Again, it's not about money, it's about time. It takes many hours to charge an electric fully at a regular power outlet. You'd only charge it up enough to get to a proper charging station, or to get home and plug it in overnight.

The point about the charge levels is exactly that an electric car is not like a regular car. You can fill up a regular car in seconds, so going only 1/4 full is dumb, unless you're having money problems. Spend the extra 30 seconds and fill it up. With an electric, it isn't like that. Charging at a regular power outlet takes HOURS. So you only charge it up enough to get you to a supercharge station. Further complicating matters was the fact that a cold battery will read lower, and go up as it warms up. So it seems like a very difficult problem to estimate range, or how much charging you need to get to where you're going. Again, charging = time. According to the story, the Tesla rep told him the range would increase as the battery warmed up, so after charging for an hour as advised, he left even though the range estimator still showed him short. (*)

Also, the charging speed is not linear. The first 50% goes quickly, but to go above 90% would take a long time even at a superstation.

(*) This is where the story breaks down. Instead of "following orders" blindly, he should have stayed where he was, and kept charging as the battery warmed up, until the range reading allowed him to get to the charging station. Had he done this, there would be no story.

Tesla is just being dumb here. They are hyping up this car as the vehicle for Joe Everyday, when it's clearly not ready for prime time, and is nowhere close to being a replacement for all common use cases. For example, as much as I think electric cars are sexy, it would be pointless for me to get one. I barely drive around the city (I work from home), and regularly take long trips (600-1000km each way), so a 200-300km range electric car is teh fail for me. Call me when battery technology makes the next leap to power a vehicle 1000km+ on a single charge.

That's not a very convincing argument. Child slave labour is bad too, but we don't make factories illegal, we make child slave labour illegal.

"What's racist is the "black identifying names" in TFA. Now that's racist. What? Because I'm a Caucasoid I can't be named a "black" name? Dark skinned folk can't be named "white" names? Fuck that."

Again, not racist, just numbers, statistics. A person named "Lakisha" is far far more likely to be black than white. Why are people getting angry at numbers? Is an expert or heuristic system "racist" when it determines this to be the case?

This seems to be the expected result of SSD technology spreading and becoming cheaper. Your everyday user can now buy a reasonably-sized PC with only an SSD for storage. Additional storage needs can be easily addressed with memory sticks, external drives, and cheap and easy to configure and use network storage.

Optical is a bit of an odd one, but not totally unexpected. Online software delivery (no need for CDs/DVDs), downloadable music and movies, online and networked data storage, pretty much eliminate the need to burn a disc, and the lack of an out-of-the-box Blu Ray player in Windows probably puts the final nail in that coffin.

This study says A, that study says B.

Seriously, there are literally hundreds of climate models littering the back issues of science journals. Coming up with data and a model that fits some historical context is one thing, but we're still no closer to knowing what 10, 50 or 100 years from now will look like. When was the last time someone showed you the famous Al Gore hockey stick graph, without hastily and profusely making excuses about it?

Fortunately for humankind, this is not how we do science. It's not a democracy or a popularity contest.

The promotion of an idea is very single-minded: just stay on message. (Although even here warmists have shifted from "global warming" to the more ambiguous and all-encompassing "climate change".) While the disproving or discrediting of an idea is by its very nature multi-faceted. There are dozens of ways to approach it. Like with any movement or -ism, there are always the poseurs, hangers on, extremists, and assorted other rif raf who keep confusing things. To say (or imply like you have) that there hasn't been "progression" and dissension in the ideas and theories in the anthropogenic CO2 global warming movement is rather disingenuous.

Except they almost certainly log the access information (URL, date, etc), and cache the rendered images, at least _sometimes_, you know, for debugging purposes.

This is tailor made for a man in the middle attack. An insider can spy on any user at will, and most likely without leaving a trace.

You are just a number. A face in the crowd. The company knows nothing about you, and has no previous relationship. One qualified person is as good as another. There is usually more than one qualified person applying for a position. As long as their system does not weed out ALL of them, they still have a few qualified people filter down to the next stage. That's all they care about.

It's a lot like love. Because we all know /. is the home of analogies. There is more than one person that is a fitting partner for you. Most of us will stop at the first one, which may not necessarily even be the best one (and rarely is), but we stop looking all the same. The effort (and more importantly the time) to find a better one, or the ideal one, is not worth it.

That's not how insurance works. It's all about segmentation. People with similar risk profiles go into the same bucket and are charged the same rates. The more buckets you have, the more flexibility in pricing (and consequently marketing and customer acquisition) you have. Customers demand it (I want to lower my insurance premiums) and eventually insurance companies respond (create a more stringent profile that allows them to charge smaller premiums).

To Facebook, it's about profits. FB privacy settings are purposely complicated, obscure and obtuse.

The solution is *obvious* (duh), but the problem is not. You can't be putting an exception handler around every function call.

What most likely happened, is by the time the string got to the strlen function, it was either assumed to have been security checked and data validated, or, the set of validations run was not complete.

Shit happens.

Ridiculous. When someone makes a phone call to you, or sends you a letter, and it costs them money, you do not get a cut.

This is simply not true. In which market do you have lasting monopolies? Only in those where the barrier to entry is very high, either naturally (high up-front capital investment) or due to regulations (which large companies love, because they keep out new entrants). So there will always be naturally forming monopolies in almost all areas, but persistent monopolies only in those areas where barriers are high. There is nothing government can do about those barriers, except raise new ones themselves. Look at any highly regulated industry. How much competition do you see there?