Tesla can now sell its vehicles in New Jersey

Tech Crunch reports that Tesla has won it's legal battle against New Jersey legislators.

Last year, New Jersey (along with four other states) infamously banned Tesla from selling the Model S inside of the state. The ban was put in place because Tesla Motors sells it's vehicles directly to consumers out of their own show rooms.

"But what about that is illegal?"

It was opposed by car dealerships because car companies selling directly to consumers would destroy their business model, of buying from the company and then selling to consumers for a profit. Thats right; an outdated group of business owners lobbied against Tesla from breaking through their monopoly on car sales.

Elon Musk posted on Tesla's official blog after the ban:

"On Tuesday, under pressure from the New Jersey auto dealer lobby to protect its monopoly, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, composed of political appointees of the Governor, ended your right to purchase vehicles at a manufacturer store within the state."

Thankfully the ban has been lifted, but for months it was true that New Jersey had "ended [the consumer's] right" to purchase an item that would be otherwise completely legal.

Do American consumers have the right to purchase what they want? Do American businesses have the right to sell whatever they want? At what point (if any) is it justifiable for the government to intervene?

I think intervention should only take place in the situation of danger to an American citizen. It most certainly should not be used to protect a monopoly. 

Do you think American's have the "right" to purchase/sell what they want? 

Schools dealing with cyber bullying

Watch this video from New York Times.

"Cyber bullying isn't going to stop if someone gets suspended; it's always going to be a problem. The only way to stop cyber bullying is to shut off Facebook, Instagram, Kik...all that stuff"

If it's always going to be a problem, I think school need to educate students on how to deal with these problems on their own. Of course the school needs to intervene, but like the student said, they can only do so much.

Rapper Tyler the Creator has infamously tweeted this about cyber bullying:

While explicit and immature, it is important to recognize this type of viewpoint. Bullying exists everywhere, and people need the skills to combat it independently for times after high school is over. There is bullying in college, in the workplace, and in every community. I believe that along side programs that work to stop bullying, schools should also educate students on how to "close their eyes" and "walk away from the screen."

Although it might seem like they are ignoring the real problem, it is important to teach students in a way that will assist them in the rest of their lives.

Only 30% of Google's employees are female.

An article on CNN reports that google lacks gender diversity. The women that they do manage to get jobs at the company work in lower paying, non-technical and non-leadership positions. Just 17% of Google's engineers are female, and women make up just 21% of the company's leadership. Only one of the company's top 12 executives (YouTube director Susan Wojcicki) is a woman.


Unfortunately, recent government diversity reports show that google is not alone in this issue. Cisco, Intel, Dell, Ebay, and Ingram Micro all struggle to maintain a gender diverse staff.


The article offers one popular explanation for this: that not enough women are graduating with the technical degrees required for the positions. CNN claims that the diversity problem starts in college. Intel's chief diversity officer Rosalind Hudnell states that "An engineering degree is probably the best you can get for finding a job, yet we don't have enough diverse students taking an interest." Data from the Computer Research Association backs up this statement; last year only 13.4% of those graduating with these technical degrees were women.


While this all makes sense, some might question if the problem really is women "not taking an interest," but instead the lack of opportunity for women in America.

In an article from USA Today, Coleen Carrigan, an anthropologist who researches high-tech cultures stated that "Women and underrepresented minorities have been denied access to resources and opportunities that would allow them to enter and succeed in computer science,"

However, I am skeptical about her claim. The article also offers that students coming from high schools where computer science isn't taught, are disadvantaged from those who do. But what is stopping women specifically from taking those classes along with the men at schools where they are offered? There is no proof that women specifically, in comparison to men, have been denied the opportunities to seek these degrees.

If that means the answer is that women just aren't taking enough interest, then why do you think that is? Leave a comment

Tesla job fair overcapacity

NBC News reported that on Saturday, a job fair in Fremont, California, was cancelled by Tesla after it caused a traffic jam and reached over-capacity. The Fremont Police Department tweeted that the "overwhelming response" to Tesla's job fair resulted in a major backup on I-880. 

The success of the Fremont factory has indeed been very "overwhelming." According to Tesla Forums, the company now uses over 50% of the 5.4 million square feet for the development of the Model S and X, and other future vehicles. The factory was built in 1984 in a partnership between Toyota and General Motors. In 2009, General motors backed out of the factory, and Toyota built it's last vehicle there in 2010 due to it being unprofitable.

Tesla bought the factory and has now seen massive success where the two largest automotive brands could not.

This speaks volumes on the ability of a new American company to enter what was thought to be a saturated market. As I mentioned in my last post, it is foolish of other companies to not take them seriously, because in many ways, Tesla is already winning the race.

Do the overwhelming number of people that want to work for Tesla a good thing? Or will it make the company over-hyped an unable to meet its reputation?

Mercedes and Cadillac take different approaches towards Tesla

In a recent interview with AutoBlog at the New York Auto Show, a Daimler (Mercedes) executive was gave a quote on how Mercedes will deal with the competion with Tesla Motors. 

He claimed Tesla has no network" and only offers "little shops that don't have service capacity. "Tesla is great, but you've got plenty of well-established brands that mean luxury."

To me, this quote shows ignorance, and the companies refusal to except Tesla as a competitive product. Tesla is known famously for it's immense network of superchargers all over the country. It has a non-traditional set-up for service centers due to the fact that the car is run by computers that can be fixed remotely by engineers. 

Are Tesla's not worthy for the market because they don't have a well-established brand? Just because a company has been around for awhile doesn't mean it will always make quality products, and just because a company is new doesn't mean it can't. Tesla outsold all the competition in it's class this last quarter, including the Mercedes E-class, Audi A6, and BMW 5 Series. 

Cadillac is taking a much smarter approach to the new competition. An executive from GM stated that Tesla offers "a great opportunity and a learning exercise for all of us, and will help us traditional manufacturers to think twice about electric mobility.

By noting the successful qualities of Tesla, other companies can improve themselves. It is speculated that the success of the Model S prompted the earlier than expected developement of Cadillac's own electric luxury vehicle, the ELR. 

By not choosing to simple ignore new competition, I think that Cadillac will see greater success than Mercedes in the coming years.

Do you think Mercedes is right to think that Tesla will fizzle out and not be a threat to the company, or do you think they should pay attention to them?

"too little, too late," SAT.

The College Board recently announced changes to its SAT college entrance exam. Leon Botstein, the president of a selective liberal-arts college, wrote a commentary in Time Magazine about it.
In the article, he states that "the SAT is part hoax and part fraud. It needs to be abandoned and replaced."

An article from CNN outlines these changes. The test change the maximum score from 2400 back to 1600, which no longer includes the essay. It will also stop penalizing for wrong answers. 

The president of The College Board claims that the new test turn away from the focus on tricks and trying to eliminate answer choices, and instead shift towards requiring students to justify their answers.

So what's the problem with these tests?

Leon Botstein claims that high school grades are much better at predicting a students performance in college than the SAT. He labels the SAT as a "bizzare" and "outdated" method, because knowing how to do something in real life isn't defined by the ability to choose the correct answer from a set of options, that may or may not be intentionally misleading. 

He also adds that the new changes will not save the test from it's uselessness. The exam claims that it is objective, but the most statistical pattern that stands out the most is the correlation between high income and high test scores. "The richer one is, the better one does on the SAT." 

I can think of a couple things that might explain this. First, higher income families have access to tutors that can help train students to spot the "tricks" that Botstein referenced. They might also be more expectant to attend college, so they will put more effort into the test. 

Colleges also help keep the College Board's monopoly on testing by using the test to benefit their ranking. Colleges can boost their scores by admitting students with high scores on the test. Botstein says that the victim of this relationship are the students, and "our nation's educational standards."

The test taking requirements currently in place are not realistic ones. I think it would be much more beneficial to find out students academic capability based on real world scenarios. While I attended a private tutor to prepare for the ACT (a similar test), I was shocked by the amount of "tricks" there were for taking the test. For example, questions that begin with a certain phrase are most often answered by "D) none of these." Students that might have the equal or greater intelligence than I do might answer this question wrong because they couldn't pay someone to tell them that. 

I have never taken the SAT, so I can't speak about the test itself. If you have, can you compare it to the ACT, and describe what type of questions were asked? How would you change it to make it less objective?

Koenigsegg coming to America

Koenigsegg is a Swedish super-car company founded by brilliant engineer Christian von Koenigsegg. They are most famous for the production of the Agera R, one of the greatest technical marvels of the automotive industry in the past decade.

Up until now, they could not be purchased in the US, but according to Road and Track, they will be finally brought to the states and sold from "Manhattan Motor Cars" dealerships.

The United States is the worlds biggest super-car market, so why are we just getting this vehicle now?
Well, the car costs 1.5 millions dollars. Koenigsegg has stated in the past that they believe that Americans
"just can't afford this car." Almost insulting isn't it?

After the 2008 financial crisis and the introduction of stricter regulations in the United States, they shifted their focus to European and Asian markets.

It's weird hearing that the U.S. is "too poor" for a product. We're #1!
Right?

Upping the Minimum Wage

A Connecticut newspaper reports that the state has voted to increase the minimum wage in their state from $8.70 to $10.10 per hour by January 2017. That will be the highest minimum wage in the country; Washington is currently the highest with $9.32. 

“I am proud that Connecticut is once again a leader on an issue of national importance. Increasing the minimum wage is not just good for workers, it’s also good for business,” said Governor Malloy, a first-term Democrat facing re-election.

The white house stated that Connecticut is setting an example for other states that will hopefully follow. 

Because the minimum wage has taken so long to be changed, there is obviously reasons that support both sides of the argument. This story interests me personally because I work for minimum wage during the summer as a lifeguard. A change in Illinois's legislation could be extremely beneficial to me. However, I can see how it could be detrimental to the Wilmette park district, instead of the benefit to business that Governor Malloy anticipates. We have 32 lifeguards at the beach that make between 8-9 dollars an hour. Increasing our pay on an already tight budget would have effects on how many guards they can hire, how many hours we can work, the upkeep of the beach, training, ect. However, my situation is different than others because I don't live on the income from this job, like many people unfortunately do. An increase in minimum wage is necessary for them because $8.25 is not enough to live off of. 

Kindergarten teacher: too many tests

Washington Post reports that Susan Sluyter, who has taught as a kindergarten teacher for the past 20 years, resigned from her job due to the school system ramping up the academic pressure on her and her students.

In her resignation letter to Cambridge Public Schools, she cited that "her job required her to focus too much on teaching to standardized tests rather than to the needs of her students."

School officials have stated that they agree the tests may take time away from other learning, but they are a necessary step in studying learning patterns of the children.

How necessary are these tests? I was very surprised they have started giving them to kindergartners. I think this shows a very big flaw in our education system. We rely on a formulated equation that figures out what children need to learn, instead of the people that were trained to educate them. 

How do these tests benefit students learning? Can the teachers be better at diagnosing issues than the tests?

Louisiana restricts usage of welfare money

Fox News reports that Louisiana has approved legislation to ban the use of federal welfare money in lingerie shops, tattoo parlors, nail salons and jewelry stores. The welfare program was enacted to assist low-income families in acquiring food, clothing, and shelter. They are in the process of creating more restrictions on the debit cards to prevent them from being used on items that aren't considered "necessities."  

In my opinion, these laws are completely just and necessary. If they are in a position that warrants assistance from taxpayers, they most definitely should not be spending it on frivolous things. One might argue that people have the right to spend their money where they want and the government shouldn't intervene, but they have already invited them to intervene when they applied for welfare. 

However, this intervention could possibly lead to more controversial things. There are other things in the lives of low income families that could be restricted, such as the right to have children.

Do you think these welfare laws will lead to further restrictions? Do you disagree with them completely?

Coincidental Date for Obama NSA speech

Yahoo News reports that it's merely a coincidence that President Obama's speech on NSA reform was scheduled on the anniversary of Dwight Eisenhower's speech that warned American's of the threat of the military industrial complex.

This is quite the coincidence.

In his speech, Eisenhower is famously quoted by saying this in his farewell address:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

This was January 17th, 1961. Fifty-three years later, it is evident that this was true, based on the speech Obama is about to give.

The military industrial complex is the combined interests of the military establishment and industry that creates products used by the military. Eisenhower warned of the growing influence it exerted on US foreign and economic policy. As these corporations grow larger from the sales of their products, they gain more power over the US decisions in war that require them to purchase these products.

Edward Snowden exposed that there indeed was a "disastrous rise of misplaced power," although not quite in the way that was predicted. They claimed that all of the spying and wrongfully gathered information he exposed was for the war effort- to fight against terrorists. 

Obama's speech is tomorrow. How do you think the NSA will change? Do you agree that the NSA is part of the military industrial complex?

Assisted Suicide Legal in New Mexico

According to CNN, a New Mexico judge ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to ask a doctor to end their life. The patients must be mentally competent and fully able to come to the decision on their own.

New Mexico Second Judicial District Judge Nan Nash was asked the question of whether or not fatal prescription drugs should be administered to a terminally ill cancer patient who requested her life be ended. The Judge decided the patient had that right.

In 2010, a film crew in Switzerland was invited to record an assisted suicide. 
The video is the ideal scenario- the women peacefully passes away while talking with friends. If you would like to see it is, the video is here.

As long as the ruling is not appealed, New Mexico will become the fifth state to allow assisted suicide, following Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. Oregon was the first state to do so in 1997, and the topic has been widely debated since then, mainly due to stories more similar to this one.

After becoming paralyzed up to his head, Timothy Bowers woke up and told his family that this was not what he wanted. He didn't want to live the rest of his life in that state, and wanted them to remove his breathing tube (because his paralysis did not allow him to breathe on his own). They complied and he passed away. This case has been discussed by medical ethicists and lawmakers because many say that he did not have enough time to make a thoughtful decision and acted out of shock from his injury. Many people who are in this situation are given a month or two to adjust and then end up changing their mind.

Judge Nash gave this statement about the ruling: "This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying." 

This topic really comes down to the question of how far our personal rights can go, and which are overridden for certain causes. In the past, supreme court (Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill.) has ruled that the government's interest in preserving life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die. I disagree with that. In the quote above, he says that assisted suicide is a fundamental and private right to the "liberty, safety, and happiness" of citizens. This is seemingly parallel to the unalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (listed in all versions of the document!) I think that not giving people the choice of assisted suicide violates these rights.

How do our unalienable translate to modern circumstances? How do you interpret the quote from Judge Nash? 

Corvette Stingray is North American Car of the Year

This is the seventh generation Chevrolet Corvette. (With the other six in the background) It's was announced almost exactly a year ago, and appeared at dealerships this summer. Last night, it won the North American Car of the Year award at the Detroit Auto Show. According to this article by USA Today, General Motors also won the truck of the year award. 

These awards are extremely coveted in the auto industry, and represent General Motors climb back to the top, since the government bailout in 2009. 

The corvette especially showcases this. It's designed to compete in the class of the Porsche 911. Both the Corvette and 911 have been around for decades. 

Here are some specs of the Porsche:
350 HP, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, 27mpg highway, and it retails with a starting price of $84,300.00

Now the Corvette:
460 HP, 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, 29mpg highway.

Oh yeah, and it starts at only $51,995.

That is the American way. We'll be more powerful, faster, and more fuel efficient than our German competitors, and do it for a fraction of the cost.

What I am even more excited about, is that the 2015 Z06 Corvette was leaked by Jalopnik yesterday. (My favorite auto blog, check it out if you are interested in cars!) The Z06 is essentially a beefed up, even faster version of the Corvette. It supposedly will come with 620hp, as opposed to the base models 460. That's really fast. A Ferrari 458 Italia has only 570! (And it costs $233,509). We are taking down the Germans and the Italians!

One last thing.... traditionally, the Corvette comes in three trims: The stingray, then the Z06, and finally the ZR1. Chevrolet has not said a word about the ZR1 yet, but it is supposed to be the fastest of them all. If the specs on the Z06 are correct...this car will be an absolute monster


Any other car enthusiasts in our American Studies class? Comment your thoughts on the cars of 2013!

Teen Sexting=Child Pornogrphy

This article states that a 17 year old girl was found guilty of distributing child pornography after being caught sending explicit images another girl her age. She was using the pictures to bully the girl, because she was her boyfriend's former girlfriend.

She was charged with distributing child pornography because the girl was also under 18.

The article suggests that she might have received the harshe sentence in response to recent suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd which have prompted nationwide cyberbullying awareness campaigns and calls for tougher laws to prevent Internet harassment.

Convicting sexting teens as child pornography is controversial. This girl is a criminal and deserves to be charged as such, but is "Child Pornography" the correct sentencing? I think it is unjust to say that teens sending naked pictures of themselves and actual pedophiles who enable the abuse of children have committed the same crime.

In this video that summarizes the case, the lawyer of the accused states that they will be taking the case back to court because "if adults can legally send naked pictures, it is unconstitutional to convict minors of doing so."

Although I disagree with the ruling, this is not why. There are many things that adults can do and kids can't. This should be of those things.

Do you think minors should be allowed to send explicit messages? And if not, should "child pornography" be what they are charged with?

I call dibs!

If you've ever driven through Chicago neighborhoods after a snow, you'd immediately notice the multitude of old chairs and other household items lining the streets. This is "Dibs." The Dibs system is simple. After a large snowfall, people who put the work in to shovel out a parking spot mark it with an item to claim it as their own. This way, you won't have to spend time shoveling out a spot just to have it taken by someone who didn't do any work.

However, every system has it's flaws. Dibs has flaws because some people are jerks. You might come home to find that your chair had been moved and a car sitting in it's place. What would you do?
John Kass of the Chicago Tribune says that "Any Chicagoan knows what happens when dibs is disrespected. The offender's car usually gets bleeped up."

This is why "Dibs" is controversial. Dibs isn't a new thing, either. My mom remembers placing chairs in her spots when she was in college. (And she's old!)

There is also the fact that it's possible you might find an empty spot and park in it, not knowing that someone had come before you and moved the chair. Then you come back and find your car with it's tires slashed.

John Kass ends his article with "Don't disrespect the dibs. So let it be written. So let it be done."

But is there a better system? If you have lived in Chicago, what are your experiences with the system?

Not just your phone: Is your car spying on you too?

According to Business Insider, new vehicles made by the American automotive company "Ford" know more about you than you think. At CES yesterday (a huge electronics trade show) Ford's Global VP/Marketing and Sales, Jim Farley, said that "We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing." He then added, "By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone."

At first I thought it was a mistake for him to say that and that Ford would receive a lot of backlash. However, some further research revealed that, according to Yahoo Autos, all new cars made after September 1st, 2014 are required to have these capabilities. It's also important to note that 96% of cars currently being made already have this feature.

It's called a "black box" and it mostly used for post accident data, e.i. how fast your car was traveling at the time. Although that's all it's used for now, I can imagine a time in the future where cities looking for more money from speeding tickets would take this data to give speeders tickets without needed police to see them.

Do you think this is an invasion of privacy? How do you think the data will be used?

A "black box" that will be in every new car. Photo by Harris Technical Services

Self Driving Cars by 2050

An article on AutoBlog jokes that humans themselves are becoming obsolete, because a study by IHS Automotive predicts that almost all cars on the road in 2050 will drive themselves. Here is a video example of one of these cars to demonstrate what this means:

As a car enthusiast, I have mixed opinions about this news. It's really hard not to see all of the benefits this will bring. In the video, a blind man is "driving" a car. Without this technology, that would be unheard of. Having computerized cars on the road would eliminate accidents, reduce insurance costs, eliminate traffic. However, I'll be sad to leave behind the days of shifting through gears manually, and blasting off from every stoplight.

Do you think that once self-driving cars have widespread availability, humans will be barred from driving cars themselves?