The more "accessible" $50K version will only go half as far and won't accelerate as rapidly, although performance is more than adequate.

Reshared post from +Motor Trend Magazine

In a world exclusive, we tested and attempted to verify the +Tesla Motors  Model S' range. Would its 265 mile range give you range anxiety? http://bit.ly/NWjI8x

Reshared post from +Jim Fawcette

Jury Forman Decisions Questioned in Apple-Samsung Case
Outside lawyers predict this case will go to the US Supreme Court

Fortunately, some jurors in the Apple-Samsung case are talking so we can get some insight into their thinking, and legal experts are raising serious questions we didn't read about in the wave of early press.

For example, the foreman said he wanted to punish Samsung for copying Apple Inc's designs. That means the foreman either didn't read the jury instructions, or decided to ignore them. The jurors' instructions twice tell them that only real damages can be awarded and money is not to be used to punish the company sued. 

A second juror says that there was a heated discussion about prior art, until the jury foreman essentially told them he was an expert because he was an engineer that held a patent, and that Samsung had infringed. The the debate on prior art was cut off. 

Also, the jury's judgment is full of odd contradictions and errors. Awards were given to Apple Inc. for products that were not found in violation, and even adjusting for those items, the money awarded doesn't add up properly.

Finally, the jury found that the Galaxy Tab, a device that looks quite similar to an iPad, was found to not infringe, even though the Epic 4G, a phone with a slide-out keyboard, curved top and bottom, different camera placement, different button and speaker placement, does infringe on Apple patents. 

I'm sympathetic with the plight of the jurors. Gawklaw noted that it took a lawyer three days to understand the jury instructions. Yet the jury reached a decision on the case in only three days. 

HT +William Shotts 

Stop the madness!

Reshared post from +Mike Elgan

Why Do Women On Fox Wear So Much Makeup?

+Liza Mundy tackles the strange phenomenon known as "Fox Glam" — the caking on of makup and over-dressing on Fox News not only by female anchors and hosts, but even by guests. 

Is it the rise of HDTV? The older age of the audience? The right-leaning politics of the audience? Or is it something else? 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/foxy-ladies/309054/

Ihnatko is certainly no +Android fan boy and in fact is one of the hosts of MacBreak Weekly on +TWiT. His discussion of the so-called smoking gun competitive analysis document is particularly good.  Having spent many years as an engineer, benchmarking competitors and looking at what you can do better, is standard procedure and only the truly arrogant or stupid would deny that they never look at what has gone before. It's well worth spending an hour to listen. 

On the other hand, if you are a fiscal conservative, I reiterate the question, why support the Republicans. Do you favor smaller government? Since 1980, the GOP has controlled the White House for 20 out of 32 years and congress for roughly half that period. Yet, there is no empirical evidence that despite campaign claims to the contrary, that they will ever shrink government. Under Republican presidents spending has gone up and deficits have grown (primarily for the military and with tax cuts for the wealthiest among us) while median real incomes have gone down and poverty has increased. 

So under Republicans, government just spends more in ways that do not benefit the vast majority of the people. How is that an improvement?

Discuss

However, I think the most important takeaway was the idea that you should always strive to create more value than you extract. Only when this happens does the economy as a whole grow and everyone benefits. 

Of course this is exactly the opposite of what the "geniuses" on Wall St do when they come with financial instruments like derivatives and CDOs. They find a way to make a lot of money for themselves without actually contributing any real value to the equation. 

For all of the derision I've heaped upon Apple (and rightly so I believe) over its policies of pursuing patents and patent litigation against competitors I still believe that on the whole the company has created far more value than it has extracted, at least so far by creating great products that people want and inspiring others to do so as well. If Apple starts collecting huge royalty payments from competitors that could shift the equation, but it remains to be seen what will happen. 

Ultimately for any company, the goal should be to first create outstanding products at a price point that customers can afford. When that happens, the profits will inevitably flow just as they have for Apple, +Ford Motor Company and others. They create products that consumers want, thus employing people that buy more stuff and supporting a supply base and other surrounding businesses.