"The law"??? Which law? We have 50 states, with 50 different sets of marriage laws.
All of them. And not just US ones either.
You seem to be under the belief that the federal government currently doesn't marriage or have any concept of it. You'd claimed is in multiple posts. And you are clearly wrong, most obviously because there's the Defense of Marriage Act, that's a federal law that DOES define marriage as between a man and a woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you HAVE to spew ignorance everywhere.
Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law. That's what makes it an ethical issue. Every bit as much as equality for blacks and equality for women.
That video is very sad. A young guy who believes he's going to have to be celibate his whole life, because he's gay and was brought up in an ignorant church.
Of course he probably won't stay celibate, and will go through years of pointlessly feeling guilty about it.
No you're not the only one. I closed down all my accounts with Google, and do everything I can to avoid using any of their sites. Unfortunately sometimes someone sends me a link to YouTube. But that's about it.
As far as I'm concerned Google is the last tech company I'd trust. I like being the customer, not the product.
Sounds like people are being fanboys of Tesla. The car is a pointless waste of money unless you want something to stand next to it and talk all about it. If you want a track car a 25k BRZ is a vastly superior choice. Plus, I disagree with them, it's ugly too.
Actually, it's clear that YOUR argument comes from your likes and dislikes, rather than any genuine excuse for their dishonestly. You're the one who's basing his argument on an overall opinion on the car, not me. I'm just stating fact, and upholding honesty in broadcasting.
Neither. I'm a corrector of bullshit. Top Gear's original lie, and the apologists for it on here.
Would you have been happy if they ran the car until it was nearly out of power then did the race and had the same result?
Clearly that would also be a deliberate hatchet job. So happy, no. Though at least would have been less dishonest.
Before you retort that it would be that same thing as the lotus running out of gas know that the Lotus can be refilled in less then 2 minutes, so it's not an issue when you take Lotus out on a track.
The nature of battery recharging including times was covered in the review, in words, whilst using the appropriate visual aids or a plug and a socket. It didn't require lying in another part of the review to cover that.
It's clear from you saying that that you simply don't like electric cars, and like a politician or a fan-boy you are happy to see your own side bolstered with lies.
They lied. And yes it matters. In reality, the battery wouldn't have run out on the track, because there is very clear countdown to it being out of power AND drive it beyond that and there's still a deliberately low performance mode. The scenario they presented wouldn't have happened. They would have driven back to the garage.
So your point is that because they didn't actually run the car's batteries down they can't draw attention to the car's batteries running down very quick in track environments and having to wait 40-200x longer then a gas vehicle to recharge it.
Don't be stupid. Of course they can. Using words about what would happen if. It's just fraudulent to pretend it happened when it didn't. Worse, they pretended it happened in the middle of the race against the Lotus Elise. And the Tesla was ahead. There was no justifiable reason for cutting the race short with a lie.
And *that's* what Top Gear was demonstrating and stating in their review. It didn't matter if *that* particular specimen had a 100% charge, that was just a tool to demonstrate the over all scenario; Tesla suck as track cars.
Top Gear didn't demonstrate any such thing. They alleged it.
And *if* you're going to talk about the suitability for a track day, you seem to have missed out the all important facts that the Tesla won the drag race against the Lotus Elise, and was ahead in the round the circuit race, at the point at which they fraudulently staged the running out of electricity stunt.
Being faster would seem to be an important point for a track day.
When they drove it hard around the track, I don't know, like a sports car, the batteries didn't make it very long.
And there's the evidence everyone needs that some people were deceived. Having watched the segment, eigenstates thinks the batteries didn't last very long. Whereas in actual fact the batteries never ran down down.
QED.
The main reason Tesla didn't win their case is that they failed to show financial harm from Top Gears dishonesty.
No, that point was made in the garage, using the visual aid of a plug and socket.
The fake "running out of power by the side o f the track" was making the point "it might run out of power unexpectedly". And that point is false. The Tesla leaves you in no doubt about how much power is left. And it has power left even after it says "zero miles left". And the last few miles are deliberately at a reduced power utput from the engine - not something you would keep driving through on a track day. In a real track test, that car would have been driven into the garage before the power ran out.
Actually it does. It's just that we're prepared to accept that level of fakery.
However, for most people, falsely showing a car as having run out of fuel/power in a supposed review, is dishonesty beyond what we are prepared to accept.
The car doesn't run until all the charge runs out. It keeps a reserve. So your mathematics that you thought you'd try to be patronizing about, is wrong. Because the point you need is not the charge axis intercept.
They did have a brake failure. The cause of the brake failure may have been a blown fuse, but presumably the circuit is there for a reason.
It wasn't clear the fuse had anything to do with the brakes. Clarkson claimed brake failure. Reality is it had been on charge, and then had a fault. And the fault was a blown fuse. That doesn't mean the fuse was connected to the brake system.
It MIGHT have been related to the brake system, but I saw nothing in the reports confirming that it was.
And they said they'd get about 55 miles of track time from a full charge. This seems to be true. Are Tesla claiming that the remaining charge would have given the car 145 more miles on the track?
The Tesla has a display that counts down the number of miles you have left, given the way you;re driving it. It has warnings as that countdown is getting low. It gives you a few miles even after the counter reads zero. The performance gets deliberately and noticeably altered as it gets low.
On any track day, the driver would have pulled in to the pits and recharged long before the battery ran out. The implication of the show showing the car broken down by the side of the track, and people pushing it into the garage, was that the Tesla Roadster ran out of power suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving the driver stranded. That was not true. It was a deliberate deception.
It's always been obvious they fake various things. It's never an accident when a caravan gets destroyed. The presenters don't really go out and buy the cars they use for the various cross country in a second hand car challenges. Etc.
However, since the Tesla episode I now know that there is literally nothing that they won't fake. And nothing they won't lie about.
Despite the fact that I do find it funny and still watch, I think it hurts the credibility of the BBC. And if there was a referendum on it, I'd vote to scrap the show.
In what way was an iPod in my pocket playing music not a pocketable device? You mean skipping? I don't know about your MP3 player, but the iPod came with sufficient memory that it was skip proof for walking.
No good for jogging. But that's not the meaning of "pocketable".
If you're saying that managing a playlist is harder than managing transferring files using a file system browser, you're mistaken.
Playlists can be drag and drop, just like file browsers, or cut'n'paste. And unlike file browsers they can also be smart playlists specified by parameters (e.g. All Michael Jackson and Jackson 5 songs I haven't listened to recently).
If you're saying that your PC collection is so big that only part of it will fit on an MP3 player, then iTunes iPod can indeed do that, using the mechanism of playlists, and that is far easier to do than manual management. And because of smart playlists, it's also more powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
He's lamenting fragmentation of the Linux desktop. And you bring up Android... as if it was something that doesn't have that problem. LOL!
"The law"??? Which law? We have 50 states, with 50 different sets of marriage laws.
All of them. And not just US ones either.
You seem to be under the belief that the federal government currently doesn't marriage or have any concept of it. You'd claimed is in multiple posts. And you are clearly wrong, most obviously because there's the Defense of Marriage Act, that's a federal law that DOES define marriage as between a man and a woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Being a libertarian doesn't mean you HAVE to spew ignorance everywhere.
Is there nothing so stupid a libertarian won't say it?
That's clearly a trick of the mind, since an atheist is not religious, and therefore cannot by definition be a religious nutjob.
Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?
It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law. That's what makes it an ethical issue. Every bit as much as equality for blacks and equality for women.
That video is very sad. A young guy who believes he's going to have to be celibate his whole life, because he's gay and was brought up in an ignorant church.
Of course he probably won't stay celibate, and will go through years of pointlessly feeling guilty about it.
No you're not the only one. I closed down all my accounts with Google, and do everything I can to avoid using any of their sites. Unfortunately sometimes someone sends me a link to YouTube. But that's about it.
As far as I'm concerned Google is the last tech company I'd trust. I like being the customer, not the product.
Sounds like people are being fanboys of Tesla. The car is a pointless waste of money unless you want something to stand next to it and talk all about it. If you want a track car a 25k BRZ is a vastly superior choice. Plus, I disagree with them, it's ugly too.
Actually, it's clear that YOUR argument comes from your likes and dislikes, rather than any genuine excuse for their dishonestly. You're the one who's basing his argument on an overall opinion on the car, not me. I'm just stating fact, and upholding honesty in broadcasting.
Would that be in the same way as a car's petrol gauge doesn't run out when it reads 'empty', and there's still a little in reserve ?
Yes, you would have been equally wrong had you said it about petrol fuelled cars.
Do you work for Tesla or do you simply own one?
Neither. I'm a corrector of bullshit. Top Gear's original lie, and the apologists for it on here.
Would you have been happy if they ran the car until it was nearly out of power then did the race and had the same result?
Clearly that would also be a deliberate hatchet job. So happy, no. Though at least would have been less dishonest.
Before you retort that it would be that same thing as the lotus running out of gas know that the Lotus can be refilled in less then 2 minutes, so it's not an issue when you take Lotus out on a track.
The nature of battery recharging including times was covered in the review, in words, whilst using the appropriate visual aids or a plug and a socket. It didn't require lying in another part of the review to cover that.
It's clear from you saying that that you simply don't like electric cars, and like a politician or a fan-boy you are happy to see your own side bolstered with lies.
They lied. And yes it matters. In reality, the battery wouldn't have run out on the track, because there is very clear countdown to it being out of power AND drive it beyond that and there's still a deliberately low performance mode. The scenario they presented wouldn't have happened. They would have driven back to the garage.
They lied. And you're being an apologist for it.
So your point is that because they didn't actually run the car's batteries down they can't draw attention to the car's batteries running down very quick in track environments and having to wait 40-200x longer then a gas vehicle to recharge it.
Don't be stupid. Of course they can. Using words about what would happen if. It's just fraudulent to pretend it happened when it didn't. Worse, they pretended it happened in the middle of the race against the Lotus Elise. And the Tesla was ahead. There was no justifiable reason for cutting the race short with a lie.
And *that's* what Top Gear was demonstrating and stating in their review. It didn't matter if *that* particular specimen had a 100% charge, that was just a tool to demonstrate the over all scenario; Tesla suck as track cars.
Top Gear didn't demonstrate any such thing. They alleged it.
And *if* you're going to talk about the suitability for a track day, you seem to have missed out the all important facts that the Tesla won the drag race against the Lotus Elise, and was ahead in the round the circuit race, at the point at which they fraudulently staged the running out of electricity stunt.
Being faster would seem to be an important point for a track day.
When they drove it hard around the track, I don't know, like a sports car, the batteries didn't make it very long.
And there's the evidence everyone needs that some people were deceived. Having watched the segment, eigenstates thinks the batteries didn't last very long. Whereas in actual fact the batteries never ran down down.
QED.
The main reason Tesla didn't win their case is that they failed to show financial harm from Top Gears dishonesty.
They have plenty of flatbeds to haul the thing. The audience knew the pushing of the car was staged b/c those guys wouldn't have pushed it anyway.
And you know that because...
That's right. You're just guessing.
No, that point was made in the garage, using the visual aid of a plug and socket.
The fake "running out of power by the side o f the track" was making the point "it might run out of power unexpectedly". And that point is false. The Tesla leaves you in no doubt about how much power is left. And it has power left even after it says "zero miles left". And the last few miles are deliberately at a reduced power utput from the engine - not something you would keep driving through on a track day. In a real track test, that car would have been driven into the garage before the power ran out.
Top Gear lied.
Doesn't make the interview less honest.
Actually it does. It's just that we're prepared to accept that level of fakery.
However, for most people, falsely showing a car as having run out of fuel/power in a supposed review, is dishonesty beyond what we are prepared to accept.
The car doesn't run until all the charge runs out. It keeps a reserve. So your mathematics that you thought you'd try to be patronizing about, is wrong. Because the point you need is not the charge axis intercept.
No one said they lied about 55 miles. They lied about running out of power.
There were no charging stations in the UK when the programme was made.
You're not even close. The programme was made in 2008. Here's an example of some charging stations in Greenwich from May 2001:
http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200105/sustainability/711/electric_vehicle_charge_points
And I'm not saying those were the first.
They did have a brake failure. The cause of the brake failure may have been a blown fuse, but presumably the circuit is there for a reason.
It wasn't clear the fuse had anything to do with the brakes. Clarkson claimed brake failure. Reality is it had been on charge, and then had a fault. And the fault was a blown fuse. That doesn't mean the fuse was connected to the brake system.
It MIGHT have been related to the brake system, but I saw nothing in the reports confirming that it was.
And they said they'd get about 55 miles of track time from a full charge. This seems to be true. Are Tesla claiming that the remaining charge would have given the car 145 more miles on the track?
The Tesla has a display that counts down the number of miles you have left, given the way you;re driving it. It has warnings as that countdown is getting low. It gives you a few miles even after the counter reads zero. The performance gets deliberately and noticeably altered as it gets low.
On any track day, the driver would have pulled in to the pits and recharged long before the battery ran out. The implication of the show showing the car broken down by the side of the track, and people pushing it into the garage, was that the Tesla Roadster ran out of power suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving the driver stranded. That was not true. It was a deliberate deception.
James May probably would have given the Tesla a much more positive review,
And that's why Clarkson didn't let him review it. His bias against anything green is far stronger than his integrity.
(And yes, I know in most shows it's the producers that decide, I have no doubt that all Top Gear decisions are subject to approval by Clarkson.)
I still watch the show, because it's still funny.
It's always been obvious they fake various things. It's never an accident when a caravan gets destroyed. The presenters don't really go out and buy the cars they use for the various cross country in a second hand car challenges. Etc.
However, since the Tesla episode I now know that there is literally nothing that they won't fake. And nothing they won't lie about.
Despite the fact that I do find it funny and still watch, I think it hurts the credibility of the BBC. And if there was a referendum on it, I'd vote to scrap the show.
In what way was an iPod in my pocket playing music not a pocketable device? You mean skipping? I don't know about your MP3 player, but the iPod came with sufficient memory that it was skip proof for walking.
No good for jogging. But that's not the meaning of "pocketable".
You're not expressing yourself clearly.
If you're saying that managing a playlist is harder than managing transferring files using a file system browser, you're mistaken.
Playlists can be drag and drop, just like file browsers, or cut'n'paste. And unlike file browsers they can also be smart playlists specified by parameters (e.g. All Michael Jackson and Jackson 5 songs I haven't listened to recently).
If you're saying that your PC collection is so big that only part of it will fit on an MP3 player, then iTunes iPod can indeed do that, using the mechanism of playlists, and that is far easier to do than manual management. And because of smart playlists, it's also more powerful.