Comment Throw that word "transparency" in there (Score 1) 138
Make it sound good to the people.
Forget that we are reducing transparency, not enhancing.
Make it sound good to the people.
Forget that we are reducing transparency, not enhancing.
It's not a Faraday cage, but lightning does use the skin effect for most of its charge, and thus goes over the surface of the car. However, this doesn't work so well with the huge number of cars on the road with a non-metal skin.
You are usually okay if your car's skin is metal, you don't happen to be touching anything in the interior at the time, and if nothing in the car catches fire due to the strike.
Our subject here is safety, so the better question is "Relative to car miles driven [to account for more gas powered cars], how many people have been injured or killed by gasoline car fires caused by hitting road debris." The answer for Tesla is zero.
Also remember that fire due to road debris is not the only kind of injury. People are actually hurt directly by the debris. That is common for cars, and that trailer hitch the Tesla hit would have ended up in the passenger compartment of a regular car. The answer for Tesla is still zero.
Everything is risk mitigation. Tesla could try to mitigate the risk of Zeus throwing a thunderbolt from the heavens at a Model S, but the risk is so low, and nobody cares about it, so they're not doing it.
As we have seen, there is far less fire risk in a Tesla than in all gasoline-powered cars on the road, so mitigation of that risk shouldn't be a priority either. However, the media has played up the "Electric cars catch fire, duh!" meme so much that this is basically a forced PR move.
just silencing comments that make your faith look bad. demonstrate where your faith made itself look bad.
If they were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely, then yes I would support them
Many in their group are, and they likely are too, but they aren't honest enough to admit it like Congressman Ellison.
If they were trying to take 2nd amendment rights away from a specific class of people (other than the mentally ill and ex-cons), then yes I would support them (the employees).
They are. The class is all law-abiding gun owners. They haven't done much that would affect criminals and the mentally ill.
If they were just supporting background checks and/or banning ridiculous weapons and cartridges, then no.
You mean completely ineffective background checks on person-to-person transfers that will be ignored by criminals, and the most common varminting and target shooting rifles in the most common calibers, then yes.
So basically what we've established is that you are not a proponent of constitutional rights. Just the rights that you like. This is exactly what Eich does.
But would you have supported them in their call, as the OP does the Mozilla employees in theirs?
So when Michael Bloomberg was CEO of Bloomberg LP, or Steve Case head of AOL, they should have been forced to step down because they "actively and publicly contributed to and campaigned for" taking away gun rights from the people. Right?
That would be nice, but I'd be more interested in the prosecutor going after these people with criminal charges under the CFAA.
Fox New said Mark Sanford was a D
Everybody refers to one mistake made long ago, a mistake Fox apologized for. Is that any worse than MSNBC identifying the notoriously racist Alabama governor George Wallace as a Republican? Nice history rewrite there.
OTOH, Fox apologized to the wrong people. The should have apologized to Sanford for the slander of putting (D) next to his name.
as they fought to the Supreme Court to assert their right to lie on the air
Sadly, that means MSNBC is a beneficiary of this precedent.
No, fraud involved and not a "protected computer"
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If it's involved in interstate commerce, it is a "protected computer" under the CFAA. Facebook, and by extension any computer connecting to Facebook, is a protected computer under the act since it is in the business of interstate commerce.
Now about the fraud. Actual fraud isn't needed, CFAA makes it a crime for anyone who "(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains
They used duress (cop and admin there forcing her) to exceed their authorization to obtain information from Facebook (a protected computer). CFAA charges should be filed. And since more than one person was involved, a conspiracy charge should be added.
Did the school employees ever agree to the Facebook TOS? No evidence of that.
If they were using Facebook, then they agreed. Otherwise, they were accessing the sytem without agreement, which could be unauthorized access. Facebook TOS:
3. Safety
5.You will not solicit login information or access an account belonging to someone else.
6.You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.
On site? Can't we at least remove them from the school premises first?
I would have taken the $70K, but on the condition that the officials involved are fired and barred from future employment with the district.
I'll do an experiment. I'll pick a Republican state senatorwho was in trouble. Jason Priest of Montana is a good one. I'll Google for "Jason Priest arrested" and pick the first four mainstream news links.
Let's do the same for "Leland Yee arrested"
The Republican has one in the headline while the Democrat has a whole article not mentioning his party. Even Fox put his party way down. Verdict: Likely biased for Democrats, but a much larger dataset is needed for verification.
As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison
