Easier to deliver a bomb on a U-Haul. We need to let the Sixties go. Da Missiles aren't the big threat every was told to fear, never were. Bombs are small. You can put them anywhere. Don't need Rocket Boy to deliver them.
The world didn't die by fire because the world isn't suicidal. And frankly, only the US was determined to end all life on Earth, to insure Karl Marx would never win. Death before decapitalization, I guess.
But they kinda do make such jokes. They don't do it when you're around. If you managed to overhear it, you'd be amused and shocked, "uncomfortable", I guess.
I think, extrapolating from Richards' definition of racism, which is that only the historically powerful can be racist (white can be, black cannot be), then she doesn't believe, generally, that women can be sexist. So she can make socks-down-the-pants jokes, and have no moral qualms about making you uncomfortable. By definition, she can pretty much say what she likes; you, as a man, cannot.
I think that we've come a LONG way from, say, the atmosphere of the fifties, when men were pigs and proud of it. Consideration is now part of our modern complete breakfast.
But. At some point, being "uncomfortable" become a passive-aggressive way of acquiring iron-fisted power over others. In this case, she misheard and over-reacted to others making much the same kind of joke she herself has tweeted. If she has tweeted such, she has spoken such, so she is no stranger to silly off-color humor. So the issue, again, is who has the power here - she does.
Another issue is the atmosphere of watch what you say, watch what you do which is, frankly, VERY uncomfortable to live with. It casts a pall, not because you can't make dongle jokes, but because, today the dongle joke, tomorrow the fill-in-whatever-someone-wants-censored. The function, once written, can be supplied any argument. Power over speech, over action, should be limited, not open-ended. She ended, or tried to end, the jobs, perhaps the careers, of two men. And she managed one. And unintentionally ended her own job. Why - perhaps because she misapplied her power in the workplace.
One might wonder why I go on about surveillance in other posts, and this is one illustration why - in a world where a camera and mic can be anywhere, you are in a prison, no matter what comfy chairs there might be there. Privacy of some sort, even if it is just for talking with someone sitting next to you, is essential for a civil society - living in fear of sudden discovery and loss of career is no way for a human to live. Humans who must live like that are pretty much prisoners.
Then EVERYthing and ANYthing you do may and perhaps almost certainly will get you into trouble. Just being in a cop's presence, and catching his eye, can destroy your life. Cameras and recordings don't help; those are evidence and will be confiscated and turned over to the police and prosecutors. Or the camera will simply be yanked and destroyed at the scene, along with the box it is connected to. If not that, then if anything in those recordings is adverse to the prosecutors' case, and if they have a vested interest in hurting you, that evidence will be destroyed or lost. I've seen it happen.
We've no chance. If you aren't powerful or rich enough to hire help, you are dog food to them. The end result is a *very* compliant citizenry. Which is apparent in every way.
A gasoline engine is horrendously inefficient. Only about 30% of the energy from burning the dead dinos is converted to motion - the rest is waste heat.
Electric motors, much more efficient. What you lose at the power plant you get back in miles per erg, polution-wise.
And if we had gone to nuclear plants or wind or solar, there'd be NO pollution from driving electric cars. We made the choice for coal, because it was easy, and because we fallaciously believe that a nuke plant disaster is worse than pounding trillions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. Also a little deal with free market ideological nuttery, which believes new tech should pay its own way and old tech somehow isn't massively subsidized (free land, tax gifts, wars to get the land).
A "he-said-she-said pissing contest"? If he hadn't fought back, it would now be common understanding that the Tesla was a piece of shit that died on a NYT reporter. It's STILL common understanding that somehow a Tesla failed on Top Gear. Perception is absolutely reality. He had to hit back brutally and immediately, or Tesla would have been Apteraed.
To be fair, the "NYT" didn't lie - Broder did. The NYT backed up one of their journalists. Which they should! You don't throw your soldiers out into the enemies tender mercies, just 'cause. But if Broder lied - or was confused - then he has lost their protection, one would think. Let's see how this plays out. Reportorial lying is not well received at any paper.
The "grey area" is that there are not enough decent jobs. Paging the Ayn Randites and the Free Traders: you've made a mess. No more factories, no more office jobs, outsourced, centralized, only cheap youth wanted, and low wages with no insurance. Victory.
Also, women can fail to find work because they've been convicted of, say, marijuana possession and no longer can get student loans, or get a job because they are former felons. Hell, you can't even enter Canada if you've been convicted of a pot crime. We've new corporate services that do nothing by track your criminal and financial history and provide reports to our new lords. You get a bad score, you don't exist. How many millions of people can't get a good job because of our new data lords? In the old days, you could move out of state and try to start over. No more. No where in the world to start over.
When we sold Russia out from under its citizens in the early Nineties, half the population lost their jobs and now lives in perpetual poverty. The single greatest supplier of young desperate, cheap, porn actresses in the world, all from Shock Doctrineing the Soviet Union into hell.
You want a better world? Start taxing rich people, pass laws to create jobs, and re-create the middle classes. They need jobs, good paying jobs.
The Bible Belt is the best place (worst?) to find strip clubs and brothels. Jesus wants him sum hookers, apparently.
The harder you squeeze down on human sexuality, the worse the twisted mentalities the prohibition spawns. Victorian England invented bondage and whipping because, not in spite of, its incessant antisexuality. Lock human sexuality in the dark, and watch the monsters come out.
Let's try this: stop trying to control people. Let women pose nude if they want to. Let men pay to look if they like. Let them take whatever drugs they like, as long as they don't hurt anyone else and can pay their own medical bills. Stop inventing new and more insane way reasons to break people's doors in and shoot their dogs.
To those who would make us better:
Stop trying to FIX us. Fix yourselves, you repressed little wankers... the people most consumed with porn and kiddie porn always have the biggest collections. Self-loathing weasels, trying to vent their guilty consciences on others, punishing them instead of themselves.
You can't FIX people. People are people. The scariest monsters in history are the effete sociological masters, self-styled, who set out to fix the human race.
Yup. GPS data logs from your cell phone, which can be used against you in a court of law, can be faked. Computers running elections can be easily hacked to fake votes, and the logs won't lie, cause if you own the machine you own the logs. fMRIs that say you're lying can be rigged.
Your car will be mandated to have GPS and internal trackers just like the Tesla, by either Federal law or by insurance company fiat, so, if log faking is possible - and it is - anyone can be framed, and there ain't a damned thing the framee can do about it. Hence my hatred of tracking systems - everyone assumes computers don't lie. They can; one of my jobs as a programmer at my old company was to make us more money by making our computers lie to our customers. If your are inside the box, you are god.
If it has a computer, it can be rigged. Says I.
However. The Tesla S has never shown itself to fail under long distance tests such as this one. This car also was a media loaner, so the previous journalists would have noticed as well. The cars do have the range to do the job - if a disaster doesn't happen. It wasn't that cold - 27 F is not cold in the north, so batteries would not be that affected as the driver claimed. If it were twenty below, I'd look again.
There would be no advantage to faking the logs. Broder would indignantly point out the fraud, and we'd be back to square one; he hasn't yet. I imagine he's racking his brain to see a discrepancy between his report and the logs. If Tesla faked the logs, they are done. It's a lousy binary choice, admitting failure and eating crow, or lying and losing your company. Esp. if you don't have to; the cohort of Tesla models S on the road show no signs of what Broder claims is their range failure, so I'd go with the machine.
Perhaps the GPS tracking was done at the company's site as well as on the car's own tracking system. If the two match, likely the log is real. If it was further tracked by, say, Lojack or similar, we'd have a third data trail and lock it as true. GPS track would give us speed and acceleration. I notice Broder doesn't deny speeding, only saying that speeding is normal and should be expected.
Again - why lie and fake the logs? The result would be a disaster. And would grind the gears of every engineer in the company - engineers HATE fake data. Fake engineering, and the world melts into hell. Better to eat dirt and fix the car.
The Socialist Worker's Weekly is leftist. The NYT is just not ideologically rightwing. There is a difference. All the difference. "Left" does not mean "not-Fox-News".
The oil companies are subsidized by US taxpayers to the total of 20 BILLion dollars a year.
Give that twenty billion to electric battery producers to subsidize their costs, and you'll see $19,0000 cars that get 500 miles per charge. It's all a matter of what we think is a "subsidy".
Oil powered cars are subsidized by direct payouts to oil companies for drilling. We don't charge oil companies for the direct damage they do to the planet; that's "external" cost, not slapped on the price of your car. The cost of global warming will be hundreds of trillions. Your car company will not have to pay that. We have gone to war in Kuwait, Iraq, and soon Iran and Africa to secure oil fields, at the cost of trillions; that cost, for decades to come, is carried by taxpayers, and never charged on the pump or in the cost of your car.
A tiny sliver of those trillions would put all of us in electric cars in five years, paying a penny a mile for electricity.
Top Gear implicitly presents themselves as reviewers. They never state, unless they are being sued, that they are faking. In the Tesla case, they admitted the shot of the Tesla towed with dead batteries was a fake. They had scripted the battery failure. Their excuse? It's just a TV show, duh.
They weren't found "innocent". The judge said his court wasn't there to judge truthfulness, only liability for financial damage and a case for libel. He found the show non-libelous, and he, somehow, determined Tesla took no monetary damage from the show.
I don't watch Top Gear. I don't understand the purpose of faked reviews. People do take it seriously.
The NYT writer lied. It's over for that story. But the damage is done.
He was told to do certain things. Instead, he: -Turned the heat up. -Speeded, consistently. Over 80 mph at some point. -Didn't stay at the supercharger long enough, almost every time - and lied about it. -Pulled away for 60+ mile trip even though he knew it only had a charge for less than 40 miles left. -Circled a supercharger station, for some reason. -Lied about the car going dead. It did not.
Tesla Driving Logs Contradict New York Times Claims
Data released by Tesla Motors late Wednesday night directly contradicts a damning review of the automakerâ(TM)s Model S sedan by the New York Times.
The data, pulled directly from the electric sedanâ(TM)s on-board computer, claims that New York Times reporter John M. Broder never ran out of energy during his extended drive of the Model S, despite his account to the contrary....
You have no data on reliability comparisons. This Tesla just came out.
And electric cars should have significant reliability advantages over petrol engined cars. No oil. No moving parts. No dirt. Sealed compartments. Solid state components.
Now if we could simplify the thing. I don't need power sunflower seed crackers. I need a basic runabout.
"So, nobody can read NYT's article (without registering/logging in), but everyone can read Musk's rebuttal. That's going to make the debate fairly one-sided in the public's mind."
And who's fault would that be, Mr. Murdoch?
And as for damage, Tesla's stock price dropped five dollars, from what I hear. Who reads the NYT? Stockbrokers and finance people do.
Tesla got a copy of the script for Top Gear - written before they drove the car - and it had pre-planned a battery disaster. That was the major beef - it was a fix, a fraud. (Top Gear is not a auto review show - it is entertaiment) I think that on trial the matter of the fake-drained script simply wasn't considered. The judge simply ruled that the TV show was a known bender of facts and that the show, even doctored as it was, didn't hurt Tesla - no libel, no financial harm. He simply ruled that the audience knew it was fake, more or less.
Of course, Top Gear admitted the car they pushed wasn't out of batteries but that it was done for effect and that it is completely true that the car would have run out at 55 miles of track time. Producer Andy Wilman defended their actions by basically saying "Duh, it's a television show" and accusing Tesla of trying to use them for press.
As Mike posted in November, however, it was looking unlikely that Tesla could actually prove that any substantial harm had been done, and indeed that's how it ended up, with the judge throwing out the lawsuit arguing that TV viewers are savvy enough to know that not all is as it seems. Jalopnik has a pretty decent summary of the rejection of the Tesla lawsuit (complete with gloating Top Gear fans in the comments):
The judge today dismissed this as unreasonable as motorists are aware that cars will perform different under different conditions, such as being on a racing track.
Justice Tugendhat also made mention that what Tesla appears to want is a legal ruling saying Top Gear is a bunch of lying liars who lie, but that "rectification of inaccuracies is not a function of the courts unless that can be achieved in the course of proceedings properly brought to enforce a recognized course of action."
Of course what is legal, and what is moral, are not always the same thing. And the Top Gear script writers and presenters had made up their minds to highlight the shortcomings of the vehicle, even before they got their hands on the thing....
Slashdot Mirror
Easier to deliver a bomb on a U-Haul. We need to let the Sixties go. Da Missiles aren't the big threat every was told to fear, never were. Bombs are small. You can put them anywhere. Don't need Rocket Boy to deliver them.
The world didn't die by fire because the world isn't suicidal. And frankly, only the US was determined to end all life on Earth, to insure Karl Marx would never win. Death before decapitalization, I guess.
Government spending is bad, unless of course you are mounting infrared lasers on Navy ships to shoot down Zeroes. Banzai!
Austerity my tired buttocks. They just don't like that, what was it, 48%. Spending is good when you fund jobs programs that make layzers.
Next up: lasers on planes, which will make targeted assassinations done so much more quietly.
But they kinda do make such jokes. They don't do it when you're around. If you managed to overhear it, you'd be amused and shocked, "uncomfortable", I guess.
I think, extrapolating from Richards' definition of racism, which is that only the historically powerful can be racist (white can be, black cannot be), then she doesn't believe, generally, that women can be sexist. So she can make socks-down-the-pants jokes, and have no moral qualms about making you uncomfortable. By definition, she can pretty much say what she likes; you, as a man, cannot.
I think that we've come a LONG way from, say, the atmosphere of the fifties, when men were pigs and proud of it. Consideration is now part of our modern complete breakfast.
But. At some point, being "uncomfortable" become a passive-aggressive way of acquiring iron-fisted power over others. In this case, she misheard and over-reacted to others making much the same kind of joke she herself has tweeted. If she has tweeted such, she has spoken such, so she is no stranger to silly off-color humor. So the issue, again, is who has the power here - she does.
Another issue is the atmosphere of watch what you say, watch what you do which is, frankly, VERY uncomfortable to live with. It casts a pall, not because you can't make dongle jokes, but because, today the dongle joke, tomorrow the fill-in-whatever-someone-wants-censored. The function, once written, can be supplied any argument. Power over speech, over action, should be limited, not open-ended. She ended, or tried to end, the jobs, perhaps the careers, of two men. And she managed one. And unintentionally ended her own job. Why - perhaps because she misapplied her power in the workplace.
One might wonder why I go on about surveillance in other posts, and this is one illustration why - in a world where a camera and mic can be anywhere, you are in a prison, no matter what comfy chairs there might be there. Privacy of some sort, even if it is just for talking with someone sitting next to you, is essential for a civil society - living in fear of sudden discovery and loss of career is no way for a human to live. Humans who must live like that are pretty much prisoners.
Eh, 'nuff.
Copyright violations were made criminal felonies over a decade ago. That battle was lost when almost no one was looking.
Then EVERYthing and ANYthing you do may and perhaps almost certainly will get you into trouble. Just being in a cop's presence, and catching his eye, can destroy your life. Cameras and recordings don't help; those are evidence and will be confiscated and turned over to the police and prosecutors. Or the camera will simply be yanked and destroyed at the scene, along with the box it is connected to. If not that, then if anything in those recordings is adverse to the prosecutors' case, and if they have a vested interest in hurting you, that evidence will be destroyed or lost. I've seen it happen.
We've no chance. If you aren't powerful or rich enough to hire help, you are dog food to them. The end result is a *very* compliant citizenry. Which is apparent in every way.
A gasoline engine is horrendously inefficient. Only about 30% of the energy from burning the dead dinos is converted to motion - the rest is waste heat.
Electric motors, much more efficient. What you lose at the power plant you get back in miles per erg, polution-wise.
And if we had gone to nuclear plants or wind or solar, there'd be NO pollution from driving electric cars. We made the choice for coal, because it was easy, and because we fallaciously believe that a nuke plant disaster is worse than pounding trillions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. Also a little deal with free market ideological nuttery, which believes new tech should pay its own way and old tech somehow isn't massively subsidized (free land, tax gifts, wars to get the land).
Yes, he did. It was ten degrees warmer.
No. A thing happened, or it did not. Reality is not "in the middle".
A "he-said-she-said pissing contest"? If he hadn't fought back, it would now be common understanding that the Tesla was a piece of shit that died on a NYT reporter. It's STILL common understanding that somehow a Tesla failed on Top Gear. Perception is absolutely reality. He had to hit back brutally and immediately, or Tesla would have been Apteraed.
To be fair, the "NYT" didn't lie - Broder did. The NYT backed up one of their journalists. Which they should! You don't throw your soldiers out into the enemies tender mercies, just 'cause. But if Broder lied - or was confused - then he has lost their protection, one would think. Let's see how this plays out. Reportorial lying is not well received at any paper.
The "grey area" is that there are not enough decent jobs. Paging the Ayn Randites and the Free Traders: you've made a mess. No more factories, no more office jobs, outsourced, centralized, only cheap youth wanted, and low wages with no insurance. Victory.
Also, women can fail to find work because they've been convicted of, say, marijuana possession and no longer can get student loans, or get a job because they are former felons. Hell, you can't even enter Canada if you've been convicted of a pot crime. We've new corporate services that do nothing by track your criminal and financial history and provide reports to our new lords. You get a bad score, you don't exist. How many millions of people can't get a good job because of our new data lords? In the old days, you could move out of state and try to start over. No more. No where in the world to start over.
When we sold Russia out from under its citizens in the early Nineties, half the population lost their jobs and now lives in perpetual poverty. The single greatest supplier of young desperate, cheap, porn actresses in the world, all from Shock Doctrineing the Soviet Union into hell.
You want a better world? Start taxing rich people, pass laws to create jobs, and re-create the middle classes. They need jobs, good paying jobs.
The Bible Belt is the best place (worst?) to find strip clubs and brothels. Jesus wants him sum hookers, apparently.
The harder you squeeze down on human sexuality, the worse the twisted mentalities the prohibition spawns. Victorian England invented bondage and whipping because, not in spite of, its incessant antisexuality. Lock human sexuality in the dark, and watch the monsters come out.
Let's try this: stop trying to control people. Let women pose nude if they want to. Let men pay to look if they like. Let them take whatever drugs they like, as long as they don't hurt anyone else and can pay their own medical bills. Stop inventing new and more insane way reasons to break people's doors in and shoot their dogs.
To those who would make us better:
Stop trying to FIX us. Fix yourselves, you repressed little wankers... the people most consumed with porn and kiddie porn always have the biggest collections. Self-loathing weasels, trying to vent their guilty consciences on others, punishing them instead of themselves.
You can't FIX people. People are people. The scariest monsters in history are the effete sociological masters, self-styled, who set out to fix the human race.
Yup. GPS data logs from your cell phone, which can be used against you in a court of law, can be faked. Computers running elections can be easily hacked to fake votes, and the logs won't lie, cause if you own the machine you own the logs. fMRIs that say you're lying can be rigged.
Your car will be mandated to have GPS and internal trackers just like the Tesla, by either Federal law or by insurance company fiat, so, if log faking is possible - and it is - anyone can be framed, and there ain't a damned thing the framee can do about it. Hence my hatred of tracking systems - everyone assumes computers don't lie. They can; one of my jobs as a programmer at my old company was to make us more money by making our computers lie to our customers. If your are inside the box, you are god.
If it has a computer, it can be rigged. Says I.
However. The Tesla S has never shown itself to fail under long distance tests such as this one. This car also was a media loaner, so the previous journalists would have noticed as well. The cars do have the range to do the job - if a disaster doesn't happen. It wasn't that cold - 27 F is not cold in the north, so batteries would not be that affected as the driver claimed. If it were twenty below, I'd look again.
There would be no advantage to faking the logs. Broder would indignantly point out the fraud, and we'd be back to square one; he hasn't yet. I imagine he's racking his brain to see a discrepancy between his report and the logs. If Tesla faked the logs, they are done. It's a lousy binary choice, admitting failure and eating crow, or lying and losing your company. Esp. if you don't have to; the cohort of Tesla models S on the road show no signs of what Broder claims is their range failure, so I'd go with the machine.
Perhaps the GPS tracking was done at the company's site as well as on the car's own tracking system. If the two match, likely the log is real. If it was further tracked by, say, Lojack or similar, we'd have a third data trail and lock it as true. GPS track would give us speed and acceleration. I notice Broder doesn't deny speeding, only saying that speeding is normal and should be expected.
Again - why lie and fake the logs? The result would be a disaster. And would grind the gears of every engineer in the company - engineers HATE fake data. Fake engineering, and the world melts into hell. Better to eat dirt and fix the car.
Murdoch owns the New York Times.
The Socialist Worker's Weekly is leftist. The NYT is just not ideologically rightwing. There is a difference. All the difference. "Left" does not mean "not-Fox-News".
The oil companies are subsidized by US taxpayers to the total of 20 BILLion dollars a year.
Give that twenty billion to electric battery producers to subsidize their costs, and you'll see $19,0000 cars that get 500 miles per charge. It's all a matter of what we think is a "subsidy".
Oil powered cars are subsidized by direct payouts to oil companies for drilling. We don't charge oil companies for the direct damage they do to the planet; that's "external" cost, not slapped on the price of your car. The cost of global warming will be hundreds of trillions. Your car company will not have to pay that. We have gone to war in Kuwait, Iraq, and soon Iran and Africa to secure oil fields, at the cost of trillions; that cost, for decades to come, is carried by taxpayers, and never charged on the pump or in the cost of your car.
A tiny sliver of those trillions would put all of us in electric cars in five years, paying a penny a mile for electricity.
They never mention that they are fakes during the shows. The reviews are presented as reviews. Entertainment is not an excuse for outright lying.
Do not attempt to lie to Tony Stark. He will come and have a chat with you.
And do you remember what the OTHER cars were like in 1971? The Vega well could have been the best of the lot.
Yes, because John Broder is an anti-green liberal hippy. Sure.
Your argument is so free from reality that I can see soap bubbles coming from your ears.
Top Gear implicitly presents themselves as reviewers. They never state, unless they are being sued, that they are faking. In the Tesla case, they admitted the shot of the Tesla towed with dead batteries was a fake. They had scripted the battery failure. Their excuse? It's just a TV show, duh.
They weren't found "innocent". The judge said his court wasn't there to judge truthfulness, only liability for financial damage and a case for libel. He found the show non-libelous, and he, somehow, determined Tesla took no monetary damage from the show.
I don't watch Top Gear. I don't understand the purpose of faked reviews. People do take it seriously.
The NYT needs suing. Now.
He doesn't like electric cars. He's written extensively on his dislike. No need for conspiracy. He just tanked the test.
The NYT writer lied. It's over for that story. But the damage is done.
He was told to do certain things. Instead, he:
-Turned the heat up.
-Speeded, consistently. Over 80 mph at some point.
-Didn't stay at the supercharger long enough, almost every time - and lied about it.
-Pulled away for 60+ mile trip even though he knew it only had a charge for less than 40 miles left.
-Circled a supercharger station, for some reason.
-Lied about the car going dead. It did not.
Broder should lose his job. Read it, please!
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/02/tesla-logs-nytimes/
Tesla Driving Logs Contradict New York Times Claims
You have no data on reliability comparisons. This Tesla just came out.
And electric cars should have significant reliability advantages over petrol engined cars. No oil. No moving parts. No dirt. Sealed compartments. Solid state components.
Now if we could simplify the thing. I don't need power sunflower seed crackers. I need a basic runabout.
"So, nobody can read NYT's article (without registering/logging in), but everyone can read Musk's rebuttal. That's going to make the debate fairly one-sided in the public's mind."
And who's fault would that be, Mr. Murdoch?
And as for damage, Tesla's stock price dropped five dollars, from what I hear. Who reads the NYT? Stockbrokers and finance people do.
Tesla got a copy of the script for Top Gear - written before they drove the car - and it had pre-planned a battery disaster. That was the major beef - it was a fix, a fraud. (Top Gear is not a auto review show - it is entertaiment) I think that on trial the matter of the fake-drained script simply wasn't considered. The judge simply ruled that the TV show was a known bender of facts and that the show, even doctored as it was, didn't hurt Tesla - no libel, no financial harm. He simply ruled that the audience knew it was fake, more or less.
And here's Jalopnik: http://goo.gl/AdRdN
From Treehugger: http://goo.gl/ILrHB