Actually I watched the recent excitement regarding Tesla on CNBC earlier this month, but googling shows:
"April 5 (UPI) -- Tesla Motors announced it broke a company record for the first quarter of 2015 ... The record was broken through a 55 percent sales increase for the same period from the previous year."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Wo...

Maybe reality is more complex that any -ism? More complex than the politicians and their adherents would have us believe?

Tesla recently sold a record number of cars, exceeding expectations.

It doesn't matter if demand in China is lower than expected when demand in the US and Europe is unfulfilled. Units that might have been originally planned for China get redesignated for US or Europe during production.

The idea that fascism is synonymous with corporatism is wrong. Its a false meme often repeated by some on the left for political purposes, a technique of manipulating the ignorant. Much like some on the right toss around the word "communistic".

In reality fascism is a form of syndicalism, where workers are formed into syndicates to counter the power of owners. Fascism is actually quite socialistic in this respect. Fascism does not fit neatly into the political spectrum, it is a weird combination of ideas from the left and right.

More importantly under fascism both the corporation (owners) and the workers are subservient to the state. The state created a somewhat level playing field for the two to negotiate on but they damn well better put aside any labor squabble if its going to interfere with state requirements.

The iPod Nano has had an FM radio for a while. So the performance with respect to battery, signal reception, etc should be known. I don't have one myself so I can't comment.

"Lost" can mean (1) you don't know where something is OR (2) you no longer possess something. In the second case you may no longer possess something but still know where it is. For example you lost something to a friend in a bet.

This second case is also somewhat of a nautical term. The Captain of a ship and its Chief Engineering can be standing on the bridge of the ship and the Chief Engineer may report the ship to be "lost", meaning uncontrollable sinking.

Also when a ship is sunk you only have the position of where it slipped below the surface, you don't necessarily know how it traveled on the way to the bottom. More importantly prior to GPS ship position weren't necessarily that accurate. Wrecks are often considered lost until someone has eyes (real or synthetic, ex side scan sonar) on them. Which is what seems to be happening here.

Things are more complicated than that ...

Scuttled naval vessels sometimes become artificial reefs that greatly support the food chain for local fisheries. This can have a positive economic effect. A long term one at that.

As for live fire testing. Laboratory testing and mockups are one thing, but how a missile performs against an actual ship is something else. What is the cost of an anti-ship weapon system that turns out to be ineffective against modern ships? Sadly real ships are a necessity for such testing.

A similar cleanup happens today before naval vessels are scuttled.

That's not how it worked. The first team absolutely looked at the BIOS to create that spec. Its the second team that implemented the spec that had never seen the BIOS.

The half of the clean room effort that does the implementation are the one's making the clone, they don't see source code, disassemblies, etc. The other half doing the reverse engineering in order to develop the specification have to discover the *intent* of the original developers with respect to functionality. That discover is easier when you have their commented source code rather than a disassembly of a binary.

The dancing you refer to is for non-clean room scenarios where the developer implementing the compatible non-infringing clone has access to the original copyrighted code. And that dance occurs regardless of whether he/she is working from a binary disassembly or commented source code. Lawyers literally look at the code and say these ten or so lines in the new are too similar to these ten or so lines in the original. Disassembly or source has this same problem. Now source still has the advantage of better divining the original intent, so having the source is also a win in the non-clean room scenario.

No, it didn't. The fact that IBM provided source code to all PC programmers as a way of documenting the BIOS API actually made things simpler despite such a desire. If IBM was to act in a manner more consistent with that desire so as to hamper Compaq et al they would have simply provided PC programmers with registers for input/output parameters and the interrupts to use to invoke an API call. As was done with DOS.

A clean room design involves *two* teams. A dirty team that reverse engineers and writes a specification for a compatible device, and a clean team that does the actual implementation using only the provided specification. The "wall" is between these two teams, the implementation team has no contact other than the specification.

The dirty part of the team had a much easier time creating the specification given that they had commented source code. This source code, widely distributed by IBM to PC programmers, was the BIOS API documentation. This is a night and day difference with respect to reverse engineering and the fact that IBM didn't want a compatible BIOS to be produced does not change this.

As an example of IBM being open with their BIOS source code see their PC Hardware reference manual:

http://www.retroarchive.org/do...

Open listings like this were *the* documentation on how to use the BIOS API calls.

Wrong. Are you under the mistaken impression that "open" means the source code is also free to re-use and distribute? It does not, contrary to how the FSF would like to redefine "open". The fact remains that the IBM PC BIOS was open, PC developers had access to the source code. This source code was part of the documentation provided by IBM to PC programmers so that they could call the BIOS API. The comments in the source code were the API spec. We weren't using pirated copies, we were using official copies provided by IBM.

I don't think "clean room" was as you described. I believe one team had access to copyrighted materials including the commented source code. They created a specification that describes the required compatible behavior without any mention of any copyrighted. The "clean" part of the process is the next step. A separate team implements a compatible BIOS working *only* from this specification. The implementation team has no contact with the specification team other than this specification. I think the implementation team was also selected from people who had never programmed the PC before.

The fact that IBM was open with the source code and the specification team had access to commented source rather than disassembled binaries was a great advantage. Keep in mind that this source code listing was official IBM documentation on how to use the BIOS. IBM intended it to be viewed by PC programmers so that they could make use of BIOS API calls.

The corporate market influences the consumer. Many consumers want personal gear compatible with work.