Exactly.
Tesla reps told him to drive 80?
Tesla told him to undercharge even though the range indicator said he wouldn't make it. Not once, but THREE times?
Tesla told him to lie about limping along at 45, even tho the log shows he never drove at 45?

Caught in a latent lie he tries to blame others. But mom, dad said I could....

What do you bet that Renault didn't even test his aftermarket modifications.? They probably used the existing pedals.
Would you pronounce some after market add on as "fine"?
After all, if you touch them you become responsible for them.

Well, if you've seen drivers in Paris, Epilepsy would seem to be something of the norm.

Details Missing from the quoted article is this bit:

Source here.

Unless Renault did these modifications for him, I doubt he has a chance in hell of winning his suit.

I've never seen a car you couldn't force into Neutral even under heavy acceleration.

The Model S starts at $52k. That seems pretty close to me.

Every car is currently custom built. This makes it pretty much impossible to meet production volumes that would easily allow it to get under $50K. It also makes it pretty much impossible to quote a realistic price. The highest end model comes in at $87.4k before the buyer adds options. And some of what Tesla sells as an option are pretty much standard equipment on most 50K cars.

One can not expect internal consistency in any situation where they accept the presence of magic.

Hold on there....

They are purposely holding production down to just under what the market will absorb, because its important not to have a "sale" on a $87,000 car. With only a few charging stations around, they had to grow that network before they could possibly expect to sell cars in any volume.

Musk has already stated this is company policy for the first few years:

Further, the car under review, Model S Performance isn't price competitive with the vary same car that Tesla's own website prefers to compare it with (the BMW 535i).

True, the car is well within the range of a wealthy owner. And the range has finally reached an acceptable level (265 miles on the largest available battery). And the promised (but not likely to be met) 20,000 vehicles in 2013 should see the car gain some traction in the market.

But to say they are selling them faster than they can make them is a bit of a twist on the fact that they are making them only as fast as they are selling. Read their sales page. Every car is bespoke. They are not producing ahead of a confirmed ($5000 minimum) reservation order.

Yup.
Nothing wrong with either of those.

The Chemical council was not the petitioner in this case.
They merely called attention to the fact that a principal researcher was chairing an evaluation of her own work.
They were insisting that the same rules they were required to live by be followed in all cases.
No conspiracy here. Except the one in your mind.

Wait, you didn't read the article did you...

So one bag of Monsanto derived grain in every grain elevator means (to your way of thinking) that Monsanto hence forth owns all see stock in the entire country? Or the entire planet? Forever?

Genetic modification isn't the only way to make new crops. Cross breeding (the original form of genetic modification) also works. Does this mean the University of Minnesota owns every Honey Crisp apple seed in the world?

I suspect you strongly believe in the first sale doctrine when it comes to books, records, and video games, but some how this is different?
Have you really thought this through?

An (apparently serious) complex battle analyses of a hastily written mythical battle !!

All the while not blinking an eye in disbelief at either FTL or the existence of Darth Vader.

Either that, or they could put in a "Copyright, United States Government" in the malware. That would stop those reverse engineering freetards.

Exactly.

Had the panel been assigned to APPROVE a chemical, and the panel was chaired by the principal investigator who performed all the safety testing for the manufacturer, wouldn't that be considered totally unethical? Wouldn't everybody be screaming about that?

She should not have accepted the position on the panel, much less the chairperson. She should have only been called as a witness.

You should't get to peer review your own work.

They should have been angry that she accepted the position in the first place. That was unethical.

Careful reading of the story shows no obvious reason this is being trotted out now. Perhaps there is another push to oust someone
else going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of.

But the story does hint at a less controversial reason for the removal, in that as a federal official, she was in charge of
essentially propping up her own work, previously done at the state level.

I think one of the comments on TFA said it best:

In short, there is valid reasons for this action to have been taken. Imagine, if you will, that a chemical was being voted for APPROVAL, instead of being banned. Imagine further that a researcher who did all the studies about safety on this chemical sat on and chaired the approval committee. Would we want that to be allowed? Wouldn't people be screaming about that pretty loudly?

The American Chemical Council has no particular dog in this fight. Flame retardant is simply one of thousands of chemicals covered by this organization which has members in hundreds of different companies. I doubt flame retardant is even a blip on their radar. Yet the story makes it out as if this organization exists solely to make sure this flame retardant is not banned.

In actuality, "The EPA itself had raised concerns -- ones so significant that in late 2009 the agency and several chemical companies agreed to phase out its production." Presumably these several chemical companies were already members of the American Chemistry Council.

One could also take the position that a strictly ethical researcher would not have accepted an appointment to a panel investigating the very work that he/she pioneered. And, at the very least, would not have accepted the CHAIR of such a panel. Its sort of like doing your own peer reviews.

In short, I think your assessment of digging for controversy where none exists is spot on.

You don't have to calculate it. You can see the remaining range indicator in real time, and see in advance that you won't make it and seek a recharge instead of stubbornly pushing on until you run out of power in the middle of nowhere.

What kind of idiot ignores the gas gage in a regular car just because the dealer said you would get er miles per gallon? Apparently the same kind of idiot that starts under charged, adds a detour, and insist on running out of power to prove a point.