Actually, it's the answer for a question a lot of people asked.
But some stupid people don't know how to ask the right questions. Like...
- How do I move my whole family, and pick up grandma from the hospital. - How do I fit all these packages, or cakes for delivery. - How do I shuttle people around town?
Now the Model X is an answer to a different question. How do I do all of the above, and NOT hurt the environment so much.
And it's a darn good answer.
And then, when that answer exists, morons like you who attack the SUV will have no reason to do so. At which point, you'll simply look stupid.
Because I am pretty sure the numbers are no where close to your posting.
I'd wager about 84% support the earth is warming, 74% support man influenced warming, 67% warming due to man made CO2, and 14% that the earth is in fact cooling.
It's bad laws that are formed around new technology moguls.
I'll explain. There was no literary piracy before the printing press. The common way of gaining a copy of a book was to write a copy yourself (or pay a scribe) to do it.
There never was any stigmatism in borrowing a book from a friend and having a servant copy it for you. It was how ALL literary works were produced.
Then came the printing press. Now I could easily print a 100, or even a 1,000 copies.
Suddenly, it was piracy. Before this time, the equivalent of piracy was if someone claimed authorship of a book (ie: plagiarism). To which I do adhere to as a wrong doing for such is a falsehood.
But soon we will be able to print houses. And just you wait. Suddenly that box or cement igloo will find itself the target of a copyright violation.
It's damnably surprising that one can still draw circles and squares without being sued.
Piracy - originally a violent theft (usually at sea). Equivalent of a mugging. But they've changed it to simply mean unauthorized use.
Theft - the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Wait, have the downloaders deprived ANYONE of any tangible property? Nope...once again, RIAA has changed meaning to unauthorized use.
So if "unauthorized use" can mean theft and piracy. Then SOPA can mean censorship.
I know Bhuddists who would say it's not a religion. Many Christians would say Christianity isn't a religion. But the basic usage of religion in context is as a "set of beliefs". Atheism is a belief system. To deny such would be irrational.
When you say someone can't follow the beliefs they want, then you're stepping over the bounds.
When you say you should be free to follow your belief system, I will support you in that.
I'm not Wiccan, but I think they should have the right to have their 5 point star on the military graves.
Or none...
But atheists get to the point of extreme irrationality, as all dogmatic belief systems tend to do. And you get people who think there should be no crosses on grave stones in government owned cemetaries.
Crazy stuff like that....is just as crazy as any other religious nut job.
"The fear is that our first amendment protections are incredibly ineffective."
How so, you are protected to do as you please. Not be absolved from others in society doing as they please.
And I think too many atheists waste their time crusading for their faith. Rather than for the rational.
Example: Demanding a menorah or nativity scene be taken down from a common public area is NOT part of the First Amendment.
Having equal access to do a display of your own faith or celebrate Darwin's birthday is.
So when you demand a nativity is taken down, you are forcing the government to violate the First Amendment by declaring the other party's beliefs as unacceptable. This is in fact what the First Amendment was written to protect against.
Likewise, when the military doesn't allow a 5 point star, or a spaghetti monster on the grave stone of a fallen soldier who was a wiccan or atheist, that IS a violation of the First Amendment, and I will support you in that cause.
party's members adopted their 2010â"2012 program at their online convention held in May 2010. Its five main points are 1) End the Wars of Aggression and withdraw US troops from around the world, 2) End the Federal Reserve Banking System, 3) End the War on Drugs, 4) End Abuses of Liberty such as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, 5) End the Immigration Fiasco by eliminating government restrictions on human migration.[8]
Now mind you, it's not so much a "we support drugs", as it is "prohibition" is leading to organized crime, and for what....personal liberty of someone to ruin their life or not. They can ruin it perfectly with alcohol just as easily with heroine.
But the liberties we are losing because of the 'War on Drugs' - THAT IS THE ISSUE!
Please try to show me what issue of freedom the Tea Party is opposing. And try to do something besides "abortion".
Seriously...
Tea Party has opposed Patriot Act, TSA, SOPA, supported Net Neutrality, argued that government shouldn't even be involved in marriage, argued to end the drug war.
Okay, granted, the Tea Party has argued for tighter border controls. I'll give you that...
The sad thing is how many on the left attack the Tea Party, not understanding that the Tea Party is the more libertarian wing.
In otherwords, many may believe in God, but they're less inclined to impose their beliefs. They may not be pro-homosexuality, but they feel the government shouldn't be in the marriage business or in people's home lives.
All the talk of retarded, invasive, etc, fits the traditional big party conservative type. But not the Tea Party.
Sadly, the establishment (made up of both Democrats and Republicans who want to simply maintain their appearance of separation and ability to be the elected powers) have worked hard to ensure that the Tea Party and OWS movements are mis-perceived.
Now, if you want to oppose the Tea Party on their fiscal conservative, balance the budget, stop deficit spending, platform. Go right ahead.
But if you support that platform, you really need to take a look at the Tea Party with more open eyes.
Just as most on the right need to look at the OWS movement with more open eyes.
Both have their flaws, but are more akin that either the D or R parties.
Are you aware that there is a Tea Party candidate actively trying to unseat him.
That's what people don't realize. The Democrat primaries are electing candidates to run against the Republicans.
In the Republican primaries, the Republican Party is trying to use nearly every trick it has in the books to keep libertarian / Tea Party members from winning in the primaries.
Often those who do win, are more conservative and less libertarian. You can see this in the presidential primary with Ron Paul. You have no idea how much the party proper is doing to impede Ron Paul supporters.
Even supporters who have been elected as delegates, etc. Have to deal with the party impediments (party failing to mail forms, or provide credentials, really really dirty politics folks).
That's because we actually all have more in common then we realize.
Tea Party & OWS has more in common with each other, and less in common with either the Republicans or Democrats. Likewise, Republican and Democrat parties have more in common with each other than either do with the Tea Party or OWS
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla is not marketing to us yet. They're progressing down the class ladder.
The Roadster was for elites, the S & X are for upper middle class (the people driving the porsches, beemers, mercedes, escalades, etc).
And in that upper-middle class range, the Tesla S & X are in fact very well pried for the performance and luxury
They'll get to us in about 5 years.
They're hinged/articulated, my understanding is that you don't need much space between you and the neighboring car.
Actually, it's the answer for a question a lot of people asked.
But some stupid people don't know how to ask the right questions. Like...
- How do I move my whole family, and pick up grandma from the hospital.
- How do I fit all these packages, or cakes for delivery.
- How do I shuttle people around town?
Now the Model X is an answer to a different question. How do I do all of the above, and NOT hurt the environment so much.
And it's a darn good answer.
And then, when that answer exists, morons like you who attack the SUV will have no reason to do so. At which point, you'll simply look stupid.
The +5 I'll take. But I figured it'd be humorous as opposed to insightful.
But hey, maybe it's insightful about how nice San Diego weather is.
I think you're thinking of Fisker. Which basically built the equivalent of a Chevy Volt but want twice as much for it.
Tesla has started out as a premium brand and is working their way down the classes to the masses.
Roadster - elites (Ferrari, etc)
Model S - BMW/Mercedes/Porsche equiv
Model X - Lexus/Cadillac SUV drivers
I expect they'll move down the masses.
Model E - everyone, the Chevy. It'll be about $5,000 more than a chevy. And a lot more frills.
Model T - Truck to compete with Ford and Chevy
Range 250-300 miles.
Seriously, I commute a 100+ miles a day. And this will work just fine for me.
That's just about enough to get you from Philly to Pittsburgh. And with the money you save on gas, you can always rent a mini-van for a longer trip...
And the expected cost is not that much more than a fully-loaded Toyota Sequoia.
You mean...the earth's climate is an equilibrium that tends to balance itself out?
More CO2, increased plant growth. More ice melt, more precipitation.
(Or is all that water simply what landed in Japan from the tsunami?)
I thought that's what Pink Pistols was for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols
I agree....
In my childhood, it was always sunny, seldom a rainy day, it was never too hot, never too cold.
Now, it's gets bloody cold, lots of snow, extremely humid, all in just 20 years time.
Maybe I shouldn't have moved from San Diego to the northeast. *ponder*
[Citation]
Because I am pretty sure the numbers are no where close to your posting.
I'd wager about 84% support the earth is warming, 74% support man influenced warming, 67% warming due to man made CO2, and 14% that the earth is in fact cooling.
As you didn't provide a citation, neither will I.
Hmm...let's be honest here.
It's bad laws that are formed around new technology moguls.
I'll explain. There was no literary piracy before the printing press. The common way of gaining a copy of a book was to write a copy yourself (or pay a scribe) to do it.
There never was any stigmatism in borrowing a book from a friend and having a servant copy it for you. It was how ALL literary works were produced.
Then came the printing press. Now I could easily print a 100, or even a 1,000 copies.
Suddenly, it was piracy. Before this time, the equivalent of piracy was if someone claimed authorship of a book (ie: plagiarism). To which I do adhere to as a wrong doing for such is a falsehood.
But soon we will be able to print houses. And just you wait. Suddenly that box or cement igloo will find itself the target of a copyright violation.
It's damnably surprising that one can still draw circles and squares without being sued.
Except that might ruin Mr. Sandy the Lizard's habitat.
So ixnay on that huge solar farm okay...
- Signed whiny green pants
Seriously, RIAA has some balls....
Piracy - originally a violent theft (usually at sea). Equivalent of a mugging. But they've changed it to simply mean unauthorized use.
Theft - the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Wait, have the downloaders deprived ANYONE of any tangible property? Nope...once again, RIAA has changed meaning to unauthorized use.
So if "unauthorized use" can mean theft and piracy. Then SOPA can mean censorship.
Twitter has repeatedly been used in life saving situations. Therefore, we the .gov, must ensure it's ability to function.
Hi, please insert these tentacles into the Twitter system and relay every message through Langley. OKay THANX...
I CAN HAV MORE TAXBURGER NOW?
Oh my apologies, the truth hurts. And I forget Liberals can't handle the truth.
I posted elsewhere with the citation, but here it is again.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122441095
I know Bhuddists who would say it's not a religion. Many Christians would say Christianity isn't a religion. But the basic usage of religion in context is as a "set of beliefs". Atheism is a belief system. To deny such would be irrational.
When you say someone can't follow the beliefs they want, then you're stepping over the bounds.
When you say you should be free to follow your belief system, I will support you in that.
I'm not Wiccan, but I think they should have the right to have their 5 point star on the military graves.
Or none...
But atheists get to the point of extreme irrationality, as all dogmatic belief systems tend to do. And you get people who think there should be no crosses on grave stones in government owned cemetaries.
Crazy stuff like that....is just as crazy as any other religious nut job.
Likewise,
Well, it could be that death is not quite the same thing to God as it is to us.
Think of it more akin to a father welcoming his son home from Iraq.
"The fear is that our first amendment protections are incredibly ineffective."
How so, you are protected to do as you please. Not be absolved from others in society doing as they please.
And I think too many atheists waste their time crusading for their faith. Rather than for the rational.
Example: Demanding a menorah or nativity scene be taken down from a common public area is NOT part of the First Amendment.
Having equal access to do a display of your own faith or celebrate Darwin's birthday is.
So when you demand a nativity is taken down, you are forcing the government to violate the First Amendment by declaring the other party's beliefs as unacceptable. This is in fact what the First Amendment was written to protect against.
Likewise, when the military doesn't allow a 5 point star, or a spaghetti monster on the grave stone of a fallen soldier who was a wiccan or atheist, that IS a violation of the First Amendment, and I will support you in that cause.
party's members adopted their 2010â"2012 program at their online convention held in May 2010. Its five main points are 1) End the Wars of Aggression and withdraw US troops from around the world, 2) End the Federal Reserve Banking System, 3) End the War on Drugs, 4) End Abuses of Liberty such as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, 5) End the Immigration Fiasco by eliminating government restrictions on human migration.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)
Ron Paul
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm
Now mind you, it's not so much a "we support drugs", as it is "prohibition" is leading to organized crime, and for what....personal liberty of someone to ruin their life or not. They can ruin it perfectly with alcohol just as easily with heroine.
But the liberties we are losing because of the 'War on Drugs' - THAT IS THE ISSUE!
"Tea Party"
Please try to show me what issue of freedom the Tea Party is opposing. And try to do something besides "abortion".
Seriously...
Tea Party has opposed Patriot Act, TSA, SOPA, supported Net Neutrality, argued that government shouldn't even be involved in marriage, argued to end the drug war.
Okay, granted, the Tea Party has argued for tighter border controls. I'll give you that...
Democrats oppose everything by Republicans. In fact, in 2009 Democrats voted as a block 91%, and Republicans 85%.
In other words, Democrats are significantly more so the partisan party of no.
The sad thing is how many on the left attack the Tea Party, not understanding that the Tea Party is the more libertarian wing.
In otherwords, many may believe in God, but they're less inclined to impose their beliefs. They may not be pro-homosexuality, but they feel the government shouldn't be in the marriage business or in people's home lives.
All the talk of retarded, invasive, etc, fits the traditional big party conservative type. But not the Tea Party.
Sadly, the establishment (made up of both Democrats and Republicans who want to simply maintain their appearance of separation and ability to be the elected powers) have worked hard to ensure that the Tea Party and OWS movements are mis-perceived.
Now, if you want to oppose the Tea Party on their fiscal conservative, balance the budget, stop deficit spending, platform. Go right ahead.
But if you support that platform, you really need to take a look at the Tea Party with more open eyes.
Just as most on the right need to look at the OWS movement with more open eyes.
Both have their flaws, but are more akin that either the D or R parties.
Actually many in the Tea Party support the ending of the drug war. It's a common platform issue at most events.
Are you aware that there is a Tea Party candidate actively trying to unseat him.
That's what people don't realize. The Democrat primaries are electing candidates to run against the Republicans.
In the Republican primaries, the Republican Party is trying to use nearly every trick it has in the books to keep libertarian / Tea Party members from winning in the primaries.
Often those who do win, are more conservative and less libertarian. You can see this in the presidential primary with Ron Paul. You have no idea how much the party proper is doing to impede Ron Paul supporters.
Even supporters who have been elected as delegates, etc. Have to deal with the party impediments (party failing to mail forms, or provide credentials, really really dirty politics folks).
"Most on the left hate it"
That's because we actually all have more in common then we realize.
Tea Party & OWS has more in common with each other, and less in common with either the Republicans or Democrats. Likewise, Republican and Democrat parties have more in common with each other than either do with the Tea Party or OWS