Slashdot Mirror

According to Wired - http://www.wired.com/2016/08/a...
Apple are buying iPhones, made in China, by an Irish subsidiary and then selling them from their Irish subsidiary to US distributors, so the profits on the sale of the iPhones is booked through Ireland - although Wired don't explicitly say that it's US distributors, it could be their EU disties instead...

Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal emails, except Clinton. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/... another source http://www.npr.org/templates/s... , another http://www.npr.org/templates/s... . Yep you're idiot.

You can socially engineer a SIM redirect to a handset in your control. Once done, you get all the victim's SMS messages: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/...

That is a really interesting article, though here is link to entire article at http://www.wired.com/2015/07/s... and I've squandered much of my work time reading this. It seems USSR allocated a lot of people with lots of time to do this detailed field work. Google can do the same as they have tens of $billions$ of extra cash.

When a fully inflated lighter than air-ship crashes, does it bounce?

This is what used to be LEMV (long endurance multi-intelligence vehicle). Very expensive attempt at long-loiter reconnaissance. Cost the US tax payer many many millions, and was cancelled and the thing was sold back the original builder for $301k. https://www.flightglobal.com/n.... Reminds me of the telcom bubble back in the early 2000's except this was a bubble of helium.

Oh, and the helium thing - possibly overrated - more found: http://www.wired.com/2016/06/d.... Also it can be a by-product of natural gas production, just a low percentages.

The last time the USA fucked around with the ionosphere was a bit of a disaster. Please do not do this again; just leave it alone. Wired article. They are also an object group on stuffin.space.

You like Microsoft's Bing scraping Google results? Pot meet kettle.

Unless the vehicle has steering that's drive-by-wire you're not really going to have to worry about much from a safety perspective

Yeah, it's basically that bad. Not just steering, but brakes, and acceleration.

I dunno about that... When Trump quotes are read by Zapp Brannigan, they somehow don't seem quite so bad.

First, FDR, the beloved Illiberal icon, still dizzy from success of gold-confiscation, gives us FCC — providing for AT&T phone monopoly among other niceties.

Then, in 60-80ies, they allowed local governments to regulate cable-TV providers — which suffocated competition. By the time of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed — increasing competition among its stated goals — it was too late. The cable-TV and telephone giants were already too big. Vast behemoths, they are too slow and unwieldy to go after each other, and too entrenched to be successfully challenged by newcomers. Their unwholesome relationships with local governments providing for the stagnation.

More recent attempts at regulation — such as "net neutrality" or minimum bandwidth requirements — are more of the same vein: helping the incumbents (who'll use their lobbying muscle and access to politicians to avoid any effects), while stifling competition.

This is all part of a much more general issue: restriction and even legal prosecution of "pre-crime activities".

- You get DRM-encumbered products, because manufacturers are afraid you might copy the product. Copying is an action that has many uses; piracy is only one of many possibilities.

- The DMCA prohibits circumvention of protective measures, because...why? The circumvention isn't the problem, nor are most of the reasons you might circumvent something. It's all about the relatively rare edge cases that might be illegal. Consider hacking into your car's computer, for example: there are lots of reasons to do this, from curiousity to performing minor repairs yourself.

This mentality goes a lot farther than media and computers:

- Consider sexting: Why, exactly, is it illegal to send sexy pictures of a 17 year old?. Doing so may be naive, and there are potential crimes, but the vast majority of cases are boyfriend/girlfriend exchanges. Again: it's the crimes that should be prohibited, not the behavior that might lead to them.

Once you start looking:

- Why should it be illegal to fly drones near a wildfire? Interfering with firefighting efforts is the problem, but if there are no aircraft involved, where's the problem?

- Why should it be illegal to modify your router, as long as you don't cause interference with other devices?

- Why should it be illegal to do drugs, as long as you only affect yourself?

- Why should it be illegal to host a poker tournament in your home?

- Why should it be illegal to drive without wearing your seatbelt?

- Why should there be a minimum drinking age?

Not too long ago, I came home from work, grabbed a beer, and took a lazy evening's walk through the woods near my house. In the US, that would be illegal, because...why, exactly?

And on, and on...law after law that isn't about restricting actual harmful behavior, but rather restricting innocent activities that have the merest potential for harm.

Those of us old enough to remember when Usenet was a critical online resource will remember when anon.penet.fi provided a helpful, pseudonymous email and NNTP service. It was invaluable for people discussing issues that were not work safe, ranging from dating services to gender identity to cancer fears to AIDS help to thoughts of suicide. Some typical coverage was done by Wired, quoting the Observer newspaper, at:

        http://www.wired.com/1996/11/a...

What was amazing about most of the press reports at the time was how they failed to identify the incident that caused Julf Helsingius to shut down anon.penet.fi. The incident is better described at:

      http://articles.latimes.com/19...

Simply put, someone kept using anon.penet.fi to post court documents revealing Scientology's inner secrets. The documents are infamous and broadly available online, but 20 years ago they were not so broadly avaialble.

Why do I mention this? Partly because it points out that anonymous, and pseudonymous services, are always at risk from court ordered revelations about their clients. And I mention it partly because it's vital to see press coverage about the events as possibly skewed by fears of retaliation by powerful groups. 20 years ago, man reporters were justifiably _frightened_ of covering Scientology stories. They remembered what had happened to Paulette Cooper, who wrote about them and had bomb threats faked in her name by the cult. Today, press coverage that risks the ire of Fox News or of the Department of Homeland Security or run afoul of the so-called Patriot Act are at similar risks of abusive, extra-judicial censorship with little safe recourse.,

I'm afraid the desire to censor communications is always around. I do look forward to better details about what triggered the closing of GhostMail's free services. I hope it wasn't a similar abuse of authority, but see real reasons to be concerned that it _is_ about Patriot Act or other government enforced tracking of users.

At this point it looks like that have decided to exit the computer market and are just taking the profits from the old tooling and work for as long as they can. With the presumably massive profits they are making on these at this point, keeping OS/X upgrades happening until people actually stop buying is probably still more the profitable enough.

The question now is if MS can get away with them exiting the market or if they might have to throw them another bribe to keep them in the business and the investigations away? At this point even that should raise serious questions as Apple are far from short of cash.

FUCK EVERYTHING, we're doing 32K !

The reason our choice of communication-providers is so limited aren't the companies — those are as hungry for our dollars as ever — but the local governments.

They've created these barriers over the years and were happy to milk them. Now Google comes along and it is cool and persuasive, so, instead of honestly removing the regulatory burdens for all, they find a way to ease them just for one company.

This is "crony capitalism", which has about as much to do with capitalism, as a guinea pig has to do with pork... Some may even call it Fascism.

Of course, Charter did not mind the situation themselves — for as long as their de-facto monopoly was not threatened. But we — the consumers — kept losing...

I find this argument to be quite consistent with what I have learned from talking to my local city elected officials and staff. I live in a small suburban town of less than 10,000 about 20 to 30 miles from the center of 2 different large urban cities.

I can choose from the local telco or the local cable TV company for high speed Internet access. That's it. High speed with the Telco seems to be no more than 6 mbps and you have to also subscribe to their TV package; it's AT&T. The cable TV franchise is Charter with 60 mbps as their highest speed. There are no poles in my town; everything is buried. So I don't expect Google Fiber or any other competitor to appear for a long long time.

Actually, when they first came out, they were used because they were 'cool' and 'new'. We were all quite used to seeing red, yellow, and green LEDs for many years. Blue was just different and very bright in comparison.

The one place it really made sense was the locator light on servers. It was fairly easy to find the box with the blue light turned on.

Blue was also needed to make full colour images like in LED TVs. That was the application I remember generating all the excitement.

The reason our choice of communication-providers is so limited aren't the companies — those are as hungry for our dollars as ever — but the local governments.

They've created these barriers over the years and were happy to milk them. Now Google comes along and it is cool and persuasive, so, instead of honestly removing the regulatory burdens for all, they find a way to ease them just for one company.

This is "crony capitalism", which has about as much to do with capitalism, as a guinea pig has to do with pork... Some may even call it Fascism.

Of course, Charter did not mind the situation themselves — for as long as their de-facto monopoly was not threatened. But we — the consumers — kept losing...

Show me this type of vulnerability in VMware, any version

Here's one example.

Here's a story showing that VMWare tries to hide their vulnerabilities.

Fuck you again!

The real question: are the e-mails real? If so, how they were obtained/released is irrelevant.

I think the fact that Russia is actively trying to meddle in the US election via dirty tricks is pretty fucking relevant, don't you?

Maybe all the emails are real; maybe they are all real except for the few made-up ones that Putin's political people added in to spice things up. Maybe next time instead of hacking into a political organization, they'll hack into some power companies and cause power outages in demographically strategic areas on election day, similar to what they did previously in the Ukraine. Or maybe they'll just plant a few easter eggs in some voting machines. In either case, the fact that a central pillar of our Democracy is now known to be under deliberate attack by a foreign power ought to be of some significance to us, no?

Having password reset happen with a text to your phone is more secure than the typical security questions that websites and (worse) CSRs ask. The text message is intended to help prevent what happened to Mat Honan, where his google account, twitter, and Apple ID were hacked, and his MacBook and phone erased remotely. This happened because a hacker was able to convince help desk folks he was the legitimate owner of the accounts, using info scraped from different places.

Cell phone numbers aren't as good as hardware or software-based authenticators for applications that require more security. It's part of a continuum, where the more security is needed, the more of a hassle it can be to get in.

No, the great achievement really was putting people on the moon, and the enormous technical, industrial, and organizational effort that took....
At least one major power other tried and failed. It wasn't a given.

Tried and failed ?? Who was that ?

The Soviets once tried to work with the US on manned space missions to the moon but gave up.

A significant difference between the Soviet and the American space programs is that the American program was done in public, with failures as well as successes in the public eye, while the Soviet program was done in secret, with missions not announced until they succeeded.

After the Apollo successes, the Soviets let it be assumed that they didn't have a moon program at all; they never tried to beat the Americans. It was only years later that the Soviet society started to embrace openness ("glasnost", in Russian), and the full history of the Soviet manned moon program was slowly revealed.

They did have a manned moon program, and a big one.

* http://www.wired.com/2010/10/r...

* http://fas.org/spp/eprint/lind...

* http://www.popularmechanics.co...

The Soviets could have sent a man there but they realised it was too expensive for the result

As it turns out, no, they could not. They tried, but failed.
Ultimately, they gave up after their large booster, the N-1, failed for the third time. It was a key element in their lunar program, but they never got it to launch successfully. (By this time the Americans had already landed on the moon, so at best they would have come in second in a race with two competitors.

so they put their money into robotic exploration...

Or, more specifically, they made the announcement that this is what they were after all along. But it wasn't.

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/...

Not clicking on a link to Hot Air.

The best available data comes from consumers who report it to the DOT (WARNING: Source may be paywalled)

Why not go straight to the quoted Wired article with the hyperbolic title?

Those are the same link. And when viewed through Firefox Tracking Protection, with no specific ad-blocking extensions installed, the text of said hyperbolic article is as follows (screenshot):

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on.
So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.

From the page to which "whitelist" links:

In Firefox “Tracking Protection” may activate our adblock notice. It can be temporarily disabled for a browsing session by clicking the “shield” icon in the url bar if visible and following the instructions.

See the editorial "An invitation to settle matters with @Forbes, @Wired and other publishers" by Doc Searls. Apparently the administrators of WIRED are too incompetent to switch to advertisements not based on tracking viewers' browsing habits.

The best available data comes from consumers who report it to the DOT (WARNING: Source may be paywalled)

Why not go straight to the quoted Wired article with the hyperbolic title?

Those are the same link. And when viewed through Firefox Tracking Protection, with no specific ad-blocking extensions installed, the text of said hyperbolic article is as follows (screenshot):

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on.
So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.

From the page to which "whitelist" links:

In Firefox “Tracking Protection” may activate our adblock notice. It can be temporarily disabled for a browsing session by clicking the “shield” icon in the url bar if visible and following the instructions.

See the editorial "An invitation to settle matters with @Forbes, @Wired and other publishers" by Doc Searls. Apparently the administrators of WIRED are too incompetent to switch to advertisements not based on tracking viewers' browsing habits.

The best available data comes from consumers who report it to the DOT (WARNING: Source may be paywalled)

Why not go straight to the quoted Wired article with the hyperbolic title?

Those are the same link. And when viewed through Firefox Tracking Protection, with no specific ad-blocking extensions installed, the text of said hyperbolic article is as follows (screenshot):

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on.
So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.

From the page to which "whitelist" links:

In Firefox “Tracking Protection” may activate our adblock notice. It can be temporarily disabled for a browsing session by clicking the “shield” icon in the url bar if visible and following the instructions.

See the editorial "An invitation to settle matters with @Forbes, @Wired and other publishers" by Doc Searls. Apparently the administrators of WIRED are too incompetent to switch to advertisements not based on tracking viewers' browsing habits.

Slashdot editors: how did this garbage get posted here? Why not go straight to the quoted Wired article with the hyperbolic title?

Interestingly, that article contradicts itself: "a 2013 Consumer Reports study tested more than 300 cars, and found 90 percent landed within two miles per gallon of their EPA-approved ratings."

Yeah, testing standards aren't perfect. That doesn't mean that the government is incompetent and is trying to fuck you.

And, before you ask, it is those pillars of the community you suddenly love and respect so much, who are responsible for shortage of Internet-service options in most locales in the US, where competing providers want your money.

And then you read that article, and realize it's remarkably deficient in specific facts and allegations. About the most it does is say that certain places were so eager to do it that they could have opened the door for Google. Maybe. But so what? My local community did the same when VW wanted a factory (and that might not have worked out well), that doesn't mean they impeded anybody else.

I mean, if you really want to do a comprehensive survey of accessibility of right-of-ways and such, go ahead, or even call for the FCC or whoever to do it, but I wouldn't hang my hat on that one article.

Local governments, you must mean those things made up of the people in the community joined together ( in theory) for the common good? A sort of co-op like thingy?

I mean the city hall, however you want to spin it.

And, before you ask, it is those pillars of the community you suddenly love and respect so much, who are responsible for shortage of Internet-service options in most locales in the US, where competing providers want your money.

Have they checked it on control group of dead salmons?
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/f...

He wasn't responsible for the special effects in the original Star Wars though.

* http://www.starwars.com/news/t...
* http://www.wired.com/2013/02/s...

Why in the world does it matter that they are volunteers? Do you think people can't volunteer with malicious intent? This tells me that it's all being done by amateurs which makes me much less confident in this system than I was before I read your post.

Oh God. Virginia!? Seriously? It's pretty much guaranteed that your voting machines were hacked for most of the last several elections. You were using the least secure voting machines ever made (On the bright side you got rid of them last year). You didn't need to replace a circuit board, you could quite literally hack into them from a half mile away with a rudimentary antenna built using a pringles can! Please read this and weep: https://www.wired.com/2015/08/...

She's in favor of "homeopathic medicine",

That seems to be a little simplistic, given that she apparently even got the Green Party to remove all mentions of homeopathy from their platform. That said, pure placebo's (such as homeopathy, VR and even the colour of pills) can have their use either separately from (in case of e.g. a hypochondriac) or in combination with regular treatment.

and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite.

If you take into account all of the government subsidies, including covering the industry's uninsurable risks, I'm not sure whether at least the cost argument holds.

Furthermore, she wants "a moratorium on GMOs", which wikipedia states, "There is a scientific consensus[147][148][149][150] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food".

While she indeed argues against it because of safety arguments, there are plenty of other reasons why many people are against GMOs. Just look at the majority of comments on the Slashdot story regarding one of the "GMOs are safe" studies.

I REALLY want to vote third party, but we need some third party candidates who are not anti-science crackpots.

Bashing using arguments that are either easily refuted, or at the very least less clear cut than presented, is anti-science. Name-calling while posting as AC is just silly.

Guess what? Electric grids were already hacked in what appears to be one of the first more or less real cyber-wars (previous - Estonia 2007, Georgia 2008 - were primarily powerful DDoS attacks to either disrupt services or cut off the country from the rest of the world).

The hacking happened in December 2015, in Ukraine. The attack was a sophisticated APT attack from Russia.

You can find more by following description in IR-ALERT-H-16-056-01 or reading the Wired article by Kim Zetter.

And, by the way, malware did find its way into nuclear power plants (though not control systems).

Never ever believe anything you hear... and only half of what you see.

It would be nice if we were all capable of being skeptics to the truth. Unfortunately, we're not physiologically built for that. As Wired Magazine explained so well in an article back in 2009, our dorsolateral prefrontal cortex filters out information it determines to be unnecessary, including information that does not agree with our perception of the world. The vast majority of people do not understand this, so they naturally prefer to listen and associate themselves with information that only reinforces their world view, rather than challenge it.

So, yes, if the leader of a British political party says that being an EU member has a bad return on investment, and enough people feel that is true, then the society will not challenge that viewpoint. Even when individuals like John Oliver thoroughly debunk those perceptions, those opposing viewpoints are dismissed quicker than you can type "> /dev/null". And it's why, no matter how many times Donald Trump praises the leadership qualities of despots, he still has a much stronger chance than he should at becoming president. All it takes is enough people to "feel" that he's the better candidate.

Hillary was denied being given a useable secure phone

Hillary was a public servant and had an obligation to use the official systems. And her personal server was horribly insecure... it wasn't even configured with a cert so TLS couldn't work; her email traffic was sent in cleartext, even when she was sending Top Secret information.

https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

Sounds like a RollJam variant. https://www.wired.com/2015/08/...

Neuroscientist Craig Bennett purchased a whole Atlantic salmon, took it to a lab at Dartmouth, and put it into an fMRI machine used to study the brain. The beautiful fish was to be the lab's test object as they worked out some new methods.

So, as the fish sat in the scanner, they showed it "a series of photographs depicting human individuals in social situations." To maintain the rigor of the protocol (and perhaps because it was hilarious), the salmon, just like a human test subject, "was asked to determine what emotion the individual in the photo must have been experiencing."

The salmon, as Bennett's poster on the test dryly notes, "was not alive at the time of scanning."

...But the fish had a surprise in store. When they got around to analyzing the voxel (think: 3-D or "volumetric" pixel) data, the voxels representing the area where the salmon's tiny brain sat showed evidence of activity. In the fMRI scan, it looked like the dead salmon was actually thinking about the pictures it had been shown.

Slashdot coverage here.

Worth mentioning that not long ago, someone got fMRI results from dead salmon.

One famous example of error related problems with fMRIs is the infamous brain scan of the dead salmon. I'm not sure if I can post a link but its: http://www.wired.com/images_bl...

http://www.wired.com/2011/05/m...

You spend 8 1/2 BILLION dollars on something,That is why you have a hardon for Skype.

In simple terms, they want Skype to do things, they can then monetize. They are idiots, and users are starting to leave Skype for other apps, like Hangouts, Slack and Telegram because Skype sucks donkey balls.

The problem for Microsoft is, they think they can bully people into their way of doing things, when the reality is that there are more reasons now than ever to avoid using MS crap.

Internet, at least the last mile, is a natural monopoly

"Natural monopoly" is a myth. A very convenient myth — for both the monopolists and the government officials seeking to profit from them — but a myth nonetheless.

This is just making shit up. Do you have any evidence this was her motive?

Nope, only that she lied repeatedly about why she did it. Her story kept changing.

First a week went by without her saying why she did it, and then she said that she did it for the convenience of carrying only one device. Note: this was right after she was on a talk show and said that she routinely used a Blackberry, an iPhone, an iPad, and an iPad Mini.

Then she tried a different excuse: that she was just so busy serving the people of the USA by diligently working as the Secretary of State that she just had no time to use the email that was provided for her use, and instead saved time by hiring someone to set up a new domain name and an email server for her.

Finally she settled on the "well, it wasn't against the rules, and I admit now that it was a teensy mistake, ha ha, so sorry." She can spin as hard as she likes but the IG report made it clear: it was against the rules, she broke the law with her actions.

Ordinary people would be in prison already for lesser offenses. But she is Hillary Clinton, and FOIA requests and obeying security laws regarding classified information are just beneath her. She can do whatever she wants, and her fans like you are okay with it.

You shouldn't let even people you like break the law with impunity. If the law is stupid, fix it, but make everyone follow it. Imagine someone you hate having power and breaking the law the same way.

How about: she didn't trust State IT to protect her emails, either through bad security, foreign spies, or ordinary folk working at State who just didn't like her and would be willing to leak damaging email.

It's good that you are so loyal to her, that you are willing to make up excuses to cover her. I just wish you were giving this kind of loyalty to someone who deserves it.

If this was the reason, why didn't she say that? Why did she give different stories, none of which was this?

Also, if this was the reason, why was her personal server not configured for TLS security with a proper cert?

[Trump] does worse just by opening his mouth.

And here you go over the line from "loyal to Hillary" to "crazy person who is not worth my time."

Hillary had thousands of classified messages on her server, including dozens that were "Secret" or "Top Secret", including highly classified satellite info and even the names of spies. This was information that could literally get people killed and she was playing fast and loose with it.

But Trump "does worse" just by talking. Sure.

Have a nice life.

Wrong.

Honestly, I actually believe that the integration of "infotainment" systems has more to do with resource-sharing cost and space savings than proprietary lock-in.

Then why did they feel the need to encrypt the communication between the body ECU and the engine ECU, if not to lock out aftermarket programmers?

And when States make Laws that prevent the removal of all of the computer controlled stuff, they are effectively supporting this proprietary lock-in.

Well, encryption of internal busses MIGHT, just MIGHT be an anti-hacking measure.

The States made engine-controller anti-circumvention laws for EMISSION CONTROL purposes. So blame the EPA.

Look, I have a double-layer tinfoil hat at the ready at all times myself; but sometimes, it really ISN'T a Conspiracy. And this is one of those times.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/f...

And meanwhile, in the real world, electric planes are a real thing, actually rather popular in the light aircraft world, and a market that's growing by leaps and bounds every year. And actually have excellent performance vs. price figures compared to their ICE equivalents. Ranges are usually similar to those of electric cars, 150-400km.

Can we ditch with the old battery-energy-density-versus-fuel-energy-density canard, as if a gallon of petrol is an entire vehicle? Even the long-range versions of the Model S, the batteries are only a third of the vehicle weight. There are other parts to a vehicle. An electric motor the size of a roomba has the power output of an entire typical gasoline engine in a typical passenger car. And you can ditch the transmission and a lot of other hardware as well. And it's only logical that this size difference would be the case. Electric motors have vastly less heat to dissipate - heat dissipation means mass. Electric motors have vastly fewer parts; complexity equals mass. Electric motors create force directly applied as torque on a driveshaft linkage (or even directly on the wheel), while ICEs produce it as pressurized gas, change that to linear momentum, then change that to rotational. Obviously the latter is going to cost you signfiicantly in terms of mass.

This headline makes it sound like electric airplanes are new. They're not. They're not even in the one-off-prototype stage, there are a number of serial producers out there. The market is expected to be over 22 billion a year three years from now. I'm not sure I believe it's going to scale up that fast, but it most definitely is growing. It's not even just small manufacturers, even Airbus is currently tooling up to market their E-Fan.

I'm sure we will have electric planes but they will almost certainly remain the domain of small aircraft. The car analogy works well. Electric cars make sense but electric 18-wheelers don't and probably never will. A radical and fundamental shift in how we move cargo and people is more likely to me than an electric A330.

And meanwhile, in the real world, electric planes are a real thing, actually rather popular in the light aircraft world, and a market that's growing by leaps and bounds every year. And actually have excellent performance vs. price figures compared to their ICE equivalents. Ranges are usually similar to those of electric cars, 150-400km.

Can we ditch with the old battery-energy-density-versus-fuel-energy-density canard, as if a gallon of petrol is an entire vehicle? Even the long-range versions of the Model S, the batteries are only a third of the vehicle weight. There are other parts to a vehicle. An electric motor the size of a roomba has the power output of an entire typical gasoline engine in a typical passenger car. And you can ditch the transmission and a lot of other hardware as well. And it's only logical that this size difference would be the case. Electric motors have vastly less heat to dissipate - heat dissipation means mass. Electric motors have vastly fewer parts; complexity equals mass. Electric motors create force directly applied as torque on a driveshaft linkage (or even directly on the wheel), while ICEs produce it as pressurized gas, change that to linear momentum, then change that to rotational. Obviously the latter is going to cost you signfiicantly in terms of mass.

This headline makes it sound like electric airplanes are new. They're not. They're not even in the one-off-prototype stage, there are a number of serial producers out there. The market is expected to be over 22 billion a year three years from now. I'm not sure I believe it's going to scale up that fast, but it most definitely is growing. It's not even just small manufacturers, even Airbus is currently tooling up to market their E-Fan.

iMessage will never be coming to Android

Isn't that what they say everytime before they do the thing?

* MP3 players are junk and just get left in drawers... http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h...
* Macs will never run on Intel http://www.theinquirer.net/inq...
* Ipods will never do video. http://www.macobserver.com/tmo...

* We are not working on a phone. http://www.macobserver.com/tmo...
* People want keyboards, tablets are going to fail http://www.wired.com/2010/02/s...
* Information about a tablet is incorrect http://www.googl8.com/85998192...

I can claim I made an ICE powered automobile that gets 3000 MPG. The fact that my claim is bunk does not make all internal combustion engines stop working.

Ummm, that's actually true. It used to be a popular thing for engineering students to compete in.

Of course, the "automobile" weighs about 100 pounds. Here's a real example, 3587 MPG:

http://www.wired.com/2013/04/3...