By the time Tesla manage to make a $35,000 Model 3, other manufacturers may well have beaten them to it.

Some are already close. The electric Hyundai IONIQ is less than $30,000 and if the range improves by 60 miles or so (50%) it will be competitive with the Model 3 - which doesn't seem like a huge leap.

And this is just one model. There is already the 180+ mile range Renault Zoe available in Europe, and the new LEAF has around 170 miles.

If you go back to the Tesla Model 3 reveal, the current setup not how it was sold.

I'm pretty sure it was along the lines of "Available from $35,000 - place your reservation today".

So the argument here is that those reservations were miss-sold, not that the business model is a surprise.

> Microsoft has described Google's announcements of unpatched Windows bugs as "disappointing".

I would describe Microsoft's ability to patch these bugs within a reasonable timeframe as "disappointing".

...and they'll want to move out of London in style, right?

Accidentally? Seems really unlikely. I'd like to see the code to see how that was possible.

Those mileage figures need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Based on my own experience with my 70D (my real world range estimate = 200 miles) I estimate a 100D would have a range of around 285 miles. Which is still excellent.

I think 381 miles will only be possible driving 30mph on a flat road with no wind.

"manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision"

Trump hired people to cheer at his rallies. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to assume he does the same thing online too.

We must be looking at a different Wiktionary.

Small and mid-sized business

Wiktionary says it's the simple past tense and past participle of impulse. Impulse means a sudden urge requiring action.

Rephrasing then... "This new type of self-promoting campaigns that Google felt the urge to action..."

Has it improved much since 2006? When I used it back then it was awful. Slow, terrible UI, over engineered.

Well said. And it only takes one mistake by one person to introduce a vulnerability. In hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

How can you be so sure? This scenario could have been coded for. Software could have handled it better.

In this TED talk it's demonstrated how the software controlling a quadcopters could figure out an innovative new way to fly even with two of its propellers removed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/raffa...

I'm not sure a human operator could have done that.

If you want the plans for something it's not necessarily because you want to recreate it. Have you not seen Star Wars?

There should be a simple fix for the specific IE version issue. It's possible to run multiple IE browser engines on the same OS as there's an app that does this already (IETester).

It should be possible to create a piece of software - if one doesn't already exist - a web browser that is designed for enterprise use and allows the IT department to specify different browser engines for different sites.

That outdated internal application could be configured to use the IE6 engine - other newer applications and external websites could use newer IE engines or another engine entirely such as WebKit.

It could be rolled out by replacing 'iexplore.exe' and assuming the interface was very close to Internet Explorer it could even be transparent to users and thus very easy to roll out.