Not, dealers don't charge you for recalls - ever. That's why they're recalls. They charge the manufacturer, and usually make a bit of money in the process. Some things they won't fix unless you complain, but there's a list of things they'll fix the next time they see your car, if it needs them (because they're fast and the dealer makes a little money doing them). There's often a non-descriptive line buried in the invoice somewhere that lists some recall numbers or just mentions them obliquely, with no charge associated, so most people never notice.
How much this varies by brand, I don't know, but certainly the luxury dealers do this, and for safety-related recall everyone does (for the safety ones you'll probably get a postcard about the recall, but the dealer will still just do it automatically). It's not like they hide all this, they just don't call attention to it.
Complaining about Whole Foods' prices is like complaining about the price of a Mercedes S-class.
Except that an S-class is actually good, while Whole Foods is explicitly a sort of scam designed by a conservative to separate foolish hippies from their money (this isn't a secret or anything). While WF didn't invent the "call it organic and charge twice as much" idea, they sure did capitalize on it.
They've really nailed the presentation of goods to fool hippies (well, more accurately, middle-class, middle-aged people who still think hippies are cool) into paying more for food. The model doesn't work so well for young hipsters though, which is why the corporation is creating a new chain of stores just to have a different presentation to target hipster suckers separately.
At some point, the freeway system will go autonomous only with no set speed limit. That will be the day the last non-autonomous, non-just-for-fun car gets sold.
You live in a city, don't you. And anyhow:
I strip away the old debris that hides a shining car A brilliant red Barchetta from a better vanished time I fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime
Wind in my hair Shifting and drifting Mechanical music Adrenaline surge
Most cars get "automatic updates" from the dealer whenever you bring it into service. There's usually a long list of non-critical recalls that neither the manufacturer nor he dealer is keen to tell you about, but if you get service at the dealer all the fixes will be quietly applied. More and more, these are firmware patches.
So, to answer your question "so commonly that most people never realize there was an update". Tesla is somewhat unique in adding new features this way, but fixes are quite common.
They can potentially be powered by unicorn giggles, but there's still a lot of coal power in the US, and coal-powered cars aren't great by any measure. Worse, the only "renewable" (what a BS buzzword) power that scales is solar, and that's a poor choice for the mostly-nighttime load of charging cars.
There's no energy shortage in the first place to be worried about: the only good reason to buy an electric car is if it's a better car for the price. The Tesla Model S still isn't really, at the price, unless you're buying for 0-60 times (which I might well do), but for the first time it's close. The real test will be the Model 3 - potentially revolutionary, but so are a lot of things you can't actually buy.
No i am thinking of a warp drive. The Alcubierre drive or space time metric in particular. It the sort of metrics that lead to closed timelike space curvature or whatever (its been a while), ie time travel. In all these cases various things are not conserved that are wildly held to be conserved, requires negative energy etc.
Ah, sure, lots of things are called "warp drives" I guess. Yeah, that sort of drive seems wildly impractical for all sorts or reasons.
What I'm talking about is somewhat different: it's an asymmetric warping of spacetime in just the same (smooth and continuous) way that all mass distorts spacetime symmetrically, such that you "fall" in some chose direction. It doesn't require the same exotic material as a wormhole, but I think it requires soemthing equally exotic (it's been a while, but I vaguely remember there are 2 different kinds of negative mass).
Sure math can be predictive. But that leads you in the direction of a experiment, it is the experiment that matters.
No argument there. But if someone were really demonstrating a drive with unexpected properties, not just stage magic, that's an experiment worth repeating.
In otherwords we design the math to fit the universe we live in.
We do, but then we see what else that math predicts. Most of the really crazy-non-intuitive stuff in QM has come from very unexpected consequences of the math that later proved out in experiment.
Heck, the whole crazy idea that the universe once had an additional field that certain particles couple with, preventing change in spin polarity without energy input, but then that field "condensed:, and now those same particles can spontaneously change spin - that's all just seeing where the math led. Until the Higgs Boson was found, a big chunk of electroweak theory hadn't been directly confirmed by experiment.
This is why there are different states! Intelligent people can disagree on such issues - go live in a state whose laws you agree with. Trying to force your personal idea of what's rght on everyone everywhere is totalitarianism (with a large dose of intellectual arrogance).
IR seekers are really easy to make and it's a fun robotics project. Simple to do with analog controls even (the principle is so easy it was highly classified for years). Launch your rocket into the Sun every time.
Tracking a specific target instead of the brightest heat source is much, much harder, but if the drone is the only dark spot in the field of view of the camera, that should be do-able. Fun to try, anyhow.
Also you need negative mass, which doesn't exist even theoretically, oh and more mass energy than the entire universe
Are you thinking of a wormhole, not a warp drive? I'm not talking about a Star Trek FTL drive, but instead a device that warps space, just like gravity does, but asymmetrically. I don't believe it's possible either, but it's still allowed by accepted physics, and it wouldn't require lots of mass.
I don't think we'll know enough about this concept, or about negative mass, to rule them out until we finally understand how mass is quantized, or, rather, where rest mass comes from in the first place. Maybe when quantum gravity is finally understood there will finally be an explanation for rest mass, but maybe it's even further down the road.
Heck, we can't even measure the rest masses of quarks accurately -- not even one significant digit in some cases -- let along explain the values There's lots of physics left to be done there.
Just because i write down math does not make it a valid prediction.
The math of modern physics has been shockingly predictive. All sorts of crazy shit has turned out to be true - so much so that people believed in String Theory for 20 years with no evidence whatsoever (and some still cling to that belief). Those people aren't stupid: "following the math" has a really good track record. It's best to keep an open mind until we get better theories.
I have a strong aversion to XOR hacks (and bithacks in general) because of the freaking crazy precedence the operator has in C/C++. Fine for well-reviewed library code, but I cringe when I see it used offhandedly for terseness.
// If foo is green, handle the green case if (foo & COLOR_BITS == GREEN) {... }
Eesh - that can be a frustrating bug at 3AM when you don't see the problem reading through the code, and it's working fine for some cases.
Of course, if you're only using ^ on Boolean values, then fine, I'm with you. I've never seen anyone do
if (GREEN == foo ^ RED == bar) {... }
like that without parens, but at least it would do the expected thing.
Strangely enough, I do in fact have toilets and breaks at work, and I don't have mafia thugs stealing a portion of every paycheck. This isn't the 1800s, and a union has no place among professionals.
It can work if you do it right (the gravitational attraction of the shell drags the star along). But you don't need a high-temp shell for that, you need a whacking great mirror.
Refusing to allow a specific speaker is pure content-based censorship. You could argue that allowing a wanted fugitive to appear in person was a public safety issue, not content-based, but of course that's not what happened here.
Remember, the government usually has some wonderful-sounding reason for censorship - their stated intentions count for nothing, it's the result of the action that matters.
that's because Gamergate wasn't about ethics in game journalism, hilarious memes be damned. it was PRECISELY about white men continuing to be gatekeepers against gaming opening up to other people, including women.
People actually believe this? Really? Game companies just want money. Gamers just want fun games. The only corner of "gaming" where misogyny can be found is Call of Duty and a handful of similar games where the player base is predominately teenage boys. That's a very small part of gaming these days.
"Gaming" is not the small "first person shooters played on consoles" games market: it's Plants v Zombies, and Candy Crush, and Angry Birds, and MMOs, and Necrodancer, and a million rogue-lite single-player games (and far too many shitty Unity-engine games and visual novels). Last time I saw the stats, the median gamer was around 30, and most game-buyers were female, and the game companies certainly know the stats.
I've been a software dev for that long, and I've never seen an idea rejected because a woman proposed it (and I've worked in some extremely shitty places with overt racial discrimination).
You say you work "in tech"? Where? IT? Dev? Ops? Is it a regional thing?
I hear terrible things about misogyny in Ruby on Rails dev jobs, but not yet a firsthand account.
Can you share some examples or details to make your point? At least what industry and region?
Also any zero propellent drive is also an over unity device. Easy to prove.
If such a thing has actually been discovered, the very likely result is that it's neither "zero propellent" nor over unity, but instead has something being emitted that we don't understand.
For example, one could imagine an engine that seemed to have no propellant, but was in fact creating and emitting dark matter. On the lab bench it would be consuming energy that would be going somewhere mysterious (e.g., not heating up enough for the energy inputs), generating measurable thrust, and having no measurable propellent. Obviously that's not what's going on here, but something like that (emitting a propellent we don't know how to measure) would be the only rational explanation for any such device.
It's also theoretically possible to have a "warp" drive that produced thrust without propellent by altering the local spacetime metric. But this would not be "over unity", would be quite obvious as it would be turning local space into a lens, and likely isn't actually possible, for all that the math allows it, as you'd think we'd have seen evidence of it by now.
I guess "negative mass" drives also aren't ruled out yet, which also would have no propellent and while they are perpetual motion machines, they aren't "over unity" due to a technicality. Negative mass seems even less likely to be actually possible, despite the math allowing it, given the lack of evidence of its existence.
Particles with mass move slower than the speed of light, experience the passage of time, and can thus change state (e.g. decay). Mass-less particles move at the speed of light (when in a vacuum), do not experience the passage of time, and thus cannot change state. Photons are clearly the latter.
Oddly enough, whether a kind of particle has mass can change over time, and it's thought that all particles were massless in the very early universe. The reason the Higgs Boson discovery was exciting was that it confirmed the idea of a particle changing from mass-less to massive in the early universe (the Higgs Boson itself is pretty dull).
Conservation of momentum is more than "new physics". It's quite fundamental, thanks to Noether's Theorem: conservation of momentum is mathematically equivalent to "the laws of physics don't vary with spatial coordinates", that is, the X, Y, and Z axes can be "zeroed" anywhere, the choice of coordinates are arbitrary as long as their consistent. The universe would be a very strange place indeed if this weren't true, and furthermore we'd have noticed by now.
So, whatever's going on here, momentum is being conserved. Just how that's happening is the curious bit. It wasn't obvious until the early 1900s that light had momentum - maybe there's something else we're missing, or maybe this really is an actual "warp" drive that locally changes the metric of space (in a way different from GR) and momentum really isn't conserved. Somehow I doubt the latter is true.
Photons have momentum, but they don't have mass. You don't technically need mass, just conservation of momentum. The key is that the thrust produced that way is very small indeed, and that's apparently not the mechanism of this drive.
Sure, and had he appeared in person, your argument might make sense as the arrest of a fugitive might endanger others. But that's not what happened here: this was the city simply censoring content it disapproved of.
That's sort-of true. The government can regulate commerce in a way that it can't regulate speech. Obscenity laws, for example, can be constitutional if they prohibit selling specific content, as it's not the content that's illegal, it's the business practice. Even that is narrow, though, and can't apply to political speech. Clearly that's not what happened here -- the cops were just being dicks, are they usually are -- but you are more restricted when doing business than when simply speaking.
If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship. The exceptions in the US are few and narrow, and don't seem to apply here.
Slashdot Mirror
Not, dealers don't charge you for recalls - ever. That's why they're recalls. They charge the manufacturer, and usually make a bit of money in the process. Some things they won't fix unless you complain, but there's a list of things they'll fix the next time they see your car, if it needs them (because they're fast and the dealer makes a little money doing them). There's often a non-descriptive line buried in the invoice somewhere that lists some recall numbers or just mentions them obliquely, with no charge associated, so most people never notice.
How much this varies by brand, I don't know, but certainly the luxury dealers do this, and for safety-related recall everyone does (for the safety ones you'll probably get a postcard about the recall, but the dealer will still just do it automatically). It's not like they hide all this, they just don't call attention to it.
Complaining about Whole Foods' prices is like complaining about the price of a Mercedes S-class.
Except that an S-class is actually good, while Whole Foods is explicitly a sort of scam designed by a conservative to separate foolish hippies from their money (this isn't a secret or anything). While WF didn't invent the "call it organic and charge twice as much" idea, they sure did capitalize on it.
They've really nailed the presentation of goods to fool hippies (well, more accurately, middle-class, middle-aged people who still think hippies are cool) into paying more for food. The model doesn't work so well for young hipsters though, which is why the corporation is creating a new chain of stores just to have a different presentation to target hipster suckers separately.
At some point, the freeway system will go autonomous only with no set speed limit. That will be the day the last non-autonomous, non-just-for-fun car gets sold.
You live in a city, don't you. And anyhow:
I strip away the old debris that hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta from a better vanished time
I fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime
Wind in my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge
Most cars get "automatic updates" from the dealer whenever you bring it into service. There's usually a long list of non-critical recalls that neither the manufacturer nor he dealer is keen to tell you about, but if you get service at the dealer all the fixes will be quietly applied. More and more, these are firmware patches.
So, to answer your question "so commonly that most people never realize there was an update". Tesla is somewhat unique in adding new features this way, but fixes are quite common.
They can potentially be powered by unicorn giggles, but there's still a lot of coal power in the US, and coal-powered cars aren't great by any measure. Worse, the only "renewable" (what a BS buzzword) power that scales is solar, and that's a poor choice for the mostly-nighttime load of charging cars.
There's no energy shortage in the first place to be worried about: the only good reason to buy an electric car is if it's a better car for the price. The Tesla Model S still isn't really, at the price, unless you're buying for 0-60 times (which I might well do), but for the first time it's close. The real test will be the Model 3 - potentially revolutionary, but so are a lot of things you can't actually buy.
No i am thinking of a warp drive. The Alcubierre drive or space time metric in particular. It the sort of metrics that lead to closed timelike space curvature or whatever (its been a while), ie time travel. In all these cases various things are not conserved that are wildly held to be conserved, requires negative energy etc.
Ah, sure, lots of things are called "warp drives" I guess. Yeah, that sort of drive seems wildly impractical for all sorts or reasons.
What I'm talking about is somewhat different: it's an asymmetric warping of spacetime in just the same (smooth and continuous) way that all mass distorts spacetime symmetrically, such that you "fall" in some chose direction. It doesn't require the same exotic material as a wormhole, but I think it requires soemthing equally exotic (it's been a while, but I vaguely remember there are 2 different kinds of negative mass).
Sure math can be predictive. But that leads you in the direction of a experiment, it is the experiment that matters.
No argument there. But if someone were really demonstrating a drive with unexpected properties, not just stage magic, that's an experiment worth repeating.
In otherwords we design the math to fit the universe we live in.
We do, but then we see what else that math predicts. Most of the really crazy-non-intuitive stuff in QM has come from very unexpected consequences of the math that later proved out in experiment.
Heck, the whole crazy idea that the universe once had an additional field that certain particles couple with, preventing change in spin polarity without energy input, but then that field "condensed:, and now those same particles can spontaneously change spin - that's all just seeing where the math led. Until the Higgs Boson was found, a big chunk of electroweak theory hadn't been directly confirmed by experiment.
Wait, what's this slope I'm sliding down? Where did this come from? It sure is slippery!
Oddly enough, I've always been able to hear my SSDs (of various brands) when they were accessed, at least in a quiet room. I've always wondered why.
This is why there are different states! Intelligent people can disagree on such issues - go live in a state whose laws you agree with. Trying to force your personal idea of what's rght on everyone everywhere is totalitarianism (with a large dose of intellectual arrogance).
IR seekers are really easy to make and it's a fun robotics project. Simple to do with analog controls even (the principle is so easy it was highly classified for years). Launch your rocket into the Sun every time.
Tracking a specific target instead of the brightest heat source is much, much harder, but if the drone is the only dark spot in the field of view of the camera, that should be do-able. Fun to try, anyhow.
Also you need negative mass, which doesn't exist even theoretically, oh and more mass energy than the entire universe
Are you thinking of a wormhole, not a warp drive? I'm not talking about a Star Trek FTL drive, but instead a device that warps space, just like gravity does, but asymmetrically. I don't believe it's possible either, but it's still allowed by accepted physics, and it wouldn't require lots of mass.
I don't think we'll know enough about this concept, or about negative mass, to rule them out until we finally understand how mass is quantized, or, rather, where rest mass comes from in the first place. Maybe when quantum gravity is finally understood there will finally be an explanation for rest mass, but maybe it's even further down the road.
Heck, we can't even measure the rest masses of quarks accurately -- not even one significant digit in some cases -- let along explain the values There's lots of physics left to be done there.
Just because i write down math does not make it a valid prediction.
The math of modern physics has been shockingly predictive. All sorts of crazy shit has turned out to be true - so much so that people believed in String Theory for 20 years with no evidence whatsoever (and some still cling to that belief). Those people aren't stupid: "following the math" has a really good track record. It's best to keep an open mind until we get better theories.
You realize it was the church, not the unions, that prevented the 7-day workweek for most of Western history, right?
I have a strong aversion to XOR hacks (and bithacks in general) because of the freaking crazy precedence the operator has in C/C++. Fine for well-reviewed library code, but I cringe when I see it used offhandedly for terseness.
if (foo & COLOR_BITS == GREEN) {
Eesh - that can be a frustrating bug at 3AM when you don't see the problem reading through the code, and it's working fine for some cases.
Of course, if you're only using ^ on Boolean values, then fine, I'm with you. I've never seen anyone do
if (GREEN == foo ^ RED == bar) { ... }
like that without parens, but at least it would do the expected thing.
Strangely enough, I do in fact have toilets and breaks at work, and I don't have mafia thugs stealing a portion of every paycheck. This isn't the 1800s, and a union has no place among professionals.
It can work if you do it right (the gravitational attraction of the shell drags the star along). But you don't need a high-temp shell for that, you need a whacking great mirror.
Refusing to allow a specific speaker is pure content-based censorship. You could argue that allowing a wanted fugitive to appear in person was a public safety issue, not content-based, but of course that's not what happened here.
Remember, the government usually has some wonderful-sounding reason for censorship - their stated intentions count for nothing, it's the result of the action that matters.
that's because Gamergate wasn't about ethics in game journalism, hilarious memes be damned. it was PRECISELY about white men continuing to be gatekeepers against gaming opening up to other people, including women.
People actually believe this? Really? Game companies just want money. Gamers just want fun games. The only corner of "gaming" where misogyny can be found is Call of Duty and a handful of similar games where the player base is predominately teenage boys. That's a very small part of gaming these days.
"Gaming" is not the small "first person shooters played on consoles" games market: it's Plants v Zombies, and Candy Crush, and Angry Birds, and MMOs, and Necrodancer, and a million rogue-lite single-player games (and far too many shitty Unity-engine games and visual novels). Last time I saw the stats, the median gamer was around 30, and most game-buyers were female, and the game companies certainly know the stats.
I've been a software dev for that long, and I've never seen an idea rejected because a woman proposed it (and I've worked in some extremely shitty places with overt racial discrimination).
You say you work "in tech"? Where? IT? Dev? Ops? Is it a regional thing?
I hear terrible things about misogyny in Ruby on Rails dev jobs, but not yet a firsthand account.
Can you share some examples or details to make your point? At least what industry and region?
Also any zero propellent drive is also an over unity device. Easy to prove.
If such a thing has actually been discovered, the very likely result is that it's neither "zero propellent" nor over unity, but instead has something being emitted that we don't understand.
For example, one could imagine an engine that seemed to have no propellant, but was in fact creating and emitting dark matter. On the lab bench it would be consuming energy that would be going somewhere mysterious (e.g., not heating up enough for the energy inputs), generating measurable thrust, and having no measurable propellent. Obviously that's not what's going on here, but something like that (emitting a propellent we don't know how to measure) would be the only rational explanation for any such device.
It's also theoretically possible to have a "warp" drive that produced thrust without propellent by altering the local spacetime metric. But this would not be "over unity", would be quite obvious as it would be turning local space into a lens, and likely isn't actually possible, for all that the math allows it, as you'd think we'd have seen evidence of it by now.
I guess "negative mass" drives also aren't ruled out yet, which also would have no propellent and while they are perpetual motion machines, they aren't "over unity" due to a technicality. Negative mass seems even less likely to be actually possible, despite the math allowing it, given the lack of evidence of its existence.
Particles with mass move slower than the speed of light, experience the passage of time, and can thus change state (e.g. decay). Mass-less particles move at the speed of light (when in a vacuum), do not experience the passage of time, and thus cannot change state. Photons are clearly the latter.
Oddly enough, whether a kind of particle has mass can change over time, and it's thought that all particles were massless in the very early universe. The reason the Higgs Boson discovery was exciting was that it confirmed the idea of a particle changing from mass-less to massive in the early universe (the Higgs Boson itself is pretty dull).
Conservation of momentum is more than "new physics". It's quite fundamental, thanks to Noether's Theorem: conservation of momentum is mathematically equivalent to "the laws of physics don't vary with spatial coordinates", that is, the X, Y, and Z axes can be "zeroed" anywhere, the choice of coordinates are arbitrary as long as their consistent. The universe would be a very strange place indeed if this weren't true, and furthermore we'd have noticed by now.
So, whatever's going on here, momentum is being conserved. Just how that's happening is the curious bit. It wasn't obvious until the early 1900s that light had momentum - maybe there's something else we're missing, or maybe this really is an actual "warp" drive that locally changes the metric of space (in a way different from GR) and momentum really isn't conserved. Somehow I doubt the latter is true.
Photons have momentum, but they don't have mass. You don't technically need mass, just conservation of momentum. The key is that the thrust produced that way is very small indeed, and that's apparently not the mechanism of this drive.
Sure, and had he appeared in person, your argument might make sense as the arrest of a fugitive might endanger others. But that's not what happened here: this was the city simply censoring content it disapproved of.
That's sort-of true. The government can regulate commerce in a way that it can't regulate speech. Obscenity laws, for example, can be constitutional if they prohibit selling specific content, as it's not the content that's illegal, it's the business practice. Even that is narrow, though, and can't apply to political speech. Clearly that's not what happened here -- the cops were just being dicks, are they usually are -- but you are more restricted when doing business than when simply speaking.
If the government imposes content-based restrictions on speech as a condition of issuing a permit, that's unambiguous government censorship. The exceptions in the US are few and narrow, and don't seem to apply here.