No, you're wrong. That was the past. This is the future.

Ah, crap. I was wrong too. That was the past. Now THIS is the future.

Dang it.

And the counsel would likely determine this in voir dire and so you would not be chosen as a juror.

Most important thing is to see a doctor regularly and then follow the doctor's advice. Then you don't have to worry about genericized one-size-fits-all pontification from anonymous internet blogs, forums, etc.

Back of the envelope calculation: [(10k miles per year) / (30 miles per gallon)] * (4 dollars per gallon) = 1.3k$ per year. Over ten years, 13k$. Tesla offers a pre-paid battery replacement (pay when you buy the car, get the new battery much later) for 12k$. So, if the battery lifetime is on the close order of ten years, then you're not far from the break-even point. If gas prices go up, or if you drive more, or if your gas mileage is worse, or if the battery replacement price comes down, then less than ten years will do.

That was Henry Ford's model, of course. But don't forget that before the Model T, there were a number of very expensive automotives available that only the rich could afford...

Tesla has made a map of where they intend to put the stations and how far you can drive from them. http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

The video reminds me of Snow Crash. Be careful. It could eat your brain!

Hence why I said "If he's the senior guy and he's getting the job done." Logical conjunctions are important.

If he's the senior guy and he's getting the job done, then I suspect he knows what he's doing and knows which aspects of the job to focus on and which to ignore because they are useless trivialities. Just stay out of his way.

Correction: we have the technology today to travel to another solar system in a few hundred years, give or take.

Welp, so much for rule of law. It was nice while it lasted.

Who watches watcher watchers watch watchers watch?

It's actually much less abusive to the poor than the plans offered by other cell service companies.

With ATT or Verizon, you

• Pay approximately the same amount per month in total as with TMobile (getting service AND a phone), whether you got a "subsidized" phone or not
• Are on the hook for 2 years no matter what (with TMobile, you at least have the option of avoiding any sort of two year commitment -- just don't finance your phone on a two year schedule through TMobile)
• If you decide that you can't afford the service anymore (for instance because you're too poor), you get stuck with an "abusive" early termination fee which never changes amount -- if you cancel after one month, it is the same amount as if you cancel with only one month left. This is in contrast to TMobile, where you can avoid having any sort of two year commitment in the first place, or if you do have such a commitment, the penalty for early leaving decreases steadily to zero over time.

So, all told, it sure looks like TMobile is *substantially less* abusive to the poor than other phone companies.

You seem to be very worked up about this. Perhaps you should take a few minutes to sit and take some deep breaths.

Let's be completely clear about one thing: The suit in question is NOT alleging, as you seem to be doing, that TMobile's practice here is unfair or unlawful. Instead, the suit is alleging that TMobile has not described their practice adequately in advertisement.

I would assume that they created a GUI interface in Visual Basic... sheesh.