Perhaps not but all other factors far outweigh a supposedly green alternative. By being able to drive the entire day without recharging, you make up for the fact that it may take the entire night to recharge it. A 700 mile range would be better.
Well, yeah. With all the limitations of electric vehicles, you're going to have to make them insanely great to get people to buy them over traditional ones. Today's offerings are a joke.
Actually, I did. Point being that you could fill the tank very quickly (and still can) and that tank can be filled anywhere even in BFE with a spare gas can. Oh, and if you don't use it for a few months to a several years, the tank is still full. Try to remember that most people don't use their cars to commute 15 minutes to work and back home every day. Try to remember that most people don't live within 5 miles of everything they need to get to. Try to remember that most people don't want to live in a huge city packed in like cattle.
15+ million trucks is hardly a corner case.
Wake me when it has a 500 mile range, can be fully charged in 5 minutes, and will last more than 5 years. Oh, and it has to work in a non-streamlined vehicle like a loaded F-150 pickup.
A) Why didn't Bose sue Beats BEFORE Apple bought them? That makes this case sound much more about targeting a cash hoard than anything else.
2) Why didn't Apple buy Bose? Aside from the obvious answer that Apple bought branding instead of technology, Bose surely must have something Apple would want. If not, then the Beats acquisition is only about image which doesn't make much sense given that Apple has been pretty good at creating their own image over the last 10+ years.
So let's assume the premise of these proposed observations and let's assume that we actually find a planet with a high pollution content and let's further assume that we're only able to detect the type of pollution that can never be created from some naturally occurring process e.g. don't look at Venus and assume that it was once a beautiful place until acid rain formed. Such a planet will be quite a few light years away, perhaps hundreds. So what we would be looking at is the pollution from a hundred years ago. If this civilized planet is smart enough to fix it, they are more advanced than we are. But we may never know. The EPA was created 44 years ago and many people think this planet is more polluted than ever. We might have to stare at said distant polluted planet for more than 50 years to find out if they fixed it. Then again, if the atmosphere clears up in a year or two, then they either are even more advanced than we are or they destroyed themselves and their planet healed itself. Or maybe the indigenous population actually exists because it's polluted by human standards. Or this whole thing may mean nothing.
Not exactly a valid assumption. Government users tend to use IE primarily because they have to access other government sites that were built by the lowest bidder who often only work on Windows and only works on IE. Hell, while most of the world uses Acrobat for forms, the feds contracted with IBM to build some IT stuff and they're using this goofy holdover from their acquisition of Lotus.
Serious question: What's the best way to handle video on the web given a few requirements? First, the content needs to be hosted on the same site as the website. Why? Because sites like Youtube and Vimeo have control over it. They can unilaterally decide to take something down. They will also present related video. For someone trying to market product, you shouldn't make it easy for a prospective customer to find your competitors. Second, the video has to work on both Macs and PCs. Third, the video has to work on Internet Explorer as early as v.8 because too many users don't know any better.
This ranks right up there with the dedicated chicken nuggets button on some ovens.
This is my shocked face:
The FAA hasn't issued any "rule" only a policy guideline which is unenforceable. Most people don't know that and the FAA is counting on intimidation to do their dirty work for them.
That seems completely arbitrary.
Or maybe the entire premise that there is millions of tons of plastic in the ocean was bullsh*t fearmongering.
Show us ALL the data and ALL the methodology.