Its difficult because for a single atom gravity is very weak. Small magnetic or electric fields (or field gradients) can interact with the magnetic field, or electric dipole moment of the atom. Also the atoms are moving inside of the trap. The speed of their motion depends on temperature: (at room temperature it is > 1 kilometer/second). I assume they cool the anti-hydrogen, but the atoms may still be moving so quickly that gravitational effects are not very large.
I think that there is a difference between whether current implementations of DRM are desirable, and whether there could be an implementation that does desirable things.
As a consumer, I am happy to pay for content. I am happy to have DRM content IF: 1. I can view the content without using proprietary software - sorry, I DO NOT trust software written by any but a very small set of companies. 2. I can view the content when I am not connected to the net. 3. I can sell the content to other people in the same way that I can sell physical objects. 4. The content will NEVER disappear, the company cannot change the content, or remove the content. If they go out of business, they unlock all the content that they sold, or in other ways ensure that I don't lose the rest of these requirements. 5. I can transfer the content to other devices (one at a time is OK) with different operating systems. I have content that is 30 years old, and I plan to keep it another 30 years, no idea what device and OS I may want to be using in the future. 6. VERY IMPORTANT: I am buying content for money, I am NOT willing to provide ANY usage or personal information whatsoever. You do not get my name, my IP address, or know what I watched when. If you want my personal information you may separately offer to pay me for the information and I will give any reasonable offer serious consideration.
rying to understand alien economics seems rather silly since we can't understand our own. Imagine even a society as advanced as ancient Rome trying to understand what caused our recent global recession. Let me make a few possible assumptions:
Technologies reach a plateau: we've seen this in a number of cases so far: ships, aircraft, cars haven't changed dramatically in capabilities in the last 50 years. Even computer tech may be slowing.
Getting to these ultimate technologies requires a near planetary scale infrastructure - for each one. For example it may be difficult to build a small chip technology - you need large fab lines, development teams etc.
A static alien civilization with very long year timescales - either through long-lived aliens, or a society that values organizations over individuals.
So - they build a starship (expensive), but amortize that cost over many millenia of use. Fuel is deuterium - available at all gas giants. And they mosey around the galaxy at.05C. When they get to a planet like present day earth, they offer to trade: Say a bunch of mister-fusions they picked up on Rigel 7, for a thousand metric tons of high density memory chips. Later they will trade some of those chips for 10 meter cubes of flawless diamond from some other culture that has specialized in that technology.
Some of the trips will be a bust, the civilization may have fallen, so you load up on more D2 and off you go again.
Basically interstellar travel only seems unreasonable because humans happen to live 100 years. If we lived 100,000 it might seem quite reasonable.
You don't need FTL. Its easy to imagine a fission or fusion powered rocket that could reach 0.1C - this is not far from what we can imagine now. That leaves you with a trip of centuries to millenia. That might be completely reasonable to an advanced race that either has a naturally long lifespan, or which has solved the problem of ageing. Depending on their technology they might be able to bring enough of their information technology with them to stay interested for the trip.
The point is to decide which rules you are willing to accept. I will not enter a country that might ask for access to my private accounts, assuming that I can verify that this is really the case.
You may have been in his email list, or possibly both of you in a 3rd person's list. Has anyone absolutely verified that they received an invite from someone who didn't send one?
When an individual driver is at fault, the lawsuits are limited because the typical driver can't afford much. In the much rarer cases where a car manufacturer has been found negligent, the lawsuits can be enormous - I think one was over a billion.
With an AI it may be possible to convince a jury that Google was negligent - juries hate large companies.
I completely agree that an AI could on average do a better job than a human. My concern though is that sometimes it will make a mistake - this is pattern recognition in a very complex environment.
When a human driver makes such a mistake (which happens), there is lots of legal case work to assign blame. In the scenario presented, if the driver was at a legal speed, has a good driving record, was not impaired, distracted, etc, they are likely to be exonerated of any crime. We don't have rules for how to assign blame when an AI makes a similar mistake.
I agree, and this is a very different situation from an automated aircraft. Things generally happen quite slowly in aircraft except for the few minutes around takeoff and landing during which times the pilots can be alert. In cruise flight if something goes wrong with the automation there are usually many seconds for the pilot to become aware of the problem and to take over. In the famous AF 447 flight it was several minutes between the beginning of the problem and the last time at which the aircraft could have been saved - a skilled crew should have been able to recover.
In a car when things go wrong there is often only a second or two to respond before impact. This is too fast for a human who is not already paying attention to gain situational awareness and to react. It is completely unreasonable to expect that a driver will be paying constant attention for the entire drive while the computer is driving the car - I'm sure that most people would much rather drive themselves.
Even if the automation is better on average than a human, there is still a responsibility issue. Who is at fault when a car swerves to avoid a trash bag in the street and hits a child? The drive? The auto manufacturer? The programmer who designed the image recognition system? The cars will not be perfect - thousands of people will die, and there will be constant lawsuits.
The mention of a "cyclotron particle accelerator" control system sounds scary, but may not be. At least here at SLAC there are several levels of control systems, and the ones involved in life safety required physical access to locked areas. Even if someone somehow broke both electronic and physical security machines like this are not very dangerous, similar risk to a typical factory.
I expect that nuclear reactors are far more secure. The "command and control" system may not actually control the reactor, but just provide monitoring.
Right - what has the government done for us.... (insert monty python quote here) education , sanitation, roads, police,
Seriously, try to imagine what the US would be like without a government, or if people had to pay specifically for the services they wanted. You may not like the police but would you prefer Blackwater hiring out as private security? No public education for the poor? Private roads closed to non-members? No water systems? It would be a hell on earth - a scaled up Somalia.
Sure, there is out of control government spending but its a lot better than no government at all.
Sorry, 60K really is a tiny amount of money for a government agency. Maybe the video was a bad idea. Maybe it was a morale booster. Maybe it distracted thousands of employees from their miserable pay checks. I don't care. The money wastage in the government is the multi-billion dollar unnecessary, or overdone projects (TSA, F35, etc), not a few tens of K spent here and there on entertainment for thousands of people.
If your income is low, then you are right, the $2 coffees add up. If you are making payments on a $20M house, and traveling by biz-jet, then coffee is not the place to try to save money.
Companies often spend money to entertain or motivate their employees. They do this because sometimes the morale boost is worth far more than what it costs.
The reports were on line so we can assume the Chinese have already downloaded all of them. Now we take them offline so that US businesses can't take advantage of the technical data that they contain.
Then we will add a likely complex and expensive process of vetting the reports which will delay any future releases - except for organizations that are good enough to hack the NASA computers and download them immediately.
Cyberwarfare has the potential to do LOT of damage. If every file on your home computer and backups were wiped out, how many of your hours would it take to recover. Multiply by say 100 million. Multiply by the value of the average computer users time. If say 100 million credit card numbers were stolen and used to make say a billion random small on-line purchases, what would it cost to back it all out? What are the digital rights to all of your paid-for content and software worth? Again multiply by 100 million.
We live in a society where information is valuable. I think it is a mistake to only consider the physical damage that cyber-warfare could cause.
I'm not saying that there is a credible attack that could do any of the above, just that low-security systems collectively represent a high value target, so it makes sense to consider how to protect against such an attack. I have no idea if the specific plans of the US make any sense.
I'd like to see some international treaties on cyber warfare to understand what sorts of attacks and responses meet international law.
I think it isn't quite so simple. Machine guns are clearly under the control of the guy at the trigger - he, and his command chain have absolute responsibility for their actions. As robots become more autonomous, it will become less clear who is responsible for mistakes. When an automated drone mistakes a school bus for a tank, is it he fault of the drone? The guy who programmed the image recognition in the drone? The safety "logic" in the drone? The commander who ordered that particular drone into the field at the time?
With unclear lines of responsibility it will become easier to excuse war crimes as "software problems".
We do not yet have autonomous drones, but it seems likely that the technology will start to evolve in that direction.
It is not just the authors worrying about their own careers.I work at a DOE lab and the DOE evaluates the lab based on the number of publications with a strong weighting for "high impact" journals like Nature and Science. If I take an article that could be accepted into one of those journals and publish it somewhere else, I am not only hurting my own career, but endangering the funding for the entire lab.
I don't like this evaluation scheme, but I also can't think of a better way to do it.
If the open journals could become considered "high impact" I would be very happy to publish there. Unfortunately it is a chicken and egg problem: the best papers won't go to the open journals until they have a reputation of publishing the best papers.....
The government evaluates research projects by the number of publications weighted by the "impact" of the journal. Many researchers (myself included) would be very happy to only publish in open journals, but if we did, our projects would appear less successful so our funding would suffer. The delay is probably an agreement with the major journals to give them exclusive rights. fro a while.
I don't like it, but it isn't easy to come up with a different way for funding agencies to evaluate R&D.
Unfortunately "do not buy" my not be practical. When production cars are all equipped with GPS monitoring (as is likely) how do I "not buy" if I want to drive. Sure you can not drive, not use a cell phone, not travel by air, not use a credit card, not use the internet etc, but the impact on your standard of living is very large if you wan't to avoid being tracked.
Completely agree! the article says that "he electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them" How??? How does the energy get concentrated at the required MeV level - that energy is WAY above anything involving lattice interactions. If you did have MeV electrons in the lattice they would scatter and create showers and loose that energy very quickly.
The fundamental problem with all cold fusion type schemes is that nuclear reactions involve MeV scale energies, and chemical reactions involve eV scale energies. There just isn't a credible way to use chemical effects to get the energy concentration that is required. There can be bulk effects (pyroelectricity for example) that can produce energetic particles, but they are no more efficient that accelerators.
Even if you did produce MeV electrons, very few of those electrons will create the reactions you want, most will just scatter back to lower energy and thermalize.
Fission is a very special case because neutral particles (neutrons) mediate the reaction, chemistry really isn't involved at all
I just did my best to read the original paper. (I'm a physicist but this is out of my field). Take-away items (assuming this and a paper it references are correct)
1. It is possible for the universe to have ended up in a meta-stable state as it cooled. Think a little like super-cooled water that will suddenly turn to ice if there is a source of nucleation. The lifetime of this state (given what data we have) can be pretty much anything. The fact that it hasn't decayed yet suggests that if the universe is metastable the lifetime is at least billions of years, and it could easily be MUCH larger. The lifetime is exponential in some unknown parameters.
2. One form of instability would result if the mass of the Higgs, the mass of the Top quark and some coupling constants had a certain relationship. We do not currently have a sufficiently accurate measurement of those numbers to know if the universe is stable, metastable, or unstable - the last being disallowed because we are still here. It is interesting that we are anywhere near the stability boundary and that may imply some interesting physics.
3. If we build a Linear Collider (another $10B machine) it will be able to measure the required parameters to sufficient accuracy to tell if the universe is stable or metastable.
Note: if the universe is metastable there is not imaginable technology that could cause a phase change (read destroy the universe). There are cosmic rays with 10^21 ev enrergies (a billion times higher than LHC) and there have been some head-on collisions on the history of the universe. Nothing we are going to do will trigger a state change.
In one sense it is a lot - I imagine the efficiency of the car is noticeably different. On the other hand for normal driving it isn't a big deal. When I'm on the freeway I drive with prevailing traffic (always obeying the speed limit of course officer), and speeds can vary by 20 mph even with only modest traffic. Any sort of range calculations should take that sort of normal variance into account.
Most gas automobiles have very conservative range calculations, you can often drive 30 miles on an "empty" tank. (my car claims 1.8 gallons when the "low fuel" comes on. Maybe Tesla needs to adjust their range calculation to put it in line with what drivers have come to expect.
An excellent suggestion, and one that I hope some competing auto reviewer will do, and soon while people are still interested and the weather is still cold. This will let people see what the driver did, how the car did, and what tech support recommended.
For extra impact, stream it live to the internet. That way no one can claim that it would only be posted if the answer turned out in a particular direction .
It should be possible to find a reviewer who doesn't already have a bias one way or the other.
But I'm not judging Musk's character - think he's great and very much approve of SpaceX., I'm thinking about how good an investment Tesla is and whether I might want one of their cars. Most support groups tape calls, so if Musk has the tapes then he can legitimately say that the NY times was lying.
The times reporters description of speeding up and slowing down to use the regenerative breaking, and running the heater to "condition" the batteries truly bizarre. If he made that up and Tesla can show the tapes, he will look like a complete idiot.
Don't own a dog, or a horse, and my parents are dead, so like most support responses most of your suggestions don't apply to my situation .
Slashdot Mirror
Its difficult because for a single atom gravity is very weak. Small magnetic or electric fields (or field gradients) can interact with the magnetic field, or electric dipole moment of the atom. Also the atoms are moving inside of the trap. The speed of their motion depends on temperature: (at room temperature it is > 1 kilometer/second). I assume they cool the anti-hydrogen, but the atoms may still be moving so quickly that gravitational effects are not very large.
I think that there is a difference between whether current implementations of DRM are desirable, and whether there could be an implementation that does desirable things.
As a consumer, I am happy to pay for content. I am happy to have DRM content IF:
1. I can view the content without using proprietary software - sorry, I DO NOT trust software written by any but a very small set of companies.
2. I can view the content when I am not connected to the net.
3. I can sell the content to other people in the same way that I can sell physical objects.
4. The content will NEVER disappear, the company cannot change the content, or remove the content. If they go out of business, they unlock all the content that they sold, or in other ways ensure that I don't lose the rest of these requirements.
5. I can transfer the content to other devices (one at a time is OK) with different operating systems. I have content that is 30 years old, and I plan to keep it another 30 years, no idea what device and OS I may want to be using in the future.
6. VERY IMPORTANT: I am buying content for money, I am NOT willing to provide ANY usage or personal information whatsoever. You do not get my name, my IP address, or know what I watched when. If you want my personal information you may separately offer to pay me for the information and I will give any reasonable offer serious consideration.
rying to understand alien economics seems rather silly since we can't understand our own. Imagine even a society as advanced as ancient Rome trying to understand what caused our recent global recession. Let me make a few possible assumptions:
Technologies reach a plateau: we've seen this in a number of cases so far: ships, aircraft, cars haven't changed dramatically in capabilities in the last 50 years. Even computer tech may be slowing.
Getting to these ultimate technologies requires a near planetary scale infrastructure - for each one. For example it may be difficult to build a small chip technology - you need large fab lines, development teams etc.
A static alien civilization with very long year timescales - either through long-lived aliens, or a society that values organizations over individuals.
So - they build a starship (expensive), but amortize that cost over many millenia of use. Fuel is deuterium - available at all gas giants. And they mosey around the galaxy at .05C. When they get to a planet like present day earth, they offer to trade: Say a bunch of mister-fusions they picked up on Rigel 7, for a thousand metric tons of high density memory chips. Later they will trade some of those chips for 10 meter cubes of flawless diamond from some other culture that has specialized in that technology.
Some of the trips will be a bust, the civilization may have fallen, so you load up on more D2 and off you go again.
Basically interstellar travel only seems unreasonable because humans happen to live 100 years. If we lived 100,000 it might seem quite reasonable.
You don't need FTL. Its easy to imagine a fission or fusion powered rocket that could reach 0.1C - this is not far from what we can imagine now. That leaves you with a trip of centuries to millenia. That might be completely reasonable to an advanced race that either has a naturally long lifespan, or which has solved the problem of ageing. Depending on their technology they might be able to bring enough of their information technology with them to stay interested for the trip.
The point is to decide which rules you are willing to accept. I will not enter a country that might ask for access to my private accounts, assuming that I can verify that this is really the case.
You may have been in his email list, or possibly both of you in a 3rd person's list. Has anyone absolutely verified that they received an invite from someone who didn't send one?
When an individual driver is at fault, the lawsuits are limited because the typical driver can't afford much. In the much rarer cases where a car manufacturer has been found negligent, the lawsuits can be enormous - I think one was over a billion.
With an AI it may be possible to convince a jury that Google was negligent - juries hate large companies.
I completely agree that an AI could on average do a better job than a human. My concern though is that sometimes it will make a mistake - this is pattern recognition in a very complex environment.
When a human driver makes such a mistake (which happens), there is lots of legal case work to assign blame. In the scenario presented, if the driver was at a legal speed, has a good driving record, was not impaired, distracted, etc, they are likely to be exonerated of any crime. We don't have rules for how to assign blame when an AI makes a similar mistake.
I agree, and this is a very different situation from an automated aircraft. Things generally happen quite slowly in aircraft except for the few minutes around takeoff and landing during which times the pilots can be alert. In cruise flight if something goes wrong with the automation there are usually many seconds for the pilot to become aware of the problem and to take over. In the famous AF 447 flight it was several minutes between the beginning of the problem and the last time at which the aircraft could have been saved - a skilled crew should have been able to recover.
In a car when things go wrong there is often only a second or two to respond before impact. This is too fast for a human who is not already paying attention to gain situational awareness and to react. It is completely unreasonable to expect that a driver will be paying constant attention for the entire drive while the computer is driving the car - I'm sure that most people would much rather drive themselves.
Even if the automation is better on average than a human, there is still a responsibility issue. Who is at fault when a car swerves to avoid a trash bag in the street and hits a child? The drive? The auto manufacturer? The programmer who designed the image recognition system? The cars will not be perfect - thousands of people will die, and there will be constant lawsuits.
The mention of a "cyclotron particle accelerator" control system sounds scary, but may not be. At least here at SLAC there are several levels of control systems, and the ones involved in life safety required physical access to locked areas. Even if someone somehow broke both electronic and physical security machines like this are not very dangerous, similar risk to a typical factory.
I expect that nuclear reactors are far more secure. The "command and control" system may not actually control the reactor, but just provide monitoring.
I travel a lot. US TSA is bad, but not worse than the UK. A lot of other airports are pretty bad, some are much better.
I think airport security is a big problem, but not unique to the US.
Right - what has the government done for us.... (insert monty python quote here)
education , sanitation, roads, police,
Seriously, try to imagine what the US would be like without a government, or if people had to pay specifically for the services they wanted. You may not like the police but would you prefer Blackwater hiring out as private security? No public education for the poor? Private roads closed to non-members? No water systems? It would be a hell on earth - a scaled up Somalia.
Sure, there is out of control government spending but its a lot better than no government at all.
Sorry, 60K really is a tiny amount of money for a government agency. Maybe the video was a bad idea. Maybe it was a morale booster. Maybe it distracted thousands of employees from their miserable pay checks. I don't care. The money wastage in the government is the multi-billion dollar unnecessary, or overdone projects (TSA, F35, etc), not a few tens of K spent here and there on entertainment for thousands of people.
If your income is low, then you are right, the $2 coffees add up. If you are making payments on a $20M house, and traveling by biz-jet, then coffee is not the place to try to save money.
Companies often spend money to entertain or motivate their employees. They do this because sometimes the morale boost is worth far more than what it costs.
The reports were on line so we can assume the Chinese have already downloaded all of them. Now we take them offline so that US businesses can't take advantage of the technical data that they contain.
Then we will add a likely complex and expensive process of vetting the reports which will delay any future releases - except for organizations that are good enough to hack the NASA computers and download them immediately.
Whose side are WE on????
Where did you get the "million dollars per person"? $1K/person is a total loss of 100B.
Cyberwarfare has the potential to do LOT of damage. If every file on your home computer and backups were wiped out, how many of your hours would it take to recover. Multiply by say 100 million. Multiply by the value of the average computer users time. If say 100 million credit card numbers were stolen and used to make say a billion random small on-line purchases, what would it cost to back it all out? What are the digital rights to all of your paid-for content and software worth? Again multiply by 100 million.
We live in a society where information is valuable. I think it is a mistake to only consider the physical damage that cyber-warfare could cause.
I'm not saying that there is a credible attack that could do any of the above, just that low-security systems collectively represent a high value target, so it makes sense to consider how to protect against such an attack. I have no idea if the specific plans of the US make any sense.
I'd like to see some international treaties on cyber warfare to understand what sorts of attacks and responses meet international law.
I think it isn't quite so simple. Machine guns are clearly under the control of the guy at the trigger - he, and his command chain have absolute responsibility for their actions. As robots become more autonomous, it will become less clear who is responsible for mistakes. When an automated drone mistakes a school bus for a tank, is it he fault of the drone? The guy who programmed the image recognition in the drone? The safety "logic" in the drone? The commander who ordered that particular drone into the field at the time?
With unclear lines of responsibility it will become easier to excuse war crimes as "software problems".
We do not yet have autonomous drones, but it seems likely that the technology will start to evolve in that direction.
It is not just the authors worrying about their own careers.I work at a DOE lab and the DOE evaluates the lab based on the number of publications with a strong weighting for "high impact" journals like Nature and Science. If I take an article that could be accepted into one of those journals and publish it somewhere else, I am not only hurting my own career, but endangering the funding for the entire lab.
I don't like this evaluation scheme, but I also can't think of a better way to do it.
If the open journals could become considered "high impact" I would be very happy to publish there. Unfortunately it is a chicken and egg problem: the best papers won't go to the open journals until they have a reputation of publishing the best papers.....
The government evaluates research projects by the number of publications weighted by the "impact" of the journal. Many researchers (myself included) would be very happy to only publish in open journals, but if we did, our projects would appear less successful so our funding would suffer. The delay is probably an agreement with the major journals to give them exclusive rights. fro a while.
I don't like it, but it isn't easy to come up with a different way for funding agencies to evaluate R&D.
Unfortunately "do not buy" my not be practical. When production cars are all equipped with GPS monitoring (as is likely) how do I "not buy" if I want to drive. Sure you can not drive, not use a cell phone, not travel by air, not use a credit card, not use the internet etc, but the impact on your standard of living is very large if you wan't to avoid being tracked.
Completely agree!
the article says that "he electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them" How??? How does the energy get concentrated at the required MeV level - that energy is WAY above anything involving lattice interactions. If you did have MeV electrons in the lattice they would scatter and create showers and loose that energy very quickly.
The fundamental problem with all cold fusion type schemes is that nuclear reactions involve MeV scale energies, and chemical reactions involve eV scale energies. There just isn't a credible way to use chemical effects to get the energy concentration that is required. There can be bulk effects (pyroelectricity for example) that can produce energetic particles, but they are no more efficient that accelerators.
Even if you did produce MeV electrons, very few of those electrons will create the reactions you want, most will just scatter back to lower energy and thermalize.
Fission is a very special case because neutral particles (neutrons) mediate the reaction, chemistry really isn't involved at all
I just did my best to read the original paper. (I'm a physicist but this is out of my field). Take-away items (assuming this and a paper it references are correct)
1. It is possible for the universe to have ended up in a meta-stable state as it cooled. Think a little like super-cooled water that will suddenly turn to ice if there is a source of nucleation. The lifetime of this state (given what data we have) can be pretty much anything. The fact that it hasn't decayed yet suggests that if the universe is metastable the lifetime is at least billions of years, and it could easily be MUCH larger. The lifetime is exponential in some unknown parameters.
2. One form of instability would result if the mass of the Higgs, the mass of the Top quark and some coupling constants had a certain relationship. We do not currently have a sufficiently accurate measurement of those numbers to know if the universe is stable, metastable, or unstable - the last being disallowed because we are still here. It is interesting that we are anywhere near the stability boundary and that may imply some interesting physics.
3. If we build a Linear Collider (another $10B machine) it will be able to measure the required parameters to sufficient accuracy to tell if the universe is stable or metastable.
Note: if the universe is metastable there is not imaginable technology that could cause a phase change (read destroy the universe). There are cosmic rays with 10^21 ev enrergies (a billion times higher than LHC) and there have been some head-on collisions on the history of the universe. Nothing we are going to do will trigger a state change.
In one sense it is a lot - I imagine the efficiency of the car is noticeably different. On the other hand for normal driving it isn't a big deal. When I'm on the freeway I drive with prevailing traffic (always obeying the speed limit of course officer), and speeds can vary by 20 mph even with only modest traffic. Any sort of range calculations should take that sort of normal variance into account.
Most gas automobiles have very conservative range calculations, you can often drive 30 miles on an "empty" tank. (my car claims 1.8 gallons when the "low fuel" comes on. Maybe Tesla needs to adjust their range calculation to put it in line with what drivers have come to expect.
An excellent suggestion, and one that I hope some competing auto reviewer will do, and soon while people are still interested and the weather is still cold. This will let people see what the driver did, how the car did, and what tech support recommended.
For extra impact, stream it live to the internet. That way no one can claim that it would only be posted if the answer turned out in a particular direction .
It should be possible to find a reviewer who doesn't already have a bias one way or the other.
But I'm not judging Musk's character - think he's great and very much approve of SpaceX., I'm thinking about how good an investment Tesla is and whether I might want one of their cars. Most support groups tape calls, so if Musk has the tapes then he can legitimately say that the NY times was lying.
The times reporters description of speeding up and slowing down to use the regenerative breaking, and running the heater to "condition" the batteries truly bizarre. If he made that up and Tesla can show the tapes, he will look like a complete idiot.
Don't own a dog, or a horse, and my parents are dead, so like most support responses most of your suggestions don't apply to my situation .