Until now where a bunch have turned up with what is effectively "how to vote cards"
This is a pretty apt description of elections in early American politics, where the various political parties printed and distributed their own ballots.
If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.
This is exactly what my city is doing - installing miniature crossing gates that block the sidewalks at grade crossings when a train is coming. Because pedestrians obviously can't see the traffic gates come down or hear the loud bells or see the flashing red lights.
You're jumping the gun. First you have to go through "annoyed", "exasperated" and "appalled." Then you can move on to "strongly condemning" and "deploring".
I'm sure that "strongly worded letter" and "stern warning" fit in there somewhere as well.
There's no way to stop it, one way or another Ford will get it. Every technology company on planet earth buys their competitors products and does a tear-down analysis.
You're correct, but the OP was talking about Ford buying Tesla the company, not a Tesla automobile.
Who the hell is paying $21+ for a pitcher of beer? Stated that he was only paying for his portion and tip for the two pitchers so does that make it really $42 per pitcher? You can buy a damn keg for that much money.
I guess that depends upon the beer, the size of the pitcher, and the hipsterosity of the drinker. I can tell you that 22 oz bottle of Deimos (a red ale from Ecliptic Brewing in Portland, OR) goes for $9. I don't know what their keg price is, but I'm pretty comfortable thinking it's more than $42.
Why does the Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations apply to an unarguably domestic transaction?
Probably because there are quite a few domestic groups that front for the Muslim Brotherhood, who in turn provide support to Hamas and Hezbollah. Like there used to be quite a few domestic groups that fronted for the IRA.
Meanwhile, terrorists are smart enough not to label a money transfer as ISIS BOMB FUNDING.
That's right. And a terrorist attempting to smuggle a bomb aboard a commercial airline flight is smart enough not to tell the baggage porter, "There's a bomb in that suitcase." But if a regular (non-terrorist) person says such a thing in jest, they will get a thorough anal probing.
Many years ago, long before the establishment of TSA, I was flying with a work colleague to a contractor site on the opposite coast, with a smallish but heavy hunk of electronic equipment that had been under test until shortly before we left for the airport. The baggage inspector put her hand on the cardboard box containing the equipment and exclaimed, "It's warm! Why is it warm?" My idiot colleague responded with, "Don't worry; it's not a bomb." I could have happily strangled that guy on the spot. Need I add that his little joke resulted in our being led off to a small room for an extended, unpleasant interview?
This is not a "ban on all non-electric vehicles". According to TFA, it is a ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, with currently-owned vehicles grandfathered. Perhaps a market will emerge for coal-burning steam-engined cars.
TFA did not mention whether the ban will include the purchase and importation of gas/diesel vehicles from outside the Netherlands. Seems obvious that the only way to get all gas/diesel vehicles off the road and keep them off is to prohibit the sale of the fuel that keeps them going.
If only they'd come out with the in-dash record player...
Not sure whether you're serious, but Chrysler offered a record player as an option in their cars from 1956 to 1961. The last model had a 12-platter changer.
The crime here is not espionage, but theft of TVA's intellectual property.
Actually, the intended end use of exported sensitive material and/or information is irrelevant. Acting as an agent of a foreign government in the acquisition of sensitive information (where "sensitive information" is defined by the US State Department) is either a serious violation of export laws or espionage, depending on the material/information involved. You could learn a few things by reading up on MCTR and ITAR. And for "purely civilian use", you can add EAR (no, not that thing on the side of your head, but the Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations) to that list.
Don't you watch Fox News? Their lawyer guests agreed Clinton didn't break any laws. They said that last month on a program, and to a viewing audience, that is not supportive of the Clinton campaign.
So keep huffing and puffing, maybe something besides gas and poo will eventually come out of there.
Oh, well! If a group of TV pundits say it's OK, that should put the matter to rest.
A much higher percentage of State taxi drivers than Uber drivers have drunk driving convictions in the past 10 years of their criminal record. On average, the layperson would call that "Safest drivers on the road".
I'm sure you must have an authoritative source for that claim, and I'd really like to see it, because all I could find was this article saying that those sort of statistics aren't recorded. A background check on an individual will report convictions, searching on convictions won't tell you whether the offender was a driver for either a taxi service or Uber. Note that I'm not accusing you of making this stuff up, and I don't think it's your job to do my research; I'd just like to see the citation if you have it.
What in the actual hell? Uber has "failed to prevent 25 people with criminal records from becoming drivers"? So frigging what?
Uber wasn't prosecuted for hiring people with criminal records. They were prosecuted for deceptive advertising, after claiming that their driver vetting process was superior to the processes used by taxi companies (from TFA: "Unlike traditional cab companies, Uber does not require a fingerprint check that could uncover prior convictions."), and using advertising phrases like "safest drive on the road" (they aren't).
Either the people are normal every day people who should have no issue finding work, or they are dangerous criminals and shouldn't have been released.
Really, those are the alternatives? In the real world it seems that dangerous criminals are routinely released from prison. Some get early release due to overcrowding conditions, a few game the parole system, and many somehow remain dangerous despite having served their full sentences (perhaps you've stumbled across the term "repeat offender"). "Paying your debt to society" by serving a prison term for aggravated assault doesn't magically transform a "dangerous criminal" into a "normal everyday person".
According to the linked article, fully half of this so-called middle class do not own a vehicle. This flies in the face of the contention that middle-class families will simply buy a second car to work around the restriction. On the other hand, if they don't own a vehicle, the restrictions won't have much of an impact, will they? And I'm guessing it's probably safe to assume that if half the middle class families don't own cars, then car ownership is even lower in the poorer-than-middle-class demographic.
If the goal is to maximize the number of cars kept from operating, discriminating against the poor might be the most effective measure. Given Mexico's minimum wage of $5.00/day and the country's level of income inequality (ranked worst among OECD countries), poor people greatly outnumber the rest of the population.
"April Fool's Day" is an obnoxious tradition that I would not miss at all.
Tell me, do you want the government to outlaw practical jokes in general, or only the practice of performing them a particular day? Maybe you'd like the government to outlaw other things you find annoying as well, such as spelling and grammar errors? You should also let your Congressman know which end of an egg you think should be legal to open.
No Joke. April Fools' Day Has Been Banned In China
Finally the Chinese government does something I can get behind. Kudos China, for getting rid of the single stupidest, most annoying, and non-productive non-holiday of the year. May others follow.
Yes, because we all want a government telling us when and where any attempt at humor is permitted.
Slashdot Mirror
"industry singling a strong desire"
I think somebody misspelled "singing" .
More likely "signalling".
Until now where a bunch have turned up with what is effectively "how to vote cards"
This is a pretty apt description of elections in early American politics, where the various political parties printed and distributed their own ballots.
If you want to protect people from themselves, you need some sort of barrier or arm that physically blocks forward movement. Nothing else will register to someone who will miss a train barrelling towards them.
This is exactly what my city is doing - installing miniature crossing gates that block the sidewalks at grade crossings when a train is coming. Because pedestrians obviously can't see the traffic gates come down or hear the loud bells or see the flashing red lights.
What's next, "strong condemnation"?
You're jumping the gun. First you have to go through "annoyed", "exasperated" and "appalled." Then you can move on to "strongly condemning" and "deploring".
I'm sure that "strongly worded letter" and "stern warning" fit in there somewhere as well.
There's no way to stop it, one way or another Ford will get it. Every technology company on planet earth buys their competitors products and does a tear-down analysis.
You're correct, but the OP was talking about Ford buying Tesla the company, not a Tesla automobile.
Who the hell is paying $21+ for a pitcher of beer? Stated that he was only paying for his portion and tip for the two pitchers so does that make it really $42 per pitcher? You can buy a damn keg for that much money.
I guess that depends upon the beer, the size of the pitcher, and the hipsterosity of the drinker. I can tell you that 22 oz bottle of Deimos (a red ale from Ecliptic Brewing in Portland, OR) goes for $9. I don't know what their keg price is, but I'm pretty comfortable thinking it's more than $42.
Why does the Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations apply to an unarguably domestic transaction?
Probably because there are quite a few domestic groups that front for the Muslim Brotherhood, who in turn provide support to Hamas and Hezbollah. Like there used to be quite a few domestic groups that fronted for the IRA.
Meanwhile, terrorists are smart enough not to label a money transfer as ISIS BOMB FUNDING.
That's right. And a terrorist attempting to smuggle a bomb aboard a commercial airline flight is smart enough not to tell the baggage porter, "There's a bomb in that suitcase." But if a regular (non-terrorist) person says such a thing in jest, they will get a thorough anal probing.
Many years ago, long before the establishment of TSA, I was flying with a work colleague to a contractor site on the opposite coast, with a smallish but heavy hunk of electronic equipment that had been under test until shortly before we left for the airport. The baggage inspector put her hand on the cardboard box containing the equipment and exclaimed, "It's warm! Why is it warm?" My idiot colleague responded with, "Don't worry; it's not a bomb." I could have happily strangled that guy on the spot. Need I add that his little joke resulted in our being led off to a small room for an extended, unpleasant interview?
This is not a "ban on all non-electric vehicles". According to TFA, it is a ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, with currently-owned vehicles grandfathered. Perhaps a market will emerge for coal-burning steam-engined cars.
TFA did not mention whether the ban will include the purchase and importation of gas/diesel vehicles from outside the Netherlands. Seems obvious that the only way to get all gas/diesel vehicles off the road and keep them off is to prohibit the sale of the fuel that keeps them going.
If only they'd come out with the in-dash record player...
Not sure whether you're serious, but Chrysler offered a record player as an option in their cars from 1956 to 1961. The last model had a 12-platter changer.
The crime here is not espionage, but theft of TVA's intellectual property.
Actually, the intended end use of exported sensitive material and/or information is irrelevant. Acting as an agent of a foreign government in the acquisition of sensitive information (where "sensitive information" is defined by the US State Department) is either a serious violation of export laws or espionage, depending on the material/information involved. You could learn a few things by reading up on MCTR and ITAR. And for "purely civilian use", you can add EAR (no, not that thing on the side of your head, but the Commerce Department's Export Administration Regulations) to that list.
Therefore what is the scope of this investigation?
Don't get carried away. The scope is to prosecute someone who violated several rather serious Federal laws.
3x as fast
Really?
she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.
she would never do anything to endanger those in power.
To these people, those are the same thing.
Don't you watch Fox News? Their lawyer guests agreed Clinton didn't break any laws. They said that last month on a program, and to a viewing audience, that is not supportive of the Clinton campaign.
So keep huffing and puffing, maybe something besides gas and poo will eventually come out of there.
Oh, well! If a group of TV pundits say it's OK, that should put the matter to rest.
You're not being discriminated against: there are plenty of ride-sharing services that you can use. Just not this one.
Congratulations - you've re-discovered the principle of "separate but equal". Somewhere, Jim Crown us smiling.
A much higher percentage of State taxi drivers than Uber drivers have drunk driving convictions in the past 10 years of their criminal record. On average, the layperson would call that "Safest drivers on the road".
I'm sure you must have an authoritative source for that claim, and I'd really like to see it, because all I could find was this article saying that those sort of statistics aren't recorded. A background check on an individual will report convictions, searching on convictions won't tell you whether the offender was a driver for either a taxi service or Uber. Note that I'm not accusing you of making this stuff up, and I don't think it's your job to do my research; I'd just like to see the citation if you have it.
What in the actual hell? Uber has "failed to prevent 25 people with criminal records from becoming drivers"? So frigging what?
Uber wasn't prosecuted for hiring people with criminal records. They were prosecuted for deceptive advertising, after claiming that their driver vetting process was superior to the processes used by taxi companies (from TFA: "Unlike traditional cab companies, Uber does not require a fingerprint check that could uncover prior convictions."), and using advertising phrases like "safest drive on the road" (they aren't).
Either the people are normal every day people who should have no issue finding work, or they are dangerous criminals and shouldn't have been released.
Really, those are the alternatives? In the real world it seems that dangerous criminals are routinely released from prison. Some get early release due to overcrowding conditions, a few game the parole system, and many somehow remain dangerous despite having served their full sentences (perhaps you've stumbled across the term "repeat offender"). "Paying your debt to society" by serving a prison term for aggravated assault doesn't magically transform a "dangerous criminal" into a "normal everyday person".
poor people greatly outnumber the rest of the population.
Except that they don't. Mexico is now about evenly divided between working class and middle class:
Mexicoâ(TM)s middle class 47% of households
http://mexiconewsdaily.com/new...
According to the linked article, fully half of this so-called middle class do not own a vehicle. This flies in the face of the contention that middle-class families will simply buy a second car to work around the restriction. On the other hand, if they don't own a vehicle, the restrictions won't have much of an impact, will they? And I'm guessing it's probably safe to assume that if half the middle class families don't own cars, then car ownership is even lower in the poorer-than-middle-class demographic.
Unless you're watching Princess Bride, that is.
This is slashdot. We all watch The Princess Bride.
Inconceivable!
It only penalizes poor people.
If the goal is to maximize the number of cars kept from operating, discriminating against the poor might be the most effective measure. Given Mexico's minimum wage of $5.00/day and the country's level of income inequality (ranked worst among OECD countries), poor people greatly outnumber the rest of the population.
When you say "mild electrocution", you're saying "mildly dead", which doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Unless you're watching Princess Bride, that is.
China has the right idea.
"April Fool's Day" is an obnoxious tradition that I would not miss at all.
Tell me, do you want the government to outlaw practical jokes in general, or only the practice of performing them a particular day? Maybe you'd like the government to outlaw other things you find annoying as well, such as spelling and grammar errors? You should also let your Congressman know which end of an egg you think should be legal to open.
No Joke. April Fools' Day Has Been Banned In China
Finally the Chinese government does something I can get behind. Kudos China, for getting rid of the single stupidest, most annoying, and non-productive non-holiday of the year. May others follow.
Yes, because we all want a government telling us when and where any attempt at humor is permitted.
...Will people ever grow out of this nonsense?
Probably not. It appears that most people enjoy it, as it's been going on all over the world for hundreds of years.