It appears that's what the dealerships are trying to force.
But why should Tesla give in? In addition to choosing between Mercedes/BMW/Audi, shouldn't I be allowed to choose between distribution channels? And shouldn't any attempt to restrict my choice be considered as anti competitive? We all understand what this means when it comes to individual models (Apple vs Samsung for example). But if a group of manufacturers bands together to restrict my choice in the marketplace, shouldn't that group be subject to the same laws and regulations? Even if that group is represented by a legislative body instead of private corporations or individuals?
And then there's this article, where NASA scientists say:
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
Face it. The current state of science is pretty pathetic. Yes, we should be concerned. And yes, we should study the issues in an attempt to make better policy. But right now, we don't know enough upon which to base potentially damaging economic policy. So if someone says, "Lets find a way to discourage CO2 production", I'm fine with that. So long as the plan can be reversed should it prove to have been based on bad science.
When I hear "Panic! Do something now!" and that something involves irreversible legislation or treaties, I call bullshit. Someone is trying to pull another spotted owl scam and shove something through the courts to serve their own agenda.
There's got to be an applicable "In Soviet Russia" quip out there somewhere. In reality, its not funny. The politics of "We" failed miserably. Even China is only paying lip service to it as they rapidly build up their wealthy and middle classes.
Like the article says, "There is nothing illegal about holding assets through offshore entities". And if those offshore entities are in lower tax jurisdictions, that's just tax avoidance. As long as its all reported in accordance with the tax regulations of each jurisdiction no laws are broken.
In addition, advisors may be subject to civil penalties or criminal prosecution for promoting such arrangements as a means to avoid or evade tax liability or circumvent information reporting requirements
My investment advisors are located offshore. What they are promoting is legal within their jurisdiction.
Years later, after you fire up that shiny new iPhone, the Air Force suddenly realizes they forgot to re-tune a batch of HARM missiles. Fortunately, nothing of value was lost.
But is your company one of those that produces a lot of its own content? Or is owned by a content producer? If not, I understand your position entirely. You are being forced by the content providers to take their crappy channels along with the high demand ones. That's not an efficient use of your bandwidth.
In my opinion, the DoJ should break up the combination of content providers and distribution system owners. You, the cable company, act as the consumer's brokers in deciding which bundles to offer with the given bandwidth and you negotiate with content providers for the best price (cheap for consumers and some profit margin left for you folks). Content providers owning distribution channels interferes with that relationship and is clearly an antitrust issue.
Not really. Contaminants in water are what make it conduct (particularly those that ionize in solution, like NaCl). Or the power would be going out every time it rained and pole top insulators got wet.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that's what the dealerships are trying to force.
But why should Tesla give in? In addition to choosing between Mercedes/BMW/Audi, shouldn't I be allowed to choose between distribution channels? And shouldn't any attempt to restrict my choice be considered as anti competitive? We all understand what this means when it comes to individual models (Apple vs Samsung for example). But if a group of manufacturers bands together to restrict my choice in the marketplace, shouldn't that group be subject to the same laws and regulations? Even if that group is represented by a legislative body instead of private corporations or individuals?
And every year, the looters need more rich folks to milk. So please, stay put. Live fat, dumb and happy until we come after you to fund our habit.
Switzerland is nice this time of year.
There's a British author who wrote an often quoted book about evil tax havens. Where does he live? Switzerland.
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
Face it. The current state of science is pretty pathetic. Yes, we should be concerned. And yes, we should study the issues in an attempt to make better policy. But right now, we don't know enough upon which to base potentially damaging economic policy. So if someone says, "Lets find a way to discourage CO2 production", I'm fine with that. So long as the plan can be reversed should it prove to have been based on bad science.
When I hear "Panic! Do something now!" and that something involves irreversible legislation or treaties, I call bullshit. Someone is trying to pull another spotted owl scam and shove something through the courts to serve their own agenda.
The simpler method is just to have a fake fat belly,
Nothing fake about it.
There's got to be an applicable "In Soviet Russia" quip out there somewhere. In reality, its not funny. The politics of "We" failed miserably. Even China is only paying lip service to it as they rapidly build up their wealthy and middle classes.
Chicken.
Can I make a holster out of this and carry my Glock through the scanners at the airport? No need to print a stupid plastic gun.
I'm just asking this to get crazy California legislators' panties in a bunch.
I feel for you psychologists - years of studying and/or practice and suddenly you're told that you're no longer needed
I've got my EMACS psychologist. What do I need with a real-life one?
earth being a globe and all, as you squeeze the habitable zone towards the poles, the area becomes less
Not really. There are vast quantities of land presently tied up by permafrost in Northern Canada and Siberia that will become arable.
Simple solution: Move the corporation offshore.
US corporations have done 'tons and tons' of business in foreign countries for decades. Now its time to put the shoe on the other foot.
Like the article says, "There is nothing illegal about holding assets through offshore entities". And if those offshore entities are in lower tax jurisdictions, that's just tax avoidance. As long as its all reported in accordance with the tax regulations of each jurisdiction no laws are broken.
In addition, advisors may be subject to civil penalties or criminal prosecution for promoting such arrangements as a means to avoid or evade tax liability or circumvent information reporting requirements
My investment advisors are located offshore. What they are promoting is legal within their jurisdiction.
Years later, after you fire up that shiny new iPhone, the Air Force suddenly realizes they forgot to re-tune a batch of HARM missiles. Fortunately, nothing of value was lost.
Already banned in California.
http://www.grizzly.com/products/Combo-Lathe-Mill/G9729
Lets regulate those too.
jailed for 30 years.
I heard that he escaped custody.
We've got what it takes to take what you've got.
Have you considered that the human brain may be 100% deterministic?
Given the parent post, this response was inevitable.
Oblig
But is your company one of those that produces a lot of its own content? Or is owned by a content producer? If not, I understand your position entirely. You are being forced by the content providers to take their crappy channels along with the high demand ones. That's not an efficient use of your bandwidth.
In my opinion, the DoJ should break up the combination of content providers and distribution system owners. You, the cable company, act as the consumer's brokers in deciding which bundles to offer with the given bandwidth and you negotiate with content providers for the best price (cheap for consumers and some profit margin left for you folks). Content providers owning distribution channels interferes with that relationship and is clearly an antitrust issue.
Spare parts to keep our planet running longer!
World War II lost 70 million players.
I have an English laurel hedge. I'd plug into it except it has one of those big British style receptacles and I've lost my adapter.
Water is a conductor... a pretty good one.
Not really. Contaminants in water are what make it conduct (particularly those that ionize in solution, like NaCl). Or the power would be going out every time it rained and pole top insulators got wet.