Do you seriously feel that the only way to achieve 10% per year reduction in emissions is to invent portable fusion?

If your so-called religious belief requires that you violate the laws of the land, then you limit your choices to one of the following five:

1) Leave the area, and go to another nation where your practices are legally tolerated;

2) Actively work to change the legal system in your area, abstaining from violating the law until you have effected the changes that make it compatible with your belief system;

3) Accept that paying the legal consequence for violating the law is a necessary consequence of your belief system, and if it is truly something that you hold to be true as devoutly as a religion, then should actually not be that hard to do;

4) Optionally, you could kill yourself, or set yourself up to be killed, so that you don't have to face the aforementioned legal consequences... and in some cases, this may even be compatible with one's religious views, particularly if one can accomplish what they truly believe as a greater good through their own death; or

5) Admit that you were actually just bullshitting everybody, and don't seriously believe any of that stuff in the first place, and were probably just trying to gain some attention.

Because there will be more than double that number of cars on the road by that time, and so it will still result in a net increase. It's better than no cuts at all, but IMO,. they should be focusing on reducing emissions by at least 10% every single year to really stay ahead of the rate at which more cars are being added to roads... by the same time, at that rate, emissions would have been cut by about 80% off of what they are today.

That would make a difference. Reducing by 40% over 16 years is just political posturing, not any serious attempt at wanting to make the future any better than the present.

Wow... didn't have to read very far before I found somebody regurgitating *THIS* conspiracy theory again... of course, like most conspiracy theories, any otherwise entirely logical refutations are attributed as being part of "the cover up", and are excluded from consideration, preventing actual critical analysis.

There are problems with the pharmaceutical industries in North America, but this is not one of them.

Even then, the thing here is that the only reason that the laws that prohibit manufacturers from selling directly to consumers even exists is because dealerships have actually *PAID* those manufacturers for franchising rights to be authorized distributors for that manufacturer, and if the manufacturer goes and sells directly to the consumer, then that is anti-competitive behavior.

Because there are no dealership franchises for Tesla, there is no actual reason that it should really be illegal... this ruling is a bad interpretation of the law, unless there is also some explicit law that requires that automobile manufacturers must offer dealerships franchises in the state

Uhmm... I'm Canadian.

And I wouldn't vote for the Liberals either.

If they actually make this a law, my money is on that there won't be any set penalties or specific guidelines for enforcement, so in actuality nothing will really change, but it will give them an excuse to enforce it when it is convenient for them.

The goal of any significantly advanced civilization should be 100% unemployment and automation.

Tesla can't form its own dealerships in a growing number of states, and existing dealerships don't want to sell Teslas because the market is too narrow for them to reasonably make a profit (case in point: every Tesla ever manufactured is already sold).

Had to maintain a Windows 2012 Server system last weekend.... dealing with the Windows 8 configuration interface on a server makes me very angry.

When I installed 10.10, a dialog popped up asking me to check these settings. It was 100% obvious.

Should users just sit back and accept this as the new normal?

It doesn't matter if they sit back and accept it or not... it *IS* the new normal.

Of course, it is much easier to live in a reality where you believe what makes you happier about living in the first place... so the desire to want to resist this sort of thing is entirely normal.

We have satellites and landers there, is it impossible for any of them to point a camera at it?

Why do you think a mall cannot refuse to let certain people in? In fact, they most certainly can... For that matter, they wouldn't even need to give them a reason to do so. It's private property.... once they've been told to leave by appropriate persons, it's trespassing if they don't start to comply, within reason. It would, however, probably not fare very well for the mall's PR if they did this sort of thing without just cause, so it's in their own best interest to not be indiscriminate about who they would ban. Malls most definitely can and do ban people, however, but ordinarily there's going to be an underlying reason that is generally determined to be in the best interests of the security and safety of those who are in the mall.

Uh... no. That underground system known as "The Tube" is, by definition, a rapid transit system. Also, it fits almost any reasonable North American definition of a subway other than using as a proper noun to refer to one specific underground rail system. Since you didn't capitalize the term, nor did you use it in any context where a proper noun would have been implied by the surrounding grammar, one can only conclude that you are therefore simply factually incorrect. Saying that London doesn't have one just because people who live in London don't call it that is like saying that there are no elevators in London, nor people wear pants in London, just because the UK has different words for those specific terms, which even at best can only be taken as some sort of an attempt at trying to be funny, but it is still factually incorrect. If you are using a word in a sentence, then you presumably know what that term means, and that meaning is just as applicable to what London has as what can be found in North America.