But, were they being run by his campaign or by a group supporting him? The reason I ask is that there's been tons of money in recent years for various swiftboating outfits to engage in that sort of behavior, they're beyond the control of the politicians campaign and can raise a lot of money independently.
Precisely, Tesla gets to reuse a lot of parts that are now cheaper as a result of th R&D and efficiencies of scale that have resulted from the previous lines. Also, the newer ones don't need to have quite the performance in terms of speed, but in general I'm sure they've learned a lot from having the roadsters on the road for the last couple years.
3 hours charge gets you 80% of the range. 80% charge is much further than one is going to be commuting, at least anybody sane, if you're going farther, you're not going to be thinking about any electric car no matter how quickly it charges. Most houses have at least 1 240vac outlet, and sometimes more than that. What exactly do you think it is that powers the clothes dryer?
Not really, Article 54 goes way beyond what we have in the US. There's all sorts of things that I'm free to do in the US which would probably hurt the honor of America. And there's tons of things that corporate interests do which are detrimental to the interests and security of the homeland.
You're confused. The reason you can drink a soda or munch a snack that you're going to pay for, is because you haven't hit the point where they can meet the legal requirements for convicting you of theft. As long as you're on the property they can't prove that you're going to steal the items in question.
It's not because they're extending you credit, it's because it would be difficult to get that case prosecuted. That is until you go beyond the cash registers at which point they could arrest you for theft.
As for services, that's completely different, you can't exchange those simultaneously so either you have to pay up front or you have to extend a sort of credit, neither of which applies in situations like that. And quite frankly, it's somewhat astonishing to me how far you're willing to go to create a loan situation which clearly doesn't exist.
One thing you'll note about the Israelis is that while they're incredibly serious about counter terrorism prevention, they don't put up with a lot of the crap that DHS expects people in America to put up with. There's no racial profiling and no body scanners, just well trained officers that actually know what they're doing.
It's a different system. I couldn't find a source for it, but it wasn't a matter of power braking failing, it resulted in the brake being inoperable on one of the wheels.
The breaks technically didn't fail, the fuse for the breaks failed. But, personally, I wouldn't consider that to be a lie as I wouldn't give a damn why the brakes weren't functioning if they were stuck in one position or the other.
Despite the current stupidity, Tesla has come a long way in making affordable electric cars a reality. The Roadster went for $109k and the Model S is expected to go for only $60k or there abouts. The cost is in my view expensive, but there's a fair number of people out there even now that could afford to spend $60k on a car.
The more significant thing is that they can charge it in a few hours on household current.
No, Tesla is claiming that, but IIRC they had only scripted out parts of the show. But supposedly the only prescripted bits were the ones they knew they needed to get due to limited light. The things that involved actually driving the vehicles hadn't been written ahead.
Or at least that's my understanding of the matter.
Not from a legal standpoint. There has to be credit extended for it to be debt. When I go to the store, I don't get to just walk out of the store mid transaction without having handed over my money. The reason I can't do that is because ownership wasn't transferred to me until the store received payment for the goods I was buying. Until the store gets its money there was no transaction and up until that point in time either party can back out of the deal, although in practice stores rarely do so.
The problem is that no matter where you set the limits you'll have people finding ways around the limits. I'm not sure about this area, but money launderers will often times engage in transactions just below the point where banking regulations require the banks to notify law enforcement.
What you're forgetting is that there isn't any incentive on the part of the dealer to do that. Ultimately, circumventing the law would almost certainly bring a lot of attention to the dealer and probably turn up a few cases where they unknowingly received stolen goods.
It's easier for the dealers to just follow the spirit of the law and have a stronger position in case some of the goods were indeed stolen.
No, the transaction is the exchange of payment for goods or services. In order for it to be debt, one party has to be extending credit to the other party. If neither party does that then it's not a debt transaction and their is no obligation that one party accept cash or the other party provide it.
It's not debt, debt requires one party to loan the other party some asset which must later be paid back. In these transactions there's no basis for that in fact, it's a pure exchange of cash for item.
It's not debt if you make payment at the time of service. Apple did a similar thing with its iPhone release where they wouldn't allow you to pay with cash so that they could enforce purchase limits.
Because the people that are going to get G+ going are the ones that refused to get a FB account due to the horrendous privacy policies. Google isn't perfect when it comes to their privacy policy, but at least they tend to keep it fairly consistent rather than constantly changing the settings hoping to catch people unaware.
The tough thing is getting the beginning group to stay, after that you'll start to see groups moving there and ultimately if things go well they'll start to snowball. But, if G+ requires real names, it doesn't give me any reason to start groups there as I might as well just go with FB and accept that my privacy is just going to be ass raped by that douch Zuckerberg.
Until somebody brings it to their attention and they request proof that you are who you say you are. At which point Google would have authorization to terminate the account. Just because it's not being enforced does not meant that they can't enforce it and it doesn't mean that they have to go looking for violations to enforce.
Which is sort of the point, FB has a pretty good lock right now on folks that don't care about their privacy at all, G+ could easily get them onboard, especially if they could create a consistent privacy policy and allow folks to get in touch with people that wouldn't touch FB with a 11 and a half foot pole.
Slashdot Mirror
They exist, but the 1TB SSDs are really expensive. There was a story about OCZ's new one like yesterday.
But, were they being run by his campaign or by a group supporting him? The reason I ask is that there's been tons of money in recent years for various swiftboating outfits to engage in that sort of behavior, they're beyond the control of the politicians campaign and can raise a lot of money independently.
Precisely, Tesla gets to reuse a lot of parts that are now cheaper as a result of th R&D and efficiencies of scale that have resulted from the previous lines. Also, the newer ones don't need to have quite the performance in terms of speed, but in general I'm sure they've learned a lot from having the roadsters on the road for the last couple years.
3 hours charge gets you 80% of the range. 80% charge is much further than one is going to be commuting, at least anybody sane, if you're going farther, you're not going to be thinking about any electric car no matter how quickly it charges. Most houses have at least 1 240vac outlet, and sometimes more than that. What exactly do you think it is that powers the clothes dryer?
The voters were still concerned with their own well being.
Not really, Article 54 goes way beyond what we have in the US. There's all sorts of things that I'm free to do in the US which would probably hurt the honor of America. And there's tons of things that corporate interests do which are detrimental to the interests and security of the homeland.
You're confused. The reason you can drink a soda or munch a snack that you're going to pay for, is because you haven't hit the point where they can meet the legal requirements for convicting you of theft. As long as you're on the property they can't prove that you're going to steal the items in question.
It's not because they're extending you credit, it's because it would be difficult to get that case prosecuted. That is until you go beyond the cash registers at which point they could arrest you for theft.
As for services, that's completely different, you can't exchange those simultaneously so either you have to pay up front or you have to extend a sort of credit, neither of which applies in situations like that. And quite frankly, it's somewhat astonishing to me how far you're willing to go to create a loan situation which clearly doesn't exist.
One thing you'll note about the Israelis is that while they're incredibly serious about counter terrorism prevention, they don't put up with a lot of the crap that DHS expects people in America to put up with. There's no racial profiling and no body scanners, just well trained officers that actually know what they're doing.
It's a different system. I couldn't find a source for it, but it wasn't a matter of power braking failing, it resulted in the brake being inoperable on one of the wheels.
The breaks technically didn't fail, the fuse for the breaks failed. But, personally, I wouldn't consider that to be a lie as I wouldn't give a damn why the brakes weren't functioning if they were stuck in one position or the other.
Well for starters there are the folks that would prefer not to be subsidizing terrorism via paying for gas.
Didn't they have reliability problems in the past? Am I wrong about that or have they finally fixed it?
Despite the current stupidity, Tesla has come a long way in making affordable electric cars a reality. The Roadster went for $109k and the Model S is expected to go for only $60k or there abouts. The cost is in my view expensive, but there's a fair number of people out there even now that could afford to spend $60k on a car.
The more significant thing is that they can charge it in a few hours on household current.
No, Tesla is claiming that, but IIRC they had only scripted out parts of the show. But supposedly the only prescripted bits were the ones they knew they needed to get due to limited light. The things that involved actually driving the vehicles hadn't been written ahead.
Or at least that's my understanding of the matter.
Not from a legal standpoint. There has to be credit extended for it to be debt. When I go to the store, I don't get to just walk out of the store mid transaction without having handed over my money. The reason I can't do that is because ownership wasn't transferred to me until the store received payment for the goods I was buying. Until the store gets its money there was no transaction and up until that point in time either party can back out of the deal, although in practice stores rarely do so.
Not really, that only applies to privacy, not to businesses that deal in items likely to be stolen.
The problem is that no matter where you set the limits you'll have people finding ways around the limits. I'm not sure about this area, but money launderers will often times engage in transactions just below the point where banking regulations require the banks to notify law enforcement.
What you're forgetting is that there isn't any incentive on the part of the dealer to do that. Ultimately, circumventing the law would almost certainly bring a lot of attention to the dealer and probably turn up a few cases where they unknowingly received stolen goods.
It's easier for the dealers to just follow the spirit of the law and have a stronger position in case some of the goods were indeed stolen.
No, the transaction is the exchange of payment for goods or services. In order for it to be debt, one party has to be extending credit to the other party. If neither party does that then it's not a debt transaction and their is no obligation that one party accept cash or the other party provide it.
It's not debt, debt requires one party to loan the other party some asset which must later be paid back. In these transactions there's no basis for that in fact, it's a pure exchange of cash for item.
It's not debt if you make payment at the time of service. Apple did a similar thing with its iPhone release where they wouldn't allow you to pay with cash so that they could enforce purchase limits.
Because the people that are going to get G+ going are the ones that refused to get a FB account due to the horrendous privacy policies. Google isn't perfect when it comes to their privacy policy, but at least they tend to keep it fairly consistent rather than constantly changing the settings hoping to catch people unaware.
The tough thing is getting the beginning group to stay, after that you'll start to see groups moving there and ultimately if things go well they'll start to snowball. But, if G+ requires real names, it doesn't give me any reason to start groups there as I might as well just go with FB and accept that my privacy is just going to be ass raped by that douch Zuckerberg.
Until somebody brings it to their attention and they request proof that you are who you say you are. At which point Google would have authorization to terminate the account. Just because it's not being enforced does not meant that they can't enforce it and it doesn't mean that they have to go looking for violations to enforce.
Which is sort of the point, FB has a pretty good lock right now on folks that don't care about their privacy at all, G+ could easily get them onboard, especially if they could create a consistent privacy policy and allow folks to get in touch with people that wouldn't touch FB with a 11 and a half foot pole.
I'm in my 30s and I've never bothered to watch it. I've heard the film really hasn't held up very well over the last decade.