As a diabetic, the existing technology has a known issue where ketosis can result in a false positive on the breathalyzer (one source: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/d...) On the flip side, the opposite state of hypoglycemia can result in behavior that appears you are intoxicated. Argument can be made that if you are in either state you might not be in a state to be able to drive...but its not that black and white.

So we're now dealing with someone on the edge of a medical emergency who may need to just get to food (if hypoglycemic) or home to meds if not to actual medical care (and is actually safe to drive) potentially being locked out of driving. Hopefully by then we have self driving cars?

So I went and looked it up. They have specific reasons cited, namely:

Women commonly face higher risks and greater burdens from the impacts of climate change in situations of poverty, and the majority of the world’s poor are women.

and

Parties to the UNFCCC have recognized the importance of involving women and men equally in UNFCCC processes and in the development and implementation of national climate policies that are gender-responsive by establishing a dedicated agenda item under the Convention addressing issues of gender and climate change and by including overarching text in the Paris Agreement

So...my interpretation of the above is: don't just focus on the issues of a specific group but make sure this is for the common good, because lord knows the history of modern (or past) civilizations doesn't have a bad tendency to focus on certain groups which may be in power and not work for the common good.

yeah, I don't have a problem with what they are saying now that I understand it. They have an effing valid point.

We don't know what you find interesting or challenging. you may not know either until you bounce through some place.

go find a company where you like the people; you've got the skill set that most companies are looking for. And figure out what you like. While happiness does in part come from not having a soul sucking job, having a not sucking job that pays enough to not have worries and be able to do the other things in life is just as important.

Despite what they tell you, a job is still just a means to make money to be able to afford to live. You can be paid to do that which you enjoy (shh, don't tell them) - and it is still a job. And before someone says "but but but" I am not saying take a job that sucks your soul out through your eye balls; I am saying I accept the fact that while I love cooking, and I also recognize that when I am done I have to clean the kitchen and if I don't clean the kitchen I suck as a person who shares that kitchen with others. Cleaning the kitchen is fun (and meaning it) said no one ever. (So as much as I do enjoy my job, it comes with some responsibilities that I have to suck it up, realize this is what I accept money for, and go do them. Much like everything in life. No parent ever said they love emptying the diaper pail either, but the end result has been worth it)

back to the first paragraph - a lot of us have bounced through companies and jobs. Our interests have changed. Our skill sets have changed. The job market has changed. When I started, the Web didn't exist. FORTRAN and C were king. I bounced through CAD/CAM, through two small startups (one still exists, and the other long since swallowed by another startup), to contracting, to a large financial company (where we're playing with Angular and such - you'd be surprised what Fortune 100 companies actually do - but also the job stability is through the roof and I have a kid about to start college, which ties back to I have a job to make the rest of life better)

Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to tie an onion to my belt and go yell at clouds. That last paragraph made me feel very old.

You're right; I read http://www.a123systems.com/567491e6-ed98-429f-b4a6-3ae3df789b90/media-room-2009-press-releases-detail.htm wrong. That's what I was basing it on.

Except that it wasn't a grant from the RIA, it was a grant under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Vehicles_Manufacturing_Loan_Program (passed in fall of 2008) which was part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007.

And the company actually had customers and contracts, but needed money to build manufacturing capacity (hence the grants). Then they had quality issues, plus Chrysler closed down its Electronic Vehicle division, and hence the bankruptcy. Of the 123 million that was actually spent, there are very large physical assets sitting in Michigan which may still be used (to, you know, employ people). The remaining 100 million was never "given" by the government to anyway; its still sitting in an approved grant account controlled by the US government. I now return you to your ranting.

Sorry for the double posting all. Wrong funding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Vehicles_Manufacturing_Loan_Program [wikipedia.org] (passed in fall of 2008) which was part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007 [wikipedia.org]

Wrong funding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_Vehicles_Manufacturing_Loan_Program (passed in fall of 2008) which was part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007 Have a wonderful day. (If you had read my post, you would have caught the "program from 2008" and realized you had the wrong funding. )

As of 2012 $129 million of the grant was used to build plants in Michigan (Romulus and Livonia); the remaining grant money has not been tapped (the grant was extended to 2014, but with the company in bankruptcy...) Originally Johnson Controls was going to buy (and use) the plants; it is still unknown if the plants will be used, but speculation is that at least one of the plants will be used. Note that the grants were backed by all of the Michigan members of Congress, despite the party. All of them wrote letters of endorsement to the DOE. The loan program that issued the grants was created in fall of 2008. The loan program predates Obama's presidency; the company applied in January and Obama because president January 2009. Please don't make this a partisan thread. This is what looked like a promising company that had a market in 2009 and needed to build manufacturing capacity - and the market disappeared (Chrysler closing its EV division was the major hit)

I read stories published in the 80's and 90's where the premise was that the robots take over all manual labor, allowing humans to do what they want. Humans continue to work in the positions that require thought - judges, etc. - but most labor intensive repetitive tasks are done by robots. The premise was that with the robots working, there was tremendous oversupply, and the poor must consume a great deal to consume what the robots produced. The mark of the very rich is that they were allowed to consume less. So the poorest person had to live in a palatial mansion, while the richest were able to live in a two or three bedroom house. I am not saying that is what will happen, but it did make for an interesting read (and allowed the author to set up some imaginary issues and solve them).