Just read another article on the subject and apparently I was mistaken about the brake "breakage" ...Tesla claims that never happened either.

Actually, Top Gear does not claim otherwise. Shortly after the show aired Tesla made these complaints in a non-legal setting (although at the time they acted like they weren't that broken up about it and said Top Gear was welcome to drive it again any time) and the response from Top Gear was not a denial, but rather that it was just a "dramatization" of what "would have happened" if it had run out of charge. Of course they didn't give any indication whatsoever that it was a dramatization...

The Roadster has regenerative (motor) braking as well as perfectly normal friction brakes. You use the former by simply letting off the gas as you would in a manual-transmission gas car; you use the latter by pushing the brake pedal. I don't know much about their comment on the brakes "breaking" but it would be something exactly like any other car. In any case, that doesn't seem to be Tesla's beef with the segment...the problem is that Top Gear straight-up lied and said the thing died on the track when it absolutely didn't.

Under track conditions (with one of those jackasses pushing the pedal to the floor), yeah, the mileage on the Tesla is probably going to be atrocious.

That may be. But the fact remains that the car did not run out of power at any point during their testing. Yet they showed the driver saying "uh-oh" as the car apparently suddenly lost power, and then they showed people pushing it back to the hangar while explaining that it had died on them. The car they were pushing was perfectly drivable at that point, and they represented otherwise with no indication that they were faking it. Sounds like libel to me. Oh, and "you shouldn't take Top Gear seriously" is not an acceptable excuse...although I do very much hope that's the defense they use in court.

I still don't understand why something like the Tesla gets government funding...

Simple: they didn't. This is a loan which must be repaid. Also, the loan doesn't have anything to do with the Roadster, which after all has already been developed and had its manufacturing capability built up. The loan finances the development and manufacturing capacity for the next model, a 5+2 sedan that costs about half as much as the Roadster.

And on the price whining...if you had paid any attention to Tesla's history or past statements you'd know that they have always planned to start at the top of the market and work their way down; after this luxury sedan they plan to work on a ~$30k model for the masses. And before you complain that that's still too expensive, consider that the maintenance costs are nonexistent and the fuel costs dramatically lower. The total cost of ownership of a $30k electric vehicle would probably be lower than a $10k gasoline model.

Ah yes, but now you've gone from "Obama gave Tesla a loan to help his buddy" to "Obama failed to veto a loan that may have tangentially helped his buddy."

I sincerely hope you can tell the difference. And furthermore I hope nobody around here really thinks that a president should have the responsibility to veto any law that might help someone who supported him. That's downright absurd.

A pair of British researchers have said states are only likely to use cyberattacks against other states when already involved in military action against them...

Right. Tell that to the Iranians who just lost 984 uranium-enrichment centrifuges to a US/Israeli worm.

The issue I see here is distribution. Central heating and ventilation do a pretty good job of making sure all that resistive heat is spread around...just plugging in a bunch of computers all over the place will almost certainly result in a much more uneven distribution. That's likely to cause you to run them more than necessary, wasting quite a bit of heat in the hot spots. So, while it's technically true that they should be just as efficient as any other resistive heating, practically speaking I highly doubt it'll work out that way.

Some background is in order here; this is not a typical piece for Silver. He did a companion to it a couple days ago, giving the reasons the GOP could overperform. These are just "what if" stories, designed to flesh out the message he's been driving for some time now, which is that this election has unusually high uncertainty. He isn't engaging in hackery and claiming everything will be fine for Democrats...

Correct. But more important is the reason why: because it would be absolutely insane not to engage in such programs, and every single economist* who isn't selling the conservative agenda right now will tell you so.

*I use "economist" to mean "one who engages in the science of economics. Or, put another way "Austrian school economists" are not economists.

Then you either:

1)know nothing about economics, and are simply throwing "Keynesian" around because you think it makes you sound smart.

-or-

2)subscribe to the Austrian school, which totally disavows science in favor of pretty philosophy. None of their "theories" are testable or falsifiable, and frankly everything they say is totally contradicted by all the historical evidence we have.

(Oh, and also, the public debt had basically nothing to do with getting us into this mess.)

I got 16.98km/s, which at the time was 9th in the rankings. It was of course quickly pushed off; #10 right now is 15.91km/s. Johannes Schnabl has had the top spot with 10.67km/s the whole time I've been looking. I wonder if he's one of these geniuses upthread running a GA?

You seem to be misreading "shut off any and all wireless or wired Internet access" to somehow mean he can only shut down everything or nothing. That's not right: as the law currently stands he could order your hosting provider to simply shut your port down. No more website.

I assume when you said "The internet is not regulated" you meant something slightly less hilariously absurd. Like, say, "The Internet is regulated under Title I of the Communications Act, which gives the FCC far narrower regulatory authority than the stricter Title II." That amended statement is true. It's also completely and utterly irrelevant to the situation at hand.

I never thought I'd see the day when a tech law would get better, more accurate coverage in the political press than the technical press, but COICA seems to have managed just that. See here. Short story: this legislation replaces the existing federal authority granted in the 1934 Communications Act with a much narrower and better controlled authority. As such, it would pretty dramatically restrict the government's ability to shut down websites, not expand it. But hey...that's no reason to refrain from bashing the administration for being fascists, right?