On the other hand, after 9/11, everybody knows the meaning of heroes. Or do they?
Hmm, let me think who the people consider heroes... Professionals who risked their lives entering a disaster area to rescue people... Yes. Civilians who rushed to the scene to do whatever they could to help... Perhaps. Politico who stood around with a bullhorn telling people to keep doing what they already were doing... No.
Yeah, I think everyone has a pretty good grip on what constitutes a hero.:)
In another thread in the discussion here, I mention also that I'm skeptical that having an "overnight" switch to say 80% of the automobiles using electric power, will just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant smokestack. If the answer is "electric" then the plant should be nuclear.
That's true, but that's actually a good thing for two very big reasons.
1) It is much, much easier to apply environmental controls to a few large fixed power plants than millions of tiny mobile power plants. Primarily because with the fixed plant the weight of whatever controls are added is irrelevant, while in a car the extra weight means extra fuel required. Also, the razor thin margins of automobiles vs. the long term investment of a power plant means it's economically easier as well. Even coal plants, nasty as they are, are a much cleaner way of powering our cars than millions of little ICEs because they can have huge scrubbers that would simply be impractical to have on a car.
2) By decoupling transportation from power generation, the way is paved for future improvements in environmental protection to be instantly and seamlessly spread throughout our transportation infrastructure. Every nuclear plant, windmill, or solar panel that gets put up causes our nations cars to become spontaneously more environmentally friendly, without any car owner having to do anything. Instead of having to replace or retro-fit millions of vehicles, and still face the problem of replacing coal plants with cleaner energy.
And yeah, I'm all for nuclear power. Fast breeder reactors, now! Recycle that nuclear fuel until we've extracted as much of the useful energy as possible and the remaining radioactives have manageable half-lives so disposal isn't such a crazy problem. There's still a ton of political resistance, from the NIMBYs, good intentioned but poorly informed greenies, and anti-proliferation folks. Fortunately more and more greenies are seeing the light, and the anti-proliferation is starting to look silly in light of what's happening abroad. So I'm hoping it will start to happen.
But even if it doesn't happen, we're still better off with an electric transportation infrastructure.
So by having 80% of cars on the road hybrids or EVs, we make it vastly environmentally better for those who aren't messes, given an economic incentive to people to not be messes, and finally make it still environmentally better even if they are messes...
Yeah I'm just not seeing why this is bad. Problems will exist, but be much reduced from today. What's so bad about that?
The NiMH batteries used in hybrids are far less environmentally dangerous than the lead-acid batteries in standard cars. Li-Ion, which will undoubtedly replace NiMH in the future as it already has for this roadster, are even less dangerous.
Also unlike lead-acid batteries, the metals in hybrid batteries are valuable enough that companies like Toyota actually pay a bounty for bringing them in to recycle. Complete recycling is possible, and re-using the metals actually saves the company money so they have every incentive to do so.
So are leaking lead-acid batteries an environmental problem today? Is getting people to recycle them instead of dumping them in landfills a problem? To whatever extent you believe they are, hybrids are an improvement.
Hybrids have already been running for hundreds of thousands of miles without needing the batteries replaced. Long-term reliability data is lacking simply because they're new, but so far it looks pretty good! With batteries lasting as long as some traditional gas car's engines, it's looking like a pretty good story for the after-market. Already the price of replacing batteries isn't out of line with replacing an engine, and with the longevity of electric motors may provide the same benefit in extending the life of the cars. If the prices of batteries come down as more are mass produced, then it could end up being quite economical.
Will it all be roses? No, but you'd have to be wearing pretty thick rose colored glasses to see the status quo that way. There will be problems, errors, and screw-ups, just like there are today. The end result, though, will be better in just about every category.
Well, I added it to try to add an extra level of crazy on top of asking for infinity dollars so I hadn't really thought of it. But I guess if you could do infinity dollars, that would actually be possible. 1... 3... 5... repeating to infinity would count for the sense of "non-sequential" I meant, and is still an infinite set.
That's 211 septillion, 429 sextillion, 399 quintillion dollars. To compare, the world's GDP (as of 2006) was $65.95 trillion. So the guy wanted over 3.2 TRILLION percent of the world's GDP.
Geeze, why not just go all the way and ask for "infinity U.S. dollars, in non-sequential bills"
Even your thickest backyard mechanic knows to disconnect the battery of their car before working on the electrical system. I can't imagine that they'll suddenly forget when the battery becomes 10x bigger.
MDY tried the 17 USC 117 defense and failed, because 117 requires the user to be an "owner" of a copy and not a licensee. Following bad precedent, owners of the game (i.e., those who go to the store and pick up a copy) are merely licensees. Yes, Blizzard retains title to the physical discs.
Ah, okay, that directly answers my question about this very section of law. And it's the bad case, as I feared.
Doesn't this sound like a situation where, whether the previous rulings are correct or not, where the law was simply badly worded? I mean, the idea that you shouldn't be copyright infringing merely by (your OS automatically) making a copy in RAM in order to run the program seems to be pretty obvious. Thus I wasn't surprised that it was spelled out in the law. I would find it hard to imagine that the lawmakers felt that the right to make this copy should not be reserved to the copyright owner for "owners" of a particular copy, but should be for "licensees" of a particular copy.
Just doesn't sound like a distinction that was intended, and somebody thought they could change the rules just by changing the terminology of what they were doing. But of course courts rule on the laws as written.
Most overturned by number of cases, or by percent of cases? If by number of cases, please consider that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over a far larger population than any other court of appeals in the United States. In fact, it covers over 19 percent of the U.S. population.
It's by number of cases. The overall percentage is completely within the norm; this is the old "Oh the 9th Circuit is a bunch of liberal activist crazies that the high court always overturns because they're crazy" bullshit turned into "common knowledge" for the sake of wishful thinking. In reality, they just see a much larger number of cases, and most cases that reach SCOTUS are overturned, from any circuit.
I once saw a very thorough breakdown over a number of years showing the data, and the 9th was by far the most active, and it's reversal rate was not out of line, it was more that other courts had such low number of cases the difference was immaterial. Can't find it now; a few seconds of googling showed a blogger who -- of course taking the "9th is doing a bad job" angle -- said the 9th was reversed 19/22 times last year, and that the next busiest circuit, the 5th, was reversed 4/5 times. Frankly I'd like to see more than 5 cases with one upheld before I start saying the 5th is doing any "better" than the 9th.
(I am a law student) The rule that copying in to RAM is copying under the terms of the Copyright Act is not unique to this case: it is in fact cited under previous authority.
Okay, maybe you can answer me this: How does this ruling and the previous ruling account for this section of copyright law which says that it is not an infringement for you to make a copy of a legally acquired program provided "that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"
Is the precedent truly that the essential copy to RAM counts as a potentially infringing copy in any case? Which seems to be blatantly contrary to the language here...
Or is it that the bot, by reading the memory and doing things based on it, violates the "and that it is used in no other manner" part?
This case rather simply applies this standard and says that it is a violation of the EULA to use a bot like Glider, and that copying in violation of the EULA/TOU is sufficient to constitute a copyright infringement.
Sounds like you're saying the former, and really I'd like some clarification on what the law really means, since if this is true it would appear that the law I quoted means nothing...
Actually, there's no doubt whatsoever that being loaded into RAM would constitute a copy, but it's ludicrous to call such a copy unauthorized as it is _required_ even to just utilize the software as it was intended.
I haven't read anything of the details of the ruling, so I don't know how it went. I just always thought that this section would be a slam-dunk defense against accusations of copyright infringement for either installing or running a legally acquired program. My guess is that it comes down to the phrase "and that [the necessary copy] is used in no other manner", which I don't think would apply to bots that read the memory image.
Frankly, I would much rather that the precedent be based on the bot using a 'copy' of the program in a non-essential manner, than it be based on violating the EULA meaning your copyright is revoked and copying the game into memory counts as a possibly infringing copy.
The first precedent wouldn't really restrict us any more than we are now -- we don't have the right to modify arbitrary copyrighted programs. The second would be even more weight behind EULAs, meaning copyright owners could enforce completely arbitrary restrictions, ultimately costing us much more. If that was the case, we would probably lose the right to make backups (as currently allowed by a-2 of the same paragraph above) just because the company said you couldn't.
I could RTFA or even RTFRuling, but I think I'll just go the lazy "Ask Slashdot" way and say does anyone know which was the basis for the ruling?
Pan == the faun. The Spanish title is literally translated as "Labyrinth of the Faun". Pan is probably the best known goat-legged man of myth in the States, "faun" and "satyr" are probably too obscure for non-dnd geeks. Blame the localization guy for this one if it bothers you.
And of course it was a fairy tale, just for adults, with the built-in question of whether any of the fairy stuff is actually real at all.
If it's not real (maybe she's taking some of that morphine) then her death is really quite tragic and awful, even compared to all the other events. If you've seen it, what do you think? I think "not real" and my wife thinks "real".
One, the other, or both depending on my mood and what I decide to focus on. One thing I like about the movie is that it is open to multiple interpretations.
On the one hand, nobody but her ever sees any of the bizarre things. On the other, her mother does actually start to get better with the mandrake, and worse when its removed. Fairy magic? Coincidence? Or maybe the girl's feelings affecting her mother's health.
In either case, though, the girl dies in the end. If you believe it's all real, then this was the final step of a journey into a fantastical afterlife. If it wasn't... maybe it was still such a step? The poignancy of sacrificing herself for her brother, and the metaphor for achieving an enlightened or holy state, still exists.
This roadster is missing a gas powered generator for the times that you need to go over 220 miles. Of course if you're paying $90k for an electric car I'd hope that you have other gas powered cars for destinations out of range. That is why I consider this thing a toy.
That's why you consider this thing a toy? As opposed to all the other $100k+ sports cars, which are practical workhorse vehicles! Yes, for the first time ever, sports car owners are going to have to consider buying a second, more economical car for every day and long distance driving!
I'm just joshing you, but seriously, when one of the primary advertising features of a car is it's 0-60 time, you should automatically be thinking "toy" because that's exactly what the target audience wants.
Just imagine what will happen when a soccer mom runs over this thing with an SUV (or someone else with any other proper size car)! Aboslute deathtrap!
Yeah, because when the SUV runs over it (far more likely to be one tire rather than both), it's already top-heavy design will cause it to start rolling over like a fucking out of control rock tumbler. And not only is she going to be blended, the unfortunate Tesla driver is going to be smushed!
I agree, SUVs sure are deathtraps. For everyone on the road!
It's why Hybrids are only in the hands of the rich people and not the poor.
They will be, once they start hitting the used car market.
Most truly poor people don't buy new cars in the first place. $15000 is a lot of money for a car. $3000 for a used Camry? Now you're talking. But small (Camry being on the larger end of small) used cars are in high demand. So what's left for people may be more car than they want. This is why hybrids and EVs (not the Tesla obviously) are not just toys for the moderately wealthy and a waste of time. Cars have life cycles, and once they are in their later life and you can go to Joe's Used Car Emporium and see row after row of Prius, that's when hybrid cars will truly make a difference.
Could it perhaps be that the infestation of Earth with this parasitic species called "humans" is bad for everything else?
In the (paraphrased) words of Agent Smith, human effect upon the Earth is comparable to that of a virus upon an organism.
That was cool when Agent Smith said it. It sounds pretty retarded coming from the mouth of a human. Do you hate humans as much as he did?
It's a spurious analogy anyway (again, Smith could get away with it simply because it was an expression of his loathing for humans). Ever seen what a herd of African elephants will do to a grove of trees? If you believe Smith only viruses and humans do this, but those elephants will strip the grove bare, virtually guaranteeing the death of the trees, and then simply move on. The reason this doesn't get out of control isn't because elephants are a more noble species, it's because when too many of them eat too much, they simply die of starvation until the population is small enough that those who survive can find enough food.
Humans have simply become more capable of producing food and guaranteeing their survival. Elephants would do it if they could.
You may not know it, but your lifestyle is dependent on that "fucking rare tortoise" you demean so crassly.
That however is quite true (maybe not in specifics but in sentiment). People hear "you're killing the planet!" and they shut it out, for one because it's such an extreme statement and two if you think about it there's no way it's true. The planet will survive. Life will go on. Specific life forms may not, and that includes us. And that's especially true if you think of "us" as living in our post-industrial world.
Civilization is a carefully crafted edifice of interdependent relationships, many of them unstated and accidental since they are quirks of environmental happenstance. I, for one, would like to continue in this fashion. I like having cheap food at the grocer and plastics in my hospitals. But it must be sustainable. Our current system is not sustainable, and we're dynamiting parts of the foundation as fast as we can. The conservatives who are 180 degrees away from the "save the planet" greenies are really the even bigger fools. Because in the name of trying to preserve their way of life, they are guaranteeing that it will end.
Middle ground: Conserve. Preserve. Protect the environment from ourselves. Because it helps us to do so.
Of people who know anything about human psychology. It's great that you want to be your own person with your own ideas. Don't expect anyone to take policy suggestions based on those ideas seriously.
How's that? My assumption is that most men entering prison do not want to engage in anal sex with other men.
And yet anal rape occurs in prison at a rate larger than that of the ratio of gays/bisexuals in the population at large. If anal rape = gay/bisexual, and violent crime = crazy, then the implication is that homo/bi-sexuals are being incarcerated at a rate greater than their occurrence in the population, due to their increased rates of insanity.
It's not hard logic. But then again neither is the logic about rape and sexuality.
Has this been tried? How about as a remediation measure?
No. Because nobody who actually knows anything about the situation has any reason whatsoever to believe it would work. And in the real world, you can't just go around trying every crazy-stupid sociology experiment that some random know-nothing thinks up just to see what happens.
Just because it is comfortingly sensible to you that only insane people commit violent crime, and only homosexuals or bisexuals would ever rape a member of the same sex (not make love to, rape), does not mean that in any way correlates with reality.
Even though they say that EA is NOT behind this deal, I have to believe it is. This sounds too much like something EA would pressure them into doing. They were fine pressing back release dates BEFORE EA came on scene.
They may have been fine doing it for a while, but developers cost money. I don't know the intimacies of their business, but my take on "EA is not behind this" is more like "EA would not front the cash that we would require to keep developing the game, so we're going to have to release what we have and hope that brings enough income to finish."
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, after 9/11, everybody knows the meaning of heroes. Or do they?
Hmm, let me think who the people consider heroes...
Professionals who risked their lives entering a disaster area to rescue people... Yes.
Civilians who rushed to the scene to do whatever they could to help... Perhaps.
Politico who stood around with a bullhorn telling people to keep doing what they already were doing... No.
Yeah, I think everyone has a pretty good grip on what constitutes a hero. :)
In another thread in the discussion here, I mention also that I'm skeptical that having an "overnight" switch to say 80% of the automobiles using electric power, will just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant smokestack. If the answer is "electric" then the plant should be nuclear.
That's true, but that's actually a good thing for two very big reasons.
1) It is much, much easier to apply environmental controls to a few large fixed power plants than millions of tiny mobile power plants. Primarily because with the fixed plant the weight of whatever controls are added is irrelevant, while in a car the extra weight means extra fuel required. Also, the razor thin margins of automobiles vs. the long term investment of a power plant means it's economically easier as well. Even coal plants, nasty as they are, are a much cleaner way of powering our cars than millions of little ICEs because they can have huge scrubbers that would simply be impractical to have on a car.
2) By decoupling transportation from power generation, the way is paved for future improvements in environmental protection to be instantly and seamlessly spread throughout our transportation infrastructure. Every nuclear plant, windmill, or solar panel that gets put up causes our nations cars to become spontaneously more environmentally friendly, without any car owner having to do anything. Instead of having to replace or retro-fit millions of vehicles, and still face the problem of replacing coal plants with cleaner energy.
And yeah, I'm all for nuclear power. Fast breeder reactors, now! Recycle that nuclear fuel until we've extracted as much of the useful energy as possible and the remaining radioactives have manageable half-lives so disposal isn't such a crazy problem. There's still a ton of political resistance, from the NIMBYs, good intentioned but poorly informed greenies, and anti-proliferation folks. Fortunately more and more greenies are seeing the light, and the anti-proliferation is starting to look silly in light of what's happening abroad. So I'm hoping it will start to happen.
But even if it doesn't happen, we're still better off with an electric transportation infrastructure.
people are a mess, no matter what.
So by having 80% of cars on the road hybrids or EVs, we make it vastly environmentally better for those who aren't messes, given an economic incentive to people to not be messes, and finally make it still environmentally better even if they are messes...
Yeah I'm just not seeing why this is bad. Problems will exist, but be much reduced from today. What's so bad about that?
The NiMH batteries used in hybrids are far less environmentally dangerous than the lead-acid batteries in standard cars. Li-Ion, which will undoubtedly replace NiMH in the future as it already has for this roadster, are even less dangerous.
Also unlike lead-acid batteries, the metals in hybrid batteries are valuable enough that companies like Toyota actually pay a bounty for bringing them in to recycle. Complete recycling is possible, and re-using the metals actually saves the company money so they have every incentive to do so.
So are leaking lead-acid batteries an environmental problem today? Is getting people to recycle them instead of dumping them in landfills a problem? To whatever extent you believe they are, hybrids are an improvement.
Hybrids have already been running for hundreds of thousands of miles without needing the batteries replaced. Long-term reliability data is lacking simply because they're new, but so far it looks pretty good! With batteries lasting as long as some traditional gas car's engines, it's looking like a pretty good story for the after-market. Already the price of replacing batteries isn't out of line with replacing an engine, and with the longevity of electric motors may provide the same benefit in extending the life of the cars. If the prices of batteries come down as more are mass produced, then it could end up being quite economical.
Will it all be roses? No, but you'd have to be wearing pretty thick rose colored glasses to see the status quo that way. There will be problems, errors, and screw-ups, just like there are today. The end result, though, will be better in just about every category.
Well, I added it to try to add an extra level of crazy on top of asking for infinity dollars so I hadn't really thought of it. But I guess if you could do infinity dollars, that would actually be possible. 1... 3... 5... repeating to infinity would count for the sense of "non-sequential" I meant, and is still an infinite set.
The platform which popularized the game should get in on the PoP 2008 action.
You mean the C64? Don't think that would work...
That's 211 septillion, 429 sextillion, 399 quintillion dollars. To compare, the world's GDP (as of 2006) was $65.95 trillion. So the guy wanted over 3.2 TRILLION percent of the world's GDP.
Geeze, why not just go all the way and ask for "infinity U.S. dollars, in non-sequential bills"
If you think war is NECESSARY, you by definition DO think that it's honourable.
Ask a hooker if "necessity" and "honor" are "by definition" the same.
Even your thickest backyard mechanic knows to disconnect the battery of their car before working on the electrical system. I can't imagine that they'll suddenly forget when the battery becomes 10x bigger.
Blame the dollar.
I would, but I'm not the type to kick a currency when it's down. :)
Yes, yes, that's essentially option 2, the one I was hoping for. Sadly, your guess was as bad as mine, and that wasn't the basis for the ruling.
MDY tried the 17 USC 117 defense and failed, because 117 requires the user to be an "owner" of a copy and not a licensee. Following bad precedent, owners of the game (i.e., those who go to the store and pick up a copy) are merely licensees. Yes, Blizzard retains title to the physical discs.
Ah, okay, that directly answers my question about this very section of law. And it's the bad case, as I feared.
Doesn't this sound like a situation where, whether the previous rulings are correct or not, where the law was simply badly worded? I mean, the idea that you shouldn't be copyright infringing merely by (your OS automatically) making a copy in RAM in order to run the program seems to be pretty obvious. Thus I wasn't surprised that it was spelled out in the law. I would find it hard to imagine that the lawmakers felt that the right to make this copy should not be reserved to the copyright owner for "owners" of a particular copy, but should be for "licensees" of a particular copy.
Just doesn't sound like a distinction that was intended, and somebody thought they could change the rules just by changing the terminology of what they were doing. But of course courts rule on the laws as written.
Most overturned by number of cases, or by percent of cases? If by number of cases, please consider that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over a far larger population than any other court of appeals in the United States. In fact, it covers over 19 percent of the U.S. population.
It's by number of cases. The overall percentage is completely within the norm; this is the old "Oh the 9th Circuit is a bunch of liberal activist crazies that the high court always overturns because they're crazy" bullshit turned into "common knowledge" for the sake of wishful thinking. In reality, they just see a much larger number of cases, and most cases that reach SCOTUS are overturned, from any circuit.
I once saw a very thorough breakdown over a number of years showing the data, and the 9th was by far the most active, and it's reversal rate was not out of line, it was more that other courts had such low number of cases the difference was immaterial. Can't find it now; a few seconds of googling showed a blogger who -- of course taking the "9th is doing a bad job" angle -- said the 9th was reversed 19/22 times last year, and that the next busiest circuit, the 5th, was reversed 4/5 times. Frankly I'd like to see more than 5 cases with one upheld before I start saying the 5th is doing any "better" than the 9th.
(I am a law student)
The rule that copying in to RAM is copying under the terms of the Copyright Act is not unique to this case: it is in fact cited under previous authority.
Okay, maybe you can answer me this:
How does this ruling and the previous ruling account for this section of copyright law which says that it is not an infringement for you to make a copy of a legally acquired program provided "that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner"
Is the precedent truly that the essential copy to RAM counts as a potentially infringing copy in any case? Which seems to be blatantly contrary to the language here...
Or is it that the bot, by reading the memory and doing things based on it, violates the "and that it is used in no other manner" part?
This case rather simply applies this standard and says that it is a violation of the EULA to use a bot like Glider, and that copying in violation of the EULA/TOU is sufficient to constitute a copyright infringement.
Sounds like you're saying the former, and really I'd like some clarification on what the law really means, since if this is true it would appear that the law I quoted means nothing...
Actually, there's no doubt whatsoever that being loaded into RAM would constitute a copy, but it's ludicrous to call such a copy unauthorized as it is _required_ even to just utilize the software as it was intended.
Yes, and I've always thought that Chap. 1, paragraph 117-a-1 of the U.S. Copyright Act made it quite clear that such copies cannot be considered infringing.
I haven't read anything of the details of the ruling, so I don't know how it went. I just always thought that this section would be a slam-dunk defense against accusations of copyright infringement for either installing or running a legally acquired program. My guess is that it comes down to the phrase "and that [the necessary copy] is used in no other manner", which I don't think would apply to bots that read the memory image.
Frankly, I would much rather that the precedent be based on the bot using a 'copy' of the program in a non-essential manner, than it be based on violating the EULA meaning your copyright is revoked and copying the game into memory counts as a possibly infringing copy.
The first precedent wouldn't really restrict us any more than we are now -- we don't have the right to modify arbitrary copyrighted programs. The second would be even more weight behind EULAs, meaning copyright owners could enforce completely arbitrary restrictions, ultimately costing us much more. If that was the case, we would probably lose the right to make backups (as currently allowed by a-2 of the same paragraph above) just because the company said you couldn't.
I could RTFA or even RTFRuling, but I think I'll just go the lazy "Ask Slashdot" way and say does anyone know which was the basis for the ruling?
Were you paying attention the day your teacher said that "can be improved" is not the same as "currently sucks"?
It works pretty damn well in my experience, but I guess since Metroid isn't a mini game it doesn't count.
I do however agree with you that primary colors are bad. More brown games, please, preferably dark brown!
Pan == the faun. The Spanish title is literally translated as "Labyrinth of the Faun". Pan is probably the best known goat-legged man of myth in the States, "faun" and "satyr" are probably too obscure for non-dnd geeks. Blame the localization guy for this one if it bothers you.
And of course it was a fairy tale, just for adults, with the built-in question of whether any of the fairy stuff is actually real at all.
If it's not real (maybe she's taking some of that morphine) then her death is really quite tragic and awful, even compared to all the other events.
If you've seen it, what do you think? I think "not real" and my wife thinks "real".
One, the other, or both depending on my mood and what I decide to focus on. One thing I like about the movie is that it is open to multiple interpretations.
On the one hand, nobody but her ever sees any of the bizarre things. On the other, her mother does actually start to get better with the mandrake, and worse when its removed. Fairy magic? Coincidence? Or maybe the girl's feelings affecting her mother's health.
In either case, though, the girl dies in the end. If you believe it's all real, then this was the final step of a journey into a fantastical afterlife. If it wasn't... maybe it was still such a step? The poignancy of sacrificing herself for her brother, and the metaphor for achieving an enlightened or holy state, still exists.
Iron Man is a "perfect A" movie if you are like 11 years old.
Maybe I am. It depends. How old were you when you got the stick shoved up your ass?
This roadster is missing a gas powered generator for the times that you need to go over 220 miles.
Of course if you're paying $90k for an electric car I'd hope that you have other gas powered cars for destinations out of range.
That is why I consider this thing a toy.
That's why you consider this thing a toy? As opposed to all the other $100k+ sports cars, which are practical workhorse vehicles! Yes, for the first time ever, sports car owners are going to have to consider buying a second, more economical car for every day and long distance driving!
I'm just joshing you, but seriously, when one of the primary advertising features of a car is it's 0-60 time, you should automatically be thinking "toy" because that's exactly what the target audience wants.
Just imagine what will happen when a soccer mom runs over this thing with an SUV (or someone else with any other proper size car)! Aboslute deathtrap!
Yeah, because when the SUV runs over it (far more likely to be one tire rather than both), it's already top-heavy design will cause it to start rolling over like a fucking out of control rock tumbler. And not only is she going to be blended, the unfortunate Tesla driver is going to be smushed!
I agree, SUVs sure are deathtraps. For everyone on the road!
It's why Hybrids are only in the hands of the rich people and not the poor.
They will be, once they start hitting the used car market.
Most truly poor people don't buy new cars in the first place. $15000 is a lot of money for a car. $3000 for a used Camry? Now you're talking. But small (Camry being on the larger end of small) used cars are in high demand. So what's left for people may be more car than they want. This is why hybrids and EVs (not the Tesla obviously) are not just toys for the moderately wealthy and a waste of time. Cars have life cycles, and once they are in their later life and you can go to Joe's Used Car Emporium and see row after row of Prius, that's when hybrid cars will truly make a difference.
Could it perhaps be that the infestation of Earth with this parasitic species called "humans" is bad for everything else?
In the (paraphrased) words of Agent Smith, human effect upon the Earth is comparable to that of a virus upon an organism.
That was cool when Agent Smith said it. It sounds pretty retarded coming from the mouth of a human. Do you hate humans as much as he did?
It's a spurious analogy anyway (again, Smith could get away with it simply because it was an expression of his loathing for humans). Ever seen what a herd of African elephants will do to a grove of trees? If you believe Smith only viruses and humans do this, but those elephants will strip the grove bare, virtually guaranteeing the death of the trees, and then simply move on. The reason this doesn't get out of control isn't because elephants are a more noble species, it's because when too many of them eat too much, they simply die of starvation until the population is small enough that those who survive can find enough food.
Humans have simply become more capable of producing food and guaranteeing their survival. Elephants would do it if they could.
You may not know it, but your lifestyle is dependent on that "fucking rare tortoise" you demean so crassly.
That however is quite true (maybe not in specifics but in sentiment). People hear "you're killing the planet!" and they shut it out, for one because it's such an extreme statement and two if you think about it there's no way it's true. The planet will survive. Life will go on. Specific life forms may not, and that includes us. And that's especially true if you think of "us" as living in our post-industrial world.
Civilization is a carefully crafted edifice of interdependent relationships, many of them unstated and accidental since they are quirks of environmental happenstance. I, for one, would like to continue in this fashion. I like having cheap food at the grocer and plastics in my hospitals. But it must be sustainable. Our current system is not sustainable, and we're dynamiting parts of the foundation as fast as we can. The conservatives who are 180 degrees away from the "save the planet" greenies are really the even bigger fools. Because in the name of trying to preserve their way of life, they are guaranteeing that it will end.
Middle ground: Conserve. Preserve. Protect the environment from ourselves. Because it helps us to do so.
I'll happily stand outside that circle.
Of people who know anything about human psychology. It's great that you want to be your own person with your own ideas. Don't expect anyone to take policy suggestions based on those ideas seriously.
How's that? My assumption is that most men entering prison do not want to engage in anal sex with other men.
And yet anal rape occurs in prison at a rate larger than that of the ratio of gays/bisexuals in the population at large. If anal rape = gay/bisexual, and violent crime = crazy, then the implication is that homo/bi-sexuals are being incarcerated at a rate greater than their occurrence in the population, due to their increased rates of insanity.
It's not hard logic. But then again neither is the logic about rape and sexuality.
Has this been tried? How about as a remediation measure?
No. Because nobody who actually knows anything about the situation has any reason whatsoever to believe it would work. And in the real world, you can't just go around trying every crazy-stupid sociology experiment that some random know-nothing thinks up just to see what happens.
Just because it is comfortingly sensible to you that only insane people commit violent crime, and only homosexuals or bisexuals would ever rape a member of the same sex (not make love to, rape), does not mean that in any way correlates with reality.
Even though they say that EA is NOT behind this deal, I have to believe it is. This sounds too much like something EA would pressure them into doing. They were fine pressing back release dates BEFORE EA came on scene.
They may have been fine doing it for a while, but developers cost money. I don't know the intimacies of their business, but my take on "EA is not behind this" is more like "EA would not front the cash that we would require to keep developing the game, so we're going to have to release what we have and hope that brings enough income to finish."