No, you're the clueless asshat. Just because a new product hasn't completely taken over the market for an older class of product and made it completely and utterly obsolete doesn't mean it's "unsuccessful", or that its adoption is "utter shit". You are a moron. Tesla is selling every single car they make, before they even make it. I don't know of many companies with that kind of customer demand, especially for vehicles costing well over $50k and frequently over $100k.
Additionally, Tesla isn't even the only maker of EVs, only the most expensive ones. The relatively inexpensive Nissan Leaf is doing quite well, and there's a bunch of other electric models out there too from other carmakers.
Right, but there's been plenty of evidence that these "small government" politicians are anything but, so it's entirely the fault of these idiot voters for believing their lies.
It doesn't matter. If you vote for politician A because he hates "the gays" like you do, then you have to know that along with that choice comes his stances on other issues, including supporting obsolete businesses.
No, it's not equivalent at all. You're claiming that the government "pays" people to buy these cars. It does not. It merely exempts them from paying a tax which gas-car buyers have to pay.
Governments do this all the time. Here in the US, we have taxes on cigarettes. This is to punish people for smoking. Does this mean that the government is paying me, a non-smoker, to avoid smoking? Of course not. I'm not getting any money from the government to avoid cigarettes. I am, however, saving money by not buying cigarettes, both in the cost of the cigarettes and also the tax piled on top (plus healthcare problems, cleaning bills, etc.).
To claim that the two are equivalent is quite simply wrong.
This is no different from Norway's tax on gas cars. It's to penalize people for buying such cars, just like how various European governments have taxes not just on cars, but on engine sizes (so people buying big-engine cars pay a lot more than people with small engines, and consequently people tend to choose smaller, higher-fuel-economy models). No one in Europe is "getting paid" to buy a car with a smaller engine, they're simply paying less in taxes than someone opting for the larger engine option. It's cheaper still to simply not buy a car at all, and just use public transit.
The problem is that the lousy lab partners are frequently very good at partnering up with the good ones, if they have social skills. The guys who have both lousy social skills and lousy academic skills end up dropping out and changing majors, so you end up graduating people in two groups, those with great academic skills and those with good social skills who know how to use the former.
So, basically, they are FORCING people to buy the Teslas in another state, thus screwing themselves out of several thousand dollars worth of sales taxes per car?
Wrong. You pay sales tax based on your residence, not the location of your purchase, for things like cars. Try going out-of-state and buying a car and verify it for yourself: the dealership collects sales tax based on your residence, and remits it to that state.
States don't bother enforcing this for things like groceries and other small things, because it's impractical. But for cars, they certainly do.
Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll [bizjournals.com] showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars.
That poll is likely bogus. A majority of voters in Texas elected politicians who oppose such sales.
The folklore schools teach about rulers as moral betters is starting to wear quite thin.
Frequently, rulers *are* moral betters. Look at Egypt: when the people there had democratic elections, they elected the Muslim Brotherhood. Luckily, the military staged a coup and took over. In Palestine, they elected Hamas. And here in the US, all these politicians who work to privatize gains and socialize losses are -- wait for it -- elected by the people!!!
As seen in places like Egypt, Zimbabwe, and the USA, letting the common people choose their leaders doesn't work out well when the populace is too stupid.
That's not what I read. What I read was that EVs are exempt from the huge taxes that gas cars are levied with (like 100% of the purchase price), so that makes them affordable compared to gas cars.
Labs and libraries have limited hours. If you need to stay up til midnight to get an assignment done, the library won't be open that long. Plus it seems like they're cheaping out on a lot of those facilities, so there might not be enough space in them, or any labs at all that you have access to.
Plus, there's plain ol' social pressure. "Let's just meet up at my apartment! There's plenty of space there, they don't close early, and we can eat our food there." (Libraries and labs do not allow food, and if you're working during dinner hours, you'll need to eat.)
If you never went through all of this, it sounds like you either didn't major in engineering, or you went to BYU or someplace like that.
People with older cars get new or rebuilt engines all the time. It's not that unusual, though usually it's done more for cars which hold their value better (like ones which have a lot of enthusiasts). There's even companies that specialize in selling fully remanufactured engines. They do cost a lot less than $20k though.
No, it'll massively decrease female enrollment, because they'll be afraid of getting stuck with some creeper for an assignment and being required to meet at his little apartment to do these assignments. It'll also mean that women who do enroll will be seen as having ridden on the coattails of her male study partners and not actually capable of the work themselves, so smart women will want to avoid this.
My experience in college was always that, in group projects (2-3 students), there was always one who was much stronger than the other(s). So for one students, getting an A depending on him doing most of the work, and for the other, it depended on him getting lucky with who he got partnered with. So the grades they received didn't reflect individual achievement at all, yet they still receive grades which reflect on them personally and are used to rate them personally by employers, the school (when deciding who's in the Dean's List), etc.
If you're going to make everything group-based, you should just eliminate grades altogether.
Wrong. It's easy to add other repositories so that you can add software from them, and keep that software automatically updated. Anyone can set up their own repository.
Well if the robot is built by a (now human-less) American robotics company, in (the former) USA, and sent back in time to assassinate/protect an American living in Los Angeles, I would think the machines would program it with an American accent.
We're talking about different movies. I got the title wrong, it's "The Beach". It came out in the 90s, and is about Leo finding this secret commune colony on an island near Thailand and living in it for a while before some drug growers get mad at them and kick them out.
Yep, that's about it. Too bad George didn't keep him (or other decent directors) for all the other movies he made.
And I'm not saying that episodes 4-6 were utterly fantastic movies in every way; obviously they had a good bit of camp (esp. #4), but that was part of the charm I think. They were never meant to be ultra-serious, "deep" movies with Oscar-winning performances (not that the Oscars are good indicators of performance quality these days anyway), they were meant to be visual feasts that were fun to watch while eating popcorn and watching it on a big screen. They had mildly interesting plots, decent characters, good comedic relief (thanks C3PO!), they weren't "dark" or "gritty", all in all they were great escapist entertainment, and while again not having top-of-the-line acting and script, what they had served the movies well.
That all changed with the Prequels. The plots weren't that bad and the characters might have been OK, the visuals were certainly great for the time (though too fake-looking, but lots of high-CGI movies of that era suffered the same problems), but the horrible acting and dialog really ruined it all, they broke the suspension of disbelief. (The obvious racist stereotypes in Ep.1 didn't help.) I've seen better acting on fan-made Star Trek episodes. And at least with the fan-made Star Trek stuff, you know going into it that this is what you're going to be watching. I don't expect to see amateurish acting in a $100M+ movie. And also, my expectations are much higher: I'm not forgiving of seeing a highly-paid professional actor deliver amateurish acting, while I am forgiving of an unpaid truly amateur actor deliver amateurish acting.
Big Bang Theory seems to do OK with a reasonable-sized apartment (not the huge places you see on things like Friends). It is a little suspicious how waitress Penny can afford her own place though, when her two physicist friends across the hall are sharing a place.
The ACLU isn't really "left", they're civil libertarians. The "left's" values only sometimes coincide with social libertarianism. It also depends on which part of the "left" you're talking about: like the right, they're a coalition of different interests who don't always agree: environmentalists, vegans, SJWs, progressives, secularists, communists, etc. are usually associated with the left, but these different groups have different aims and frequently disagree on things. On the right, there's the religious nutters, the big-business pushers, the economic libertarians, the imperialists and war-hawks, etc.
'really, everyone in this low-income school has a personal trainer and stylist? And these people manage to have perfect hair as soon as they wake up or after running through the mud?'
US shows (and Canadian ones aimed at the US market too) take this to an extreme in other ways too. Notice that shows about young, broke 20-somethings always have them living in luxurious houses and apartments, usually in swanky city centers where rent is astronomical?
The problem is that the Hollywood remakes aren't very good: they fail to include what made the original so great in the first place. We can see this perfectly with JJ Abram's Star Trek movies: lots of great effects, but a crappy story and over-the-top action without any of the philosophy or character development that made the original Star Trek special.
That's why you subject the ancient remedies to modern testing.
And even in cases where they're harmful, at the time it was probably better to suffer with the side-effects than have the original disease. It's no different today; every medication can have negative side effects; we're just better at designing and manufacturing drugs to minimize or eliminate these side effects than before.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're the clueless asshat. Just because a new product hasn't completely taken over the market for an older class of product and made it completely and utterly obsolete doesn't mean it's "unsuccessful", or that its adoption is "utter shit". You are a moron. Tesla is selling every single car they make, before they even make it. I don't know of many companies with that kind of customer demand, especially for vehicles costing well over $50k and frequently over $100k.
Additionally, Tesla isn't even the only maker of EVs, only the most expensive ones. The relatively inexpensive Nissan Leaf is doing quite well, and there's a bunch of other electric models out there too from other carmakers.
Right, but there's been plenty of evidence that these "small government" politicians are anything but, so it's entirely the fault of these idiot voters for believing their lies.
It doesn't matter. If you vote for politician A because he hates "the gays" like you do, then you have to know that along with that choice comes his stances on other issues, including supporting obsolete businesses.
No, it's not equivalent at all. You're claiming that the government "pays" people to buy these cars. It does not. It merely exempts them from paying a tax which gas-car buyers have to pay.
Governments do this all the time. Here in the US, we have taxes on cigarettes. This is to punish people for smoking. Does this mean that the government is paying me, a non-smoker, to avoid smoking? Of course not. I'm not getting any money from the government to avoid cigarettes. I am, however, saving money by not buying cigarettes, both in the cost of the cigarettes and also the tax piled on top (plus healthcare problems, cleaning bills, etc.).
To claim that the two are equivalent is quite simply wrong.
This is no different from Norway's tax on gas cars. It's to penalize people for buying such cars, just like how various European governments have taxes not just on cars, but on engine sizes (so people buying big-engine cars pay a lot more than people with small engines, and consequently people tend to choose smaller, higher-fuel-economy models). No one in Europe is "getting paid" to buy a car with a smaller engine, they're simply paying less in taxes than someone opting for the larger engine option. It's cheaper still to simply not buy a car at all, and just use public transit.
The problem is that the lousy lab partners are frequently very good at partnering up with the good ones, if they have social skills. The guys who have both lousy social skills and lousy academic skills end up dropping out and changing majors, so you end up graduating people in two groups, those with great academic skills and those with good social skills who know how to use the former.
So, basically, they are FORCING people to buy the Teslas in another state, thus screwing themselves out of several thousand dollars worth of sales taxes per car?
Wrong. You pay sales tax based on your residence, not the location of your purchase, for things like cars. Try going out-of-state and buying a car and verify it for yourself: the dealership collects sales tax based on your residence, and remits it to that state.
States don't bother enforcing this for things like groceries and other small things, because it's impractical. But for cars, they certainly do.
Although I could not find a poll for Virginia, a Texas poll [bizjournals.com] showed 85% of people in favor of allowing direct-to-consumer sales of cars.
That poll is likely bogus. A majority of voters in Texas elected politicians who oppose such sales.
The folklore schools teach about rulers as moral betters is starting to wear quite thin.
Frequently, rulers *are* moral betters. Look at Egypt: when the people there had democratic elections, they elected the Muslim Brotherhood. Luckily, the military staged a coup and took over. In Palestine, they elected Hamas. And here in the US, all these politicians who work to privatize gains and socialize losses are -- wait for it -- elected by the people!!!
As seen in places like Egypt, Zimbabwe, and the USA, letting the common people choose their leaders doesn't work out well when the populace is too stupid.
That's not what I read. What I read was that EVs are exempt from the huge taxes that gas cars are levied with (like 100% of the purchase price), so that makes them affordable compared to gas cars.
Labs and libraries have limited hours. If you need to stay up til midnight to get an assignment done, the library won't be open that long. Plus it seems like they're cheaping out on a lot of those facilities, so there might not be enough space in them, or any labs at all that you have access to.
Plus, there's plain ol' social pressure. "Let's just meet up at my apartment! There's plenty of space there, they don't close early, and we can eat our food there." (Libraries and labs do not allow food, and if you're working during dinner hours, you'll need to eat.)
If you never went through all of this, it sounds like you either didn't major in engineering, or you went to BYU or someplace like that.
Tens of thousands of people per year can apparently afford Teslas just fine, including lots of people in Norway.
Just because you're too broke to afford them doesn't mean that no one is.
People with older cars get new or rebuilt engines all the time. It's not that unusual, though usually it's done more for cars which hold their value better (like ones which have a lot of enthusiasts). There's even companies that specialize in selling fully remanufactured engines. They do cost a lot less than $20k though.
No, it'll massively decrease female enrollment, because they'll be afraid of getting stuck with some creeper for an assignment and being required to meet at his little apartment to do these assignments. It'll also mean that women who do enroll will be seen as having ridden on the coattails of her male study partners and not actually capable of the work themselves, so smart women will want to avoid this.
My experience in college was always that, in group projects (2-3 students), there was always one who was much stronger than the other(s). So for one students, getting an A depending on him doing most of the work, and for the other, it depended on him getting lucky with who he got partnered with. So the grades they received didn't reflect individual achievement at all, yet they still receive grades which reflect on them personally and are used to rate them personally by employers, the school (when deciding who's in the Dean's List), etc.
If you're going to make everything group-based, you should just eliminate grades altogether.
Wrong. It's easy to add other repositories so that you can add software from them, and keep that software automatically updated. Anyone can set up their own repository.
Well if the robot is built by a (now human-less) American robotics company, in (the former) USA, and sent back in time to assassinate/protect an American living in Los Angeles, I would think the machines would program it with an American accent.
and I look forward to the day when all humans have been replaced by them.
We're talking about different movies. I got the title wrong, it's "The Beach". It came out in the 90s, and is about Leo finding this secret commune colony on an island near Thailand and living in it for a while before some drug growers get mad at them and kick them out.
Yep, that's about it. Too bad George didn't keep him (or other decent directors) for all the other movies he made.
And I'm not saying that episodes 4-6 were utterly fantastic movies in every way; obviously they had a good bit of camp (esp. #4), but that was part of the charm I think. They were never meant to be ultra-serious, "deep" movies with Oscar-winning performances (not that the Oscars are good indicators of performance quality these days anyway), they were meant to be visual feasts that were fun to watch while eating popcorn and watching it on a big screen. They had mildly interesting plots, decent characters, good comedic relief (thanks C3PO!), they weren't "dark" or "gritty", all in all they were great escapist entertainment, and while again not having top-of-the-line acting and script, what they had served the movies well.
That all changed with the Prequels. The plots weren't that bad and the characters might have been OK, the visuals were certainly great for the time (though too fake-looking, but lots of high-CGI movies of that era suffered the same problems), but the horrible acting and dialog really ruined it all, they broke the suspension of disbelief. (The obvious racist stereotypes in Ep.1 didn't help.) I've seen better acting on fan-made Star Trek episodes. And at least with the fan-made Star Trek stuff, you know going into it that this is what you're going to be watching. I don't expect to see amateurish acting in a $100M+ movie. And also, my expectations are much higher: I'm not forgiving of seeing a highly-paid professional actor deliver amateurish acting, while I am forgiving of an unpaid truly amateur actor deliver amateurish acting.
Leonardo was in several great roles before Titanic proving his acting ability, including Gilbert Grape and The Island.
Big Bang Theory seems to do OK with a reasonable-sized apartment (not the huge places you see on things like Friends). It is a little suspicious how waitress Penny can afford her own place though, when her two physicist friends across the hall are sharing a place.
The ACLU isn't really "left", they're civil libertarians. The "left's" values only sometimes coincide with social libertarianism. It also depends on which part of the "left" you're talking about: like the right, they're a coalition of different interests who don't always agree: environmentalists, vegans, SJWs, progressives, secularists, communists, etc. are usually associated with the left, but these different groups have different aims and frequently disagree on things. On the right, there's the religious nutters, the big-business pushers, the economic libertarians, the imperialists and war-hawks, etc.
'really, everyone in this low-income school has a personal trainer and stylist? And these people manage to have perfect hair as soon as they wake up or after running through the mud?'
US shows (and Canadian ones aimed at the US market too) take this to an extreme in other ways too. Notice that shows about young, broke 20-somethings always have them living in luxurious houses and apartments, usually in swanky city centers where rent is astronomical?
The problem is that the Hollywood remakes aren't very good: they fail to include what made the original so great in the first place. We can see this perfectly with JJ Abram's Star Trek movies: lots of great effects, but a crappy story and over-the-top action without any of the philosophy or character development that made the original Star Trek special.
That's why you subject the ancient remedies to modern testing.
And even in cases where they're harmful, at the time it was probably better to suffer with the side-effects than have the original disease. It's no different today; every medication can have negative side effects; we're just better at designing and manufacturing drugs to minimize or eliminate these side effects than before.