IBM WebSphere was always tightly tied to specific versions of Java. My guess is that as an "enterprise" application, they decided to rely on "enterprise" vendors that have a tendancy towards this kind of stupidity. Using mostly Apache projects you don't tend to run into these problems.
And you guessed correctly. So... IBM WAS, Oracle App Server/WebLogic with IBM Java, and Oracle (pre-Sun purchase) Java - plus good ol Sun Java in the mix. Each (of the first two) to use specific libraries written by FileNet (not IBM - IBM cleaned things up in later releases *after* they bought FileNet) or for OAS.:-/
You didn't follow the guidelines somehow, and the implementation became less flexible with how much it was prepared to do for you. I remember something like this also, but didn't blame Java.
What part of "we inherited this disaster during a company buy-out" did you miss? Nor are most of the issues not "follow(ing) the guidelines" - some of the Java 1.3/1.4 calls have been totally removed, or revised.
but because so many libraries are shared (including *SUN* libraries that don't work in Java 6/7)
Um, are you talking about the sun internal packages(com.sun.whatever)? The internal packages that when used will generate a compiler warning? If so then yeah, it' no wonder you cannot move forward. Backwards compatibility usually only covers cases where the original coders stuck to the guidelines that were in place when the original code was written. Backwards compatibility usually does not, and should not cover programs that willfully violate those guidelines. The compiler generates warnings for a reason.
First, as someone else said...
Those packages are extra Java libraries Sun decided to shop along with their implementation of Java.
Second, some of Sun's old add on libraries use functions that were deprecated and will no longer compile on Java 7. Not give "warnings" - but won't compile because the calls are no longer in Java 7. I mean really... all you need to do is look at the deprecated functions list and see which have been totally removed (and replaced) to see that the problem is different than what you think.
And don't forget about bugs with Java itself. We spent about half a day trying to figure out why an application that had been functioning until a Java upgrade stopped talking to the MS-SQL server it used, until we stumbled across JDK-7103725. We had to rollback until it was fixed (which actually took a few builds). There is a tiny bit of truth to the "Write once, break everywhere." troll.
I HAD forgotten the bugs... until I took on this project. That too has been part of the problem. I remember all too clearly now.:-/
And since the original project actually started in January 2002, a bunch of the code was actually written for Java 1.3 (and then, 3 years later, when the project was complete and in testing, ran on Java 1.4 and eventually a combo of 1.4.2 and 1.5).
I am working on a 80 000 lines long Java web application in the last 15 years. I have upgraded through 5 major versions, from Java 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3 to 1.4 to 5 to 6. I do not remember a single issue related to any of these upgrades. There vere about 2 minor issues when we migrated from Unix to Windows to Linux (related to the case sensitivity of the file system).
(1) Try Java 7 - more breaks there than in 6
(2) 80,000 lines of code is a joke compared to 74 GIGABYTES of code with tons of shared custom and outside vendor libraries, running to interconnect FIVE DOZEN servers running a multitude of server daemons, spread across RHEL, RHAS, RHES, Solaris (multiple versions), CentOS, Windows (multiple versions), on x86/64 and non x86/64 hardware - and those run on multiple Java versions in various Java engines (Sun, Oracle, IBM) and in various Java application servers (WebLogic, WebSphere, Tomcat, Covalent, and more). And since it covers virtually everything (in scope of calls and libraries), both Sun and outside vendor wise, we've run into a lot of deprecated calls - and numerous other issues.
(3) Some of the infrastructure components will need to be "upgraded" onto a new OS - for instance, components of IBM FileNet P8 that used to "run best" on Solaris are now being "upgraded" onto RHEL 7 ("upgraded" is in quotes, because it's an upgrade migration where the actual installed version isn't really being upgraded - its settings and data are being migrated onto the newer FileNet version).
(4) Numerous of the outside libraries (for instance the ancient FileNet libraries that *FileNet* (not IBM) wrote) are not compliant with Java 6 or above (IBM for instance, fixed that in later releases - doesn't help us until the rest of the code is corrected to work with the new libraries and Java 7).
I think comparing a tiny (in comparison) 80,000 line project to the scope of our infrastructure is where and why you're seeing different results. I envy you.
It's amazing how they "found" these... I would have thought that computers would make it impossible to "lose" such funds - even with the most simplistic of accounting programs. The more I hear, the more it sounds like something else is going on (like the principles of Mt Gox trying to run off with as many BitCoins as they can). It's like watching a soap opera.
What the fuck are you going on about? Java 8 supports all the previous versions without a problem. Same for Java 7, and all the others before it. If you write code that breaks because of backwards compatibility issues, you're a retard.
No, they most definitely do NOT. We inherited an infrastructure (from a company we bought) that relies heavily on Java 1.4.2 and Java 1.5 (both on the server end and on the client end). Many of the (entirely internal) apps and servlets will not run in Java 6, much less Java 7. Believe me, we've tried. Too much deprecated stuff (not to mention security keys from Sun that haven't been changed in over half a decade).
We've got a two year long project going on to upgrade everything - but because so many libraries are shared (including *SUN* libraries that don't work in Java 6/7) across hundreds of projects, it's going to be an upgrade nightmare. In total, we have GIGABYTES of code, spread across a pretty large infrastructure (comprised of over a hundred servers and 5 racks of SAN).
Of course, our plans are to ensure that all code is up to snuff so we never run into this again - but we had no choice in this matter, since we neither wrote nor planned the original code bases. But what WE do going forward doesn't resolve what we have to do in order to move forward.
Perhaps you simply haven't done any real Java coding on an Enterprise level? If you had, you'd never had made such a post.
If my memory's correct, one of the issue was that the car needed to have a certain minimal acceleration that couldn't be delivered by an electric engine, with all the weight it would have to pull. If I'm right, and the requirements didn't change, well...
Except, especially with all wheel drive and two to four motors, such is no longer true - as Tesla has proven with motors that aren't particularly large in a car that's considerably heavy compared to its gas counterparts.
The correct statement would have been " the car needed to have a certain minimal acceleration that couldn't be delivered (by GM) by an electric engine (as GM has no interest in doing anything that leads credence to the viability of any electric vehicles." The same would apply to other automakers - but more especially to the EV1 destroying, battery technology suppressing GM.
Considering the size of the vehicle (figure mega-Suburban, extended, if you don't recognize the truck platform mentioned), plenty of battery power could be put into it, and four larger motors (than the ONE motor in the Model S) could also fit - as would Subaru's concept 3 motor (two rear, one front) design. As a matter of fact, with all wheels independently driven via computer, there's also the increase in traction to consider for quick (from stop or slow speed) acceleration.
Anyone who can't see the yellow box with the word "Ad" in it shouldn't be in the Internet. My opinion on this, is that this new method actually makes it far easier to see which ones are ads, since each such result is clearly labeled right at the beginning of the link-out.
The people who would miss this or be confused by it are the same ones who'd already have so many infections on their computer from clicking idiotic things that it's unlikely their browser would even load Google.;-)
I encourage anyone interested in supporting common core that actually has kids in school right now to look at some of the actual questions in the Houghton Mifflin books. We are teaching our kids to make up answers....
Obviously, if you think that, then the education system failed you.
But, seriously, we've only solved the universal literacy problem over about the last 50-150 years(depending on when you consider it "solved"),
Sadly, you are only correct if you are equating "the ability to read (anything)" as literacy. There are states where the functionally illiterate rate is staggering. The figures on the DOE sites are very misleading, since they consider the ability to read "basic prose" to indicate "literacy" - when in reality, the "deeper numbers" indicate "21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.". The numbers are even worse if one expects an adult to read at what's considered an adult level - someplace decently over 50%.
and it's made a huge difference for how well society functions.
The true situation does indeed impact how well society (in this country) works. And we can see that ignorance, lack of education and lack of literacy driving some lunatic policies.
My monthly bill has been going down. Three times in the last year, and, during that same time frame, the services I am provided have increased (either during a drop in my bill, or outside of a drop in my bill where my bill didn't change). But T-Mobile's been pretty good about that.
Its not their mess, its tanks owned by third parties:
Often built for gas stations during the 1950s and '60s highway construction boom, the tanks corroded over time, spilling gas and diesel with potentially cancer-causing chemicals under properties and into aquifers.
The oil companies are paid to clean up the pollution caused by these tanks constructed for, operated and owned by third parties. The oil companies are chosen because they already have extensive inhouse expertise on the subject, so they are ideal for doing it wholesale.
Chances are, most of these tanks have been abandoned and their original owners do not exist, which is why local government step in.
Nonsense! They each outright own a large portion of such stations, either directly, or through secondary companies they set up. Not all of them are franchises.
Of course, it then came out that at least one work was taken down by a WB employee, and that employee had done so on purpose, annoyed that JDownloader could help possible infringers download more quickly.
Isn't making a false statement under the DMCA essentially like perjury? And if it is, why isn't someone being charged criminally?
It's gotten to the point where these companies ignore the letter (and intent) of the law at will, and with no penalty.
If your computer system is identifying incorrect stuff, your computer system is faulty. If your humans are illegally issuing take downs for stuff you don't own, that's a criminal act.
And don't tell me it's a civil matter, because the *AAs have gotten enforcement of this ramped up to a federal crime.
Filing a false notice/complaint, or a false counter notice (either or both) is also covered in the DMCA. Both hold large penalties. Both have the potential (depending on the circumstances) of it also being a criminal matter.
Both are areas where there have been few companies or people who have asked for those provisions to be upheld.:-(
As an OS, Symbian sucked. As an interface to a phone, it worked well. People who wanted a phone to run games and run all the bells and whistles didn't buy Nokia phones. People who bought Nokia phones wanted a phone that made phone calls, and in a pinch could do some other neat tricks, too.
For comparison, consider my wife's old Android phone, which crashed when the Phone app was opened... or my iPhone, which has trouble figuring out whether it wants to use Wi-Fi or 4G for data transfer at any given time. My old Nokia phone was just a phone, and for a large market segment (such as the elderly retirees whose kids insist they have a cell phone "for emergencies"), that's all they need.
Nokia had a niche market all ready as the manufacturer of reliable low-end phones. Elop led them down the familiar Microsoft path of following the latest trends, so they lost that one market they dominated.
That, (coupled with the sales figures to support it) is a better explanation of reality. The GP/PP/etc need to stop thinking as techie geeks, and start thinking in the way the highly diverse consumer market thinks. There's a reason the Symbian phones sold. Decent hardware that did the job for people who don't want (or are scared of) smartphones, but want something better than a dumb "calls/text only") phone.
Sounds like a wonderfully horrendous plan. Certain aspects, such as those designed to allow Microsoft to compete in non-Windows environments (if implemented properly) are definitely good ideas. Killing off divisions like the xBox division... not so much.
It makes it seem like he's trying to both hurt them and save them at the same time - sadly, I don't think it'll get them anywhere.
That's of course assuming that the speculation is more than just speculation (and he actually plans on doing such things).
Realizing just how much some of us geeks use this service, whether to search for lost content, or via using places like Wikipedia that link to original/unmodified versions of a web page, I figured I should do my part to help out - and I did. Hope others step up to the plate too. It would be a shame to have their operations hobbled because of this fire.
Nor is it clear why nearby oil fields that have also been injected with CO2 have not experienced similar seismic activity.
Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.
This of course would take cooperation on the part of the oil/gas companies - something unlikely.
While that may be the case (sans the drama), the simple fact is that in order for much of the web to work in a decent fashion, such "infrastructure" had to be built in one form or another.
Sadly, they've been staunchly behind BOTH parties to try to pressure them into such things. This "latest battle" started with the DMCA - which would have been a lot worse if it weren't for some CongressCritters who actually stood up for us - and those were largely Democrats, btw.
While BOTH parties are doing a horrendous job with such things, one party is entirely ignoring the public on this matter - the corporate donations to that particular party are coincidentally a lot higher.
Because people who own Tesla stock have to justify their mistake? A better question is which company takes more taxpayer money per worker.
If we're just talking styling opinions, the Chevy Volt has much better styling and is more efficient. It's the winner in the long run. The Tesla is a boat that looks like a decade-old Kia with an 80s Maserati grill super-glued to the front.
Tesla has no rivals because no one else currently builds for the Cars-That-No-one-Wants market segment. Clearly GM won't be competing.
The Volt is LESS efficient, not nearly as good looking as ANY Tesla (past or planned), and Tesla has repaid EVERY PENNY of their government loan EARLY, while turning a profit. Shall we discuss GM, or do you understand reality now?
As for "cars no one wants" - MANY people want one. This year, Tesla beat out Chrysler, Volvo and Cadillac in sales in California (and other companies/divisions as well). So, based on that, should we call those companies' cars "the cars that even less than on one wants"?
Don't troll - and if you aren't trolling, then don't talk about something you have done no research on.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM WebSphere was always tightly tied to specific versions of Java. My guess is that as an "enterprise" application, they decided to rely on "enterprise" vendors that have a tendancy towards this kind of stupidity. Using mostly Apache projects you don't tend to run into these problems.
And you guessed correctly. So... IBM WAS, Oracle App Server/WebLogic with IBM Java, and Oracle (pre-Sun purchase) Java - plus good ol Sun Java in the mix. Each (of the first two) to use specific libraries written by FileNet (not IBM - IBM cleaned things up in later releases *after* they bought FileNet) or for OAS. :-/
You didn't follow the guidelines somehow, and the implementation became less flexible with how much it was prepared to do for you. I remember something like this also, but didn't blame Java.
What part of "we inherited this disaster during a company buy-out" did you miss? Nor are most of the issues not "follow(ing) the guidelines" - some of the Java 1.3/1.4 calls have been totally removed, or revised.
but because so many libraries are shared (including *SUN* libraries that don't work in Java 6/7) Um, are you talking about the sun internal packages(com.sun.whatever)? The internal packages that when used will generate a compiler warning? If so then yeah, it' no wonder you cannot move forward. Backwards compatibility usually only covers cases where the original coders stuck to the guidelines that were in place when the original code was written. Backwards compatibility usually does not, and should not cover programs that willfully violate those guidelines. The compiler generates warnings for a reason.
First, as someone else said...
Those packages are extra Java libraries Sun decided to shop along with their implementation of Java.
Second, some of Sun's old add on libraries use functions that were deprecated and will no longer compile on Java 7. Not give "warnings" - but won't compile because the calls are no longer in Java 7. I mean really... all you need to do is look at the deprecated functions list and see which have been totally removed (and replaced) to see that the problem is different than what you think.
And don't forget about bugs with Java itself. We spent about half a day trying to figure out why an application that had been functioning until a Java upgrade stopped talking to the MS-SQL server it used, until we stumbled across JDK-7103725. We had to rollback until it was fixed (which actually took a few builds). There is a tiny bit of truth to the "Write once, break everywhere." troll.
I HAD forgotten the bugs... until I took on this project. That too has been part of the problem. I remember all too clearly now. :-/
And since the original project actually started in January 2002, a bunch of the code was actually written for Java 1.3 (and then, 3 years later, when the project was complete and in testing, ran on Java 1.4 and eventually a combo of 1.4.2 and 1.5).
It's like watching a soap opera.
Its like watching a very dumb version of Monty python .. really ..
LoL, I stand corrected!!! And now, I can't get Monty Python skits outta my head - this is going to make the work day a lot more fun! :-P
I am working on a 80 000 lines long Java web application in the last 15 years. I have upgraded through 5 major versions, from Java 1.1 to 1.2 to 1.3 to 1.4 to 5 to 6. I do not remember a single issue related to any of these upgrades. There vere about 2 minor issues when we migrated from Unix to Windows to Linux (related to the case sensitivity of the file system).
(1) Try Java 7 - more breaks there than in 6
(2) 80,000 lines of code is a joke compared to 74 GIGABYTES of code with tons of shared custom and outside vendor libraries, running to interconnect FIVE DOZEN servers running a multitude of server daemons, spread across RHEL, RHAS, RHES, Solaris (multiple versions), CentOS, Windows (multiple versions), on x86/64 and non x86/64 hardware - and those run on multiple Java versions in various Java engines (Sun, Oracle, IBM) and in various Java application servers (WebLogic, WebSphere, Tomcat, Covalent, and more). And since it covers virtually everything (in scope of calls and libraries), both Sun and outside vendor wise, we've run into a lot of deprecated calls - and numerous other issues.
(3) Some of the infrastructure components will need to be "upgraded" onto a new OS - for instance, components of IBM FileNet P8 that used to "run best" on Solaris are now being "upgraded" onto RHEL 7 ("upgraded" is in quotes, because it's an upgrade migration where the actual installed version isn't really being upgraded - its settings and data are being migrated onto the newer FileNet version).
(4) Numerous of the outside libraries (for instance the ancient FileNet libraries that *FileNet* (not IBM) wrote) are not compliant with Java 6 or above (IBM for instance, fixed that in later releases - doesn't help us until the rest of the code is corrected to work with the new libraries and Java 7).
I think comparing a tiny (in comparison) 80,000 line project to the scope of our infrastructure is where and why you're seeing different results. I envy you.
Not saying Java is neglected. I'm saying if his systems are dependent on Java 1.4 then the code written in Java has been neglected.
Oh so horrendously neglected. Gigabytes of it. Good news is, me and my team are guaranteed a job for ages to come. ;-)
Bad news is, ugh... bringing gigabytes of inter-related Java code up to snuff is oh so much fun. :-P
It's amazing how they "found" these... I would have thought that computers would make it impossible to "lose" such funds - even with the most simplistic of accounting programs. The more I hear, the more it sounds like something else is going on (like the principles of Mt Gox trying to run off with as many BitCoins as they can). It's like watching a soap opera.
What the fuck are you going on about? Java 8 supports all the previous versions without a problem. Same for Java 7, and all the others before it. If you write code that breaks because of backwards compatibility issues, you're a retard.
No, they most definitely do NOT. We inherited an infrastructure (from a company we bought) that relies heavily on Java 1.4.2 and Java 1.5 (both on the server end and on the client end). Many of the (entirely internal) apps and servlets will not run in Java 6, much less Java 7. Believe me, we've tried. Too much deprecated stuff (not to mention security keys from Sun that haven't been changed in over half a decade).
We've got a two year long project going on to upgrade everything - but because so many libraries are shared (including *SUN* libraries that don't work in Java 6/7) across hundreds of projects, it's going to be an upgrade nightmare. In total, we have GIGABYTES of code, spread across a pretty large infrastructure (comprised of over a hundred servers and 5 racks of SAN).
Of course, our plans are to ensure that all code is up to snuff so we never run into this again - but we had no choice in this matter, since we neither wrote nor planned the original code bases. But what WE do going forward doesn't resolve what we have to do in order to move forward.
Perhaps you simply haven't done any real Java coding on an Enterprise level? If you had, you'd never had made such a post.
If my memory's correct, one of the issue was that the car needed to have a certain minimal acceleration that couldn't be delivered by an electric engine, with all the weight it would have to pull. If I'm right, and the requirements didn't change, well...
Except, especially with all wheel drive and two to four motors, such is no longer true - as Tesla has proven with motors that aren't particularly large in a car that's considerably heavy compared to its gas counterparts.
The correct statement would have been " the car needed to have a certain minimal acceleration that couldn't be delivered (by GM) by an electric engine (as GM has no interest in doing anything that leads credence to the viability of any electric vehicles." The same would apply to other automakers - but more especially to the EV1 destroying, battery technology suppressing GM.
Considering the size of the vehicle (figure mega-Suburban, extended, if you don't recognize the truck platform mentioned), plenty of battery power could be put into it, and four larger motors (than the ONE motor in the Model S) could also fit - as would Subaru's concept 3 motor (two rear, one front) design. As a matter of fact, with all wheels independently driven via computer, there's also the increase in traction to consider for quick (from stop or slow speed) acceleration.
Anyone who can't see the yellow box with the word "Ad" in it shouldn't be in the Internet. My opinion on this, is that this new method actually makes it far easier to see which ones are ads, since each such result is clearly labeled right at the beginning of the link-out.
The people who would miss this or be confused by it are the same ones who'd already have so many infections on their computer from clicking idiotic things that it's unlikely their browser would even load Google. ;-)
I encourage anyone interested in supporting common core that actually has kids in school right now to look at some of the actual questions in the Houghton Mifflin books. We are teaching our kids to make up answers....
Obviously, if you think that, then the education system failed you.
But, seriously, we've only solved the universal literacy problem over about the last 50-150 years(depending on when you consider it "solved"),
Sadly, you are only correct if you are equating "the ability to read (anything)" as literacy. There are states where the functionally illiterate rate is staggering. The figures on the DOE sites are very misleading, since they consider the ability to read "basic prose" to indicate "literacy" - when in reality, the "deeper numbers" indicate "21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.". The numbers are even worse if one expects an adult to read at what's considered an adult level - someplace decently over 50%.
and it's made a huge difference for how well society functions.
The true situation does indeed impact how well society (in this country) works. And we can see that ignorance, lack of education and lack of literacy driving some lunatic policies.
My monthly bill has been going down. Three times in the last year, and, during that same time frame, the services I am provided have increased (either during a drop in my bill, or outside of a drop in my bill where my bill didn't change). But T-Mobile's been pretty good about that.
Its not their mess, its tanks owned by third parties:
The oil companies are paid to clean up the pollution caused by these tanks constructed for, operated and owned by third parties. The oil companies are chosen because they already have extensive inhouse expertise on the subject, so they are ideal for doing it wholesale.
Chances are, most of these tanks have been abandoned and their original owners do not exist, which is why local government step in.
Nonsense! They each outright own a large portion of such stations, either directly, or through secondary companies they set up. Not all of them are franchises.
Isn't making a false statement under the DMCA essentially like perjury? And if it is, why isn't someone being charged criminally?
It's gotten to the point where these companies ignore the letter (and intent) of the law at will, and with no penalty.
If your computer system is identifying incorrect stuff, your computer system is faulty. If your humans are illegally issuing take downs for stuff you don't own, that's a criminal act.
And don't tell me it's a civil matter, because the *AAs have gotten enforcement of this ramped up to a federal crime.
Filing a false notice/complaint, or a false counter notice (either or both) is also covered in the DMCA. Both hold large penalties. Both have the potential (depending on the circumstances) of it also being a criminal matter.
Both are areas where there have been few companies or people who have asked for those provisions to be upheld. :-(
As an OS, Symbian sucked. As an interface to a phone, it worked well. People who wanted a phone to run games and run all the bells and whistles didn't buy Nokia phones. People who bought Nokia phones wanted a phone that made phone calls, and in a pinch could do some other neat tricks, too.
For comparison, consider my wife's old Android phone, which crashed when the Phone app was opened... or my iPhone, which has trouble figuring out whether it wants to use Wi-Fi or 4G for data transfer at any given time. My old Nokia phone was just a phone, and for a large market segment (such as the elderly retirees whose kids insist they have a cell phone "for emergencies"), that's all they need.
Nokia had a niche market all ready as the manufacturer of reliable low-end phones. Elop led them down the familiar Microsoft path of following the latest trends, so they lost that one market they dominated.
That, (coupled with the sales figures to support it) is a better explanation of reality. The GP/PP/etc need to stop thinking as techie geeks, and start thinking in the way the highly diverse consumer market thinks. There's a reason the Symbian phones sold. Decent hardware that did the job for people who don't want (or are scared of) smartphones, but want something better than a dumb "calls/text only") phone.
Sounds like a wonderfully horrendous plan. Certain aspects, such as those designed to allow Microsoft to compete in non-Windows environments (if implemented properly) are definitely good ideas. Killing off divisions like the xBox division... not so much.
It makes it seem like he's trying to both hurt them and save them at the same time - sadly, I don't think it'll get them anywhere.
That's of course assuming that the speculation is more than just speculation (and he actually plans on doing such things).
Realizing just how much some of us geeks use this service, whether to search for lost content, or via using places like Wikipedia that link to original/unmodified versions of a web page, I figured I should do my part to help out - and I did. Hope others step up to the plate too. It would be a shame to have their operations hobbled because of this fire.
Until you figure out why CO2 injection causes problems at one oilfield, and not its neighbors, even though all of them have had similar amounts of CO2 injected, it seems rather more likely than not that the CO2 injection had nothing to do with the tremors.
This of course would take cooperation on the part of the oil/gas companies - something unlikely.
Microsoft is showing restraint with version numbers. I've lost track of what versions Chrome and Firefox are at now.
That's easy. Firefox is on version "1.298799e+11" and Chrome is on version "Numeric Overflow"
While that may be the case (sans the drama), the simple fact is that in order for much of the web to work in a decent fashion, such "infrastructure" had to be built in one form or another.
Sadly, they've been staunchly behind BOTH parties to try to pressure them into such things. This "latest battle" started with the DMCA - which would have been a lot worse if it weren't for some CongressCritters who actually stood up for us - and those were largely Democrats, btw.
While BOTH parties are doing a horrendous job with such things, one party is entirely ignoring the public on this matter - the corporate donations to that particular party are coincidentally a lot higher.
It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".
Because people who own Tesla stock have to justify their mistake? A better question is which company takes more taxpayer money per worker.
If we're just talking styling opinions, the Chevy Volt has much better styling and is more efficient. It's the winner in the long run. The Tesla is a boat that looks like a decade-old Kia with an 80s Maserati grill super-glued to the front.
Tesla has no rivals because no one else currently builds for the Cars-That-No-one-Wants market segment. Clearly GM won't be competing.
The Volt is LESS efficient, not nearly as good looking as ANY Tesla (past or planned), and Tesla has repaid EVERY PENNY of their government loan EARLY, while turning a profit. Shall we discuss GM, or do you understand reality now?
As for "cars no one wants" - MANY people want one. This year, Tesla beat out Chrysler, Volvo and Cadillac in sales in California (and other companies/divisions as well). So, based on that, should we call those companies' cars "the cars that even less than on one wants"?
Don't troll - and if you aren't trolling, then don't talk about something you have done no research on.