One? Just one plant? Even if you are just talking about Detroit itself, ignoring the suburbs, there is a GM plant and 2 Chrysler plants in Detroit. But when people talk about Detroit and auto companies, they mean the entire metro detroit area. And in that area, there is:

Ford: (Wayne, Flat Rock)
GM: (Detroit, Orion)
Chrysler: (Detroit x 2, Sterling Heights, Warren)

So that's 8 auto assembly plants in metro Detroit. Yep, just one plant here.

The most wear sensitive part of a laser printer is the copy drum. If I recall correctly the old LaserJets had the drum integrated with the toner cartidge, so you replace to most quickly wearing part of the printer four or five thousand pages. It's no wonder they lasted so long. The mechanical parts that move the paper through the printer are pretty robust, so I wouldn't be surprised if the printers go until the capacitors in the electronics dry up, or the internal power connectors go bad.

That would be interesting, if it were true. Here's what TFA says:

"Del." I assume is short for "delegate". According to their website, the American Tradition Institute's tag line is "Free Market Environmentalism through *Litigation*" I assuming this means they aren't pals with Greenpeace, or even The Sierra Club, any more than the National Socialists in Germany were pals with the socialist Republicans in 1930s Spain.

Depends on what you consider "hiding the research". A fishing expedition through a scientist's personal correspondence is an invitation to judge his work on *political* grounds.

In science your personal beliefs, relationships, and biography are irrelevant. There are evangelical Christian climate scientists who believe climate won't change because that would contradict God's will as expressed in the Bible. These scientists may be regarded as religious crackpots by their peers, but that hasn't prevented them from publishing in the same peer-reviewed journals as everyone else. Since their papers invariably are climate-change skeptic, clearly they are publishing work which supports their religious beliefs. But their motivations don't matter. What matters is in their scientific publications.

In 1988, Gary Hart's presidential bid and political career were ruined when he was photographed cavorting on a yacht named "Monkey Business" with a woman that wasn't his wife. Now I didn't care how many bimbos he was boinking, but a lot of people *did*, which made it a political issue (albeit a stupid one in my opinion). Do we really want to use the coercive power of the state to dig through the private lives of controversial scientists?

It's a pretense that that would serve any scientific purpose. Maybe Mann is intent on overthrowing capitalism and creating a socialist utopia. That would be relevant if he were running for dogcatcher, but it's irrelevant to what's in his scientific papers. Scientists publish papers all the time with ulterior motives, not the least of which is that they're being paid to do research that makes corporate sponsors happy. As long as what's in the paper passes muster, it's still science.

What about acting? Or fiction? These are artificial experiences that evoke real emotional responses. Once the right buttons in your brain are pushed, most of your brain can't tell the difference between what is real and what is synthetic.

Granted, authenticity in human interactions is important, but it's overrated. Fake engagement often is a perfectly acceptable substitute. Situations where people put considerable effort into *seeming* pleasant usually *are* more pleasant than they would be if everyone felt free to paste their indifference to you right on their faces.

So this is a very interesting technology. What's disturbing about it isn't that people might be fooled into thinking the user is truly interested; it's that the user himself no longer puts any effort into creating that illusion. What if that effort is in itself something important? What if fake engagement is often the prelude to real engagement? Maybe you have to start with polite interest and work your way up to the real thing; I suspect the dumber parts of your brain can't tell the difference. If that's true, taking the user's brain out of the interaction means that interaction will automatically be trapped on a superficial level. This already happens in bureaucratic situations where employees are reduce to rules-following automatons. Take the brain out of the equation and indifference follows.

I suspect that the researchers are well aware of these issues; I believe that I discern a certain deadpan, ironic puckishness on their part. People who truly view engagement with other people as an unwelcome burden don't work on technologies that mediate between people.

I think Hotmail is now Outlook.com, which is... I hesitate to say it's good, but it's not really bad. It integrates with Skype, Onedrive, and Office Online. It looks nice. It works fine. It has social media integration, and it performs the task of routing and storing email. If you have an account, you can use it to sync your settings in Windows 8 to other Win8 computers.

I'd use it sooner than Yahoo Mail, but I don't use it. I think I mostly don't use it because I don't trust Microsoft.

Of course, it's worth noting that low tax rates aren't the only consideration. If you have crappy schools and a low standard of living, then you might have a harder time drawing good employees. If you have crappy infrastructure, then you might have a harder time conducting your business. If your business requires an affluent population and other businesses to deal with, then a sparse population with little economic development doesn't make for a good location. Cuts to the local government are often not a good thing for businesses, even if it means lower taxes for the businesses. There are reasons why lots of businesses still locate themselves in big cities with high taxes and lots of regulation.

Well, as I've stated above, the problem is selling them. The kind of people who buy their cars aren't buying the arguments about electrics, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They're the ones with the money.

If Mercedes became convinced tomorrow that they could sell more EVs than dino drinkers, that's the direction they'd head. If they can make balls-out concept EVs, then they can make an actual car.

I just (yesterday) found a module with a bright sticker that says PROTOTYPEN in the E-Box of my A8... egads!

But most of them in fact are in that situation. If you want to make no real sysadmin comments, I may well agree, but it doesn't change much.

I don't find it to be ugly, it just looks like another car to me. If you compare it only to the insipid selection of blandmobiles that we get here in the USA, I suppose it looks a little fruity. However, it is definitely better kitted than a base econobox. You can get all the same features on your shitpile, but it will cost more than 10k.

Actually, a lot of people buy an S Class (or the equivalent Audi, a well-kitted A8L) and then put many, many miles on them. It's not a coincidence that there's a bunch of 80's S-Classes with over 300k on them, and 90's S-Classes and A8s with over 200k. These are being driven by businessmen who will be able to write off much of the significant recurring expense of putting many miles on a german car.

In short, these cars are not made worth a fuck. They use components guaranteed to degrade when components which would hold up just fine are available. Rubber bushings (not sure of the material) and EPDM vac hoses when they could be made of polyurethane and silicone respectively and last the life of the vehicle. And everything is crammed into as small a space as possible, because that's how it is today. I have big fat meaty hands, a lot of these cars require me to take some stuff off so that I can take some other stuff off before I can get at a third thing. Even if you have a lift you're best off removing the engine in many cases because you still can't get access otherwise. But sadly, they don't have an engine harness, so you have to disconnect forty things to pull the motor. Perhaps literally; just the coil packs and injectors account for sixteen connectors on a V8.

S-Class and similar are for people with lots of money, and/or people who are playing games with taxes. Not for the plebes. You can own one only if you are a mechanic. The saying is that there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes. The same applies to VAG cars. You can't afford to own an old Audi if you don't turn your own wrenches.

For the money that Mercedes will cost you over its lifetime with major mechanical failures, nickel-and-diming you with electrical problems, et cetera, you could buy a Model S for the weekdays, and a used roadster for the weekend.

I suppose you could also buy a land rover or range rover to go next to the Mercedes. I see that a lot. If you get really lucky they won't both shit themselves at once.

All the automakers are working on making EVs, including Mercedes. But they have to sell more cars, and they have to make their customers feel good about the money they've already spent. What do you expect they to say when they produce a bunch of petrosuckers?

In my country, you may or may not actually be able to even get three phase in the city. But you can get it in the country... where EVs don't work for most people yet, due to range issues.

Actually, where I live I could almost use a GEM car for trips to the store. It's hard to justify spending 5k on a discontinued deathtrap and then another 5k+ on battery upgrades, though

The best way is probably battery-swapping. Right now battery tech is moving too quickly for it to make sense to come up with a cross-platform standard for batteries. But when that happens, I suspect that EV battery ownership will largely be a thing of the past, and that the majority of EV owners will join a battery co-op.

You don't need this if you have quick charge/swap. And even if you had it, you would need significant charging and infrastructure improvements to make use of it. "Normal" cars generally have less than 400 miles of range, so if you can solve the charging problem you've solved the whole problem.