Super short version:
Philosophy addresses questions of truth.
Science addresses questions of observation.
Super short version:
Philosophy addresses questions of truth.
Science addresses questions of observation.
People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is 'scientific' because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building
"And here we see that increasing CO2 levels is causing increasing global temperatures..."
Yep, coorelation != causation.
Sure, the regenerative braking probably reduces the wear on the brakes.
Point being, brake pads and rotors are normal replacement items. You should expect to replace them more than once in 12 years on a normal vehicle. I can wear down a set of pads in a weekend at the track. It depends a lot on how you drive.
I will agree that on the Tesla I test drove, I barely touched the brake pedal. The regen was turned up to maximum and that does a good job of slowing the car down if you are paying attention.
BMWs also tend to have static negative rear camber, and are RWD like the Tesla. But the wheels are smaller dia, which means the tires are more affordable.
I think over 12 years you will spend similar or more on Tesla model S brake and tire components as compared to an average BMW. I look forward to hearing from Model S owners 11 years from now...
Heck. At 12-years on a BMW, there are any number of wearbale parts that replacement may exceed car value (tires, brakes (you have to replace the rotors with the pads on a BMW), etc).
Not unless the car has been damaged.
BMWs have very high resale value. 12 year old BMWs are currently 2002 models. Very few model year 2002 BMWs can be found for under $5000 in _any_ condition.
In fact, if you do a quick search on autotrader.com for model year 2002 BMWs, you'll see that there are 1200 listings with an average asking price of $9700
I happen to be quite familiar with the running costs of old BMWs. The drive train of a BMW will easily last 12 years without substantial work. The exceptions would be the plastic cooling system components, and, on some models, premature VANOS failure. Sadly, on the newer N54 engines the HPFP is a disaster, but that is not the majority of used BMWs, and certainly not MY2002 cars.
Even paying dealer prices, to replace brakes, suspension rubber, tires, cooling system, etc, will not cost you $9000.
The brake rotors and pads are a few hundred dollars per corner, and you could replace them yourself in your own garage with a jack and hand tools.
FWIW, I really like Tesla. I look forward to a time when buying one of their cars makes sense for me.
However, your consideration of the repair costs of a 12 year old BMW is way off. Thus, my response.
Also, Brakes and Tires are functionally identical between a BMW and a Tesla, and, on the Model S, the Tesla replacement parts are probably more expensive (I haven't priced them to be certain), because the Tesla has very large low profile tires and very large brakes, especially compared to the "average" BMW (instead of their X5 trucks with big wheels, or their high performance M models with larger brakes)
So comparing a 12 year old BMW and a 12 year old Tesla, the wear and maintenance parts differences are the Tesla's battery vs. the BMW's conventional drivetrain. The latter requires coolant flushes, oil changes, transmission fluid changes, air filters, etc.
The one maintenance surprise that I learned about when chatting with a Tesla service technician was that on the model S, the A/C refrigerant is serviced regularly, because it is an integral component of the battery cooling system.
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes.
Test results? Missing carbon sinks. Well known fact that you glossed over. Every time you guys do that, you lose credibility. You can't convince skeptics by lying through omission.
Yes, we only want rich women to be able to not get raped or murdered by the abusive people in their lives.
Good job asshole.
The appropriate product is called the "GunVault". It can be opened in a second or so, in the dark, entirely by touch.
They make them in different shapes and sizes for different mounting/storage situations.
Irrespective of what OPM might think of who she visited and why, the fact that she at minimum failed to disclose it during the interviews is a red flag.
It could be that she is getting a raw deal and she really had no nefarious intentions at any point in her life, and this was an honest mistake and a reasonable person could have thought it couldn't have been relevant and no dishonesty was involved.
Or, it could be that OPM has done their job correctly and has identified someone who is a future liability because of her past stupidity and her comfort in being dishonest about her past, associations, and politics.
The OPM is not the department of second chances and big hugs. They are charged with, for instance, trying to keep future Snowdens out of the US government.
(I think what Snowden did was a good thing, fwiw. That doesn't change OPMs job )
The point is that lying is worse. If they find out, not only did you break a federal law, but you lied about breaking a federal law when applying for a government job that asks a bunch of pretty serious questions and explains the possible penalties for dishonesty.
Also, other posters have mentioned that she visited some of these group members while they were in jail for murder. You neglect to mention that hey, you're kind of friends with a murderer when you're interviewing for a government job?
I did an OPM interview for a friend who was joining the USAF and listed me as a reference. They are serious. They need to be.
This lady hung out with some dipshits when she was younger. She probably hung out with them a bit too much. Then when she was older she tried to get a grown up adult type job that uncle sam was interested in. She either lied or neglected to mention her 2 or 3 standard deviations out of bounds youthful activities. OPM caught up with her on it and decided that she wasn't worth the risk.
It's their prerogative. They're not in the don't-hurt-your-feelings business. They're not in the "forgive-the-stupid-mistakes-of-youth" business. They're in the business of assessing possible problems with people.
A cop firing a gun is morally ambiguous. Sometimes its justified, sometimes it isn't.
Deciding when it is vs. isn't justified is the problem. Knowing that the gun was fired is usually pretty obvious.
Knowing the entirety of the situation when a cop fired is considerably more important than if the cop actually fired.
Pervasive, tamper proof cameras on officers and their vehicles, that police cannot withhold from the public without a pretty serious conversation with a judge. That's the starting point.
Let's see what problems remain after we've had that running for 5 years.
Stealing is wrong no matter the context.
Except when it applies to a Law Enforcement Backdoor, right? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear... right?
bmajik launches a first post.
According to the mission profile, due to moderation, his positive karma will burn up during re-entry.
More seriously, I'm glad Space X is apparently doing things right. More successful launches... not just more launch attempts. The eyes are on them and lots of vested interests are looking to pounce and capitalize once they make a serious mistake.
One critical difference: services.msc isn't actually responsible for orchestrating system startup on windows.
Services.msc is an administrative tool meant for interactive use. It is one of several administrative surfaces for interacting with windows service configuration. The commandline tool "sc" still exists and is still functional, and powershell undoubtedly has a more robust suite of tools for manipulating system startup.
The actual inner plumbing of starting up a windows machine is in some way abstracted from the management surfaces used. For instance, during the Windows XP era, a bunch of work was done on making bootup faster. Part of that work was done by allowing some parts of system startup to happen in parallel that were previously serial.
In versions of windows since XP, other subtle changes have been made to windows startup behavior to positively impact performance. The measure people most care about is how long until you can see your desktop, so some startup services have been moved into Deferred groups if they aren't implicated in giving you a login desktop.
All of these changes have been possible without critically altering the different management surfaces that exist for windows administrators. Service dependency chains, run levels, etc have been in the NT family since early days.
New features show up in these experiences over time; e.g. once upon a time every single service ran as the SYSTEM credential; now there are lots of pre-built discrete identities with different rights to effect some degree of privsep. But these were new values showing up on combo boxes in the existing tooling; not throwing away everything you knew and asking you to start over with something entirely foreign.
One key difference between Windows and rc/sysV is that the latter makes it much easier to promote a random shell script into something the unix startup orchestration knows about.
Windows services have a richer interface contract (start, stop, query status, etc) that is based on C-style calling conventions (iirc). Implementing something as a windows service as a practical matter requires knowing that's what you want it to be before you start coding.
The downside of the unix flexibility is that people ship broken ass shit like Ubuntu LTS where half your stuff is reasonable and half your stuff tells you, "hey, i'm an upstart job! So what you tried won't work any more for some reason that has no fucking bearing on your life! fuck you buddy!"
I got my start on linux in the a.out binary days, and simultaneously worked on Solaris and IRIX machines about 20 years ago. I've added other unicies since then. I'm very comfortable with both rc and sysV. Recent follow-ons like "upstart" have jut felt like hacky shit to me that unceremoniously throws out what met my needs and provides a fundamentally worse experience.
I spent a great deal of time debugging OSX startup a while back (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mattev/archive/2004/06/21/161770.aspx) and that system was at least sensical and consistently implemented.
If you want the real deal on windows internals, the Windows Internals Books with Mark Russinovich are excellent, and explain the internal kernel concepts and data structures in tremendous detail. System startup is also covered, including the orchestration between smss.exe, lsass.exe, csrss.exe, and all other associated friends.
How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else. -- R. Buckminster Fuller