I see neither you nor the mods were actually reading the comments - your comment is actually quite off-topic. Neither the grandparent nor the great-grandparent was making a claim about science (read them carefully). The great-grandparent said:

To which the grandparent responded:

Which is exactly right, and one of many reasons why evolution is not fact. It is science, and the two are very different. As I said in the comments below:

I don't know how all the purveyors of flamebait keep getting modded up today, but it's quite disturbing.

I'm a Christian, and I run in a few Christian circles. I'm not sure where you get your information, but most of Christians I know care deeply about every kind of person. Many of them are involved in helping people in prisons, others take their vacations in places like New Orleans, Haiti, and Costa-Rica so they can help people who are suffering. They also contribute to the local community as much as they can, and when somebody dies in their sphere of awareness, they are deeply moved. They have political orientations from hardcore-conservative to ultra-liberal and everything in between, but none of them take others' lives lightly.

As far as abortion goes, it is a little odd that Christians do tend to come out on one side of the issue. It is an interesting issue to say the least, and in my mind, rests on the person-hood of the fetus. This distinction is something about which the Bible doesn't say too much.

I don't fault you for your viewpoint (though it is absolutely flamebait). People get a lot of their information and experience with Christians from the worst of us (bigoted televangelists, lying politicians, etc). Just don't generalize about a social group until you've really bothered to understand them at a personal level.

I honestly can't believe this got modded up. This is flamebait at its worst. Not only is your post needlessly combative, but you got most of your facts wrong.

Not all Republicans are evangelicals, and not all evangelicals are Republicans. The actual people group that you are thinking of is the Christian Right. Also, they aren't delusional, they are religious. To claiming that they're delusional is insulting and unnecessary. For the record, I am a Christian but I am not a member of the Christian Right.

It's science, not a "fact". It is currently the best, most elegant theory that we have to explain our data that meets scientific criteria. In the unlikely event that another theory comes along that better explains the data (by either using fewer actors or by explaining more of the data), than that theory will probably become more prevalent in the scientific community. This is how science works. This is why, for instance, luminiferous aether was considered a theory not a fact. When a better theory came along, it was replaced.

The abortion issue is hard, and you do it a grave injustice. Nobody believes that a woman's body is the property of the government. However, some people are convinced that fetus has the necessary properties of person-hood, and as such, should be extended the basic rights afforded all people in the US (life, liberty, property). Only an idiot would consider the issue so black and white.

Wow, way to link to a biased source for your information. Do you honestly believe that conservatives are the only politicians who flip-flop or vote for popular issues with which they secretly disagree?

Republicans run on a platform of fiscal and social conservatism. This is no more delusional than Democrats who run on a platform of fiscal and social liberalism.

First of all, mods have now "rectified" what you consider unfair moderation, so be at peace.

Now, let me tell you what I consider unfair. In general, I find a slightly larger left crowd on Slashdot than right (probably more endemic of the internet than Slashdot itself). This is a subjective assessment for which I have no data... but I would guess that most people here would agree with that statement. This usually doesn't cause much of a problem, and for the most part, things stay somewhat impartial. However, there is a definite trend in the comments for articles like this. Blatantly anti-right comments like yours and the great-grandparent's can be modded up without real information or evidence. In contrast, anti-left comments require intelligence, evidence, and a great deal of tact to be modded up. Consider as an example your comment (modded 5):

and your first-child's comment (modded 1):

In the end, I would mod both of those comments down. The article is *political party neutral*, much to its credit. The ideas there apply equally well to *any* political idealism, not just the "American Right" or "American Left". Yet both you and the great-grandparent brazenly use the opportunity to proclaim your distaste for a particular political party and its media supporters, and then have the temerity to complain when people correctly mod you down! So get off your high horse, and discuss the article instead of defending a partisan troll who derailed us from the topic at hand.

Disclaimer: I am neither right nor left politically, and I have no invested interest either way.

Hah, you sir are truly delusional. *Every* political party has its share of disinformation and lies. To single out a specific party as being the culprit of misinformation only serves to show just how ignorant and naive you are.

Obviously, is isn't identical now, though it is possible that the Red Hat copy (right side) started out as the UNIX copy (left side). Clearly, the Red Hat version has additional features (additional translation types, c++ defines, function prototypes, commenting, etc). Then again, maybe they were both implementing from some shared prototypical document.

For a moment, I thought you wrote "Lego factory", and I was dreaming about how cool that would be.

Obviously, there's a huge government conspiracy to make us think that people want "family cars". Heck, Wikipedia is claiming that a compact family sedan called the "Corolla" is the best selling car of all time.

Sucker - I'm not interested unless it only has one functional seat and zero doors.

I read some articles that claimed they won't stop producing Roadsters until 2011 - are those articles out of date?

No, we didn't. The Slashdot article was posted at 2:34 EST. The stock had already made its biggest gains by then. Plus, with all the negativity here, Slashdot is far more likely to depress the price than inflate it.

I thought they were selling the current roadster through 2011.

They are aware that they need sales. As I mentioned before, they have at one point turned a profit (though they aren't right now, as an anon pointed out). The co-founder of Tesla, Elon Musk previously co-founded Paypal which was (is) quite profitable. I don't think that Musk needs to be schooled on how to make a business plan.

I would think it would depend on how well they can market their Model S since that will be their bread and butter starting in 2012. It will be their first car in the slightly more accessible $50,000 price range.

The current prices of oil are immaterial to their long term value. Sure, there are people who are going to invest heavily in the IPO and try to turn a profit in the extreme short term (investors generally buy in for the long term. So, the real question is whether the cost of oil will increase significantly over the medium term (the next few years).

I have the same problem with this statement - there are way too many companies with a vested interest in developing better battery technology for the industry to stay stagnant. Heck, even other care companies are starting to look into it. Expect heavy innovation in battery technology the next 5 years. Who knows, we might even have a better portable electricity source by then anyway.

Are you seriously comparing the quintessential .com bubble site to a profitable and innovative car company? Just because their stock price is increasing on opening day doesn't mean that they're about to burst.

For instance, take - Google's stock. There were a multitude of pundits and "experts" claiming that their $100 IPO price levels were totally unsustainable. They looked pretty stupid when the price doubled in 6 months. Sure, Tesla is no Google, but don't imagine that their stock price is guaranteed plummet just because there is a lot of excitement surrounding their IPO.

As of this posting, the stock price is already over $20.5. Clearly, some people think it's better than $17

I'm not confident that you fully understand the perceived danger on the part of world leaders. The issue is that people with an inordinately high ability to compromise computer systems might have access to information. Consider information like troop movements, secret bomb/nuclear supply facilities, infrastructure weak points, and financial information (account balances, passwords, etc). While compromising a system with this information may not kill somebody directly, the information could most certainly be used to kill many people, or perhaps to temporarily stunt or even cripple entire economies.