Slashdot Mirror

Carry a cell phone? Audit trail.
Drive a car? Audit trail.
Walk on the sidewalk? Audit trail (with the amount of CCTV)


Remember, stores are now tracking who you are and what you buy by using facial recognition on their security cameras.
short of not wearing ANY electronics and having on a ski mask at all times.... then you'd be marked as an oddity and promptly scrutinized.

Consumer Reports tested some brands in 2011 for arsenic and lead:
https://www.consumerreports.org/content/dam/cro/magazine-articles/2012/January/Consumer%20Reports%20Arsenic%20Test%20Results%20January%202012.pdf

None of what you wrote you is correct. The most glaring ones.

It has a the Tesla has a lower top speed and worse handling.
Has the industry's worst autonomous system.
Has the industry's worst reliability meaning you spend a shit ton of money getting it repaired.

I didn't vote for the "Republican" guys either. I'm just pointing out, that people that like to equate (R) with evil and corrupt every time some Chairman of some company is Republican and does something evil, are the same people who make excuses when it is a (D) doing it.

Your case just proves my point. When everything the left hates is "Political" and when it is something that shines poorly upon the (D), it is "Get Fucked trying to make this political".

Being a Libertarian, I understand the dangers of political manipulation of the Economy, at both the micro and macro points of the model. I am actually probably, on your side on this one. However, my solution isn't "more government control" and "Regulation" it is less. You see, since the whole problem was caused by government regulation in the first place (half dozen key regulations in fact). But that doesn't work for liberals who think that the first and only solution to a problem is "MOAR GOVERNMENT".

And here is a key fact, there are other ways to administer Epinephrine besides EpiPen. In fact there are several "open source" style kits out there that do the same kind of thing, for a whole lot less money.

http://www.consumerreports.org...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-h...

Instead of whining about EpiPen costs, vote with your dollars and get the less expensive version of your choice. And ask that the Government deregulate the mandates to use EpiPens.

The key to power is information and choice. Government regulations that remove "choices" are to blame here. But so is being lazy, and not getting the information you need to make the choices you could be making.

It's true, there are alternatives. Here's some advice on how to get one. I agree with parent, it should be easy to convince your local school board to purchase the alternatives to save costs (boycotting a predatory company is icing on the cake).

There are alternative auto-injectors - http://www.consumerreports.org...

he's riding high on his pile of money conning investors and duping buyers into his shit cars.

His buyers don't think his cars are shit. Tesla is #1 in customer satisfaction. More Tesla buyers (91%) said they would buy again than any other brand. Porsche is #2 at 84%.

My wife has a Tesla, and she is very happy with it. However, I can't personally vouch for the quality because she won't let me drive it.

Really? Everyone except you reports a cost around $700/month for a typical car. How are your expenses so much lower than this? Perhaps you miscalculated something?

All of the major brands (domestic, Asian -- even Korean) have pretty much reached parity in quality.

In terms of customer satisfaction, Tesla is out in front. Considering the price, they ought to be. Fiat is the worst. Ford does pretty well.

I have a Honda Odyssey Minivan, and I am very happy with it. My wife has a Tesla and is very happy with it.

Here are the rankings:

1 Tesla 91%
2 Porsche 84%
3 Audi 77%
4 Subaru 76%
5 Toyota 76%
6 Honda 75%
7 Mazda 74%
8 Chrysler 73%
9 Chevrolet 73%
10 Lexus 73%
11 GMC 73%
12 Lincoln 73%
13 Hyundai 73%
14 BMW 72%
15 Ford 72%
16 Mini 71%
17 Ram 70%
18 Kia 70%
19 Mercedes-Benz 69%
20 Volvo 69%
21 Buick 68%
22 Cadillac 68%
23 Dodge 66%
24 Volkswagen 64%
25 Jeep 60%
26 Acura 58%
27 Infiniti 58%
28 Nissan 58%
29 Fiat 53%

It's not as if there is a website that does yearly reviews of things like this: http://www.consumerreports.org...

We already have the walk-in Euthanasia clinics. It's called the Medical Industry. Just keep visiting all sorts of doctors and have scans etc. eventually they'll mess something up, or pretend you have cancer so they can drug you and train some students on the latest butcher 2000 robot operating experiment and if that or your nurse doesn't kill you, they'll send you to the hospice to do it.

http://www.consumerreports.org...
http://www.medpagetoday.com/En...
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
http://rense.com/general9/cre....

Clearly, it is also not only a software problem. If the hardware had been designed with a proper 100 Wh battery instead of the inadequate 75 Wh battery that they ended up using, then the worst-case battery life for the new MacBook Pro would be a few percent better than the worst-case battery life for the previous generation.

If you think that the fact the new MacBook Pro not only lasts longer than PC notebooks with bigger batteries, but also its predecessor means there is a hardware problem, then there's no need arguing with you. Ever again. According to Consumer Reports: 15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2015) 16.5 hours, New MacBook Pro 15" (late 2016) 17.25 hours,.

Clearly, it is also not only a software problem. If the hardware had been designed with a proper 100 Wh battery instead of the inadequate 75 Wh battery that they ended up using, then the worst-case battery life for the new MacBook Pro would be a few percent better than the worst-case battery life for the previous generation.

If you think that the fact the new MacBook Pro not only lasts longer than PC notebooks with bigger batteries, but also its predecessor means there is a hardware problem, then there's no need arguing with you. Ever again. According to Consumer Reports: 15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2015) 16.5 hours, New MacBook Pro 15" (late 2016) 17.25 hours,.

Was it a stress test? Or a typical usage test?

Neither. It is a comparison test that removes variables as much as possible so all laptops are on the same playing field. From CR itself:

... our battery tests are not designed to be a direct simulation of a consumer's experience.

If your testing relies on going to a bunch of web pages that may or may not have a lot of cached content depending on when the test is done, or the caching is set differently between models by default, then the caching is a variable that could make a model with lower battery capacity show up as being better than a model with more capacity. Battery life is not an absolute measure that you can depend on because users do different things. But battery comparisons are relative -- a model with double the lifetime in CR's tests should last twice as long as the other model in real life, too. That's what "a good proxy" means.

Let me get this straight: if a browser in default mode uses more power than others - you want the test to hide that fact, because that would be unfair? Because consumers aren't actually interested in "consumer's experience" but some "fair and balanced" reporting bullshit?

By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.

"Not disabling" isn't the same as "enabling".
More importantly, the bigger point is that Consumer Reports dismissed the fact that battery tests with Chrome on the Macbook were both consistent and long with "we use the default browser on the operating system" as a justification for not updating their review, but now we find out that they also modify the default browser from its default mode... something they didn't report at the time.

So, which is it, default or not? They can have it both ways if they report all of the details of their tests, but they can't simply say "we always use the default (except when we don't)" while retaining any sort of credibility. The fact that they refused to repeat the tests with witnesses present, and now we find out that they changed an additional variable without telling anyone means that we can't trust them, at least until they've built that credibility back up from scratch.

Apparently not

CR

... our battery tests are not designed to be a direct simulation of a consumer's experience. Rather, we look to control as many variables as possible, then perform a test that gives potential users a reasonable expectation of battery life when a computer's processors, screen, memory, and antennas are under a light to moderate workload. This test has served as a good proxy for battery life on the hundreds of laptops in our ratings.

Was it a stress test? Or a typical usage test?

Neither. It is a comparison test that removes variables as much as possible so all laptops are on the same playing field. From CR itself:

... our battery tests are not designed to be a direct simulation of a consumer's experience. Rather, we look to control as many variables as possible, then perform a test that gives potential users a reasonable expectation of battery life when a computer's processors, screen, memory, and antennas are under a light to moderate workload. This test has served as a good proxy for battery life on the hundreds of laptops in our ratings.

If your testing relies on going to a bunch of web pages that may or may not have a lot of cached content depending on when the test is done, or the caching is set differently between models by default, then the caching is a variable that could make a model with lower battery capacity show up as being better than a model with more capacity. Battery life is not an absolute measure that you can depend on because users do different things. But battery comparisons are relative -- a model with double the lifetime in CR's tests should last twice as long as the other model in real life, too. That's what "a good proxy" means.

Yeah that may indeed be the case - a lot of articles are contradictory, but the more I read the less these TVs look like real QLEDs. But if so, why they would label these TVs as "QLEDs" when they're apparently working on genuine QLED TVs is beyond me.

Not really. Average Reliability but better than most.

You can read the linked-linked article at Consumer Reports (by "linked-linked", I mean the CR article that is referred to in the earlier /. report, linked to in this article):
  http://www.consumerreports.org.... For testing, they used the stock Safari browser (battery life increased when they used a third party browser).

I wonder if it could have been simultaneously downloading software updates?

Once you read the article I reference, you'll know how the Mac was set up.

They count every problem equally

Completely wrong. First, the reliability ratings are broken down by category in the actual CR reports, even if news summaries for idiots condense them into "CU says not reliable". Yes, CR does provide an overall "predicted reliability", but anyone with an ounce of sense who cares about the distinction will look at the breakdown. Second, from their FAQ:

Problems with the engine-major, cooling system, transmission-major, and driveline are more likely to take a car out of service and to be more expensive to repair than the other problem areas. Consequently, we weigh these areas more heavily in our calculations of Used Car Verdicts and Predicted Reliability. Problems such as broken trim and in-car electronics have a much smaller weight. Problems in any area can be an expense and a bother, though, so we report them all in the Reliability History charts.

on it's new trucks for service. Or Chevy, or GMC, or Honda, or Nissan. Because none of them cover a single cent. And, of course, when you have a problem with a traditional vehicle manufacturer, they go out of their way to deny any problem with their car, charge you an arm and a leg to fix the problems they won't, and don't ever provide a fix unless there's a lawsuit pending.

That's why your own Consumer Reports ranks it the "Most Satifying Car to Drive" http://www.consumerreports.org...

Maybe if the oil-bound manufacturers learned a little about customer service, they wouldn't be holding onto the anchor end of the customer satisfaction survey.

you mean the same consumer reports that rated it the least reliable? That consumer reports?

http://www.consumerreports.org...
http://www.roadandtrack.com/ne...
http://gizmodo.com/consumer-re...

That's one of the issues with CR's reporting. 100 people with problems with a cupholder would rate as "poor" while 2 with a blown engine would rate as "good"

Ummm...that's just not true. Its right there in their FAQ:

Are all problems considered equally serious?

Problems with the engine-major, cooling system, transmission-major, and driveline are more likely to take a car out of service and to be more expensive to repair than the other problem areas. Consequently, we weigh these areas more heavily in our calculations of Used Car Verdicts and Predicted Reliability. Problems in any area can be an expense and a bother, though, so we report them all in the Reliability History charts.

I think the main issue here is that the reliability ratings are based on survey results, which means they don't know how reliable a car is until its been out a few years. So they are mainly useful for used cars. They will still "predict" the reliability of new models, but only if they know the model hasn't changed much from last year's design. On brand new designs/redesigns they don't provide a prediction, and usually won't recommend the car either. (Which jibes with the common layman's advice to "never buy the first year of a new car").

The main issue here is it looks like they got so excited about the Tesla S, they deviated from standard policy. Whoops.

Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability, it's at the top of the list in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".

So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.

Ah, Consumer Reports. There are some vehicles that they simply hate, like most Jeeps. I find that despite their not taking ads, they are incredibly biased, especially about vehicles.

Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability, it's at the top of the list in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".

So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.

Ah, Consumer Reports. There are some vehicles that they simply hate, like most Jeeps. I find that despite their not taking ads, they are incredibly biased, especially about vehicles.

Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability, it's at the top of the list in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".

So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.

Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability, it's at the top of the list in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".

So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.

Problems with their Macbook Pros only acknowledged after a class action lawsuit:

And Samsung phones are blowing up on airplanes and setting people's houses on fire - but nobody GAF because it's not Apple. The problem for Hatebois is that Apple has been at or near the top of reliability surveys since the Paleozoic era of computing.

No, that doesn't mean they're flawless, Hateboi canards to the contrary. It means their shit is more reliable than everyone else's shit.

But you were saying they were rigid against Tesla before they were rigged against Tesla and we have proof that everyone used to say that!

Even if looks like they're going to crash and burn, Tesla will make America fabulous again.

Well duh. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Even so, none of the other links pointed to this page.

TFS points to an earlier story on slashdot.

The review on the model X is here. Despite the lower-than-average rating for first-year reliability, I can't find where CR rates it "near the bottom"

Did anyone else find the rating I can't?

That was the 6 Plus and the whole thing was debunked by consumer reports. Turns out all phones bend, some easier than the iPhone, some harder. Shocking, I know.

I have a 6 plus; so I know. But it was an easy reference to grab...

That was the 6 Plus and the whole thing was debunked by consumer reports. Turns out all phones bend, some easier than the iPhone, some harder. Shocking, I know.

Umm three pages of complaints. Not exactly a groudswell of anger.

Whatchoo wanna bet that I can find similar forums for iphones.

Except the ones for iPhones won't be threatening class-action suits based on fraudulent "Water-resistance" claims.

Oh, and that Forum was in ADDITION to several ARTICLES regarding "failed water-resistance" tests. Here's one, for example. And here's another. And here's Samsung's obsufcated response.

Want me to keep going (I can)?

Perhaps you missed last week's reports of exploding washing machines. Entirely unrelated to the phone-battery problem, of course, but the last thing a large consumer-goods manufacturer needs is another reason for people to post dumb jokes about them on social media...

Considering that Samsung's advice to their washing-machine customers is to either wash everything on Delicate, or shut the machine OFF, I'd say the jokes aren't so dumb...

BTW, this is exactly what happens when cost-reduction becomes THE major engineering criteria. They undersize the motors, undersize the brushless motor drives, undersize the power supplies, undersize the wiring harnesses, and BOOM!!!

Perhaps you missed last week's reports of exploding washing machines. Entirely unrelated to the phone-battery problem, of course, but the last thing a large consumer-goods manufacturer needs is another reason for people to post dumb jokes about them on social media...

Forgot to add this link

It does not. People elsewhere in the thread have confirmed this, as does Consumer Reports:

http://www.consumerreports.org...
In most states, to get the low-cost, EpiPen alternative, you can't use a prescription for "EpiPen" from your doctor. That's because pharmacists at your drugstore likely won't be able to automatically substitute the low-cost version if your prescription is written for EpiPen. Instead, ask your doctor to write a prescription for an "epinephrine auto-injector"

The fact that Mylan can charge these prices is government regulations and government-granted monopolies.

It's more dumb consumers and good marketing. There are cheaper alternatives like Adrenaclick available if you ask for a generic epinephrine auto-injector rather asking for Epipen by brand-name. See, e.g, Consumer Reports http://www.consumerreports.org...

Meanwhile, if you’re looking for a low-cost alternative to the EpiPen, we recently recommended generic Adrenaclick, also referred to as an "epinephrine auto-injector."...In most states, to get the low-cost, EpiPen alternative, you can't use a prescription for "EpiPen" from your doctor. That's because pharmacists at your drugstore likely won't be able to automatically substitute the low-cost version if your prescription is written for EpiPen. Instead, ask your doctor to write a prescription for an "epinephrine auto-injector" or "generic Adrenaclick."

And if that's true - that Medicare was already applying the âoenon-innovator multiple sourceâ rebate schedule to the EpiPen back in 2007 - then that makes this case a lot murkier. The Feds would then have to make a case as to why the drug can and should be reclassified at the higher âoesingle sourceâ tier. It's clear that in practice the EpiPen is a single source device

Is it clear? There are other options out there (e.g. Adrenaclick), if you get your doctor to prescribe an "epinephrine autoinjector" instead of specifying "Epipen" by brand name. How different is that from other drugs? If you get a prescription for, say, Lipitor, can you fill that with a generic? Or can you only do that if you get a prescription for atorvastatin rather than the brand-name?

http://www.consumerreports.org...

The drug, epinephrine, is generic. It is adrenaline, which your body produces naturally. There is no patent stopping generic injectors, but so far none have been approved by the FDA.

Yes, they have. Adrenaclick's been on the market (with FDA approval) for 5+ years, and costs like 1/4 what Epipen does.

http://www.consumerreports.org...

So what do they do to mitigate the Ozone that's invariably produced by ionic air filtration?

This certainly isn't the first time charging air has been used as an air cleaner (anybody remember the "Ionic Breeze" ads from a decade back?)

I seem to recall Consumer Reports investigating ionic air filters and concluding they produced dangerous levels of Ozone, which is an irritant in its own right which can worsen Asthma, deaden the sense of smell, raise sensitivity to pollen, and cause permanent lung damage...

I guess I'll have to read TFA, but I suspect they're more interested in aesthetic air cleaning, not actual health improvement.

You mean boring?

Why would I drive an A4, when I could drive a Giulia instead?

The article isn't about the car, it's about the naming of the car not making sense. While a "Giulia" is a unique name, it doesn't tell you anything about the car and how it compares to others in the Alpha lineup.

As to why to choose the A4, here's a reason.
Giulia Reliability POOR
A4 Reliability VERY GOOD

Maybe that's compelling for you, and maybe it isn't.

You mean boring?

Why would I drive an A4, when I could drive a Giulia instead?

The article isn't about the car, it's about the naming of the car not making sense. While a "Giulia" is a unique name, it doesn't tell you anything about the car and how it compares to others in the Alpha lineup.

As to why to choose the A4, here's a reason.
Giulia Reliability POOR
A4 Reliability VERY GOOD

Maybe that's compelling for you, and maybe it isn't.

You also mentioned something about a media source claiming syringes require "extensive medical training" or something... I call BS. Again, diabetics deal with this all the time. There are some precautions, but most are similar to EpiPens, and the additional warnings can easily be explained in a few minutes. You also may want to check into the credentials of that medical professional -- I've seen some media quotes in stories in the past few days saying similar, but it turns out they work for allergy societies that get a huge amount of support from the manufacturer of EpiPens, which at a minimum presents a significant conflict of interest.

That "media source" was Consumer Reports. I have checked into their credentials. Their medical reviewers are probably more qualified in each of the specialties than some of the reviewers in the second-string peer-review journals. And they take no money from industry.

Diabetics do inject themselves with insulin, however there are differences between them and people with anaphylactic reactions so you can't equate the two. The most obvious difference is that insulin-dependent diabetics inject regularly, several times a day, so they're used to the equipment and familiar with it. People with anaphylactic reactions might a reaction once in their lives, once a year, or once every few years (according to a friend of mine who did have an anaphylactic reaction to bee antigen in a doctor's office), so they can forget how to use it.

You want to say that it makes no difference. I don't accept that. In a matter of life or death, you need better evidence than your own personal feeling. You seem to know enough about medicine to be able to look up articles on PubMed, but I'm certain that you're not a medical doctor or medical student. The standard of evidence for pharmaecuticals is a lot more rigorous than, say, the flavors and fragrances industry. I'd rather follow the advice of an MD.

It's not good enough to say that diabetic injections are sort of like epinephrine injections, so if it works for diabetes it seems like it should work for epinephrine. The only thing that will tell you what kind of problems come up when people use manual epinephrine injections is a well-designed study of people who use manual epinephrine injections, preferably with a comparison group of people who use the EpiPen. But that would be hard to do, because an anaphylactic shock is such a rare event.

And contrary to what you say, there is nothing in those studies that addresses the claim that "people won't fill them correctly or they'll lose time in doing all that for people inexperienced with them." Those were just lab studies of 2 narrow issues -- stability and sterility.

If you want to understand the design of medical studies, you could read the NEJM, BMJ, and JAMA Internal Medicine (my preferences) over the last few years. If you want to get a summary of what it's all about, you can look in http://www.healthnewsreview.or...

http://www.consumerreports.org...
Can You Get a Cheaper EpiPen?
You could save about $400 per two-pack with generic Adrenaclick and still protect against life-threatening allergy attacks
By Ginger Skinner
August 11, 2016

The DIY Syringe Method

To further cut costs, some have turned to using manual syringes and buying vials of epinephrine to fill them. The drug costs a few dollars per vial. But experts caution that switching to a do-it-yourself syringe is more complicated and can result in getting too much or little epinephrine. What’s more, you’ll need to be trained by a doctor or pharmacist on how to inject the drug quickly and accurately before attempting to try it during an emergency.

And because there are different concentrations on the market, getting the proper dose is critical, especially for children.

Because it is so technically difficult to make the headphone jack be water proof? Of course it is not. Stop making stupid arguments to defend Apple, fan boy.

Apparently, Samsung is finding that it is, indeed...

There are devices with a headphone socket that is sealed and waterproof ... this is not usually the entry point for water on most devices ...

You mean like the not-so-water-resistant-after-all Galaxy S7?

It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.

Oh, you mean unlike all those not-so-water-resistant Samsung phones, right?

I see your point, but you can make certain estimates, based on the fact that it's an electric drive-train alone. Here they outline the various costs associated with owning a vehicle. One of these costs is fuel. It states that a Jeep Liberty can cost an owner more than $3,000 a year to fuel based on the average number of miles driven by survey respondents and the average fuel costs. This is a high example, but it's a great illustration.
 
A Model 3, with a 60kWh battery, travelling the 12,000 miles used in the above example, you would need to fill your "tank" from empty 60 times in a year to drive that number of miles. At 11.58 cents a kWh and efficiency losses, you're looking at $521.10 a year to fuel your car. (Average electricity cost, I grabbed from here, and for the efficiency losses I used a multiplier of 1.25)
 
Even the more fuel efficient cars, like the Honda Civic at 35mpg would cost you $1371.4 a year to fuel, which is still about 2.6 times more.

Then add to these savings not having to bring the car in for oil changes every few thousand miles, which always seems to cost more than I'm expecting it to. You don't have to replace fuel filters, top up transmission fluid, likely won't need to change the brake pads throughout the life of the vehicle thanks to regenerative braking. You basically only have to change the tires when they wear out, replace the wiper blades and re-fill the wiper fluid.
 
Compared to an already cheap civic, you're saving at least $1000 a year. And if you have the expensive Jeep Liberty, you'd be saving probably around $2500 a year.

Just because it's ... Tesla

It being a Tesla car in and of itself could result in further maintenance cost savings because they have stated a company policy of not intending to make a profit off of car repairs and maintenance.