Charging a battery, in cold weather or otherwise, is hardly new tech. All of these problems sound like they could have been avoided with some decent QA, save for the bulky batteries, which the buyers should have noticed before purchasing the vehicle.
I don't think living in walkable neighborhoods would do a lot of good. Most people's only long commute is to and from work. To walk to and from work you'd have to move pretty much every time you got a new job, and that's just us office dwellers. People with jobs where they actually need to be different places every day, or periodically change job sites, would still need to drive.
Personally, I was offered $250 by my company's health insurance plan if I signed something that said I had not used tobacco products in the past 6 months.
Sounds like a trap to me. What would be the purpose of this? Maybe it would make sense if they offered you money to promise not to smoke for the next 6 months, but I do not understand why they would want to merely give away money to the non-users. Are they trying to develop excuses to cancel people's policies?
All the proposed solutions for reducing CO2 emissions (other than the unproven climate engineering) have a huge net negative impact on global GDP. Even if we are able to make these sacrifices in the first world, a large proportion of the world's population currently has a low carbon footprint only because they are impoverished. Carbon regulation, uniformly implemented, will set back the cause of raising these population's standards of living. Exempting the developing world from carbon regulation doesn't work either. Because of the sheer number of people living in poverty, even a drastic reduction by the rich world will be quickly offset.
That's just the practical side of the problem. Imagine the politics. I am skeptical that the whole world could be united to solve any global problem. So far we can't even keep the whole planet fed.
From what exactly does this protect you if you get audited? For instance, if I make a very large purchase in a tax free state, the estimate is probably way low. So is the deal that it only protects you by making sure you overpay in the average case, or does it reduce the penalties if you actually owe more?
Usually we defer to the preference of the person in question, and to a lesser extent the need to distinguish him from other living or historically significant persons. Think George W. Bush. Not sure where you're hearing BHO though. It has been emphasized to "link" him to Islam. But really that usage tends to come from a pretty small segment of conspiracy theorists who believe he is a crypto-Muslim. Mainstream political opponents of his avoid his middle name just to avoid being linked with those folks.
You're looking in the wrong place for reasoned opposition. I was watching CSPAN on Saturday, and the Republican Congresspeople were making very reasonable arguments against the bill: like the fact that we can't afford it, and the fact that it is likely to lead to higher unemployment. Actually it was the democrats who were fighting amongst themselves over whether the bill needed to specifically defund abortion.
The cynical view: the less editing she does, the more books they can fill, the more money they make. Of course this applied equally to both of them during his life.
Some schools focus more on undergrad education than others. Unfortunately, they don't get a lot of credit in the rankings or respect for doing so. They get more credit for research (which leads to peer respect, a very important measure), admissions selectivity, having a good football team, and alumni giving rates. These are nice things, mind you, but are only peripherally related to giving undergrads a good education. I would recommend trying to work around the professors who are poor teachers and engaging in things that your school is really good at.
No it's worse than that. The utility calculates how much energy you "should" use. They actually penalize people for living in small houses or apartments with lots of gadgets while subsidizing those who own large houses that they air condition all summer.
Did you read the summary? The whole point of this is so California doesn't have to build a power plant. Most other states are not perpetually short on power as they are not managed by the thieves at SCE.
To me it comes down to what can be reasonable expected of the product purchased. The average slashdotter does not need a warning label to tell him or her that coffee is hot, as that is customary. The GGP flaunted the fact that it can cause 3rd degree burns as if that weren't true of similar products, which it is.
The rootkit on the audio CD, on the other hand, was truly a novel, bad idea. That one deserved a warning label.
Similarly, faux stocking emails from advertising firms are a novel, bad idea. These should include a big disclaimer, if they are legal at all. This case is way off in wtf-land.
So your point is we should put warning labels on alcohol containers indicating that it can make you drunk and warning labels on cell phones indicating that they should not be used while driving?
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure.
A temperature which apparently the vast majority of McD coffee drinkers apparently liked or did not mind.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
How many people were not burned? How many were burned by Starbucks? I've been burned twice this year, losing taste sensation for a whole hour.
Certain things in life are dangerous, hot coffee being one of them. Being the victim of an accident does not entitle you to a payout. Enjoy your coffee cold when you get to work, courtesy of our tort system.
The person who reacts correctly to a slide is not doing so because he understands physics in general but because he has driving specific training. There's really no time to do math in that situation.
I don't particularly enjoy slots either, but craps is fun. Horseracing, although I am not into it, is surely fun if you enjoy watching horses. Sports betting, which I have enjoyed on occasion, makes watching sports more fun since you have more of a stake. And if you bet among friends there's no rake bleeding away your possible winnings.
What you're noticing is that deviating from expectations of reciprocity at the right times is good business. I don't think you have to be an asshole to get filthy rich, but it is a competition where the nice guy is playing without a full deck.
Slashdot Mirror
Charging a battery, in cold weather or otherwise, is hardly new tech. All of these problems sound like they could have been avoided with some decent QA, save for the bulky batteries, which the buyers should have noticed before purchasing the vehicle.
Those are Li ion batteries, no? I wonder what it costs to replace them every two years. My laptop costs 150.
I don't think living in walkable neighborhoods would do a lot of good. Most people's only long commute is to and from work. To walk to and from work you'd have to move pretty much every time you got a new job, and that's just us office dwellers. People with jobs where they actually need to be different places every day, or periodically change job sites, would still need to drive.
Opera mini, the subject of TFA, always goes through Opera's servers so far as I know.
What, as opposed to a POWER based system? I don't get it.
Personally, I was offered $250 by my company's health insurance plan if I signed something that said I had not used tobacco products in the past 6 months.
Sounds like a trap to me. What would be the purpose of this? Maybe it would make sense if they offered you money to promise not to smoke for the next 6 months, but I do not understand why they would want to merely give away money to the non-users. Are they trying to develop excuses to cancel people's policies?
All the proposed solutions for reducing CO2 emissions (other than the unproven climate engineering) have a huge net negative impact on global GDP. Even if we are able to make these sacrifices in the first world, a large proportion of the world's population currently has a low carbon footprint only because they are impoverished. Carbon regulation, uniformly implemented, will set back the cause of raising these population's standards of living. Exempting the developing world from carbon regulation doesn't work either. Because of the sheer number of people living in poverty, even a drastic reduction by the rich world will be quickly offset.
That's just the practical side of the problem. Imagine the politics. I am skeptical that the whole world could be united to solve any global problem. So far we can't even keep the whole planet fed.
From what exactly does this protect you if you get audited? For instance, if I make a very large purchase in a tax free state, the estimate is probably way low. So is the deal that it only protects you by making sure you overpay in the average case, or does it reduce the penalties if you actually owe more?
Usually we defer to the preference of the person in question, and to a lesser extent the need to distinguish him from other living or historically significant persons. Think George W. Bush. Not sure where you're hearing BHO though. It has been emphasized to "link" him to Islam. But really that usage tends to come from a pretty small segment of conspiracy theorists who believe he is a crypto-Muslim. Mainstream political opponents of his avoid his middle name just to avoid being linked with those folks.
So would a ban on objects that break windows, presumably.
You're looking in the wrong place for reasoned opposition. I was watching CSPAN on Saturday, and the Republican Congresspeople were making very reasonable arguments against the bill: like the fact that we can't afford it, and the fact that it is likely to lead to higher unemployment. Actually it was the democrats who were fighting amongst themselves over whether the bill needed to specifically defund abortion.
The cynical view: the less editing she does, the more books they can fill, the more money they make. Of course this applied equally to both of them during his life.
Some schools focus more on undergrad education than others. Unfortunately, they don't get a lot of credit in the rankings or respect for doing so. They get more credit for research (which leads to peer respect, a very important measure), admissions selectivity, having a good football team, and alumni giving rates. These are nice things, mind you, but are only peripherally related to giving undergrads a good education. I would recommend trying to work around the professors who are poor teachers and engaging in things that your school is really good at.
Which philosophy of government is it that eliminates racism?
No it's worse than that. The utility calculates how much energy you "should" use. They actually penalize people for living in small houses or apartments with lots of gadgets while subsidizing those who own large houses that they air condition all summer.
lowering the costs for everyone in the state.
Versus what baseline? Certainly not versus a free market
Did you read the summary? The whole point of this is so California doesn't have to build a power plant. Most other states are not perpetually short on power as they are not managed by the thieves at SCE.
To me it comes down to what can be reasonable expected of the product purchased. The average slashdotter does not need a warning label to tell him or her that coffee is hot, as that is customary. The GGP flaunted the fact that it can cause 3rd degree burns as if that weren't true of similar products, which it is.
The rootkit on the audio CD, on the other hand, was truly a novel, bad idea. That one deserved a warning label.
Similarly, faux stocking emails from advertising firms are a novel, bad idea. These should include a big disclaimer, if they are legal at all. This case is way off in wtf-land.
So your point is we should put warning labels on alcohol containers indicating that it can make you drunk and warning labels on cell phones indicating that they should not be used while driving?
Oh cool a McDonald's coffee argument.
Maybe McDonalds wouldn't need warning signs if they didn't serve coffee at temperatures that can cause third-degree burns after 2-7 seconds of exposure.
A temperature which apparently the vast majority of McD coffee drinkers apparently liked or did not mind.
Maybe Mcdonalds wouldn't need warning signs if documents obtained from Mcdonalds didn't establish that more than 700 people were burned to various degrees by Mcdonalds coffee between 1982 - 1992.
How many people were not burned? How many were burned by Starbucks? I've been burned twice this year, losing taste sensation for a whole hour.
Certain things in life are dangerous, hot coffee being one of them. Being the victim of an accident does not entitle you to a payout. Enjoy your coffee cold when you get to work, courtesy of our tort system.
The person who reacts correctly to a slide is not doing so because he understands physics in general but because he has driving specific training. There's really no time to do math in that situation.
God created Dune movies to test the faithful.
I don't particularly enjoy slots either, but craps is fun. Horseracing, although I am not into it, is surely fun if you enjoy watching horses. Sports betting, which I have enjoyed on occasion, makes watching sports more fun since you have more of a stake. And if you bet among friends there's no rake bleeding away your possible winnings.
What you're noticing is that deviating from expectations of reciprocity at the right times is good business. I don't think you have to be an asshole to get filthy rich, but it is a competition where the nice guy is playing without a full deck.
What about cases where the law is clear but the facts are in question?