On a similar note, I would have preferred if she had posted something like this on a personal blog and not the company blog, because I think it looks tacky (especially when you are sharing your actual salary).
I thought the analysis was generally quite good though and she seems to be quite intelligent. Please don't take my critique to mean that I thought the point she was making was incorrect.
I think the fact that you are agreeing with an article either written directly by Tesla PR or paid for by Tesla PR, which has a minority opinion on the matter, which is backed up by statements which are in disagreement to both knowledgeable parties and the Tesla owner's manual, is frankly unflattering.
I bet I can find some blogger who can make a better argument about the holocaust never happening, then this lousy excuse for a journalist. Then again, that individual would still be a minority among the knowledgeable populace.
Hey, lets give it a go here. Electric is the new comer to the party. They have to prove themselves. ICE proved itself. ICE isn't on trial here.
I stated an opinion and my reasons for holding it. I don't owe you a disclaimer about whether the linked article (which I didn't reference, btw) happens to be full of shit.
If you form all of your opinions worrying about all the idiots or evil people who might happen to agree with you, or use your arguments to further their own nefarious ends, you're destined to lead a very quiet life.
> ICE proved itself. ICE isn't on trial here.
The usability and cost/benefit of electric drivetrains versus the status quo is relevant. My point was not "we should distrust ICE," so much as "we should discuss cost/benefit tradeoffs of technology like reasonable people instead of resorting to ZOMG BRICKING".
I agree cost benefit analysis is relevant. Instead your argument stated how unreliable ICE is by comparison. Ice isn't on trial. Ice is proven to be reasonably safe/reliable ect.
Secondly, my argument is not that you should worry about who also supports your argument, -but if you are going to agree with an article, find a better poster child. Otherwise, your argument holds little value as the original article refuses to support itself with research or references. I am certain that there is an article that accomplishes your opinion AND supports itself with evidence of some kind. Instead it sounds like before you even read the article you had your opinion, found the first article that agreed with your opinion, and called it a day.
"It's perfectly reasonable for Paypal to decide their own business model."
The same could be said for just about every other business that fails.
And I don't believe that is reasonable to freeze transactions of business based solely on some sort of suspicion of guilt, then after it has been resolved that they are indeed innocent, continue to hold their money for months after the fact.
The horror stories of paypay have been floating around for some years, this story is nothing new.
It's not a case of black-and-white innocent-or-not, an account has a certain level of risk associated with it and Paypal has to manage that.
Paypal didn't think they were fraudsters when they suspended their account, they thought they were high-risk. They unsuspended the account when the event organizer agreed to some risk mitigation measures (allowing Paypal to hold the money for the length of the creditcard chargeback period to let Paypal protect themselves).
Or you can not waste you time and do what will actually result in the required change:
Either make a campaign contribution to a person or persons capable or changing the law or have a lobby group do it for you at a similarly significant cost to you. Even if you manage to outbid the private contractors this year (which is highly unlikely), do you seriously think you can out bid the largest defense contractors year after year, while they are busy raking in $14.5 billion every year from the 37 other states participating?
That is the only "legal" way to change laws in the US.
Or we can call that battle what it is: lost. Spend your time and effort (and money) and go invest in those security contractors so that you will have a nest egg waiting if ever you are out of work as a result of losing you license for 2weeks+.
Or to put another way: "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is all conditional upon what matters to people with money and power and which methods they use to ensure they continue to have money and power.
Lol, I guessed at that too, I thought classism but racism was a possible too.
Though, now that he is one of those black people it is safe to say that the neighbors are right and people like that should not be allowed to vote irregardless of laws written in the mid 1800's. I hope everyone makes it out Sunday night to the neighbor hood klan meeting so we can all praise white jesus, drink beer, and talk crap about all those seedy black people.
LOL
A) It not being the the ,market holds the greatest benefit for everybody that matters, as everyone else's home prices rise as a result of one less home being sold.
B) There is a $500,000 home at the end of my block. A mortgage company (which is still in business) owns it. Still they don't maintain it. The pool is decaying into a bacteria ridden cess pool and everyone living here takes turns calling the mortgage company just to get them to mow what are usually 4' high grass out front. I imagine that this situation is prevalent elsewhere as well. I would love it if one of the neighbors could obtain the house for free and keep it up.
Speaking of, good job assuming that this guy "owning" it is somehow not keeping it up. Stereotypes will get you far. I can't way to read what you say when it turns out this guy is not only poor, but black or muslim so you can think even less of him.
I think its rather cute that people take the moral high ground when it comes to the law. However such ought-to-be approaches to the law are irrelevant. Its the legal system not the justice system. He did his homework and he is within his rights to take advantage of all laws which apply. Americans don't get all up in arms when major corporations use loop wholes in the law to get over on us (when was the last time General Electric paid taxes? The 70's?).
Furthermore, the articles author pointed out that original owner was foreclosed on and promptly went mia and company which owned the mortgage went under. Its that either of those 2 parties or even a third party will assert their rights over the property, but until that occurs he is the legal owner as he legally filed as such. His neighbors can moan about it all they please, but they have no standing in the case whatsoever. Example: Someone defrauded Southwest Airlines: me having nothing to do with the case cannot bring fraud charges against whoever did; I have no standing in the case. I could have been standing right next to the guy that did it, as he did it, but I still have no standing in the case.
Thirdly, who's misfortune is he taking advantage of? The homeowners? No, they didn't pay their bills and left, the title went to the mortgage company. The Mortgage company? No, they went under. Whoever working there had long since lost their jobs and most likely found new employment before this guy applied to legally own the property. You want to make this guy out to be a bad guy because he doesn't use things the way "normal" people do and he got ahead for it. You are boring and lack any relevant imagination.
lol, I can't believe you posted this for the hn trolls. LOL, I am giggling so bad they downvoted one guy for being humorous, but the disrespectful trolls go unabated. I love HN more trolls here than 4chan. Only thing missing is nudy pictures to distract the trolls.
So who will guard the guards? I fail to see any oversight whatsoever. Ohh and look who these 6 major ISPs are. TimeWarner Cable sounds like they may have a few copyrights laying around... Major conflicts of interest? You bet.
And what does this mean for the thousands of coffee shops, book stores, and other wi-fi hotspots which dynamically assign ip addresses? Most likely: nothing pleasant.
Its a fine day when not only do corporations wield ridiculous power of lawmakers, but can form agreements tantamount to monopoly power. Net neutrality? Good luck with that.
Case in point: In some European countries (e.g. Germany), a wifi provider is liable for all the stuff that happens on his network. Which means that there are next to no public wifis. A shame, really.
Another step from democracy towards corporate dictatorship. Sometimes I wonder if we are currently experiencing a fatal flaw in commercialism that will ultimately subvert democracy.
I thought the analysis was generally quite good though and she seems to be quite intelligent. Please don't take my critique to mean that I thought the point she was making was incorrect.