I switched to DD-WRT because I needed some logging information so I could tell which MAC addresses were using the most bandwidth. I got a notice from Cox that I had used more bandwidth than my plan allowed (although a bandwidth allowance was not discussed when I signed up), but I was not able to tell which computer was using all the bandwidth using the built in firmware.
It turns out that it was the minecraft client that my daughter was playing. Apparently, minecraft client uses more bandwidth than streaming movies.
There is a difference between getting worked up over banks making loans to people who couldn't or wouldn't pay them back, and banks NOT lending to people who CAN afford to pay them back because they would rather invest the money in no risk T-bills after getting handed interest free money, The money was given to the banks interest free to make LOANS with, and they chose to instead charge interest to the entity that loaned them the money.
That is not surprising. It's not like they couldn't have come up with $450 to pay their fines. They didn't want to pay it and gambled that they wouldn't get busted. And they did. At that time, they had to come up with twice what they would have had to pay for the fine. They gambled and lost.
I agree with you. We already had a mandate that banks had to give a certain percentage of their loans to people who were in an area that historically had a high default rate. The results, a high number of those loans defaulted, costing you and me more money in having to bail out the banks.
In many states, it is in fact against the law to ask that question on an application or in an interview. As to how you should answer when they ask you a question that they are not allowed to ask...I guess you just consider yourself screwed. If you answer truthfully, they won't hire you. If you answer dishonestly, they may find out and fire you. If you point out the question is illegal, they will not hire you assuming that you do have a conviction.
Yeah, in my state, they really screwed things up. A friend of mine got divorced about 10 years ago and his judgment from the judge says he is to pay X amount per month to his ex-wife for child support. So he does, every month. Then about 2 years ago, the state decides that all child support has to be funneled through a state agency. So, then he starts getting garnishments at work, payable to the state agency. Of course, since they are taking the money out of his paycheck, he can no longer afford to pay his ex-wife directly, which puts him in violation of the child custody agreement. But so far nobody is crying about that. His ex-wife is crying however, because she is used to getting paid by my friend on the first of the month. The amount is getting withdrawn from my friends check on the first, but doesn't get paid to his ex-wife until about 3 weeks later. So, in the mean time, he is spotting her money that he doesn't have to pay her.
Then, to make matters worse, the state decided that he owed about $15,000 in back child support, even though he has paid it every month faithfully. He is able to come up with cancelled checks for all but about 18 months. So they are forced to back down on the $15,000, but they insist that he pays the amount of those 18 months, even though he already has. Even his ex-wife says that he paid it, but the state doesn't believe them and insists that he pay them the 18 months.
So now, he has finally finished paying off the 18 months that he already paid, and one of his children is over 18 and no longer living with the ex-wife and no longer eligible for child support. The state agency does not allow you to pre-emptively file to get wage garnishments removed. You cannot do so until the day that the garnishment is no longer valid. However, once you file, there is a backlog (3 months and counting so far) before they process the removal of the garnishment. They continue to take money out of my friends check. They have, however, stopped making payments to his ex-wife since the child is no longer a minor and no longer in the household. They stopped that the day she turned 18 without anyone needing to file any paperwork.
Even crazier, the company we work for recently changed the company that does the payroll, so the state had to renew the now invalid garnishment with the new company in order to keep collecting the money that they are not entitled to and are not giving to the ex-wife.
The Fed can loan them money at 0% so they can invest in T-bills at 3% and keep the loans rolling over forever.
This is exactly the sort of crap that has to stop. I spent three years trying to refinance my higher interest loan because the banks would far rather invest the zero percent interest money they get from the government in T-bills. Of COURSE they would. I would love to have that deal, too. But the reason the government lends at zero percent is so that that money can be loaned to people and businesses. The government should look at any bank that has invested in T-Bills and raise their lending rate for that bank to T-bill rate of 0.5%.
Fat lot of good it does anybody to have 3% mortgage rates when the bank has no incentive whatsoever to loan out at that rate,
I once had to pay $50 for two redbox DVDs which I did properly return. Apparently their machine didn't register it or got disconnected from the internet. They also said they audited the box and did not find the videos. However, their audit was incorrect, because I returned it. I don't do business with redbox anymore.
When there's no oversight by the federal government, or the opposite - encouragement for the rich to get richer by suing the little guy into oblivion - this is what happens.
And when there IS oversight by the government, this is also what happens, only you get taxed for the privilege.
Yes, it is clear to anyone that watches movies that 90% of all computers in the world are Macs.
Conversely, it is clear to anyone that has a job that 90% of all computers in the world are PCs.
Does the article say he had a smoke alarm in the garage? I assumed it was the smoke alarm in house house going off due to smoke from the garage getting into the house.
Yes, the headline should have read "Telsa damaged in garage fire", but that's not sensational enough. Both linked articles state the car "caused" the fire (one more indirectly regarding what "ignited"), but neither indicate that any official or anyone but a reporter's guess confirms it. For all we know, the meth lab in the basement caught fire and burned a garage with a Tesla in it.
Anyone who looks at the picture would have chosen the title "garage damaged in Tesla fire", as it is pretty clear that the front hood area of the vehicle is where the fire started.
With the fire not originating in anything connected to its electrical system, why are they assuming that the fire originated in/from the car at all? It sounds highly unlikely, and more like vacuous sensationalism.
Look at the picture in TFA. It is pretty clear that the front trunk area was the most damaged area.
As others have pointed out, garages are full of flammable stuff. Fire could have originated anywhere.
The picture in TFA sure does make it look like it originated somewhere in the front hood area of the Tesla. If it was a regular car, I could believe that he might have parked a hot engine above an oily rag, but i don't think Teslas are supposed to get hot under the hood.
It happened in a PRIVATE garage, shortly after the owner had come back from a drive. It points pretty strongly to SOMETHING to do with the car, but they were unable to pinpoint the cause, other than it was not the charging system, battery and electric receptacle. It could have been a short in the radio for all we know, but that is still an issue with the car.
If the fire "didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle," then the fact that the car was a Tesla is pretty much irrelevant, since those are the things that make a Tesla distinct from any other kind of car.
Well, that is not the only thing that makes Tesla different. There are a lot more electrical components only present in electric vehicles but which are not related to the charging, battery and electrical receptacle. There is the propulsion system, electrical convertors, motors at (I assume) all four wheels, then there is all kinds of geeky, energy wasting electronic gadgetry to display to the user how much energy they are saving.
I see several other cars that st records before 2011 that weren't crazy expensive. Nissan GTR being one that is in the ballpark of same price as a ZR1.
Well, they have to pay for the purchase somehow, and you cant expect them to take it out of current profits/bank accounts.
They are paying it out of stock. In other words, they are buying it with funny money. I guess the good side of that is that the shareholders can vote it down if they don't like the deal.
It continuously amazes me that people would easily pay in excess of 50k in order to get the largest SUVs ever, yet they would fight teeth and nails against an one time 3k fee to get their power lines buried. The SUVs have been proven useless during the ice storms, while having electrical power was proven to be priceless.
I can pay to bury my power lines, but I can't control whether the lines are buried beyond my property. My lines are buried at my house. In fact, in the only two extended outages I have ever been involved in, the power lines were buried. At my current house, the lines are buried, but the utilities lines past my house are not, and an ice storm caused branches to come down. Because this was a widespread outage affecting hundred of thousands of people, it took about 3 days to get the power back on.
At my previous residence, my power AND the utilities power lines were buried. We had a severe thunderstorm which knocked out the power to us, but not the power to the people right across the street, who were on a different grid and had overhead lines. Even though this was not a widespread outage, it took a long time to repair because the lines were buried. It was three or four days before the power was back on.
I'm not all that impressed by buried lines. It is cosmetically better, but much more expensive from an installation and maintenance perspective and the uptime is negatively rather than positively affected. Studies have shown that while you are 50% less likely to experience a power loss with underground wires, the repair time when it happens is almost 60% longer. Also, it has been determine that underground wiring degrades faster. 40 year old above ground wiring has been found to be more reliable than 20 year old underground wiring.
Sorry, but in the south, snow is not a big deal either. Plows can plow snow, and cars can drive reasonably well in snow. The problem is that in the south, ice is at least as frequent an occurrence as snow. Winter storms often occur during a temperature inversion, meaning we have warm (above freezing anyway) humid air aloft and below freezing air at ground level. Precipitation falls as rain, and depending on the temperature of the rain and the height and temperature of the ground level air, it will either fall as sleet, or worse, as rain which freezes on impact. We often have 1/4" or more of freezing rain. I have seen greater than an inch of freezing rain in the past. In my state, we have had freezing rain three times this winter, and we have had snow twice. Snow is not a big deal for cars, and plows can remove it. Ice is crappy to drive on and plowing is useless.
Slashdot Mirror
So the amount of asphalt has an impact also, right?
Yes, we should clearly use more concrete, it is more reflective than asphalt.
I switched to DD-WRT because I needed some logging information so I could tell which MAC addresses were using the most bandwidth. I got a notice from Cox that I had used more bandwidth than my plan allowed (although a bandwidth allowance was not discussed when I signed up), but I was not able to tell which computer was using all the bandwidth using the built in firmware.
It turns out that it was the minecraft client that my daughter was playing. Apparently, minecraft client uses more bandwidth than streaming movies.
its web-based management system only worked with Internet Explorer.
Hmm, I may be mistaken, but it seems like the DD-WRT interface wanted me to use IE as well, at least for flashing.
There is a difference between getting worked up over banks making loans to people who couldn't or wouldn't pay them back, and banks NOT lending to people who CAN afford to pay them back because they would rather invest the money in no risk T-bills after getting handed interest free money, The money was given to the banks interest free to make LOANS with, and they chose to instead charge interest to the entity that loaned them the money.
That is not surprising. It's not like they couldn't have come up with $450 to pay their fines. They didn't want to pay it and gambled that they wouldn't get busted. And they did. At that time, they had to come up with twice what they would have had to pay for the fine. They gambled and lost.
I agree with you. We already had a mandate that banks had to give a certain percentage of their loans to people who were in an area that historically had a high default rate. The results, a high number of those loans defaulted, costing you and me more money in having to bail out the banks.
In many states, it is in fact against the law to ask that question on an application or in an interview. As to how you should answer when they ask you a question that they are not allowed to ask...I guess you just consider yourself screwed. If you answer truthfully, they won't hire you. If you answer dishonestly, they may find out and fire you. If you point out the question is illegal, they will not hire you assuming that you do have a conviction.
Yeah, in my state, they really screwed things up. A friend of mine got divorced about 10 years ago and his judgment from the judge says he is to pay X amount per month to his ex-wife for child support. So he does, every month. Then about 2 years ago, the state decides that all child support has to be funneled through a state agency. So, then he starts getting garnishments at work, payable to the state agency. Of course, since they are taking the money out of his paycheck, he can no longer afford to pay his ex-wife directly, which puts him in violation of the child custody agreement. But so far nobody is crying about that. His ex-wife is crying however, because she is used to getting paid by my friend on the first of the month. The amount is getting withdrawn from my friends check on the first, but doesn't get paid to his ex-wife until about 3 weeks later. So, in the mean time, he is spotting her money that he doesn't have to pay her.
Then, to make matters worse, the state decided that he owed about $15,000 in back child support, even though he has paid it every month faithfully. He is able to come up with cancelled checks for all but about 18 months. So they are forced to back down on the $15,000, but they insist that he pays the amount of those 18 months, even though he already has. Even his ex-wife says that he paid it, but the state doesn't believe them and insists that he pay them the 18 months.
So now, he has finally finished paying off the 18 months that he already paid, and one of his children is over 18 and no longer living with the ex-wife and no longer eligible for child support. The state agency does not allow you to pre-emptively file to get wage garnishments removed. You cannot do so until the day that the garnishment is no longer valid. However, once you file, there is a backlog (3 months and counting so far) before they process the removal of the garnishment. They continue to take money out of my friends check. They have, however, stopped making payments to his ex-wife since the child is no longer a minor and no longer in the household. They stopped that the day she turned 18 without anyone needing to file any paperwork.
Even crazier, the company we work for recently changed the company that does the payroll, so the state had to renew the now invalid garnishment with the new company in order to keep collecting the money that they are not entitled to and are not giving to the ex-wife.
The Fed can loan them money at 0% so they can invest in T-bills at 3% and keep the loans rolling over forever.
This is exactly the sort of crap that has to stop. I spent three years trying to refinance my higher interest loan because the banks would far rather invest the zero percent interest money they get from the government in T-bills. Of COURSE they would. I would love to have that deal, too. But the reason the government lends at zero percent is so that that money can be loaned to people and businesses. The government should look at any bank that has invested in T-Bills and raise their lending rate for that bank to T-bill rate of 0.5%.
Fat lot of good it does anybody to have 3% mortgage rates when the bank has no incentive whatsoever to loan out at that rate,
I once had to pay $50 for two redbox DVDs which I did properly return. Apparently their machine didn't register it or got disconnected from the internet. They also said they audited the box and did not find the videos. However, their audit was incorrect, because I returned it. I don't do business with redbox anymore.
Probably a few bonus months for failure to appear back in 2005
Well, if she was properly served, then she definitely should have appeared. If she was not properly served, than the case should be thrown out.
When there's no oversight by the federal government, or the opposite - encouragement for the rich to get richer by suing the little guy into oblivion - this is what happens.
And when there IS oversight by the government, this is also what happens, only you get taxed for the privilege.
Yes, it is clear to anyone that watches movies that 90% of all computers in the world are Macs.
Conversely, it is clear to anyone that has a job that 90% of all computers in the world are PCs.
Sounds like he got out-assholed and decided to go whine about it on slashdot.
Does the article say he had a smoke alarm in the garage? I assumed it was the smoke alarm in house house going off due to smoke from the garage getting into the house.
Yes, the headline should have read "Telsa damaged in garage fire", but that's not sensational enough. Both linked articles state the car "caused" the fire (one more indirectly regarding what "ignited"), but neither indicate that any official or anyone but a reporter's guess confirms it. For all we know, the meth lab in the basement caught fire and burned a garage with a Tesla in it.
Anyone who looks at the picture would have chosen the title "garage damaged in Tesla fire", as it is pretty clear that the front hood area of the vehicle is where the fire started.
With the fire not originating in anything connected to its electrical system, why are they assuming that the fire originated in/from the car at all? It sounds highly unlikely, and more like vacuous sensationalism.
Look at the picture in TFA. It is pretty clear that the front trunk area was the most damaged area.
As others have pointed out, garages are full of flammable stuff. Fire could have originated anywhere.
The picture in TFA sure does make it look like it originated somewhere in the front hood area of the Tesla. If it was a regular car, I could believe that he might have parked a hot engine above an oily rag, but i don't think Teslas are supposed to get hot under the hood.
It happened in a PRIVATE garage, shortly after the owner had come back from a drive. It points pretty strongly to SOMETHING to do with the car, but they were unable to pinpoint the cause, other than it was not the charging system, battery and electric receptacle. It could have been a short in the radio for all we know, but that is still an issue with the car.
If the fire "didn't originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or electrical receptacle," then the fact that the car was a Tesla is pretty much irrelevant, since those are the things that make a Tesla distinct from any other kind of car.
Well, that is not the only thing that makes Tesla different. There are a lot more electrical components only present in electric vehicles but which are not related to the charging, battery and electrical receptacle. There is the propulsion system, electrical convertors, motors at (I assume) all four wheels, then there is all kinds of geeky, energy wasting electronic gadgetry to display to the user how much energy they are saving.
I got them off of a study done by South Carolina Electrical.
I see several other cars that st records before 2011 that weren't crazy expensive. Nissan GTR being one that is in the ballpark of same price as a ZR1.
Well, they have to pay for the purchase somehow, and you cant expect them to take it out of current profits/bank accounts.
They are paying it out of stock. In other words, they are buying it with funny money. I guess the good side of that is that the shareholders can vote it down if they don't like the deal.
It continuously amazes me that people would easily pay in excess of 50k in order to get the largest SUVs ever, yet they would fight teeth and nails against an one time 3k fee to get their power lines buried. The SUVs have been proven useless during the ice storms, while having electrical power was proven to be priceless.
I can pay to bury my power lines, but I can't control whether the lines are buried beyond my property. My lines are buried at my house. In fact, in the only two extended outages I have ever been involved in, the power lines were buried. At my current house, the lines are buried, but the utilities lines past my house are not, and an ice storm caused branches to come down. Because this was a widespread outage affecting hundred of thousands of people, it took about 3 days to get the power back on.
At my previous residence, my power AND the utilities power lines were buried. We had a severe thunderstorm which knocked out the power to us, but not the power to the people right across the street, who were on a different grid and had overhead lines. Even though this was not a widespread outage, it took a long time to repair because the lines were buried. It was three or four days before the power was back on.
I'm not all that impressed by buried lines. It is cosmetically better, but much more expensive from an installation and maintenance perspective and the uptime is negatively rather than positively affected. Studies have shown that while you are 50% less likely to experience a power loss with underground wires, the repair time when it happens is almost 60% longer. Also, it has been determine that underground wiring degrades faster. 40 year old above ground wiring has been found to be more reliable than 20 year old underground wiring.
Sorry, but in the south, snow is not a big deal either. Plows can plow snow, and cars can drive reasonably well in snow. The problem is that in the south, ice is at least as frequent an occurrence as snow. Winter storms often occur during a temperature inversion, meaning we have warm (above freezing anyway) humid air aloft and below freezing air at ground level. Precipitation falls as rain, and depending on the temperature of the rain and the height and temperature of the ground level air, it will either fall as sleet, or worse, as rain which freezes on impact. We often have 1/4" or more of freezing rain. I have seen greater than an inch of freezing rain in the past. In my state, we have had freezing rain three times this winter, and we have had snow twice. Snow is not a big deal for cars, and plows can remove it. Ice is crappy to drive on and plowing is useless.