I generally believe this is a major factor in underestimation, Even a "good" manager will unconsciously apply pressure to produce optimistic estimates. I was once asked how "accurate" my estimates were, and I said +/- 15%. I was told to go away and work out a "3%" estimate. I added 12% and gave the numbers back - they went nuts. They expected the same numbers but with a promise that they were more accurate.

Unfortunately not, because you never got any work, so you went out of business. The company that lied about it has managed to suck another 50% out of the client - who has never heard of the sunk cost fallacy, and then used a bit of money from another contract to deliver something that has 75% for the functionality. The client is mostly happy because they asked for the world and got something that was almost good enough.

Actually Google is deducting the cost from their tax bill. The catering company is deducting the cost of the food, staff wages, and all other business expenses from their income. The only parts that probably gets taxed are the income of the catering company staff, and any profit that the catering company makes. Since catering typically has very low profit margins and pays minimum wages I expect this tax to be rather low.

Yes, but your mom doesn't get to claim the cost of buying and preparing that hot pocket off her taxes. Google does. So not equivalent.

A restful back end driven by an html/js/ajax client is my favorite architecture as well, however if you want to do a server-generated dhtml style application, I would suggest you have a look at Stripes - It's everything that Struts should be (and isn't).

The only real issue in this whole debacle is the large loss in battery charge while the car was parked overnight. Looking at the graph that Musk posted here I can see the battery charge taking a steep dip right as the car is supposedly parked. The graph of remaining miles shows it even more clearly - obviously the computer was extrapolating from the sudden battery charge drop.

So, what caused the sudden drop? The speed graph isn't fine enough to determine of the car was driven, and although there is a cabin temperature spike, the reporter says that happened the next morning when he was told to run the heater for a while. The engineers were obviously thinking it was temperature related, and thought that with a bit of "conditioning" it would all be ok. Thus the suggestion to run the heater, and to slow-charge. Finally the assumed the computer had it wrong and told him it was ok to drive - and were probably wrong.

So, the only real conclusion left is that the battery actually lost charge overnight. Did Broder sabotage the result by running the heater longer than claimed, or drove around in circles (again) to run it down, or maybe he just left the headlights on overnight?. We'll probably never know.

The alternative is that the Tesla batteries discharge substantially when not being used in cold weather. That should actually be pretty easy for someone else to test.

Actually you want to check that statement. Iran increased it's domestic refining capacity dramatically in the last decade and is mostly self sufficient in that capacity now. It's become a very mis-quoted fact.

Because without some sort of proof of a sound business model, a company can underbid/overbid (underbid on cost, overbid on the fees they will pay the government) just to get into the market. Then they can run the service into the ground, suck any money they can out into 'consulting fees' and other such expenses that end up in the investor's pockets, and then just go bankrupt. The government gets left holding the run down remains, and suddenly all the trains stop.

Why couldn't employees at a private company who were given the task of protecting vital infrastructure from threats be motivated by both love of country AND money? I'm sure contractors can find some patriotic security guards to employ.

I think you are missing a critical point about biometric identifiers however. A password can be change an infinite number of times, a token can be replaced an infinite number of times. A fingerprint? - well once you have changed it ten times you are out of luck.

Biometrics are just "something you have" but with limited ability to replace. Its a weak token at best.

Let me get this straight, you want the morons that you see trying to walk in the "exit only" doors at Walmart be allowed to handling highly flammable and explosive liquids on a daily basis? Brave call.

Two of those three factors - the "something you have" and the "something you know" can be changed. You can be issued a new security card, and you can change your password. The third factor - "something you are" can not be changed. This makes it a lot weaker than the other two factors because if at any time in your history it has been stolen, then it is no longer secure and useful - ever again.

What do you do when your security system requires all three factors, but you already know the "something you are" has been compromised? Let's say it's a staff member with high level security clearance who you know has had their biometrics copied. Do you fire them because they can no longer meet the three factor requirements? or do you just allow them to continue on with two factor? and if the latter, then why did you have the third to begin with?.

<!--[if gte IE 9]>
This is IE 9 or higher
<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 8]>
This is IE 8 or lower
<![endif]-->
<!--[if !IE]> -->
This is not IE
<![endif]-->