I'm all for efficient use of resources and energy, but surely this is one case where the most energy-efficient method has issues we could well do without?
You can't be serious..? S.O. is full of monkeys...
Then, by virtue of the infinite monkeys theorem, the OP might actually get the kind of answer he needs!?!
In the course of their investigations, officials told Joseph they suspected he was responsible for a second anonymous Twitter account, @dchobbyist, which included tweets that are more racy about sexual encounters, escort services – and the inner workings of the State Department.
“Wow, you look amazingly sexy in this photo!” @dchobbyist posted on Oct. 5.
“That was him,” a person briefed on the probe told POLITICO.
Methinks this might have been the answer to the question "what risk did he pose"...
Even if he wasn't responsible for @dchobbyist, their investigation of him in connection may have highlighted his identity as @natsecwonk, causing the focus of their investigation to move from "who is @dchobbyist?" (an investigation that perhaps was higher priority due to perceived security risk, but to which they have not announced any final conclusion), to "who is @natsecwonk?" (possibly not originally being investigated as it's more of a political risk than a security risk, but to which they now had the evidence for what they saw as a relatively quick and easy media coup). It would be interesting to see if they ever do announce the identity of @dchobbyist...?
Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
And perhaps even more unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable also happened to be his employer!
"... biting the hand that feeds you" ringing any bells with him, you think?
Personal attacks on their appearance is crossing a line.
Not disagreeing with your opinion here, but there is ample precedent that making attacks against the appearance of people who are, however tangentially, in the public view is not only condoned, but in some sectors encouraged... just take a look at the front covers of (let alone what's inside) some of the trashier magazines at any newsstand and see comments about cellulite, fashion choices and other attacks of questionable morality. Again, I'm not saying it's right for these to be allowed / encouraged, but I also don't see them going anywhere soon!
2. I guess you have a LITERALLY foolproof way to keep people from doing something stupid?
This reminds me of one of my favorite aphorisms in the world of IT (or any other industry, for that matter):
For every idiot-proof system, there is at least one system-proof idiot.
Please note, this comment is supporting your challenge, not countering it!
I can't find a source that says that, amusingly enough. What I did find seems to point at an exemption made for "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles". To me, this sounds tailored to actually pass. Anything broader and the TADA would jump in guns blazing saying how they're destroying America. They're already opposing the bill with such a ludicrously small scope, imagine if the American-owned restriction wasn't there or the electric restriction wasn't there? Texas happens to be both ultra-patriotic and an oil baron's paradise, what did you expect?
The only issue I can see with it as portrayed in the article is the difference between what is in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who exclusively make electric vehicles" - and what perhaps should have been in the bill - "American-owned manufacturers who make exclusively electric vehicles".
A subtle difference, but the difference between a bill that could be argued is an exception solely for Tesla vs. one that could cover any manufacturer that have electric-only vehicles (possibly in addition to gasoline-powered or hybrid technologies). The bill, as described by the article (and that is important, as it's the journalist's reporting of the bill, not the full text of the bill itself) would apparently cease to apply to a company the moment they make something other than an electric-only vehicle. Potentially, it could even be considered to exclude Tesla from complying, as they not only make the vehicles, they make the chargers and spare parts too (letter of the law vs. spirit of the law)!
Besides, what's wrong with waiting an hour? You need to stop for food anyway, so if you can recharge at or near the place you stop to eat, then you're not losing any time.
That's true if you're going to a restaurant like Bob Evans or Steak 'n Shake. But I'd be surprised if the six minutes spent waiting for carry-out at a quick-service workaurant is near long enough to recharge the battery.
Good point, BUT... You forget that with traditional gas refuelling, as well as 7-10 mins queueing up for your takeout, you also have to spend 3-5 mins standing next to your vehicle while the gas pumps into the tank... add the two together, and you're already more than halfway to that magic 20 minute timescale (which is only likely to get smaller as charger/battery tech improves... when was the last major improvement in gas refuelling timescales?!?)...
I do find it interesting how every one has ran with the Hindenburg angle, you've gotta hand it to Musk, he knows how to pervert a conversation with spurious propaganda. WTF has the Hindenburg got to do with fuel cells? - This is Musk doing a Tomas Edison, except it's uncool to electrocute elephants as "evidence" that a competing technology is dangerous these days, so he picks an unrelated human tragedy instead as "evidence".
Erm... Musk wasn't the one bringing up the Hindenburg. To be fair, the comparison was not (originally) invoked by the various commentators in this forum. I have watched the full video at the link. My understanding of the German language is slightly rusty, but Musk was only speaking in English anyway! Musk's criticism of Fuel Cell was based on comparing relative energy densities and efficiencies between projected Fuel Cell tech and current Li-Ion battery tech, with an afterthought suggesting that Fuel Cells are suitable for rocketry, but even then, rocket disasters were not even mentioned. He presented a marketing-speak case for why Fuel Cell tech is only proposed by companies for marketing reasons (which, in itself, is somewhat hypocritical!). That being said, the whisky salesman who introduced the video DID invoke the Hindenburg disaster. Maybe this is where some of the confusion is coming from?
Oh... who am I kidding...? This is