Looks like a new entry is coming.

The supercharged version was actually more fuel efficient, but it raised the cost of the vehicle. They could not compete with the Chrysler minivan using such an expensive engine and had to introduce the Sienna, which had a normally aspirated engine (and 20 or so more horses).

The Previa couldn't get out of its own way. That's why the had to make the Sienna. Maybe you could get a more powerful electric engine in the same space, though. But it's a pipe dream for now - they can barely make affordable batteries for tiny economy cars... a minivan is out of the question.

I found $159 with no money down, but it's only for 7500 miles. If you only drive 7500 miles, you use far less than 250 gallons per year in gas in a Golf. Maybe less than 200 if you are on the highway. Even in a state with $3 gas, you are talking about $750 per year in fuel costs. Not worth it.

The comparable gasoline lease gives you 10,000 miles, so you are also getting less miles in the lease. I don't know what beelsebob's terms are, but it is very rare that a lease would be a better deal than a purchase.

I don't know what tricks your lease is pulling, but an eGolf is in the mid-30s and a regular Golf is at in the low 20s. That is a lot of gas money. If you live in CA, it would probably be worth it if the government is paying for much of the delta. In other parts of the country, you would need to see how long it would take to burn $3000-5000 worth of gas. For my little 20 miles a day it would never be worth it. For a longer commute, it would pay off sooner but the range would become an issue. That means you need a bigger battery, which increases the cost and then makes the payback longer.

It will happen, but it will take some more time for battery prices to come down. ICE engine costs will also go up as efficiency standards become more stringent. If the government removes the subsidy we are a long way off yet.

I didn't say that paper elections cannot be rigged. They can, and have been more often actually than there have been fair elections.

I did not even say that it's easier to rig electronic elections than paper elections. Personally, I'd expect it to be as long as you're the one calling the shots.

What is harder is simply to debunk cries of foul play. People can easily imagine what a paper election is like and how counting them (with representatives of all parties involved present) can be somewhat trusted. It is easy, on the other hand, to convince people that this is not the case with voting machines.

People don't trust what they don't understand. And trust is something a democracy needs urgently. People need to have faith in their system of government. Whether they like their current government or not, but they need to know that it was elected fairly and that it is what "the people" wanted. That's the whole problem here. Because without ... well, you see how Mexico is doing...

It is?

Explain this to Joe Random who just heard some populist cry foul play, claiming that they can't be audited and that the auditors are all in league with the party that won the election. Yes, it's bull. But the problem is that you CANNOT debunk it. Joe Random can't imagine how such an audit takes place. He can imagine counting paper slips, and he can see through the ruse when someone cries foul in such an environment. Any party crying foul in a paper election will be told that they should've put some monitors down if they didn't trust the ones running the show and counting the paper slips. That's (at least in my country) their right to do.

You can't do that with computer voting. Yes, someone can make an audit. But it isn't something you can easily explain to someone who has no idea of computers. He will readily believe someone who claims that it's bogus. Simply because he doesn't understand what "audit" means. He understands counting paper slips, though.

The danger is even less in the actual possibility of manipulation as it is in the possible loss of faith in the election. People are already weary of politicians and even politics to some degree (personally, I can only hope that the general apathy is more due to useless politicians rather than people genuinely not caring about democracy anymore). The very last thing we need now is that something gives them the impression that it doesn't matter jack anymore whether or not they vote because it's rigged anyway. Whether real or imagined, if someone starts beating that drum, people will follow easily.

Simply because you can't easily debunk it.

But any party involved can (at least in my country, and pretty much all civilized countries I know of) nominate election observers that can easily identify whether everything's running correctly without any kind of special knowledge. They can easily tell whether the ballot is properly sealed, they can easily tell whether people step into the voting booth alone. They can easily find out whether the choice is free of influence. They can be present when the ballot seal is broken (actually, over here people are essentially locked in 'til the paper slips are counted, collected and sealed again, nothing going in or out in between) and when the paper slips are counted.

It's pretty hard to manipulate anything in such an environment. It's easy to see whether someone tries to manipulate results since it takes little more than eyes to detect foul play.

You act as if that wasn't even easier with voting machines. "Whoopsie, computer crash!"

And unlike in this case, you can't even claim that they're criminally incompetent. Because, hey, computers crash, that's what they do, right? Happens to you at home, too, and you can't be blamed for that, can you?

In other words, them running out of ballots and being unable/unwilling to allow voters to vote is something people can easily identify as something not being as it should be. Manipulation gets heaps easier with voting machines.

Sadly, I'm not compatible with DRM so I guess I can't use that new browser.

There is one single very dangerous problem with electronic voting: Trust. People have to trust it, because they are unable to test it.

With paper and pen, it's easy. You can nominate anyone to work as an election monitor. The necessary qualification is "being able to find out where the X marks the spot" and "count". That's a skill set available to nearly everyone.

Working as an election monitor to rule out foul play with election machines requires someone to know quite a bit about computers. It's anything BUT simple to rule out foul play.

The danger here isn't even so much that manipulation can take place. And I don't even want to engage in the discussion whether or not these machines can easily be manipulated. The danger is that some populist aiming for the uneducated masses goes and cries foul play when he loses the election. And that's a danger not to some party but to the faith of the population in the whole democratic process. And that inherently is dangerous to democracy altogether.

It's not easy to debunk such claims. With paper, it's easy to go "oh please, count them yourself if you don't believe us. Here's the paper slips, and you can count, can't you?". Now try the same with election machines. Saying "you can do an audit yourself" isn't going to cut it. Why should we trust the computer experts? It's not something just anyone can do.

These machines are a danger to democracy. Nothing less.

Look on the bright side: if it were an F-35, the panel would have 13 nuts instead of 3, and all be different.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

The poster was not the boss. The boss calls the final shots. The technician's job is to present the risks (trade-offs) as accurately and clearly as possible. If the boss(es) then choose to ignore the risk warnings, the blame falls on them. If you usurp their power, you are out the door (unless it's a legal matter).

Incidentally, I was in a somewhat similar situation where marketing planned to release about 30 websites for satellite offices all at once along with a press release about the new sites. I pointed out our "budget-oriented" infrastructure may not be able to handle such a sudden load, and suggested staggering the releases. Other technicians agreed with my warning, but the marketing chief was really disappointed, saying something like, "It's better P/R to have one big release. Staggering the releases takes the punch out of it."

I was tempted to respond, "30 crashed sites is not good P/R either", but smartly bit my tongue (based on prior experience with "reality" statements). He was a true P-H-B, always looking for a cheap short-sighted shortcut, but tried to blame us when his paper tigers got eaten. He drove one guy to retire early. Later he was under investigation for giving contracts to his buddies instead of basing them on merit. Not surprising, his buddies were also idiots.

I heartily endorse that statement, and encourage you to teach it to your children.

(My children, on the other hand, will be competing with yours in the global society and I want to give them the best chance of success.)

Was it too late to re-inspect when mentioned in the meeting? You perhaps could have said, "I don't recognize that nut, but I'm willing to go in and look around."