Dude, I grew up with the those cowardly shitbags killing innocent bystanders. Don't give me any rhetoric about them fighting any fucking revolutionary war. They lose all rights to be treated as human when, as an organisation, they intentionally set out to kill people as PR "for the cause".
It was well known at the time, and confirmed by Sinn Fein afterwards though never officially "proven", that a huge amount of money was sent from the USA to fund the IRA, it was called Noraid, and it funded them to the tune of millions of pounds. That was American *people* exercising their rights and freedoms to fund an organisation that murdered men, women and children indiscriminately.
The IRA are vermin, scumbags, the leprous weeping sores deep up the arsehole of humanity, and those who made their actions possible by funding them are no better. Just ask the parents of the murdered children how they feel...
Sadly (for me, as a Brit), it seems it's the other way around. GCHQ has been giving lessons to foreign counterparts in how to get around that nations laws and cooperate for their common "good".
Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ? You may disagree with their case, but I don't recall anyone claiming their lawyers were unethical in prosecuting that case...
As for Samsung, they're just scumbags who don't respect the law of any land...
July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."
October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.
Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.
Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.
July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-He was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.
May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).
Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.
March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would be paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.
July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).
August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.
Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.
April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.
October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.
If Apple tried to pull that shit, all hell would break loose. And rightfully so. For me personally, it's enough that I don't buy anything with a Samsung brand on the outside any more. They're the only company for which that's the case.
There is a file containing a list of all the common benchmarking apps, and everything in the list is a benchmarking app - nothing else. When one of those packages is run, the phone locks the frequency of all cores to fMax and also seems to fiddle with the GPU.
The result is a battery-nightmare, but a boost of 20% to *only* benchmark apps. This is despicable - plain and simple.
That's fair comment on the original post, but let's narrow it down a bit...
"If someone is surprised that a manufacturer with a track-record of fudging benchmarks is willing to cheat, rip off, etc to get ahead... well you haven't really been paying attention"
Not all humans are morally and ethically bankrupt. Samsung (as a corporate entity) is though.
Just saying. Every one of those things you listed, my mother thinks is an advantage, not a drawback.
proprietary interface - she knows that to get something that really works, she just goes to the Apple store. There's never any "driver" or compatibility issues. She gets a straight answer from someone she trusts.
designed to sync through itunes only. Yep. She loves that. Nice and simple, and again, one easy path to getting what she wants.
she doesn't use Outlook or Google apps (whe wouldn't know a google app if it came up and introduced itself). She doesn't want complexity layered on top of her nice simple interface just to make someone else's life easier.
excessive control over apps - well "excessive" is a judgemental term, but she's happy there's next-to-no malicious apps for the iPhone compared to other vendors offerings. She knows she's not that technical, and she likes that the people who do know techy stuff are helping her against these malicious apps.
clumsy UI - well, simple anyway. Simple is good. Simple is easy to understand, and she likes easy to understand.
I'd be willing to bet there are more people in this world who are on a technical level with my mother, than with you or I; which is why Apple have maintained these "drawbacks" - because they're advantages.
I had an Atari ST at college. It booted (to a graphical, no less) desktop pretty much instantly, say a few seconds if you had a slew of SCSI peripherals (especially a CDROM drive), but otherwise it was about half a second.
It was ready to go, too. None of this crap of *showing* the desktop and then spinning the busy cursor for another 30 secs...
My position is that the qualification is meaningless. I can think of no job which does not have a specific skill-set requirement, from cleaning windows to CPU design. Different skills, for sure, but skills nonetheless.
My comment was therefore aimed at the age-related aspect of the conversation.
No company will hire you if you don't have the skills they want, but I'm hardly the oldest person in my (fairly small) group; likewise in general on the floor around me. That's not to say there aren't younger people around - of course there are, it's just that age doesn't appear to be any sort of criteria.
I live in CA. 4 years ago I installed a $70k ($50k after rebates) 8kW solar system on my roof and my garage's roof.
Prior to solar, my original electricity bill peaked at ~$1100/month, more commonly about $600. This is due mainly to my own choices, no doubt, but still that's what we are dealing with - in Summer, the AC is on quite a bit (it's been 106F this last week) and the pool pump needs to run 8 hours a day for good cleaning. There's also the 2 pond pumps which run 24/7 and the reef tank pumps which also run 24/7. Add in a baby (so lots of washing-machine and dryer activity) and it adds up...
After the solar installation, my bill peaks at ~$100, more commonly about $50. This gives me an average saving of ~$8500 per year, and if you divide $55k by $8.5k you get 5.88 years to pay for itself. By some definitions that's 5 years...
In terms of cost, certainly the main issue is that I consume a lot of electricity. I'm happier now that most of that comes gratis from the sun, but also partly it's California's (or at least PG&E's) electricity pricing which ranges in tiers (the below taken from www.pge.com)
$0.1323... baseline $0.1504... 101% -> 130% of baseline $0.3111... 131% -> 200% of baseline $0.3511... 200% -> 300% of baseline $0.3514... 301%+
My baseline is set at 7.5 kWh per day (or ~225 kWh/month) , and I consume about 40kWh per day on a "good" (no AC, pool closed) day (pumping water is energy-intensive...). For me at least, the maths works out. When you're looking at individual cases, using average numbers is not such a great idea...
I've just gone through interviews at Google and Apple.
At Google, I was asked mainly theoretical questions - big-O, maths/stats, etc. And one "real" architecture/design question at the end. There were 5 interviewers and maybe 7 questions, sometimes 2 per interviewer but usually just 1 that lasted the whole hour. According to my recruiter before the decision, it was maybe 50/50 that I'd get an offer, and I did very well on the real-system design question (by inference, not so well on the others:). I didn't get the job.
At Apple, I had a seven-hour interview with seven interviewers. There were many many questions, far too many to easily remember categories, but they were all focussed on things I might end up doing, or problems that I might end up encountering. I got the job. I guess I do better with "real world" issues than the "consider two sets of numbers, one is... the other is...) type.
I have the self-confidence^W^W arrogance to believe I'm an asset to pretty much any company out there, but interview processes are nothing more than a gamble. Sure you can weed out the obvious under-qualified applicants, but frankly (unless the candidate is lying, and in the US that's a real no-no, in the UK padding your CV seems to be sort of expected...) that sort of candidate ought to have been pre-vetoed by the recruiter before getting to the interview.
I've yet to see the interview that guarantees a good candidate will do well. It's all about preparation: can you implement quicksort or mergesort right now, without looking it up ? The algorithm takes about 20 lines of code... Some interviews will require you to have knowledge like that; others are more concerned with how you collaborate with other candidates; still others are concerned with your code quality (I've seen a co-interviewer downmark a candidate for missing a ; at the end of a coding line. I wasn't impressed... by the co-interviewer. But that's another story); still others are... you get my point. Whether you do well or not can depend more on the cross-intersectional area of the interviewers style and your own credo than any knowledge you may or may not have.
So go in there expecting to be surprised, prepare what you can, be prepared to do wacky things to please "the man" interviewing you. For a good candidate, over a large number of interviews, you'll do well. The problem is that we often want a specific job, and we get depressed by the first dozen or so failed interviews. There's nothing more you can do than pick yourself up and try again. It's instructive to note that second-interviews at companies often go better than first-interviews, possibly because you're forewarned about the style a bit more, and therefore a bit better prepared...
In my first year at college, I pushed a friend (by accident) through a plate glass window. The college authorities fined me £50 and asked me to be more careful. [friend] was taken to hospital, lost a small slice of an ear IIRC but was otherwise ok.
We were sitting in the college bar, pretty drunk, and there were these thick radiators that ran along the windows which people sat on. [friend] had slid down between the radiator and the plate glass (10' x 10') window, and I thought it'd be a fine idea to get him stuck down there, so pushed him down as hard as I could...
Plate glass windows make a lot of noise when they break...
I do remember grabbing hold of him and pulling him back as soon as it happened, which may be why he still talks to me:) It may also be why he didn't get a sheet of glass through his neck, Exorcist-style.
The dean in charge of my hall-of-residence was particularly scathing when he found out I was studying physics at the time, various comments about the fragility of glass were made, but his (and the college's) attitude was "shit happens around students". The fine was their way of saying "don't be a dick, again".
Of course, this was the UK, not the US. I also wrote a networked virus without ending up in jail...
The figures quoted for mileage range don't include the emergency range on any petrol car I'm aware of, and they try to fudge them as much as they can (eg: constant 55mph on a theoretically clear road). I'm assuming there's some sort of law about it, but I may be wrong.
Fairy nuff. Since the conversation has descended this far. Fuck off and die you arrogant cunt, you're what the leprous weeping scab far up inside the arsehole of humanity dreams of ascending to. You could seriously do with at least some gorms and your problem (at least as far as this discussion goes) is that you're fucking wrong. Deal with it. The margin of error in what TG claim is way way less than that claimed by Shuckster^W Tesla - to within a very good approximation, the maths works out. TG were entirely justified in their claim, and your pathetic attempt to try and discredit it as extrapolation is belied by the fact that they were right.
Pulling random figures out of the air is, of course, exactly what you're accusing the presenters of doing, but apparently it's ok if you do it. Apparently you don't read what you write, either. Calling someone a prick is an accusation, idiot (and I mean idiot in the technical sense, for what it's worth).
Now the conversation has descended this low, I'll be marking you as "to be ignored". See ya.
Because that's what the chemistry dictates (we do chemistry in school, too). The power-release curve of the modern Lithium-ion cells used by Tesla are pretty much linear until the charge is *very* near depleted, at which point it *very* rapidly falls off. Once you're out of the linear phase of the curve, you're SOL.
The "gage" (sic) wasn't broken; the car didn't have 75% left, Tesla made no such claim (and boy would they have, if they could have).
As for being condescending, it seems like an appropriate response to a blatantly false accusation of dishonesty. Note that at least I didn't descend to calling someone a "prick" because I didn't like what they said...
Would that be in the same way as a car's petrol gauge doesn't run out when it reads 'empty', and there's still a little in reserve ? And yet we don't say a petrol-fuelled car has a range of X(+Y) miles do we ? Why should that change for electric cars ?
At least you're posting under your own name in this thread. I can't quite believe how many anonymous cowards are writing long detailed argument posts. Seems very atypical of the site...
In UK schools we teach this thing called "mathematics". We learn "algebra", and can form and solve simple equations before the minimum school-leaving age. It is therefore understood that everyone has the most basic grounding in mathematics that allows them to appreciate simple derivatives. Or even more simply...
charge at time (t=0) = X charge at time (t=30 mins) = Y charge at time (t=50 mins) = Z plot the graph of charge vs time. It's a straight line. Read off the time value on the charge-axis intercept. That's how long it will last.
You keep on harping on about the SCRIPTING IN ADVANCE part of filming a TV show, as if this is in any way not normal... I happen to have worked in the film industry. It's *completely* normal to have a script of what you're doing and when, as well as a rough outline of what you expect to happen. The producers wouldn't be doing their job if they *didn't* have such a script.
With that in mind, here's the show's producers comments on the scripting thing:
a) The truth is, Top Gear had already driven the car prior to filming, to enable us to form a view on it in advance
b) Our primary reasoning behind the verdict had nothing to do with how the Tesla performed; our conclusion was based mainly on the fact that it costs three times more than the petrol sports car upon which it’s based. It takes a long time to recharge, so you can’t use it as easily for the carefree motoring journeys that are a prerequisite of sports car driving. You can actually reach that conclusion without driving the car. As it happens, when it did come to the subjective area of how the car drove on the track, we were full of praise for its performance and handling.
c) Just so you understand there’s nothing devious going on, you need to know how this filming business works. When you film a car review, the reviewer is only the tip of the iceberg. Behind the lens is a film crew, and only a day’s worth of light to shoot the eight minute film. This means we have to prepare in advance a treatment – a rough draft of a script so that the director and film crew can get to work right away, knowing what shots they will need to capture. It will contain the facts about a car, and what we think of its looks and so on, but how well the car actually drives is added on the day. If we’ve driven it ahead of filming, as we do with most cars, we will also have an idea how it feels to drive. But, and this is crucial, as we uncover fresh information about a car whilst filming it, it is entirely normal for the treatment to be modified as the day unfolds. Jeremy is always tweaking the scripts to reflect what his driving experience has actually been on the day.
In terms of the what Clarkson actually said during the driving, he loved the car. It's the fundamental design faults that caused problems, and the fact that Tesla were marketing it as 'The Supercar. Redefined' led to TG testing it as a supercar (you know, on a racetrack). If you've seen any of their other supercar reviews, they're equally scathing about those cars deficiencies.
Tesla didn't get any worse or better treatment than any other manufacturer. They just went in there expecting to get a fawning love-fest type of review, perhaps they'd never actually watched the show...
Anyway, I'm out. I don't really care enough about this to argue it to completion.
If you're driving a car and it has power-assisted breaking you are naturally expecting the car to behave in a given way. If you get into a situation where the brakes do not react as strongly as you expect, that is potentially lethal - not just to you but to the poor pedestrian you didn't see.
No excuses. No "semantics" here. It was broken. End of.
What I'm reading from your post is that Top Gear identified a crucial weakness in the Tesla braking system, and Tesla has since fixed it. Good for Tesla, but to claim the original fault was specious is plain wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps racist behaviour should be punished independent of any mindless "free speech" worship.
Simon
Yeah, thanks.
The difference being that I'd legally lock the shitbags up and let them die in prison. I'd not go out and kill someone *else* to make my point.
Dude, I grew up with the those cowardly shitbags killing innocent bystanders. Don't give me any rhetoric about them fighting any fucking revolutionary war. They lose all rights to be treated as human when, as an organisation, they intentionally set out to kill people as PR "for the cause".
It was well known at the time, and confirmed by Sinn Fein afterwards though never officially "proven", that a huge amount of money was sent from the USA to fund the IRA, it was called Noraid, and it funded them to the tune of millions of pounds. That was American *people* exercising their rights and freedoms to fund an organisation that murdered men, women and children indiscriminately.
The IRA are vermin, scumbags, the leprous weeping sores deep up the arsehole of humanity, and those who made their actions possible by funding them are no better. Just ask the parents of the murdered children how they feel...
Simon.
Sadly (for me, as a Brit), it seems it's the other way around. GCHQ has been giving lessons to foreign counterparts in how to get around that nations laws and cooperate for their common "good".
All men are potential child rapists
All women are potential serial murderers
Using the word potential in a statement reduces the effectiveness of that statement to near zero.
Let's wait and see what *actually* develops. God knows it can't be worse than what the US has, even Cuba trounces the US.
Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ? You may disagree with their case, but I don't recall anyone claiming their lawyers were unethical in prosecuting that case ...
As for Samsung, they're just scumbags who don't respect the law of any land...
(Taken from Fortune ...)
If Apple tried to pull that shit, all hell would break loose. And rightfully so. For me personally, it's enough that I don't buy anything with a Samsung brand on the outside any more. They're the only company for which that's the case.
Simon.
There is a file containing a list of all the common benchmarking apps, and everything in the list is a benchmarking app - nothing else. When one of those packages is run, the phone locks the frequency of all cores to fMax and also seems to fiddle with the GPU.
The result is a battery-nightmare, but a boost of 20% to *only* benchmark apps. This is despicable - plain and simple.
See http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/galaxy-note-3s-benchmarking-adjustments-inflate-scores-by-up-to-20/
Simon.
That's fair comment on the original post, but let's narrow it down a bit...
"If someone is surprised that a manufacturer with a track-record of fudging benchmarks is willing to cheat, rip off, etc to get ahead... well you haven't really been paying attention"
Not all humans are morally and ethically bankrupt. Samsung (as a corporate entity) is though.
Simon
Citation required, because all I can find is: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/25/apple_denies_fiddling_g5_xeon/ ... which seems to be refuting the claim...
Simon.
Just saying. Every one of those things you listed, my mother thinks is an advantage, not a drawback.
proprietary interface - she knows that to get something that really works, she just goes to the Apple store. There's never any "driver" or compatibility issues. She gets a straight answer from someone she trusts.
designed to sync through itunes only. Yep. She loves that. Nice and simple, and again, one easy path to getting what she wants.
she doesn't use Outlook or Google apps (whe wouldn't know a google app if it came up and introduced itself). She doesn't want complexity layered on top of her nice simple interface just to make someone else's life easier.
excessive control over apps - well "excessive" is a judgemental term, but she's happy there's next-to-no malicious apps for the iPhone compared to other vendors offerings. She knows she's not that technical, and she likes that the people who do know techy stuff are helping her against these malicious apps.
clumsy UI - well, simple anyway. Simple is good. Simple is easy to understand, and she likes easy to understand.
I'd be willing to bet there are more people in this world who are on a technical level with my mother, than with you or I; which is why Apple have maintained these "drawbacks" - because they're advantages.
Simon.
*chortle*. Good one.
I had an Atari ST at college. It booted (to a graphical, no less) desktop pretty much instantly, say a few seconds if you had a slew of SCSI peripherals (especially a CDROM drive), but otherwise it was about half a second.
It was ready to go, too. None of this crap of *showing* the desktop and then spinning the busy cursor for another 30 secs...
Simon.
Indeed.
My position is that the qualification is meaningless. I can think of no job which does not have a specific skill-set requirement, from cleaning windows to CPU design. Different skills, for sure, but skills nonetheless.
My comment was therefore aimed at the age-related aspect of the conversation.
Just started a new job in Apple R&D. I'm 44.
No company will hire you if you don't have the skills they want, but I'm hardly the oldest person in my (fairly small) group; likewise in general on the floor around me. That's not to say there aren't younger people around - of course there are, it's just that age doesn't appear to be any sort of criteria.
I live in CA. 4 years ago I installed a $70k ($50k after rebates) 8kW solar system on my roof and my garage's roof.
Prior to solar, my original electricity bill peaked at ~$1100/month, more commonly about $600. This is due mainly to my own choices, no doubt, but still that's what we are dealing with - in Summer, the AC is on quite a bit (it's been 106F this last week) and the pool pump needs to run 8 hours a day for good cleaning. There's also the 2 pond pumps which run 24/7 and the reef tank pumps which also run 24/7. Add in a baby (so lots of washing-machine and dryer activity) and it adds up...
After the solar installation, my bill peaks at ~$100, more commonly about $50. This gives me an average saving of ~$8500 per year, and if you divide $55k by $8.5k you get 5.88 years to pay for itself. By some definitions that's 5 years...
In terms of cost, certainly the main issue is that I consume a lot of electricity. I'm happier now that most of that comes gratis from the sun, but also partly it's California's (or at least PG&E's) electricity pricing which ranges in tiers (the below taken from www.pge.com)
$0.1323 ... baseline ... 101% -> 130% of baseline ... 131% -> 200% of baseline ... 200% -> 300% of baseline ... 301%+
$0.1504
$0.3111
$0.3511
$0.3514
My baseline is set at 7.5 kWh per day (or ~225 kWh/month) , and I consume about 40kWh per day on a "good" (no AC, pool closed) day (pumping water is energy-intensive...). For me at least, the maths works out. When you're looking at individual cases, using average numbers is not such a great idea...
Simon
I've just gone through interviews at Google and Apple.
At Google, I was asked mainly theoretical questions - big-O, maths/stats, etc. And one "real" architecture/design question at the end. There were 5 interviewers and maybe 7 questions, sometimes 2 per interviewer but usually just 1 that lasted the whole hour. According to my recruiter before the decision, it was maybe 50/50 that I'd get an offer, and I did very well on the real-system design question (by inference, not so well on the others :). I didn't get the job.
At Apple, I had a seven-hour interview with seven interviewers. There were many many questions, far too many to easily remember categories, but they were all focussed on things I might end up doing, or problems that I might end up encountering. I got the job. I guess I do better with "real world" issues than the "consider two sets of numbers, one is ... the other is ...) type.
I have the self-confidence^W^W arrogance to believe I'm an asset to pretty much any company out there, but interview processes are nothing more than a gamble. Sure you can weed out the obvious under-qualified applicants, but frankly (unless the candidate is lying, and in the US that's a real no-no, in the UK padding your CV seems to be sort of expected...) that sort of candidate ought to have been pre-vetoed by the recruiter before getting to the interview.
I've yet to see the interview that guarantees a good candidate will do well. It's all about preparation: can you implement quicksort or mergesort right now, without looking it up ? The algorithm takes about 20 lines of code... Some interviews will require you to have knowledge like that; others are more concerned with how you collaborate with other candidates; still others are concerned with your code quality (I've seen a co-interviewer downmark a candidate for missing a ; at the end of a coding line. I wasn't impressed ... by the co-interviewer. But that's another story); still others are ... you get my point. Whether you do well or not can depend more on the cross-intersectional area of the interviewers style and your own credo than any knowledge you may or may not have.
So go in there expecting to be surprised, prepare what you can, be prepared to do wacky things to please "the man" interviewing you. For a good candidate, over a large number of interviews, you'll do well. The problem is that we often want a specific job, and we get depressed by the first dozen or so failed interviews. There's nothing more you can do than pick yourself up and try again. It's instructive to note that second-interviews at companies often go better than first-interviews, possibly because you're forewarned about the style a bit more, and therefore a bit better prepared...
In my first year at college, I pushed a friend (by accident) through a plate glass window. The college authorities fined me £50 and asked me to be more careful. [friend] was taken to hospital, lost a small slice of an ear IIRC but was otherwise ok.
We were sitting in the college bar, pretty drunk, and there were these thick radiators that ran along the windows which people sat on. [friend] had slid down between the radiator and the plate glass (10' x 10') window, and I thought it'd be a fine idea to get him stuck down there, so pushed him down as hard as I could...
Plate glass windows make a lot of noise when they break...
I do remember grabbing hold of him and pulling him back as soon as it happened, which may be why he still talks to me :) It may also be why he didn't get a sheet of glass through his neck, Exorcist-style.
The dean in charge of my hall-of-residence was particularly scathing when he found out I was studying physics at the time, various comments about the fragility of glass were made, but his (and the college's) attitude was "shit happens around students". The fine was their way of saying "don't be a dick, again".
Of course, this was the UK, not the US. I also wrote a networked virus without ending up in jail...
Not by common usage, at least where I come from.
The figures quoted for mileage range don't include the emergency range on any petrol car I'm aware of, and they try to fudge them as much as they can (eg: constant 55mph on a theoretically clear road). I'm assuming there's some sort of law about it, but I may be wrong.
Simon.
Fairy nuff. Since the conversation has descended this far. Fuck off and die you arrogant cunt, you're what the leprous weeping scab far up inside the arsehole of humanity dreams of ascending to. You could seriously do with at least some gorms and your problem (at least as far as this discussion goes) is that you're fucking wrong. Deal with it. The margin of error in what TG claim is way way less than that claimed by Shuckster^W Tesla - to within a very good approximation, the maths works out. TG were entirely justified in their claim, and your pathetic attempt to try and discredit it as extrapolation is belied by the fact that they were right.
Pulling random figures out of the air is, of course, exactly what you're accusing the presenters of doing, but apparently it's ok if you do it. Apparently you don't read what you write, either. Calling someone a prick is an accusation, idiot (and I mean idiot in the technical sense, for what it's worth).
Now the conversation has descended this low, I'll be marking you as "to be ignored". See ya.
Because that's what the chemistry dictates (we do chemistry in school, too). The power-release curve of the modern Lithium-ion cells used by Tesla are pretty much linear until the charge is *very* near depleted, at which point it *very* rapidly falls off. Once you're out of the linear phase of the curve, you're SOL.
The "gage" (sic) wasn't broken; the car didn't have 75% left, Tesla made no such claim (and boy would they have, if they could have).
As for being condescending, it seems like an appropriate response to a blatantly false accusation of dishonesty. Note that at least I didn't descend to calling someone a "prick" because I didn't like what they said...
Simon.
Would that be in the same way as a car's petrol gauge doesn't run out when it reads 'empty', and there's still a little in reserve ? And yet we don't say a petrol-fuelled car has a range of X(+Y) miles do we ? Why should that change for electric cars ?
At least you're posting under your own name in this thread. I can't quite believe how many anonymous cowards are writing long detailed argument posts. Seems very atypical of the site...
Simon.
In UK schools we teach this thing called "mathematics". We learn "algebra", and can form and solve simple equations before the minimum school-leaving age. It is therefore understood that everyone has the most basic grounding in mathematics that allows them to appreciate simple derivatives. Or even more simply...
charge at time (t=0) = X
charge at time (t=30 mins) = Y
charge at time (t=50 mins) = Z
plot the graph of charge vs time. It's a straight line. Read off the time value on the charge-axis intercept. That's how long it will last.
Simon. Sheesh.
You keep on harping on about the SCRIPTING IN ADVANCE part of filming a TV show, as if this is in any way not normal... I happen to have worked in the film industry. It's *completely* normal to have a script of what you're doing and when, as well as a rough outline of what you expect to happen. The producers wouldn't be doing their job if they *didn't* have such a script.
With that in mind, here's the show's producers comments on the scripting thing:
In terms of the what Clarkson actually said during the driving, he loved the car. It's the fundamental design faults that caused problems, and the fact that Tesla were marketing it as 'The Supercar. Redefined' led to TG testing it as a supercar (you know, on a racetrack). If you've seen any of their other supercar reviews, they're equally scathing about those cars deficiencies.
Tesla didn't get any worse or better treatment than any other manufacturer. They just went in there expecting to get a fawning love-fest type of review, perhaps they'd never actually watched the show...
Anyway, I'm out. I don't really care enough about this to argue it to completion.
So it was broken, then. Right. Gotcha.
If you're driving a car and it has power-assisted breaking you are naturally expecting the car to behave in a given way. If you get into a situation where the brakes do not react as strongly as you expect, that is potentially lethal - not just to you but to the poor pedestrian you didn't see.
No excuses. No "semantics" here. It was broken. End of.
What I'm reading from your post is that Top Gear identified a crucial weakness in the Tesla braking system, and Tesla has since fixed it. Good for Tesla, but to claim the original fault was specious is plain wrong.