Back in ny early days as a lab techie I was running the optical processor that did the image-making post-processing for what I believe was the first "flyby" / "rotating target" synthetic aperture radar. (No significant intellectual contributions: I was running the machinery, rather than contributing to its design. Adjusting lenses, exposing and developing film, etc.)

Back in those days the computers weren't up to the amount of crunch needed. (This technique is essentially a two-dimensional fourrier transform with tweaks.) So we used laser light and lenses for the fourier transform, and photographic film for the input modulation and output capture. The original data was captured using a one-dimensional CRT with a solid row of fiber-optic light-pipes built into the faceplate. This was in actual contact with the recording film, transferrig the light from the phosphor inside the CRT without geometric distortions from lenses and such. The film was about four inches wide, and the servo capstain that advanced it was a critical component for accurate signal processing, as was the circuitry that linearized the sweep of the beam. The input plane of the optic processor held the film in a xylene solution between two optical flats, to eliminate phase distortion from roughness of the film's surface.

The nice thing about synthetic aperture radar is that the resolution is related to the radar frequencies and the relative motion of the antenna(s) and target, and is not dependent on the beam width of the antenna. (Well, wider beam width means you illuminate the target from a larger virtual antenna, sharpening the image.) Except for deltas, distance doesn't matter, either. You get the same resolution at tens of feet or interplanetary distances. Distance only comes into the pricture in terms of keeping the oscillators from drifting during the transit time of the beam, so you don't introduce varyimg phase errors when down-converting successive returned chirps.

That's pretty much thread over right there. Again, you can complain and scrunch your eyes up and wish real hard, but you're trying to twist facts to suit your argument. Remember, this started with you saying that "any standard that doesn't include Linux is not a standard" in a laughably arrogant and stupid statement, and now you're trying to claim Unix for your own to support your silly statement.

UNIX is literally a brand. Like I said, you can't just wish really hard that it's not. It is a registered trademark of the Open Group.

You can disagree as much as you like, but it doesn't alter actual, verifiable facts.

Linux isn't UNIX. Apple is the largest UNIX vendor in the world.

It is - they bought a UNIX licence back in the NeXT days I believe.

OS X is POSIX compliant and ostensibly the core pieces of NeXT.

Just because you wish it really hard doesn't make it so.

Like it or not, "UNIX" has a specific meaning, both in terms of branding and adhering to a defined standard. You can't just decide to claim that standard as your own even if you don't meet it.

"Any standard that excludes Linux is not a standard" is just an absurdly arrogant and silly thing to say.

Since you're totally ok with claiming that the Open Group no longer gets to define what UNIX is because you say so, I'll also take claim of what GNU means, since any standard that excludes Apple and Microsoft is not a standard. OS X and Windows will now be called GNU/OS X and GNU Windows. Seems fair to me.

Now there's a can of worms. I think the question "Is Linux really Unix?" is a guaranteed heat-generator.

This is why Apple should resurrect its ZFS project. Overnight they would be the largest ZFS vendor to match with being the largest UNIX vendor.

In the olden days, they'd round them all up, lock them in a barn and set it on fire. Now it's a ~disability~.

The gravy train is only a supersized meal away!

I was suggesting that the bulk of the complaints are likely coming from cabbies.

Michael Peevey mentions "safey rules" but then goes on to 'lacking airport permits, as well as lacking proper "trade dress" on their vehicles and lacking proof of insurance.' Ok, lacking proof of insurance I can understand. So carry papers in the glovebox and all is well.
Airport permits? That's just money denied to the airports. I'd wager the complaints that are not from cabbies are from the airport authorities for this very reason.
Trade dress? Fine, slap on a cheap magnetic sign. That is not a safety issue.

They dress is up as "safety rules" but the real motives are financial.

Yes, that worked. Switching it to 2 brought the behavior to about the same as disabling "Load images automatically" - or close enough not to matter for this purpose.

THANK you once again.

It means they will sue defensively if necessary.

In other words, if they trade patents on a design and Tesla is all open and friendly, but $EVIL-CAR-COMPANY plays along at first then sues Tesla for using some patented tech then Tesla can fight back.

The map only shows supercharger stations, and not the more regular (and already more numerate) EV charging stations.

One of the goals of this opening up is to try and encourage other manufacturers to also build supercharger stations so they spread more quickly.

As the statement says right now - Tesla is small and sells only a small number of vehicles, relatively, so expecting them to blanket the entire US in supercharger stations - especially in areas where market research has likely told them they will not sell many Model S's - is somewhat unreasonable at this stage. These are the "sweeten the deal" parts of the car - free, rapid charging. The more readily available EV charging (that you have to pay for) is still there, and also growing rapidly.

"We have heard numerous complaints that (our) safety rules are being ignored,"

Yeah, the cabbies are complaining. I would guess non-cabbies love the service.

You should read the whole statement on the website. It's much clearer than the small, random part of it quoted in the slashdot summary.