Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 481

by Attila Dimedici (#48041539) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?
Yet, you said that people should just do whatever it is that they think is right. Many of the people in the 20th Century thought it was right to kill millions of other people. You say that we should analyze the various ways of deciding what is right and choose the one that works for us. You are unable to give a standard by which to measure whether something is right or wrong, yet I am supposed to accept that you will do what is right (at least most of the time).

Comment: Re:More Regulations, Please (Score 2) 216

by Attila Dimedici (#48039327) Attached to: Back To Faxes: Doctors Can't Exchange Digital Medical Records
Because if the government had not mandated EMR, the various EMR systems would have had to convince health care providers that what they were offering made their jobs easier or improved the care they gave their patients in order to get adopted. As problems like this cropped up, those health care providers would have pressured the vendors they dealt with to resolve it. There would have been one of two outcomes: everybody would have ended up using the same company, or everyone would have ended up using those companies who made it easiest to build a system that could talk to other EMR setups. If the Feds did their job enforcing Anti-trust laws, it would have been the latter.

Comment: Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 481

by Attila Dimedici (#48038119) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?
So, basically you linked me to a wikipedia article which says that there are lots of different ways to determine what is right and what is wrong, so feel free to do whatever it is you think is right. Are you aware that many of those who carried out the atrocities of the 20th Century thought they were doing right?

Comment: Re:ET would disprove God (Score 1) 481

by Attila Dimedici (#48034973) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?
Perhaps you missed a key word in that passage, even though it is repeated twice. That word is "earth". When interpreted in light of other similar passages, it clearly is stating that man has been given dominion over life on this planet. Until such a time as man has the ability to get to other planets with life of their own, there is no basis for claiming that God gave man dominion over that life.

Comment: Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 481

by Attila Dimedici (#48034869) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

Among my acquaintances, belief in UFOs, alien abductions, etc. is much more prevalent among the religious.

That's interesting because repeated polling has shown that belief in UFOs, alien abductions, bigfoot, etc is much more prevalent among self-identified agnostics and atheists than among self-identified Christians (I have not seen the data for those identifying with other religions).

Comment: Re:So? (Score 1) 473

by Attila Dimedici (#48026017) Attached to: Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power
The politicians are already salivating at the thought of using EVs as an excuse to track our cars all of the time, all in the name of taxing us based on miles driven. It is a bogus argument anyway since cars already have a thing called an odometer that would allow the government to tax based on miles driven.

Comment: Re:Read it and weep ... (Score 1) 334

by Attila Dimedici (#48016769) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives
You keep quoting most of that sentence while leaving out the key part that comes at the end ""...Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said." It does not matter how many times nor in how many articles the opinion of Paul Steier is quoted, it does not change the fact that the law does not actually say that. You appear to be basing your argument on, "They published it in the newspaper. It must be true."
I will try one more time. The article links to the relevant law. You can read that law for yourself. I did. The relevant law says that in order to sell automobiles at retail in Iowa someone must be a licensed dealer. It does not say that in order to "act as a dealer" one must be licensed. It says that in order to sell one must be licensed. So, the wording of the law does not say that someone must be licensed as a dealer in order to conduct test drives anymore than someone must be licensed as a dealer to make repairs on a car. Dealers do that as well, so that you could say "State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering to repair cars, the local mechanic was acting as a dealer." It still would not mean there was a legal requirement to be licensed as an auto dealer in order to repair cars, no matter how many times someone from the DOT said it. Read the law, it does not say what the DOT spokesman said.

Comment: Re:Read it and weep ... (Score 1) 334

by Attila Dimedici (#48016109) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives
That statement is the OPINION of the DOT. There is NO place in the law which states that offering test drives makes one an auto dealer. In fact, the law states that selling cars retail makes one an auto dealer. Tesla was not selling cars retail in the state.
The article could say this: "State law requires pharmacists to be licensed, and by giving George aspirin, Henry was acting as a pharmacist," but that would not necessarily make it true (even if that statement was made by a state official).

Comment: Re:Read it and weep ... (Score 1) 334

by Attila Dimedici (#48015987) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives
But the law never states that you must be a dealer to offer test drives. The law says that you must be a dealer to sell cars retail. The law does not say that a manufacturer may not offer test drives. So, to recap, the DOT has ruled that only licensed auto dealers may offer test drives. However, the state law does not say that it says that only licensed auto dealers may sell autos at retail.
Now I understand that progressives think that bureaucrats should be allowed to make the law say whatever they think is should say, but that is not how our system is supposed to work. There does exist an argument that supports the position taken by the DOT. However, until that argument is made in front of a theoretically impartial third party known as a judge and Tesla is allowed to make their counter-arguments it is not accurate to describe what Tesla was doing as illegal, since it does not violate the letter of the law.

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...