Can we pull up the previous Slashdot story on this (when they were just starting)? While most folks agreeded that it would fail, it may be useful to recognize those folks that were vehement supporters for this and ridicule them mercilessly.
Here's the original article:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Looking through that link, I'm challenged to find even a single supporter.
President Obama can veto this bill. It would then go back to Congress for a re-vote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
With the issue now out in the open, it is less likely that congress would override the veto.
So, the ball is most definitely in Barak Obama's court. It will become law (or not) based on his decision.
The restriction of not allowing Tesla to enter Iowa and sell its product is the issue. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa.
So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them. That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.
This all depends on what they were able to engineer. It may be the case that none of those things are possible with the current generation of device, with the benefits still remaining theoretical.
I think perception is much more important politically here. If I'm a politician trying to "stick it to the rich," I want a marginal tax rate as high as possible. I don't really care about how much the rich are paying -- only that my constituents are convinced of my progressivity.
Many of my friends on the left mention the "90%" tax rates of the 1950s. However, they don't realize that with the then tax breaks, this was actually much lower (and it was the rich that could utilize those tax breaks). They want high taxes on corporations, but don't realize that they are the ones paying those taxes. Indeed, for those who have been the most honest with me, they believe that the less the public knows the more the government can take, and that, to them, is a good thing.
The title was "If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?"
However, the factory isn't there yet. Shouldn't we wait to see if it is actually possible before taking it as a given?
I would expect manufacturers to attempt to provide what the majority of customers want while attempting to keep their costs and the price of the tablet within reason (within range of their competitors). What else would they do?
Patents are not granted for the benefit of a few. They are granted because:
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Having said that, I agree that the question should be "why should they be able to patent it."
Oh, come now. You are total wrong here. Look how successful our solar panel manufacturers are. That would have never happened without government investment! I'm sure the same thing will happen in the EU.
I mean, if government doesn't pick winners and losers, who will?
Conservatives would eliminate government subsidized student loans. So, whether we agree or disagree with that policy, it would guarantee that the situation you mention would never come to pass.
I don't think "affirmative action" means what you think it means. "Affirmative action" as applied is a system were underrepresented minorities are given a preference in admissions and hiring. Asians aren't an underrepresented minority in just about anything. In fact, they represent overwhelming majorities in many areas and are the most hurt by skin-color preference programs (aka "Affirmative Action").
We may hold different opinions on whether we should judge someone based on the color of their skin (I don't think we should), but we certainly can't argue fact, and how "affirmative action" is applied is fact.
I've played games like "Path of Exile" where I've enjoyed the game so much, I decided to drop $20 or so on in-app purchases, even if they weren't going to actually help me advance in the game. I've done the same for other apps that I've enjoyed. If you enjoy the game, it can't hurt to reward the developer. Now, $10,000, well that is a bit extreme.
I've never been overly positive or negative of Microsoft. However, having just installed Windows 8, I can say that it is seriously good. If that kills my geek street cred, then so be it.
If you are worried about Windows 8, you should be. This is the first time I've really "liked" an operating system UI.
I agree that this is not a new process. However, we don't know (at least from the article), what type of efficiencies they are seeing (although we can guess).
If a reasonably efficient mechanism can be worked out (maybe something above 50%), you could imagine solar factories being built in the middle of deserts or other inhospitable and remote regions. This would be orthogonal to the current power generation infrastructure and would serve to offset some of the petroleum currently being used.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we pull up the previous Slashdot story on this (when they were just starting)? While most folks agreeded that it would fail, it may be useful to recognize those folks that were vehement supporters for this and ridicule them mercilessly. Here's the original article: http://news.slashdot.org/story... Looking through that link, I'm challenged to find even a single supporter.
dynamic_cast: http://en.cppreference.com/w/c...
Yes, I can't see any reason why the source of the evidence wouldn't be available.
.... well ... uh ... no.
Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, can you please tell me where you obtained this evidence?
Mr. Prosecutor:
Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, you will be cooling your heels in a cell until you can provide me with that information.
President Obama can veto this bill. It would then go back to Congress for a re-vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... With the issue now out in the open, it is less likely that congress would override the veto. So, the ball is most definitely in Barak Obama's court. It will become law (or not) based on his decision.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.h... You have no idea what you are talking about. Read and understand the above and then respond.
The restriction of not allowing Tesla to enter Iowa and sell its product is the issue. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa. So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them. That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.
Where are the mod points when you need them. :)
This all depends on what they were able to engineer. It may be the case that none of those things are possible with the current generation of device, with the benefits still remaining theoretical.
I think perception is much more important politically here. If I'm a politician trying to "stick it to the rich," I want a marginal tax rate as high as possible. I don't really care about how much the rich are paying -- only that my constituents are convinced of my progressivity. Many of my friends on the left mention the "90%" tax rates of the 1950s. However, they don't realize that with the then tax breaks, this was actually much lower (and it was the rich that could utilize those tax breaks). They want high taxes on corporations, but don't realize that they are the ones paying those taxes. Indeed, for those who have been the most honest with me, they believe that the less the public knows the more the government can take, and that, to them, is a good thing.
The title was "If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?" However, the factory isn't there yet. Shouldn't we wait to see if it is actually possible before taking it as a given?
The companies that do that will go out of business and the companies that please the customer won't.
I would expect manufacturers to attempt to provide what the majority of customers want while attempting to keep their costs and the price of the tablet within reason (within range of their competitors). What else would they do?
The drug machine is caused by government prohibition. No innocent people would be hurt if the government stayed out of these personal decisions.
Patents are not granted for the benefit of a few. They are granted because: The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Having said that, I agree that the question should be "why should they be able to patent it."
The number of male and female MD graduates is almost equal: http://kff.org/other/state-ind... and women outnumber men in obtaining a degree: https://collegepuzzle.stanford...
Oh, come now. You are total wrong here. Look how successful our solar panel manufacturers are. That would have never happened without government investment! I'm sure the same thing will happen in the EU. I mean, if government doesn't pick winners and losers, who will?
Conservatives would eliminate government subsidized student loans. So, whether we agree or disagree with that policy, it would guarantee that the situation you mention would never come to pass.
Nearly 100% rejection of race-baiting and skin color preferences. Things really have changed for the better.
Damned if you do... damned if you do, I think.
I don't think "affirmative action" means what you think it means. "Affirmative action" as applied is a system were underrepresented minorities are given a preference in admissions and hiring. Asians aren't an underrepresented minority in just about anything. In fact, they represent overwhelming majorities in many areas and are the most hurt by skin-color preference programs (aka "Affirmative Action"). We may hold different opinions on whether we should judge someone based on the color of their skin (I don't think we should), but we certainly can't argue fact, and how "affirmative action" is applied is fact.
One of the most insightful comments I've read on Slashdot.
I've played games like "Path of Exile" where I've enjoyed the game so much, I decided to drop $20 or so on in-app purchases, even if they weren't going to actually help me advance in the game. I've done the same for other apps that I've enjoyed. If you enjoy the game, it can't hurt to reward the developer. Now, $10,000, well that is a bit extreme.
Labor and maintenance.
I've never been overly positive or negative of Microsoft. However, having just installed Windows 8, I can say that it is seriously good. If that kills my geek street cred, then so be it. If you are worried about Windows 8, you should be. This is the first time I've really "liked" an operating system UI.
I agree that this is not a new process. However, we don't know (at least from the article), what type of efficiencies they are seeing (although we can guess). If a reasonably efficient mechanism can be worked out (maybe something above 50%), you could imagine solar factories being built in the middle of deserts or other inhospitable and remote regions. This would be orthogonal to the current power generation infrastructure and would serve to offset some of the petroleum currently being used.