Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Tesla is a great car company and likely to be an even bigger deal in the battery market - but compared to GM, it's sales barely register.
On the stock front - GM's market cap is 51.8B, Tesla's is 30B. So, yes, Tesla is probably a bit overpriced right now - people are buying what Tesla will be, not the company it is today.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
You did read the title of this post at least - right? This wasn't "angry 4-chan" it was "asshole marketing team."
Not everyone speaks legalese, after all.
Yep. Basically. That and the fact that we're comfortable going into Court and performing in front of a judge and client, putting our knowledge of the law out there and giving advice to people in the most stressful moments of their lives. Ever had a bad day specifically because you knew you had to go confront someone for being a jerk / doing something stupid? That's about 50% of my job. The other 50% is mostly research and writing.
"Intelligence" as measured by academic performance would thus not correlate well with raw genetic markers (i.e. raw potential). First they'd need to define what capacity of the person they want to deem "intelligence" e.g. - are we talking logical deductive capacity, ability with mathematical computation, the ability to communicate effectively, problem solving skills - what is "intelligence?" Second, they would need to find some way to test that capacity that isn't commonly understood and used outside the study, so, for example, not asking participants to take a math test because then the opportunity and effort elements interfere with the measure of raw capacity - you'd need a test that challenged the ability to learn and comprehend without falling back on existent structures; this would be very difficult to formulate well, and any test taker could only use that test once. Third, they'd need to look for common physical markers in the developed body / brain for those that demonstrate whatever capacity they've defined as intelligence - e.g. nerve density, size of the brain cavity, etc. Only then can you look for a genetic source for that physical marker.
"Intelligence" isn't height or weight or eye color - it is too subjective a quality to seek out before defining your term very narrowly.
I still haven't heard anyone that can explain the purpose of the Dastardly achievement in Red Dead Redemption - I played that game for well over a hundred hours - it never would have occurred to me to hog tie a girl and toss her on the tracks - but the developer actually encourages the act through the achievement system. Did she misrepresent that? What percentage of her examples have to be correct before she's allowed to have an opinion?