reporter's word whether Tesla's vehicle is as advertised. How are consumers supposed to make informed decisions if the reporter fails at his job? It's fine to pick and choose your words to make headlines, but at least proof read your own writing so that there aren't holes so large you can drive a truck through. I'm not a reporter, but I have the common sense to ask basic questions. If the reporter supposedly did make some hoopla about the distance gauge showing less miles than the distance to Milford, _and_ Tesla still instructed him to drive on, don't you think that would be in the article? That would make bigger news than the fact that the car fell short of advertised performance. Instead, he writes (and in the following order) that:
(1) he was "cleared" after having been asked to condition the battery
(2) he drove the vehicle even though the distance gauge showed that he would not make it
If there was some dispute with respect to (2), don't you think that would have been included in his article?
Just because the asteroid has metals that may be useful to us, what about materials mixed within that may pose as threats to the life on Earth? Even if we could mine the asteroid by somehow catching it, I sure hope the folks doing the planning have also considered the possible detriments to life that may also be an outcome of successfully catching this asteroid.
Mod parent down for mis-information. When the reporter got up in the morning, 2/3 of the miles did indeed disappear from the care overnight. Why did you leave out the rest of the article that would essentially refute your post? Here's the rest:
1) He was instructed to then condition the battery. After some time, the support team "cleared [him] to resume the trip to Milford." We can only speculate what is meant by "cleared." Did they clear the battery conditioning, so that he simply needed to continue with normal procedures to complete his trip? Or did they clear him in the sense that he could stop charging as well and should just head back, disregarding any future messages from the vehicle?
2) From the article: Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner, found an E.V. charging station about five miles away. If the display clearly showed that there was not enough range, why did the reporter not bring this up with the support team? Instead, he drove anyway. Is it a surprise, then, that he never made it back?