I'd agree with your assessment, except that that small set of people that we're talking about has a habit of knocking down the priority of personal freedoms below just about any of their pet causes. Here it's personal freedom vs "the environment." Elsewhere it's personal freedom vs "good public schools," or "safe streets" or "economic justice" or "reproductive rights" or just about any left-wing cause you can find. When personal freedom keeps taking a back seat to a whole series of issues, it's pretty safe to say that they hate freedom.
What will you do when you finally find out that the boogieman isn't hiding in your closet? Where will your snark be directed then? I ask because I care.
Picking winners and losers with plenty of consequences for the little people and no consequences for themselves.
I remember about ten years ago when biodiesel and ethanol were The Future! and there was talk of quotas on flex-fuel vehicles. Then it turned out that most (if not all) then-available blends of biodiesel congealed in cold temperatures and there was a well-publicized case of schoolbuses in the upper midwest being out of commission for days at a time during the winter months. Then there's the fact that E85 is hydrophilic and has worse mileage and emissions than gasoline in humid environments.
Today they're talking about making all IC engines illegal (no ethanol, no CNG, no nothing) because electric is the hot new thing. Then it's going to turn out that manufacturing and remanufacturing batteries en masse is a dirty and expensive business, that riding on a half ton of fuel and oxidizer packed closely together may work when it's inside 100k rich-man's toys that are built with no expense spared but probably won't work so well when it's lowest-bidder Chinese garbage. But by then they'll have moved on to mandating cars powered by smugness and self-satisfaction.
Good marketing falls into one of the following categories:
Problem with X? Use Product Y!
Product Y: Better at X than other products!
And the always-favorite: Product X: Apply directly to the Y!
What they all have in common is getting your name out there to people who may be looking for it, and occassionally telling people about a need they didn't know they had. This could be that, or it could be an airline telling potential customers that it's 10 times less crash-and-burn-y than the competition. Self-driving cars seem like a solution to a non-existent problem for the average person. That's the barrier to cross more than anything else right now.
a guy who had the enormous luck to turn a side project from his dorm room into a multibillion dollar business before being old enough to rent a car without paying extra has a little trouble "connecting" to the average person.
Some people have success and humility. Other people have success.
She didn't get a free pass because all of her snakeoil was bullshit. Elon Musk has cut real metal and made real products delivered to real customers. I call bullshit on his pie in the sky, but I give him props for things he's actually done. Elizabeth Holmes never had anything to her name besides the hype and a black turtleneck sweater.
I'm not going into a panic because another country is doing source review. I'm saying the US government shouldn't be using code that's neither open source nor fully closed source. If it's fully open source, everything I said doesn't matter because it's got more eyeballs on it. If it's fully closed source and only domestic users review it, then that attenuates the risk. This here is a no-man's land in between where you don't get any of the benefits and have to assume that everyone's got their thinking hats on with regard to scrubbing anything embarrassing out of the comments that they originally thought were going to stay proprietary.
Source code can contain information the binary doesn't. Like why mistakes are made and who made them, to give an example. So if there's an exploit in the binary, you find it either way. If the source code with the mistake contains comments from Sanjay at CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet in Mumbai, that tells you where else that mistake could be. If there's no mistakes in Sanjay's code, you still have a potential recruitment target. Paranoid? Yes. Unlikely? Can't say. Implausible? No.
Is conquest immoral? You'd be a hypocrite to think so, seeing as you benefit from the European conquest of the New World, the Roman conquest of Britain, and everything in between.
But to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand, in the case of Hawaii: yes.
Unambiguously the American legal and civil culture that eventually replaced the old monarchy is more moral. As judged by my western outlook that places high value on individual rights, the rule of law, and scientific inquiry and decidedly low value on idol worship that's not done in the privacy of one's mind or community but is imposed upon everyone else through demands for restrictions on the use of land not owned by the people making the demands.
"But RightwingNutjob," you might ask, "can't you see you've fallen into my clever trap? There you are basing your conclusion on the supposed superiority of Judeo-Christian values. You can't do that!"
Of course I can. You asked me about morals. I answered back in the context of my morality as I understand it, which comes from God. If you subscribe to a different set of morals, it won't convince you, but it gives you the answer you were looking for. In the West, you see, we can base our convictions on different theological or atheological grounds and co-exist so long as we stay out of each other's way. I doubt the same was true under the old monarchy in Hawaii.
3D graphics on computers didn't pass the giggle test? When? In the adding machine days?
Color TV? If you say so.
Television? Um...your command of history seems to be limited to the caricature version. Electricity has been known about scientifically for nearly three hundred years and the phenomenon of static electricity since practically forever.
I was referring to Paypal (which stands on its own) and SpaceX which was started with his own money and has something like a 50/50 commercial/government split between customers. Better than ULA by a mile. Tesla is a vanity project, and yeah I'm kinda cheesed that my taxes pay for it.
How about: their people look at, come up with some changes they'd need before trusting their systems to it, then give one back to the vendor and keep some to themselves for later.
COTS is the devil when it comes to American defense procurement. Yeah you don't need to commission a new programming language and compiler for every single solitary project like they had to do back in the 70s and 80s, but then at the same time you don't really want to be buying an OS from a company where the single number one priority is to make sure the 'voice assistant' works instead of silly things like rendering menus correctly or recognizing unformatted disks.
And then the NSA wonders why they keep losing their shit.
Next you're gonna be telling me how we're not all going to have villas on Mars by the end of the next decade, at the very latest, all brought to you by SpaceX brand rocket ships.
Elon gets my respect for making two successful and innovating businesses that have lasted and have solid fundamentals into the future. He gets no credit for his bullshit factory. Good bullshit has to be believable. Self-driving cars and 800 mph trains in a tube by next year doesn't pass the giggle test.
I haven't contradicted your facts. I've questioned your interpretation of those facts, and specifically what you're implying by using the word "think."
The United States doesn't "think" it owns Hawaii and can apply its law there, the United States does own Hawaii and has applied its law there. It's pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition. Either American law applies to all American territory or it applies to none of it. Unless you're one of them Sovereign Citizen critters, surely you agree that that bit isn't up to individual interpretation?
Your description applies to just about each and every state, government, and tribal society that has ever existed on this planet. New people migrate in and displace whoever was there before. Sometimes by force, sometimes by invitation. That's how the world works. That's how the Polynesian Hawaiian monarchy worked in its time. Your attempt to claim a moral high ground has failed. Everyone's equally down in the muck in regards to reaping the fruits of conquest. That just leaves the relative and absolute merits of the conquering and conquered culture to have the pissing contest over, and when that fails, it's facts on the ground that make the final call.
Maybe I'm exaggerating, or maybe your neighborhood was built better, but I've lived and worked in the Boston area for ten years and just about every town has poles that look near the end of their useful life, some of which are patched up with 2x4s.
There was no "treaty with the natives" in Hawaii. The natives' king invited American and Asian settlement, and by 1898 the settlers outnumbered the natives and voted first for democracy and second for annexation. The top of Mauna Kea was never an Indian reservation.
Try running your ICE car without power. It won't work. Even as a bicycle. Just ask Max.
WTF?
Practical purchases are covering what you do 90% of the time, while not trying to satisfy the 10% with expensive and burdensome effort.
Only if there are no good and cheap alternatives. Asserting that there aren't doesn't magic them away.
Especially given the secondary harm from burning gasoline.
Like what? And if there is any, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it outweighs the benefits of ICE? It's just your opinion.
Nope. There are far more toys in the ICE market than the EV one. Try a Bugatti or Bentley for example. But on real terms, spending on gasoline is wasting money. Just ask the people who lost 15+ dollars a tank when Houston had problems.
Irrelevant and incorrect. By that logic, food is a rich man's luxury because some caviar is $200/ounce. Further, the money "wasted" on gasoline pays for availability in an emergency and the ability to have extended range with less planning than an electric. The cost of gasoline is the cost of those benefits, which have real value. Otherwise we'd all be clamoring to buy electrics and nothing but. We're not.
None of what you said is true, it is all meaningless gabble from a fool.
You've refuted none of it. You've only asserted that I'm a fool and used that as the reason to dismiss my points without bothering to argue against them.
It is the future. The dinosaurs know the fate of gasoline burning vehicles. They are it. Extinction.
Just like Juicero is The Future(TM) of juice, it takes Courage(TM) to get rid of the 1/8" audio jack on your phone, and something something Disrupt(TM) something something. I really hope you're being paid to troll. I feel sorry for you if you actually believe the naked propaganda you wrote.
So I need to carry a generator and a can of gasoline? Maybe I'll keep the generator in the front trunk of my Tesla and the gasoline in the back. I might even run a pipeline between them and set it up so that the generator turns on when the battery runs down and there's no 480 in sight.
Or she reads the news and sees that many countries are mandating all-electric driving fleets in the future, and the there are already cars that are good enough to make this law practical. Giving up on electric cars means giving up on China, India, France, etc.
News written by English majors quoting politicians who went to law school or B-school. Not people who understand the basics of cars.
Gasoline and diesel are liquids, meaning they can
Be stockpiled in man-portable containers for an emergency which knocks out power
Be hand-pumped and/or distributed directly from a tanker truck if push comes to shove
Sorry guy, not until "electric" cars run on easily storable and portable fuel will they be a viable alternative for "traditional" cars.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd agree with your assessment, except that that small set of people that we're talking about has a habit of knocking down the priority of personal freedoms below just about any of their pet causes. Here it's personal freedom vs "the environment." Elsewhere it's personal freedom vs "good public schools," or "safe streets" or "economic justice" or "reproductive rights" or just about any left-wing cause you can find. When personal freedom keeps taking a back seat to a whole series of issues, it's pretty safe to say that they hate freedom.
What will you do when you finally find out that the boogieman isn't hiding in your closet? Where will your snark be directed then? I ask because I care.
All those Echo Shows will keep an eye on the deliverymen.
Picking winners and losers with plenty of consequences for the little people and no consequences for themselves.
I remember about ten years ago when biodiesel and ethanol were The Future! and there was talk of quotas on flex-fuel vehicles. Then it turned out that most (if not all) then-available blends of biodiesel congealed in cold temperatures and there was a well-publicized case of schoolbuses in the upper midwest being out of commission for days at a time during the winter months. Then there's the fact that E85 is hydrophilic and has worse mileage and emissions than gasoline in humid environments.
Today they're talking about making all IC engines illegal (no ethanol, no CNG, no nothing) because electric is the hot new thing. Then it's going to turn out that manufacturing and remanufacturing batteries en masse is a dirty and expensive business, that riding on a half ton of fuel and oxidizer packed closely together may work when it's inside 100k rich-man's toys that are built with no expense spared but probably won't work so well when it's lowest-bidder Chinese garbage. But by then they'll have moved on to mandating cars powered by smugness and self-satisfaction.
Good marketing falls into one of the following categories:
Problem with X? Use Product Y!
Product Y: Better at X than other products!
And the always-favorite: Product X: Apply directly to the Y!
What they all have in common is getting your name out there to people who may be looking for it, and occassionally telling people about a need they didn't know they had. This could be that, or it could be an airline telling potential customers that it's 10 times less crash-and-burn-y than the competition. Self-driving cars seem like a solution to a non-existent problem for the average person. That's the barrier to cross more than anything else right now.
a guy who had the enormous luck to turn a side project from his dorm room into a multibillion dollar business before being old enough to rent a car without paying extra has a little trouble "connecting" to the average person.
Some people have success and humility. Other people have success.
I think we're agreeing here.
She didn't get a free pass because all of her snakeoil was bullshit. Elon Musk has cut real metal and made real products delivered to real customers. I call bullshit on his pie in the sky, but I give him props for things he's actually done. Elizabeth Holmes never had anything to her name besides the hype and a black turtleneck sweater.
I'm not going into a panic because another country is doing source review. I'm saying the US government shouldn't be using code that's neither open source nor fully closed source. If it's fully open source, everything I said doesn't matter because it's got more eyeballs on it. If it's fully closed source and only domestic users review it, then that attenuates the risk. This here is a no-man's land in between where you don't get any of the benefits and have to assume that everyone's got their thinking hats on with regard to scrubbing anything embarrassing out of the comments that they originally thought were going to stay proprietary.
Source code can contain information the binary doesn't. Like why mistakes are made and who made them, to give an example. So if there's an exploit in the binary, you find it either way. If the source code with the mistake contains comments from Sanjay at CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet in Mumbai, that tells you where else that mistake could be. If there's no mistakes in Sanjay's code, you still have a potential recruitment target. Paranoid? Yes. Unlikely? Can't say. Implausible? No.
Is conquest immoral? You'd be a hypocrite to think so, seeing as you benefit from the European conquest of the New World, the Roman conquest of Britain, and everything in between.
But to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand, in the case of Hawaii: yes.
Unambiguously the American legal and civil culture that eventually replaced the old monarchy is more moral. As judged by my western outlook that places high value on individual rights, the rule of law, and scientific inquiry and decidedly low value on idol worship that's not done in the privacy of one's mind or community but is imposed upon everyone else through demands for restrictions on the use of land not owned by the people making the demands.
"But RightwingNutjob," you might ask, "can't you see you've fallen into my clever trap? There you are basing your conclusion on the supposed superiority of Judeo-Christian values. You can't do that!"
Of course I can. You asked me about morals. I answered back in the context of my morality as I understand it, which comes from God. If you subscribe to a different set of morals, it won't convince you, but it gives you the answer you were looking for. In the West, you see, we can base our convictions on different theological or atheological grounds and co-exist so long as we stay out of each other's way. I doubt the same was true under the old monarchy in Hawaii.
3D graphics on computers didn't pass the giggle test? When? In the adding machine days?
Color TV? If you say so.
Television? Um...your command of history seems to be limited to the caricature version. Electricity has been known about scientifically for nearly three hundred years and the phenomenon of static electricity since practically forever.
You're arguing against a straw man.
I was referring to Paypal (which stands on its own) and SpaceX which was started with his own money and has something like a 50/50 commercial/government split between customers. Better than ULA by a mile. Tesla is a vanity project, and yeah I'm kinda cheesed that my taxes pay for it.
You're serious?
How about: their people look at, come up with some changes they'd need before trusting their systems to it, then give one back to the vendor and keep some to themselves for later.
COTS is the devil when it comes to American defense procurement. Yeah you don't need to commission a new programming language and compiler for every single solitary project like they had to do back in the 70s and 80s, but then at the same time you don't really want to be buying an OS from a company where the single number one priority is to make sure the 'voice assistant' works instead of silly things like rendering menus correctly or recognizing unformatted disks.
And then the NSA wonders why they keep losing their shit.
Next you're gonna be telling me how we're not all going to have villas on Mars by the end of the next decade, at the very latest, all brought to you by SpaceX brand rocket ships.
Elon gets my respect for making two successful and innovating businesses that have lasted and have solid fundamentals into the future. He gets no credit for his bullshit factory. Good bullshit has to be believable. Self-driving cars and 800 mph trains in a tube by next year doesn't pass the giggle test.
I haven't contradicted your facts. I've questioned your interpretation of those facts, and specifically what you're implying by using the word "think."
The United States doesn't "think" it owns Hawaii and can apply its law there, the United States does own Hawaii and has applied its law there. It's pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition. Either American law applies to all American territory or it applies to none of it. Unless you're one of them Sovereign Citizen critters, surely you agree that that bit isn't up to individual interpretation?
Your description applies to just about each and every state, government, and tribal society that has ever existed on this planet. New people migrate in and displace whoever was there before. Sometimes by force, sometimes by invitation. That's how the world works. That's how the Polynesian Hawaiian monarchy worked in its time. Your attempt to claim a moral high ground has failed. Everyone's equally down in the muck in regards to reaping the fruits of conquest. That just leaves the relative and absolute merits of the conquering and conquered culture to have the pissing contest over, and when that fails, it's facts on the ground that make the final call.
Maybe I'm exaggerating, or maybe your neighborhood was built better, but I've lived and worked in the Boston area for ten years and just about every town has poles that look near the end of their useful life, some of which are patched up with 2x4s.
There was no "treaty with the natives" in Hawaii. The natives' king invited American and Asian settlement, and by 1898 the settlers outnumbered the natives and voted first for democracy and second for annexation. The top of Mauna Kea was never an Indian reservation.
Try running your ICE car without power. It won't work. Even as a bicycle. Just ask Max.
WTF?
Practical purchases are covering what you do 90% of the time, while not trying to satisfy the 10% with expensive and burdensome effort.
Only if there are no good and cheap alternatives. Asserting that there aren't doesn't magic them away.
Especially given the secondary harm from burning gasoline.
Like what? And if there is any, how do you arrive at the conclusion that it outweighs the benefits of ICE? It's just your opinion.
Nope. There are far more toys in the ICE market than the EV one. Try a Bugatti or Bentley for example. But on real terms, spending on gasoline is wasting money. Just ask the people who lost 15+ dollars a tank when Houston had problems.
Irrelevant and incorrect. By that logic, food is a rich man's luxury because some caviar is $200/ounce. Further, the money "wasted" on gasoline pays for availability in an emergency and the ability to have extended range with less planning than an electric. The cost of gasoline is the cost of those benefits, which have real value. Otherwise we'd all be clamoring to buy electrics and nothing but. We're not.
None of what you said is true, it is all meaningless gabble from a fool.
You've refuted none of it. You've only asserted that I'm a fool and used that as the reason to dismiss my points without bothering to argue against them.
It is the future. The dinosaurs know the fate of gasoline burning vehicles. They are it. Extinction.
Just like Juicero is The Future(TM) of juice, it takes Courage(TM) to get rid of the 1/8" audio jack on your phone, and something something Disrupt(TM) something something. I really hope you're being paid to troll. I feel sorry for you if you actually believe the naked propaganda you wrote.
When they have to, eh? Well by that logic, we should make people buy silk pyjamas to prop up the domestic silkworm trade.
So I need to carry a generator and a can of gasoline? Maybe I'll keep the generator in the front trunk of my Tesla and the gasoline in the back. I might even run a pipeline between them and set it up so that the generator turns on when the battery runs down and there's no 480 in sight.
That's Chryslers for you. They're not GM and they're not even real cars. Never driven a Chrysler that didn't feel like complete amateur hour.
Or she reads the news and sees that many countries are mandating all-electric driving fleets in the future, and the there are already cars that are good enough to make this law practical. Giving up on electric cars means giving up on China, India, France, etc.
News written by English majors quoting politicians who went to law school or B-school. Not people who understand the basics of cars.
Gasoline and diesel are liquids, meaning they can
Be stockpiled in man-portable containers for an emergency which knocks out power
Be hand-pumped and/or distributed directly from a tanker truck if push comes to shove
Sorry guy, not until "electric" cars run on easily storable and portable fuel will they be a viable alternative for "traditional" cars.