I liked an idea floated around a while back about a special license being required to drive supercars on public roads. If you can afford the car, you can afford the license and special training.
The best braking performance is right before the tires lock up and start skidding. After that, braking force diminishes greatly. This is why people were taught to quickly pump the breaks -- hit the brakes, sense a lockup, let off, hit the brakes again. ABS does this automatically, and far faster than any person can. It can also do it on each tire independently, something impossible for a person.
ABS will give the shortest braking distance physically possible, with the exception of surfaces like loose gravel, where you want the tires to lock up so they can plow into the gravel, pushing it ahead of the tire, making the car stop.
Other drivers are putting my life at risk because they simply can't drive and are inattentive. No amount of gadgetry makes up for that.
I'd rather have a competent driver in a bare-bones sports car on the road with me than a clueless housewife in an Escalade with all the "safety" gadgets, putting on makeup and reading her texts while trying to keep the kids quiet.
That's what happened when the first generation Lotus Elise started hitting the second-hand market, coming within the financial reach of young FWD hot hatch drivers.
What Sobey's did do right was start selling cheap reusable nylon and canvas bags, which they would replace if ever the bag was damaged.
Your solution to help the environment does not involve a new tax or added government regulation on the activities of the people; therefore, it is rejected.
You either support an expansive individual rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights, or you support an limited individual rights interpretation with expansive government powers. If you support the latter, you support tyranny.
The ACLU is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. On every one of the BoR they support and actively defend the individual rights interpretation -- except for the 2nd. Somehow, for only that one amendment, they take a collective rights view and support expansive government powers at the expense of individual rights.
You probably don't trust when the oil companies run studies that disagree with AGW theory. That's because there's a profit motive, and that makes their results inherently suspect.
During the last ice age the world-wide population of Homo sapiens dropped down to a few thousand. We are desperately dependent on a stable climate for our survival.
With the level of technology and ease of transportation of thousands of years ago, I could see how that would be a problem.
ABS was common by the 80s, standard on all but cheapest cars in the 90s, and pretty much standard as of the 2000s. Tesla expects to have a $35K car by 2017. I'd expect to see the higher-mileage cars in that price range by the 2020s, with the smaler ones going into the $20K range.
"Not ready" for what? For the low-cost masses? No. But the Model S shows it is definitely ready for the luxury sports sedan market. Now it's time for the trickle-down.
Me, I don't want to live in a world where one group of people decides when another group should die.
I think she needs to look at herself in this context. She is part of a group that gets to decide when others die, and against the will of those people. Her opponents want to let those people decide themselves.
Those who believe in tyranny will always interpret the Constitution in the most strict manner in regards to individual freedom, and most expansive for government power, as you have shown in the case of the 4th. Those who believe in freedom will always look for the interpretation that most supports and protects individual rights and limits government infringement upon them.
What I find hilarious is that a large number of people standing next to you claiming to be on the freedom side suddenly turn to the tyrannical side with it comes to the Second Amendment.
Tesla is the first company to reall rethink electric cars, to finally make them ground-up electric with an eye on making them as fast and convenient as an ICE. Even most hybrids are still inefficient, overly-complicated crap.
As with many technologies, this starts expensive and then trickles down. Four-wheel ABS was only on the Mercedes S-Class in the 70s, and now it's standard on most cars. After the Model S, Tesla is planning a crossover-SUV type car that is supposed to cost much less, down into the mid-high range of that class. In the following years expect a smaller hatchback/sedan and a pickup truck.
They understood how the law works. That is why they are so surprised right now. Infringement payments are for the little guy sharing songs or movies in order to protect corporate profit, not for the corporations that use images for profit without permisison. The little guy isn't supposed to have any recourse.
I would hope that any military has drawn up plans on the potential deployment of any of its weapons against any remotely potential adversary. If they're doing less than that, it's time to fire whoever's in charge.
Now feel free to ignore this, but imagine someone like Harry Reid being hit by a hellfire
Don't tease.
Its only a matter of time before others use them against the US, and while it is expensive/difficult to do so with a nuke, it is entirely possible with a drone.
And entirely possible with a conventional aircraft.
Be careful of statements of subsidies to fossil fuel makers. Some of that is regular overseas tax credit that applies to all in order to avoid double taxation. Other is not paying tax on income diverted to sick and disabled miners. Others are tax breaks they get on making things less polluting, so pro-environmental.
And all those billions of dollars that go to keep the houses of low-income people heated? That's not counted as "welfare," but as an oil industry subsidy.
Prop 13 allows for reassessment in the cases of property transfer and completed construction. I think the $5 billion spaceship would count as completed construction.
The entire law was crafted for the copyright industry. The only reason that clause is there is because the copyright cartel didn't want anyone else being able to claim to be speaking for them. There is no loophole. That is the intent along with the rest of the law. They absolutely intended to be able to control and intimidate.
If you want a loophole, it's the whole safe harbor provision. The copyright cartel considers it to be one, see Viacom vs. Google. It was inserted because the ISPs realized how damaging the DMCA could be to them. Even with that, the copyright cartel ensured that if there is one, it would be friendly to them, although they didn't count having to fight Google/YouTube because those didn't exist back then.
A possible loophole is that one of us could play the same game, send a takedown notice about WB content on an ISP contracted by WB saying it violates our copyright, which has nothing to do with the content. It's not perjury as long as we say the latest movie has a line from the blog post we made last year (maybe a common sentence you could see anywhere).
The problem is, corporations like WB get special consideration -- their content won't be immediately taken down like it is for us.
Let's see, the city gets thousands of Apple employees moved in. Construction alone is expected to net the city almost $40 million. And then there are recurring property taxes for a property that will now be worth billions. The city also gets a shabby built-up area converted to something that is 80% landscaped and environmentally friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked an idea floated around a while back about a special license being required to drive supercars on public roads. If you can afford the car, you can afford the license and special training.
The best braking performance is right before the tires lock up and start skidding. After that, braking force diminishes greatly. This is why people were taught to quickly pump the breaks -- hit the brakes, sense a lockup, let off, hit the brakes again. ABS does this automatically, and far faster than any person can. It can also do it on each tire independently, something impossible for a person.
ABS will give the shortest braking distance physically possible, with the exception of surfaces like loose gravel, where you want the tires to lock up so they can plow into the gravel, pushing it ahead of the tire, making the car stop.
Other drivers are putting my life at risk because they simply can't drive and are inattentive. No amount of gadgetry makes up for that.
I'd rather have a competent driver in a bare-bones sports car on the road with me than a clueless housewife in an Escalade with all the "safety" gadgets, putting on makeup and reading her texts while trying to keep the kids quiet.
That's what happened when the first generation Lotus Elise started hitting the second-hand market, coming within the financial reach of young FWD hot hatch drivers.
These cars serve a purpose.
Your solution to help the environment does not involve a new tax or added government regulation on the activities of the people; therefore, it is rejected.
You either support an expansive individual rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights, or you support an limited individual rights interpretation with expansive government powers. If you support the latter, you support tyranny.
The ACLU is a perfect example of this hypocrisy. On every one of the BoR they support and actively defend the individual rights interpretation -- except for the 2nd. Somehow, for only that one amendment, they take a collective rights view and support expansive government powers at the expense of individual rights.
You probably don't trust when the oil companies run studies that disagree with AGW theory. That's because there's a profit motive, and that makes their results inherently suspect.
Now apply that sentiment equally.
With the level of technology and ease of transportation of thousands of years ago, I could see how that would be a problem.
ABS was common by the 80s, standard on all but cheapest cars in the 90s, and pretty much standard as of the 2000s. Tesla expects to have a $35K car by 2017. I'd expect to see the higher-mileage cars in that price range by the 2020s, with the smaler ones going into the $20K range.
"Not ready" for what? For the low-cost masses? No. But the Model S shows it is definitely ready for the luxury sports sedan market. Now it's time for the trickle-down.
I think she needs to look at herself in this context. She is part of a group that gets to decide when others die, and against the will of those people. Her opponents want to let those people decide themselves.
Those who believe in tyranny will always interpret the Constitution in the most strict manner in regards to individual freedom, and most expansive for government power, as you have shown in the case of the 4th. Those who believe in freedom will always look for the interpretation that most supports and protects individual rights and limits government infringement upon them.
What I find hilarious is that a large number of people standing next to you claiming to be on the freedom side suddenly turn to the tyrannical side with it comes to the Second Amendment.
Tesla is the first company to reall rethink electric cars, to finally make them ground-up electric with an eye on making them as fast and convenient as an ICE. Even most hybrids are still inefficient, overly-complicated crap.
As with many technologies, this starts expensive and then trickles down. Four-wheel ABS was only on the Mercedes S-Class in the 70s, and now it's standard on most cars. After the Model S, Tesla is planning a crossover-SUV type car that is supposed to cost much less, down into the mid-high range of that class. In the following years expect a smaller hatchback/sedan and a pickup truck.
Six years into his presidency and we're finally blaming Obama for things? Good, because "Bush's fault" was getting old.
They understood how the law works. That is why they are so surprised right now. Infringement payments are for the little guy sharing songs or movies in order to protect corporate profit, not for the corporations that use images for profit without permisison. The little guy isn't supposed to have any recourse.
I would hope that any military has drawn up plans on the potential deployment of any of its weapons against any remotely potential adversary. If they're doing less than that, it's time to fire whoever's in charge.
Don't tease.
And entirely possible with a conventional aircraft.
Be careful of statements of subsidies to fossil fuel makers. Some of that is regular overseas tax credit that applies to all in order to avoid double taxation. Other is not paying tax on income diverted to sick and disabled miners. Others are tax breaks they get on making things less polluting, so pro-environmental.
And all those billions of dollars that go to keep the houses of low-income people heated? That's not counted as "welfare," but as an oil industry subsidy.
Best solution to your problem: Stop allowing politicians to pick winners and losers, period.
Who knows, maybe principle. In any case, the city will get far more than it's negotiated away. Apple is already the biggerst single taxpayer.
Prop 13 allows for reassessment in the cases of property transfer and completed construction. I think the $5 billion spaceship would count as completed construction.
The infidels should be banned from this holy site.
The entire law was crafted for the copyright industry. The only reason that clause is there is because the copyright cartel didn't want anyone else being able to claim to be speaking for them. There is no loophole. That is the intent along with the rest of the law. They absolutely intended to be able to control and intimidate.
If you want a loophole, it's the whole safe harbor provision. The copyright cartel considers it to be one, see Viacom vs. Google. It was inserted because the ISPs realized how damaging the DMCA could be to them. Even with that, the copyright cartel ensured that if there is one, it would be friendly to them, although they didn't count having to fight Google/YouTube because those didn't exist back then.
A possible loophole is that one of us could play the same game, send a takedown notice about WB content on an ISP contracted by WB saying it violates our copyright, which has nothing to do with the content. It's not perjury as long as we say the latest movie has a line from the blog post we made last year (maybe a common sentence you could see anywhere).
The problem is, corporations like WB get special consideration -- their content won't be immediately taken down like it is for us.
Let's see, the city gets thousands of Apple employees moved in. Construction alone is expected to net the city almost $40 million. And then there are recurring property taxes for a property that will now be worth billions. The city also gets a shabby built-up area converted to something that is 80% landscaped and environmentally friendly.
It would be that much energy if it actually stopped the car. But good point, wedged into the ground.
Whatever it is, it's a hell of a lot of energy, more than enough to pierce a regular car's gas tank.