I suppose the natural stopping point might be the balance between an individual's willingness to be monitored and the desire to reduce insurance premiums.
Possibly, although the cynic in me says that the natural stopping point will be when the insurance companies require that you be monitored or they will not provide you with insurance.
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.
Don't forget to factor in maintenance where the all electric vehicle will be cheaper. The estimated cost for 4 years of maintenance on a Tesla S is $1900. Compare that to $3316 for the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid and $3417 for the regular Hyundai Sonata. Maintenance costs for the Hyundais are from cars.com's "Cost of Ownership" page for each model. Maintenance costs for the Tesla are from Tesla motors. For more equitable "levels" of cars, the Hyundai Equus has a 4 year maintenance cost exceeding $6000.
(Honestly I think he just likes driving a big ass truck, and the boat is an excuse.)
I think somebody is compensating for something.
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)
That and the fact that you have people who forget to remove the nozzle before leaving the gas station. How many of these people will a supercharging station fry?
Is it still not legal to shoot copyright trolls on sight?
And if not, WHY THE HELL NOT?
Maybe we can amend "under penalty of perjury" to "under penalty of death" in that one section of the DMCA.
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.
Maybe we could build a data haven on an old abandoned oil drilling platform that is in international waters. I think I read about that somewhere.
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.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure about the section in bold requiring the ISP to wait 10 days. The phrasing is weird. Here is the relevant section of the DMCA(emphasis mine):
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 believe the last paragraph does allow for penalties for deliberately false take down notices. The problem is that you would have to actually take the case to court and discover that they knew the notices would be false. IANAL but if I read this right, if you file a counter claim to get things put back up claiming misidentification or mistake and you are found to be infringing anyway, you could be on the hook for the copyright holder's attorney's fees. If the counter-claim requires a reason, I would recommend something other than one of these two.
I respectfully remind you that only timely compliance with this put-back notice absolves you of liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
Is there such a requirement? Does the DMCA require that the ISP restore things at all or can they just leave it down if they want?
There is no such law. In any case, this is the the basis for the entire news business.
While it may not be an actual law, there are strict rules about this for any study, like this one, that receives US federal funding.
Well, that call is in response to yours. I think jamesl meant a "just thinking about you" type of call.
That's because the underlying core of western medicine is a reactive one rather than a proactive one.
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 don't trust my doctor with my personal information because of some vague oath any more than I do any politician to support and defend the constitution. I trust my doctor with my personal information because he has a legal obligation to not disclose that information to other parties without my consent.
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.
No, the proper way to do it is wait until they have spent all the money to buy the equipment and deploy it, then pass a referendum that makes them illegal.