The video is right that pretty much the number one most important question is the weight of the truck (basically tare weight, which is actually the tractor plus empty trailer). When I watched the announcement, I thought Musk was slightly cagey about that, but I thought that he said that it would be in the ballpark of a normal ICE semi. Guess I should watch again.

I think Musk made some semi-optimistic predictions about battery tech improvement and economy of scale. Frankly, I think he's earned the right to be semi-bold with his predictions, given his and Tesla's track record (paying off govt. loan very early, single handedly pushing forward battery tech and production, etc. etc.). His optimistic predictions have a tendency of panning out.

The average American is never going to switch to an electric car purely or even largely for "green conscious" reasons. The switch will happen when the electric car is better than the ICE alternatives in concrete metrics like performance, reliability, and operating cost. Musk is pushing that date forward at an incredible pace. Arguably it is already true for many use-cases at the high price-point range of the Model S, but that price point limits the scope of the impact quite a bit. He knows that to really shake things up, he's got to get that price point down, and he knows that to do that he's got to improve the economy of scale on battery tech. Which he's doing by expanding it into adjacent markets like home batteries, etc.

I think he deserves a lot of credit for "walking the walk" when it comes to working hard to protect/improve the environment, as opposed to Al Gore et al. "talking the talk".

In open warfare of govt vs people, drones don't matter, just like jets don't matter. I already covered this above.



Nowhere is an oppressive dictatorship - until it is.
[redacted]
I feel like people are too distracted with instagram and other B.S. to bother learning about how the world works.
History is long. The current peace is an anomaly. When things go bad, there is little warning. If you're lucky, a year or so of build up. If you're not lucky, weeks or days. Shit likes to spiral.
In bad times, you have only what you have on hand.


Most western countries with [regardless of gun ownership] don't have a population that's F'd in the head.
Nothing stops a German gun owner from taking his AR15 and shooting up a concert.
Storing his guns in a safe that he can open doesn't mean anything.
Paying for a new license card for every few guns doesn't alter the guns.

Gun laws, as proposed, are fluff. Nothing that makes people safer, nothing that prevents ownership, but plenty to crap on collectors.
* 10 round limit = 2 second pause to reload
* Gun show loophole is a misnomer.
* (re. above) Only private sales (gun show or not) don't require checks - but you still end up in court if the buyer does something bad.
* Assault weapons ban only bans pistol grips and threaded barrels. Cosmetics. Just google "California compliant AR15" (they already have a de-facto AWB).
* There's already laws against straw purchase.
* There's already laws against crazy people buying (already part of the background check)
* Registration is pointless as gun control. Doesn't alter the guns or who has them (background check already tells gov who, when, and where bought a gun).

(I'd sooner vote for mandatory roll cage and 6 point harness in every car. Could eliminate 90+% of car fatalities in one rule - if people cared enough.)


By the way, gun owners hate people like the Vegas shooter even more than anti-gunners hate people like him.
Precisely because assholes like that shooter make anti-gunners turn on their frustration on innocent gun owners.

The call to "do something" is the phrase that perfectly describes the sentiments that led to actions, that in turn became described by either "famous last words" or "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".





We had shit health insurance before Obama. We had shit insurance during Obama (only you're required by law to buy it, even if it's not a good value), we continue to have shit health insurance during Trump, and no matter what trump does, it will still be shit.
Problem is that the insurance company lobbyists draft the language of the law (no matter the party in charge), and it's not for our benefit.





Re. Minorities, most are living normal lives. The white eutopia that the few vocal people complain about, doesn't exist. At least I have yet to see it. Don't let a few thousand people in a nation of millions guide your thoughts about overall social norms.

I'm happy to see them protest. Frankly, I wish white people had the same solidarity that black people have. When a black gets shot by a cop, they come together. When a white is shot by a cop, other whites say "he probably deserved it". I wish the black community good luck and success.





Yes, I wish we weren't jailing more people than anywhere else on the planet, over things that harm nobody.
I wish we had the drug laws of Portugal (decriminalization)
I wish we had the legal system of Sweden (no jail before conviction).

Know how I said that most countries don't have as many people that are F'd in the head? Same applies for people in government.
None of this shit will get fixes.
Republicans are bible thumping retards that funnel money to defense contractors and campaign donors.
Democrats are buck-passing censors that funnel money to insurance companies and campaign donors.
And people just pick a team and bark at the other team, while each gets fleeced by their very own side.

-scheherazade

He wants the govt to fail and spend less, seems fair he loses some security.

For your amusement:
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5

105 years ago.

You conflate illegal immigrants with immigrants.

Learn the difference and your first paragraph is pure nonsense. Also, what support do you have for the conclusion that illegal immigration has more negatives than positives? Illegal immigrants in general have a lower crime rate, support businesses, they work hard and pay taxes (which is more than can be said for Trump). Give me some data, ANY data to support your claim.

They "could" have come legally, you say. Well, no, that's the thing, most of them couldn't have. So that's a straight-up lie on your part. Couple that with the incentives the US government gives them to come illegally and why wouldn't they come? Yes, incentives, if the govt doesn't want them they need to take away the jobs, instead they pass rules to protect businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The rest of your "argument" is mostly nonsense, so I won't even bother with it. WTF does Upton Sinclair have to do with it?

re: Internet/totalitarianism/control of information, every single government tries to control information, the media, public opinion, and uses the internet as a tool for that goal (just like tv, radio, print, etc). The internet/access to information in and of itself does not guarantee greater accuracy/truth of that information, and unless the population is educated, respectful, and capable of critical thinking it can easily become little bubbles of echo chambers and a playground for griefers. What good did widespread internet availability do for the last US election? has the internet made americans more free, or more easily monitored and controlled? what good is it for cuba for cubans to have access to world of warcraft, so they can neglect their children who starve to death while they grind up to the next level? has the internet prevented mainstream media from fabricating news / pushing their agendas, or has it given more people a platform for fabricating news, anonymously? yeah, im not saying the internet is all bad, of course there are other very useful applications for it, but its not a magic "improve society" wand.

final thing i want to say, I have several friends who studied in cuba as exchange students in the late 90s, early 00s and yes, they had to make treks to specific places for access but they were able to send emails and such, so this piece is not factually accurate. If the cuban govt was so dead set on stopping people from communicating, im pretty sure they would identify network cables hanging in the middle of the street and easily follow them back to your apartment, not to mention detect wifi networks setup all over their tiny island.

In a lot of ways, I support WHAT they're doing, if not HOW they're doing it.

I love watching people do amazing skilful stuff on bikes, boards, or just their hands and feet. If someone asks me if my taxes should pay for skate parks, etc. my answer is "hell yes".

I also understand doing it illicitly, spotting a rail or a gap or a drop somewhere and wanting to hit it. I don't even really mind them sneaking in, but if you're caught, just admit defeat and move on. Don't be a dick about it.

But the main problem is litigation, IMO. Everyone is so afraid of getting sued that you can't let anyone do something like this on your property.

In NZ, we have something called the ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation). It's basically a government insurance fund that everyone pays into (it's funded from petrol and car taxes, employee levies, etc), and it means that if you have any kind of accident, your treatment is covered (and a percentage of lost earnings if you can't work).

I know... evil socialism, right? But it's freaking awesome. It means you can have a sports club without carrying a stupid amount of insurance. It means that if someone injures themselves doing something stupid on your property (or public property or govt property) they can't sue anyone because they are already covered.

Quoting and responding..

"Well, yes and no. If you're being dumped somewhere that there's no landmarks and/or no cell service, you might have an argument that getting out puts you in danger, but that's certainly not the case here. "

Already agreed this isn't the case here. Twice, in fact

"I think that's the risk you take when you decide to go with Uber. You pay less, you get a certain type of service, but you have less recourse if it goes bad. "

Sorry, but no. There's still a base level of service to be expected.

"I don't disagree that he reacted poorly."

That's really my main point. You can be 100% in the right and still act like an asshole. If he had remained calm and called the police this video would've gotten no traction at all.

"He is NOT a taxi driver, he's an Uber driver. I disagree, Uber does not =taxi. Taxi=taxi...Limo=>taxi ...Uber ="

This is probably worthy of a separate discussion, but since we're here...

I 100% disagree with this. Uber is a taxi service, just a really poorly run one. They've just started in my hometown and they are actually encouraging drivers to break the law. In NZ, you are legally required to have a passenger endorsement to carry passengers for profit, but Uber just told their drivers "eh, don't worry about it, you'll be sweet" and then left them twisting in the wind when the government went "er, no, we weren't fucking joking", and started clamping down.

Frankly, the more I learn about Uber, the less I am inclined to use their service. I like some of what they're doing, but it's complete bullshit they way they treat their drivers.

Most of all, I hate the way they claim to be a "ride-sharing" company. If someone was setting up a service of "I'm going to the airport, want to share fuel/parking costs?" that's ride sharing (I think Lyft do that??). But that's not the Uber model. The driver is going where you tell them. That's a taxi.

Sidenote: I really wish we could have the old quote system back. Replying to long quotes like this is a pain in the arse now.

According to separation of powers... and the roles defined for each branch.

Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.

The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).


"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.

It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that the legislature even wants the scope expanded. They could even want it contracted.
If it becomes a complicated matter with parties arguing - then it clearly needs debating and would have been inappropriate to decide elsewhere.

As a republic, the people are the state, and the state has all authority. The government exists strictly to record, execute, and enforce the state's will, by the state's authority (govt. has no authority inherent to itself).
The legislature is the channel that codifies the state's will. No other functional element serves that purpose. To codify something, it must go through the legislature. Else it does not carry state authority.

-scheherazade

Actually, folks are already are disqualified if mentally defective.

That's one of the things you're asked when filling out form 4473 when you try to buy a firearm, and it's one of the things checked when running the background check.

The fact that they ask the question is just to have the ability to charge you with a crime (lying to the govt) should you try to hide your status.

Also, currently, guns are confiscated after one is adjudicated mentally defective.

(This is a matter of contention lately, because elderly people have had their guns taken when they run out of money and are put under state financial management - because being unable to manage your own funds (hard to do when savings run dry and welfare doesn't pay enough to cover basic living expenses) indicates a mental defect).

The selective service act already has compulsory military service when called upon.

As a sidenote, being well trained with the use of firearms does not inhibit misuse of those firearms. It just makes you better at using firearms.

-scheherazade

To address your points

"Did you even read the article I linked?"
Sorry, I didn't. I opened it, but I really don't have time to read a 40-page law review article.

"In other words, you're flat out wrong when you say the 2nd amendment wasn't about self-defense".
Ok, we can agree to disagree there, but the point still stands that the statement "The WHOLE point of the second amendment... is so we can defend ourselves" (emphasis mine) is incorrect. I'll grant you it might be PART of it.

"I'm not sure why your tone is so dismissive in this thread."
Because I'm tired of trying to convince Americans to stop murdering each other.

"you're quite lucky to live in a country where your government protects you from growing your own food by throwing all those dangerous gardeners in prison. "
Please tell me you realise that's satire because your tone kinda makes me think you're taking that seriously. No, gardens are not illegal in NZ. Almost everyone I know grows some of their own food (at least, those of us lucky enough to afford a house with a garden).

"New Zealand has a shit-ton of guns (about one for every four people)"
Agreed. I even previously brought this up myself.

"people own them for a variety of reasons, from sport"
I know, I have friends who target shoot and hunt

"to self-defense"
cue wrong buzzer sound effect.

To get a gun in NZ you need a Firearms licence. To get this , you will be interviewed, and

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:
...
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

Have some people (shock, horror) lied to the cops to get a licence? Probably, but in general, no-one here actually wants a gun for self-defense.

Look, I have no problem with people using guns. I just think that maybe you could all stop fetishising them so much and realise that you live in the 21st century and not the old west.

Personally, I'm with Jim Jeffries on this one.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-on-gun-control

IMO the delay on the FBI and State side is that while HRC is complicit in ignoring the rules the investigation will expose them(FBI) in being complicit in not enforcing them. Not because they were directed to ignore but because this matter simply isn't a priority. I'd be shocked if the use of personal e-mail wasn't being used at times by a majority of those in govt. The issue is way overblown regardless of the outcome or those involved.

Yeah, i dont trust a single fuck with a badge or a gun or both and a uniform. That wasnt always so. At one time i was a pretty lame introverted nerd with the world as my oyster. Listening to Rage Against the Machine made me concerned, because it was too extreme. And then the iron fist of law enforcement thought theyd fuck with me and make me suffer for what was not my burden. And then it just gets worse and worse, a downward spiral of constant legal battles, jail time, mental illness, etc. etc. etc. Its all the same to me, govt, law enforcement, human resource representatives, executives, redcoats. Oppression creates terrorism. Always.

During the Philippine-American war, the events which lead up to our own soldiers commiting acts of genocide started with our disregard of the indigenous people, oppression, and penchant for disrespecting local men and harassing their women; as well, our ignorant and well documented philosophies of Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism. The family of the abused rise up and attack their oppressors. Terrorism will always be so as long as the mighty refuse to respect all ways of life and seek instead to instill their systems of government and create puppet governments whoch fail, destablizing entire regions.

Because now the game is bigger. You dont simply destablize a region: when you oppress people, you destabilize an entire zeitgeist, affecting far more people than ever before. People in America rise up to join forces that provide promises of liberty that America no longer offers. Even if those terror groups themselves lie, the broken people see it as a hope. The oppressed will crawl out of the woodwork and kill. There is no precise pattern when frank castles of the world do their deeds. Its just like the 4000 deaths per year from semitrucks, the trucking industry says 70% (debatable, likely a lower number) of accidents are caused by noncommercial vehicles. Impatient people weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off truck drivers oppresses them and sometimes even they to rise up and do terror.

So simple answer: Love, peace, and good will are what the government should promote. Of course, that would simply open them to being taken advantage of... so, we are fucked, always and forever. But maybe even if we cant promote true peace, perhaps we can at least avoid creating the terrorists we fear.

Your video, THE GOVT. KNOWS - KNOWER, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It's this kind of despicable, unforgivable behavior that only gives credence to conspiracy-nuts, furthers distrust of govt. (which is already at lv0 for most of us), and practically sets all of society back, in general.

I am not looking forward to finding out if there is any fallout with the whole Monsanto thing.