Well it depends. Sometimes you want someone who will be a cowboy and solve and fix problems on the fly. Other times you want someone who be proactive and give you a safe solution.

Answer from google...

Chevy Volt
MSRP: From $34,345

2015 Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class
MSRP: From $31,500

Most people will want to pay under $20,000 for the Volt.

That is part of the issue.
1. Price: The 30k price range for most "affordable" electric cars is still a bit too much, for what you get for a car, you are still better off paying 20k for the same type of car and you will probably pay about the same for gas over the live of the car.

2. Range: 100-200 miles isn't that great. Sure it fine for your daily commute, but if you need to take a road trip, it gets riskier. Most gasoline cars get about 450-600 miles to a full tank. The argument get two cars or get a rental isn't that good of one. You want your own car for the most part and the freedom that comes with it.

3. Recharge time: Most people can fill up their tank in under 5 minutes. Charging an electric car can take a lot longer.

4. Fuzzy marketing... What people want to know is how much will it cost them in extra power bill to charge their car, and how much pollution is that worth, they just give you a loosy goosy response. While we know price varies, and if you have solar panels it may get offsetted.... however we would like a state average. Or at least give us some analogy such as running 3 dryers for 8 hours....

5. Limit being the green hippy car. I don't want my car to be a political statement, bumper stickers do that. I just want a good affordable car. I am a Prius owner, because I need to drive 60 miles every day for my commute and Gas gets expensive, I really do hate it when I get treated as a second class driver from SUV and pickup trucks filled with Right Wing bumper stickers. ( I have no bumper stickers on my car) thinking that I am some Liberal just because of the car I drive.

As with most mistakes, it is part of a system that is faulty and awaiting one simple mistake to escalate.
Any one human can make a mistake. However a good system should have built in methods to protect against this.
Why wasn't their a backup system, why didn't it have have a fail over network/power, why wasn't there proper labeling.

Chances are there was a culture of trying to save money: paying for a redundant system cost twice as much, or more. Having those network guys spend hours cleaning up and reorganizing where they can be working on more profit driven activities.
They are too focused on being agile and quick, that they will let little things slip.

For 99% of the failures and mistakes that happen it is the fault of the system, and not of the person who happened to make mistakes.

Organizations need to prioritize these methods and follow to make sure they are worked. Not just write them down, post them on some intranet and blame people for not following them if it wasn't followed. It needs the full organization to make sure checks are in place.

I have been part of of a large mistake costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However most mistakes are part of a chain of events of little mistakes, where they all combine to a big mistake. For example, if someone happen to trip over a plug that unplugged a production server. Then questions on why was the cable was out where it can be tripped, who decided that it wasn't worth the money to put time, to get a better system of cable management...

Normally a person will get fired for a mistake if it was due to intentional misconduct or it happens to get political and needs someone to blame, however if it happens you need to be sure that you put the blame back on the system (not an individual), then you will need to follow up to fix the system so it doesn't happen again.

Most of the most expensive mistakes, are often due to a huge chain of events. A good system should be in place to stop a simple mistake from escalate into big ones.

I agree, if a drone is being used inappropriately. The operator should be punished justly for the amount of danger he is causing.

The fact that a person did their job to the best of their abilities and succeeded, has no say in politics.
Facts are there so they can be twisted to show how evil they are or ignored. We can't have an actual human being in the office, ones who have good and bad movements in their life. They will somehow be completely virtuous while having the drive, ambition, thick skin and aggression to make it threw the political system.

I think it is Assange's Ego which is keeping him locked away. Not big brother who is SOOO INTERESTED in getting him.
For the most part America Assange isn't the bad guy, just a jerk to happens to hate America. Manning was the person that the US really wanted, Manning was the one who stole classified data and gave it Assange.

The crime they are trying to get him for in neutral Sweden is for rape. Why would any government give asylum to an individual who is hiding from a crime that is more or less universally not tolerated. He thinks the FBI, CIA, MI5, KGB.... are all after him. Because of his involvement he may be under watch, but in the grand scheme of things he is such a small fry that it isn't really worth such effort.

The claim that Sweden would hand him over to the US. Were I to worry about anyone in the EU doing that, it would be the UK. The US and UK have a relationship literally called the "special relationship." They back each other on diplomatic and intelligence matters in a way rarely seen among other nations. So they would be the one I would peg to hand him over all quiet like, if anyone.

The UK courts heard the matter, all the way to the top, and decided that it was a valid request. Your opinion on that doesn't particularly matter, only the opinion of their courts. That is how it works in any case of a nation which has an extradition treaty with another nation: The courts of the nation being asked to extradite decide if said request is allowable per the treaty. What that requires varies treaty by treaty.

In the EU, the extradition treaties are pretty strong. Countries don't have a lot of choice to say no. If a fellow EU member asks and the paperwork is all in order, you more or less have to comply. That is precisely what the British courts found in this case. They reviewed it, found it valid, he appealed, they found it valid and so on.

Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is how the justice process works there. This was not a case that was handled in some shady back channel matter, it went through the court system properly and the rulings fell against him. That's all there is to it.

The UK now has a case against him, and a very strong one. He fled bail, and that is a crime. That crime is still ongoing since he's still fleeing said bail. So they can arrest and charge him for that. Doesn't matter if the original matter is log dropped, he is still on the hook for this.

That's the thing with court dates, bail, and all that jazz: Even if the case against you was going to be dismissed, if you skip bail you are now guilty of another crime. You have agreed to appear in court and a failure to do so is against the law.

The UK had no beef in this originally, they were just acting on an EU arrest warrant. Sweden said "We want this guy," the UK looked at the warrant and said "looks valid per the treaty" and thus arrested him. They had no interest or ability to decide on the validity of the charges, only if the request required them to act per treaty. It did so he was arrested, and then released on bail.

He challenged the extradition all the way up to the high UK court, but the courts found it was a valid request that the UK had to honour. Nothing to do with his guilt, just that the request was a valid one and they were bound by treaty to hand him over. Had he gone to Sweden then, that would have been the end of the UK's involvement. His bail would be returned and the UK would have no further interest in what happened.

However he fled rather than handing himself over. So at that point, he became a fugitive in the UK. They now have a case against him. It is totally separate from the original case, it is simply a case of skipping bail.

Likely they'll want to act on it too, since he's been flaunting it in their face for years.

Alice posts a video using music that Bob owns the copyright to. Carol posts a video that uses music Bob falsely claims to also hold the copyright for. Unfortunately Bob's false claim against Carol doesn't change the fact that he actually does have a legitimate legal claim against Alice's video. So kicking him off the system means he's going to issue a takedown against Alice. The whole point of bringing him into the system was to give him an incentive to leave Alice alone.

The problem here isn't Bob and Alice -- that part of the scenario is working fine. The problem is Bob and Carol. There's no incentive for Bob not to make false claims against Carol. That's the bit that has to be fixed.

Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

Every time nuclear power comes up someone blames environmentalists for the industry's problems -- in this case before the problems have manifested. It's an article of faith.

So far as I can see there's only ever been one plant in the US that's ever been cancelled for environmental concerns is the proposed plant at Bodega Harbor, which as you can see on the map would have been right on top of the San Andreas fault. In every other case projects have been shut down after serious miscalculations in the industry's economic forecasting (e.g. lower energy prices in the 80s than anticipated in the 70s), often exacerbated by poor project management performance. In those cases environmentalists were just a convenient scapegoat for management screw-ups.

You can see that because after the very largest anti-nuclear protests in history -- against Seabrook in NH and Diablo Canyon -- the plants were built and put into operation anyway. If a company had a plant under construction that it could make money operating, that plant would get built, even if thirty thousand people turned out to protest.

Tried wow. it felt like everquest in "easy" mode. I could see why it would appeal to many.

Everquest had a sense of wonder I will never feel again. Nothing was documented. Gm's showed up personally to give you your second name or marry characters. It was extremely hard and was a lifestyle. You had to play 40+ hours a week to keep up.

You could lose everything and be badly hurt. You needed other people to survive. The 72 person raids demanded huge political guilds with massive logistics,strategy and tactical skills. We won't see 72 person content again.

It's sort of like DND vs all the other systems that came later. They were more polished and had some great ideas. But there was something primal in DND that I never found elsewhere.