I just did the calculation for myself, and compared to my $15k 40mpg Hyundai, and given the amount of gas I go through on a weekly basis, if I pay sticker price for the model E it will be just about at the break even point. Any subsidy is just gravy. My current car is only 2 years old, so I won't be in the market for a while, but I'll definitely take a long hard look at a Tesla when I am.

(Honestly I think he just likes driving a big ass truck, and the boat is an excuse.)

There's a limit to how many amps you can dump in a battery without severely shortening its capacity to hold a charge (not withstanding the heat and other problems related to running hundreds of amps on a connector)

Is it still not legal to shoot copyright trolls on sight?

And if not, WHY THE HELL NOT?

Github FAILS the requirement for reliability due to being subject to DMCA horseshit. Will somebody please start the next github in a jurisdiction untouchable by DMCA and other thuggish regulations.

DMCA requires that the service provider wait no fewer than ten and no more than fourteen days after forwarding the counter-notification and then put it back up if the service provider has not received notice of suit in that period.

Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining such knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or block access to it.

The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially with the statutory requirements means that the notification will not be considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If, upon receiving a proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).

In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counter notification. In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.

Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneysâ(TM) fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider. (Section 512(f)).

I respectfully remind you that only timely compliance with this put-back notice absolves you of liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

There is no such law. In any case, this is the the basis for the entire news business.

Well, that call is in response to yours. I think jamesl meant a "just thinking about you" type of call.

You're wrong, you shouldn't trust your doctor AT ALL. Your life/health and privacy are far too important to do so.

Your doctor is no better of a person than anyone at the insurance company.

You need to understand that every single person at a hospital is also a person, not some mythical creature who actually cares about you.

99.9% of the doctors created today are just as scummy as anyone else. The age where doctors cared has not existed during my life time, if it ever did. The hippocratic oath is a joke at best, nothing more than lip service.

I have a IMO a propounding question. Why is this stuff just done with no voter imput? Wither its a government project or a private one, I thing we should demand public input and maybe even voter approval or disapproval.........And has any privacy agencies tried this method? Just seem to me they shouldn't be using government equipment "poles" "Right of ways".or government property.

Diversity is good, especially if they wind up diverging and actually being diverse. Not all implementations wind up being vulnerable to the same attacks, except when there are weaknesses inherent to the protocol.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Doppler effect [wikipedia.org]. Even on a Harley making a huge obnoxious racket it is easy to get dangerously close to someone before they hear you

Holy shit, maybe I should create some fairly non descript website that some hipsters use and then sell it for a whole frigging lot more than it will probabily ever bring in in revenue.