So it outsold the 7-series (top end full-size full-luxury sedan), the S-class (top end full-size full-luxury sedan) and the Audi A8 (full-size full-luxury sedan), which even BMW, Mercedes, and Audi would admit make up a small fraction of their overall sales, and this is a win?

The Model S is a top-end full-size full-luxury sedan. It makes complete sense to compare it to the top-end full-size full-luxury sedans of the incumbent manufacturers.

When you outsell the 5-series, the E-class, and the Audi A6, then you'll have something to talk about, as all three manufacturers sell an order of magnitude more of those.

The fact that they were able to outsell any manufacturers in any series during their first attempt at a car in this class still says a lot. Given that this is their second success (the first being the Roadster), and that each success is building on the last, I think that the future of Tesla Motors is very bright and judging by the stock price, so do many others.

Support the candidate you believe in with your mouth and with your vote. As soon as you bring money into the picture, you are introducing corruption that violates the purpose of democratic elections in the first place.

I really don't understand why we still allow campaign contributions to specific politicians

I really don't understand why we still allow campaign contributions to anyone. You are right in that this is the biggest issue in this country right now because the effect of this is the complete subversion of the democratic process - politicians are creating laws that favor a minority of special interest groups at the detriment of all of the citizens those "public servants" are supposed to represent. This systemic form of bribery taints the vote of every piece of legislation that comes up which is why changing this needs to be our top priority. However, it is not an easy problem to solve since the only way to end private campaign contributions is to pass new legislation, which can only be done by politicians who have won and continue to win elections thanks to private campaign contributions. At this point, I think the only peaceful way to force this change is either directly through the use of a referendum or indirectly via a petition that a majority of the people sign that promises to vote out the current politicians unless they pass legislation that bans all forms of private campaign contributions. For the latter, you could either vote for the "other guy" during the election or vote out the current politician during the primary. One thing is for certain, though: they aren't going to fix this without extreme pressure from the voters.

Those ignoring or making fun of it don't care about their descendants

This is slashdot! In order for us to have descendants, we'd have to be able to find women willing to procreate with us. Solving that problem would be much harder than solving the global warming issue itself.

each package would install to its own directory

Would it allow users to install multiple versions of the same application from packages? One of my gripes with Linux is that it's not easy to test new or beta versions of software since there is no easy way to install from packages alongside the existing (stable) version. Yes, I know that I could build the app from source, but that can be quite a hassle sometimes.

"Casino error in your favor. Go directly to jail"

Your example of bluffing is NOT fraud because you are fooling humans. It's alright to fool humans, but you had better not fool a machine! This guy fooled a machine to get more money than he deserved and the fault lies solely with him - not with the negligent developers of the firmware, not with the negligent testers of the machines, and not with the casinos who put them out on their floor. We can't expect people to do their jobs or to pay for the consequences of their own mistakes.

I fully agree. The concepts of free markets and communism are both ideological extremes that are only viable in fantasy worlds. The difference is that most Americans realize communism is a fantasy while many Americans feel that a completely free market is not only sustainable, but the best option given all of the options within the spectrum between communism and free-market capitalism.

But this entire public good argument is horseshit.

So how is it good for the public to let Verizon and/or AT&T bid on this spectrum considering they already own quite a bit of the spectrum? The more spectrum that they own, the less spectrum available for competitors. Hell, they could buy up spectrum they have no intention of using just to prevent competitors from offering comparable services and risk losing customers. And since Verizon and AT&T have more assets than most of their existing competition, they could easily outbid the competition. All of these factors favor Verizon and AT&T at the detriment of the rest of society. At first glance, I was slightly taken aback by the idea of such a heavy-handed tactic by our government, but after more consideration, the alternative seems worse.

Any other excuse for not hiring them is a smokescreen, or worse, an attempt to stigmatize them to drive down the price that their experience can command.

That's not necessarily true. Not everyone needs a developer of the highest caliber - sometimes a junior or mid-level developer will suit your needs, not to mention your budget, perfectly. Another issue with older workers is that those higher incomes they demand could be as much as two to three times that of your junior/mid-level developers. That's not to say that they shouldn't be hired, but it's something to think about as your income goes up. There's nothing wrong with demanding two to three times the income level of others, but you should be damn sure you can justify that cost to potential employers, especially employers with tight budgets.

You're both right based on different perspectives. The original poster was sympathizing with all of the members of the MySQL community who contributed to the product but received none of the money from the sale. While they were not legally entitled to any of that money, most people considered it very bad form. However, you are correct that the users of MySQL still benefit regardless of who owns the company, but that doesn't do anything to make the actions of the sellers more acceptable.

That's a little unfair. Those sites are programmed to show ads regardless of the content you are attempting to access.

Ok, I'll give you that. But I hope this puts a fire under their asses to change the behavior for breaking news on tragedies.

News channels will break away for commercials as well.

There were no commercials during the coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing as well as 9/11. If the news is important enough to interrupt the current broadcast for live coverage, they traditionally stick with the live coverage and don't try to commercialize the tragedy.

Sorry, Betteridge, but I have to agree with this headline. When I first learned of the bombing, I attempted to get to footage of the live feed. When I clicked on the link, I was treated to an upbeat commercial with two guys joking around and playing guitar in an attempt to sell Geico insurance. I thought there must be some mistake because no one in their right mind would force a viewer to watch commercials before getting news about a tragedy, but sure enough the live feed proceeded after the commercial. Humanity has commercialized tragedy much sooner than I expected.

The article wasn't clear on whether or not this could reverse the damage caused by MS or whether it would just prevent further damage. I know several people that suffer from this disease and it's utterly horrible. The worst case is my uncle who went from being in peak physical condition to requiring a cane or wheelchair to get around. He now stutters when he speaks, has trouble holding his head up, and can't keep his eyes still enough to even focus on words while trying to read. This disease slowly takes away all of your faculties and strips you of all autonomy and independence and a cure for it can't come fast enough.

I never said that they should be forced to disclose their source. My point was that if they choose not to disclose the source, then the source code should be treated as a trade secret and receive absolutely no copyright protection. That means that the company would have protection on their code indefinitely assuming they were capable of preventing a leak. But in the event of a leak, they would have little recourse. If they choose to release the source code instead, then the code should receive full copyright protection. However, what we have today is a system that rewards companies with copyright protection on their source code without getting the benefit of actually EVER seeing that source code. This violates the intent of intellectual property laws which is to have the creators release their work in exchange for a government-granted, time-limited monopoly. Right now, the companies are getting the benefit of the monopoly without ever having to disclose the actual intellectual property and that's just wrong.