I think to call it the 'safest car ever' is quite a bold lie. Clearly there are safer vehicles out there ( Tanks, Semi-Trucks, even airplanes).
Hmm. I think you sold me. I'm in the market for a Model S, but I think instead I'll look into the used M1A1 Abrams market. If a new one costs $8.5 million, I bet I could score a used one for around $4 million or so. Clearly that's a much better option than spending $100k for a Model S. Of course that will also drop my top speed to 42mph, and that 500 gallon tank is going to take a few bucks to fill up. But fuck it, I have 1500 horsepower!
Because people in the market for a Model S are totally the same people in the market for a used tank.
(fun fact: the M1A1 with its 500 gallon tank has about the same maximum range as a Model S with the 85kwhr battery)
While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Designing the car with safety in mind is not "gaming the system". The ratings are not "artificially high", they are "actually high". Obviously safety was a major design concern for Tesla, and this is the result. There is nothing artificial nor "cheating" about it. They specifically designed the car with a huge front crumple zone.
Saying that Tesla's ratings are artificially high is about the same as saying a combustion engine car has artificially low ratings because of a huge engine block in the front that does not crumple. The ratings are not artificial, they are what they are because of how the car is designed.
Just look at the community that surrounds JK Rowling with regards to the Harry Potter series for a contemporary example.
There are plenty of authors with fans, but did JK Rowling really accept fan input and change what she had already done to satisfy certain fans?
Robert Heinlein got so fed up with his fan base that he ended up moving out to the middle of nowhere to explicitly get away from the fans
Right, probably because he didn't want them interfering with his work.
What about the "Hans shot first" controversy?
That would be Han, and that is another thing entirely, that was Lucas changing a later version of the film and fans getting upset that he changed it. In fact, that's exactly the opposite. The fans wanted the original version.
the fans invest time (whole heaps of time) and money into the art sometimes expect something back
They get something back, they get the next in the series. If they become dissatisfied with the series, then they can stop supporting it.
What other IT industry behaves as badly and treats their customers with such contempt?
Gaming is not Information Technology. It is entertainment. Another entertainment industry that treats its customers with contempt would be the music industry.
You are confusing interpersonal relationships with corporate relationships.
Sorry, but who exactly is confused here? We have obsessive gamers threatening the children of writers. Exactly which person is confusing the personal relationship with the corporate relationship?
are entitled to any and all kind of abuse directed at these corporations.
Who gives a shit? This article is not about people spewing vitriol at corporations, and those corporations whining about it because their corporate feelings got hurt. This article is about people spewing vitriol at individuals, and their families, and those people deciding that the hate is not worth it. And I agree with them, it's not worth it.
When abuse spills on unsuspecting employees of these corporations, well then it is a problem with corporate governance.
So the person who makes death threats against an employee's family is completely blameless, right? That's your point, correct? It's perfectly normal to issue a threat to kill a writer's family if I don't like the decision she made in the script of a video game. That's a perfectly reasonable, not-at-all-sociopathic-or-psychotic reaction to a video game, correct? That's what you're arguing for?
then don't be surprised when those that are paying your paycheck want some input into the direction of what they are paying for.
What other industry does that happen in? With a single exception that springs to mind (Snakes On A Plane), fans do not have direct input into the direction that a movie should take. People don't buy books because they think they have some say in how the story progresses, they buy a book because they appreciate the author's work. Some random person paying for a print of a painting does not get to tell the painter what to do. You can commission a work of art if you want to, and then you get some amount of creative control, but artists taking advice from fans is not the normal way that art gets created. The artists create the art, and the public can either like it, or not like it. Why should some obsessive gamer be allowed to influence the story line in a game just because they're paying for it? If they don't like the story, then don't fucking pay for it. The writers, designers, developers, etc who work on games are artists. They don't need to take criticism on their work and compromise their own artistic vision of it just because Joe Shmoe paid a few hours worth of his paycheck to buy their art.
If you disagree with the direction a game series is headed, then stop fucking paying money for it. That's in fact the single reason why I'm not going to buy any more Dragon Age games (although the direction I disagree with is a business decision and not an artistic one).
The way I see it, it's not so much that they can launch a vehicle vertically and then move it horizontally. The impressive part is that they do it with an actual rocket that is 106 feet tall, and that they have launched it 7 times with 0 failures. And this is all in prelude to their 9-engine 160-foot tall rocket that they will test at altitudes of up to 300,000 feet. When you have that working in your backyard, you let us know and we'll be happy to pat you on the back. Or, if you're as competent at designing rocket control systems as you seem to think, go ahead and work for them. I'm sure Elon Musk pays his people well.
No, but saying the word "cunt" bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Cunt. They don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
I might want to try again? I didn't try anything in the first place. I'm asking what is so different about the setup process of a Windows PC versus an iMac, to get the machine unboxed and booted to the desktop so that you can go online (or whatever arbitrary task you want to set as the goal once the thing is booted to the OS), where the PC requires "hours" more time.
Step 1: remove iMac, keyboard, mouse and power cable from the box.
Step 2: plug in power cable into back of iMac and wall socket.
Step 3. plug in keyboard and mouse.
Step 4. plug phone cord into phone socket in back of iMac and wall.
Step 5. Turn on iMac
Step 6. Launch AOL.
What's so different about setting up a Windows PC that requires "hours" more time? Individually plugging in the monitor and speakers isn't exactly a time sink. You have to spend a few minutes going through the Windows setup process, but I assume there was something similar on an iMac. Or was it just a single-user-account computer?
Oh, today that sounds so cruel, so mean, so discriminatory. Bullcrap -- what it did was guarantee that the people making the decisions had something to lose if the decisions were bad. In today's terms, they had 'skin in the game'. The landowners had every personal incentive to strive to improve the country and society, because you can't pick the land up and move it somewhere else, after all.
I think you're conveniently glossing over the fact that if only a certain relatively small group is allowed to vote, then the only people who will get voted in are people who pander to that group, at the possible expense of other groups. That's a big problem for everyone not part of that group.
If you *were* to restrict voting to a small group, people who own land or businesses are a pretty stupid group to give that power to. If you want to restrict voting to a small group, restrict it to people who have a degree from an accredited university.
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
The media are not in control, they are held hostage by the Commission on Presidential Debates to figure out who gets the juicy prime time debates that everyone will watch. The commission, in turn, in controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, so guess who gets to debate on TV? It used to be different, debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters, but they refused to participate in the 1988 election and released this statement:
"the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."
So the Democrats and Republicans took over the debates, and that's what we have today. The Democratic and Republican parties are controlling the system, together. The media is their bitch, the media is not in power. The problem is the commission, and the Democratic and Republican parties. They are the reason for the entrenched 2-party system.
And unlike other elections, you do not get to write-in for the president.
That's not true, several third-party candidates had write-in access in several states. They would prefer to actually be on the ballet, but they did have write-in access.
How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap
Flush out your headgear, new guy. He signed the Patriot Act extension before the fucking election, in 2011. He failed to do anything substantive about Guantanamo, and he failed to reign in the Patriot Act. Both of those were campaign promises from 2008. Those reasons are the reasons why I voted for Gary Johnson instead. If you weren't aware of those facts, then you weren't paying attention. And if you voted for him, I see no reason not to put some of the blame on you. You knew or should have known what kind of president he was after his first term. If you got distracted by his health care program and forgot about all of the promises he made and failed to live up to, then yeah, it's kind of your fault.
I've never seen that behavior with the Evo 4G or HTC One. If wifi is off, the radio is off (as far as I can tell). I was looking at the comments wondering why people are walking around with wifi enabled, I don't see any point in doing that. It's actually kind of stupid, you're draining the battery and exposing yourself to whatever vulnerabilities would use wifi.
I don't think so, I don't think that when NASA fires off a rocket, that the rocket contains the exact minimum amount of fuel required for the trip, I'm sure there is a small degree of additional fuel added for anything unforseen. I'm sure they plan those missions so that they can add low-weight things, like a DVD, without increasing the fuel that the rocket otherwise would have launched with. If that is the case, then the launch cost would be the same with or without the DVD, it would just end up with slightly more fuel without it.
Where do you see the cost with this? If you notice, the contest website is hosted by the University of Colorado in Boulder, not NASA. The poems were created and submitted by the public, not NASA. The poems were judged by the public, not NASA. They could literally print the winners out on a piece of paper and tape it to the outside of the spacecraft. Instead though, they are burning the poems to a DVD and shipping that along with the spacecraft. I doubt that NASA is paying for the DVD, and I doubt that they are paying whoever it is that burns the DVD.
So, where exactly is the cost to NASA in all of this? You seem to know, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to post that stupid post. So, where exactly is the cost?
Slashdot Mirror
The Model S is a really heavy car, actually, almost the weight of the Ford F-150.
You're not joking, it's over 4600 pounds.
I think to call it the 'safest car ever' is quite a bold lie. Clearly there are safer vehicles out there ( Tanks, Semi-Trucks, even airplanes).
Hmm. I think you sold me. I'm in the market for a Model S, but I think instead I'll look into the used M1A1 Abrams market. If a new one costs $8.5 million, I bet I could score a used one for around $4 million or so. Clearly that's a much better option than spending $100k for a Model S. Of course that will also drop my top speed to 42mph, and that 500 gallon tank is going to take a few bucks to fill up. But fuck it, I have 1500 horsepower!
Because people in the market for a Model S are totally the same people in the market for a used tank.
(fun fact: the M1A1 with its 500 gallon tank has about the same maximum range as a Model S with the 85kwhr battery)
The Model X.
While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Designing the car with safety in mind is not "gaming the system". The ratings are not "artificially high", they are "actually high". Obviously safety was a major design concern for Tesla, and this is the result. There is nothing artificial nor "cheating" about it. They specifically designed the car with a huge front crumple zone.
Saying that Tesla's ratings are artificially high is about the same as saying a combustion engine car has artificially low ratings because of a huge engine block in the front that does not crumple. The ratings are not artificial, they are what they are because of how the car is designed.
The NSA can decrypt and monitor a VPN, you think that Pretty Good Privacy is going to stop them?
It remains true there's no way a real app can "wreak havoc" even if you inject code later.
Maybe they would use one of those exploits from a jailbreak developer that Apple hired to add exploits into iOS.
FISC judges, LIKE ALL JUDGES, are at the mercy of those walking into their court to provide them information
Then it wouldn't really be accurate to refer to that as "oversight", would it?
Just look at the community that surrounds JK Rowling with regards to the Harry Potter series for a contemporary example.
There are plenty of authors with fans, but did JK Rowling really accept fan input and change what she had already done to satisfy certain fans?
Robert Heinlein got so fed up with his fan base that he ended up moving out to the middle of nowhere to explicitly get away from the fans
Right, probably because he didn't want them interfering with his work.
What about the "Hans shot first" controversy?
That would be Han, and that is another thing entirely, that was Lucas changing a later version of the film and fans getting upset that he changed it. In fact, that's exactly the opposite. The fans wanted the original version.
the fans invest time (whole heaps of time) and money into the art sometimes expect something back
They get something back, they get the next in the series. If they become dissatisfied with the series, then they can stop supporting it.
What other IT industry behaves as badly and treats their customers with such contempt?
Gaming is not Information Technology. It is entertainment. Another entertainment industry that treats its customers with contempt would be the music industry.
You are confusing interpersonal relationships with corporate relationships.
Sorry, but who exactly is confused here? We have obsessive gamers threatening the children of writers. Exactly which person is confusing the personal relationship with the corporate relationship?
are entitled to any and all kind of abuse directed at these corporations.
Who gives a shit? This article is not about people spewing vitriol at corporations, and those corporations whining about it because their corporate feelings got hurt. This article is about people spewing vitriol at individuals, and their families, and those people deciding that the hate is not worth it. And I agree with them, it's not worth it.
When abuse spills on unsuspecting employees of these corporations, well then it is a problem with corporate governance.
So the person who makes death threats against an employee's family is completely blameless, right? That's your point, correct? It's perfectly normal to issue a threat to kill a writer's family if I don't like the decision she made in the script of a video game. That's a perfectly reasonable, not-at-all-sociopathic-or-psychotic reaction to a video game, correct? That's what you're arguing for?
then don't be surprised when those that are paying your paycheck want some input into the direction of what they are paying for.
What other industry does that happen in? With a single exception that springs to mind (Snakes On A Plane), fans do not have direct input into the direction that a movie should take. People don't buy books because they think they have some say in how the story progresses, they buy a book because they appreciate the author's work. Some random person paying for a print of a painting does not get to tell the painter what to do. You can commission a work of art if you want to, and then you get some amount of creative control, but artists taking advice from fans is not the normal way that art gets created. The artists create the art, and the public can either like it, or not like it. Why should some obsessive gamer be allowed to influence the story line in a game just because they're paying for it? If they don't like the story, then don't fucking pay for it. The writers, designers, developers, etc who work on games are artists. They don't need to take criticism on their work and compromise their own artistic vision of it just because Joe Shmoe paid a few hours worth of his paycheck to buy their art.
If you disagree with the direction a game series is headed, then stop fucking paying money for it. That's in fact the single reason why I'm not going to buy any more Dragon Age games (although the direction I disagree with is a business decision and not an artistic one).
The way I see it, it's not so much that they can launch a vehicle vertically and then move it horizontally. The impressive part is that they do it with an actual rocket that is 106 feet tall, and that they have launched it 7 times with 0 failures. And this is all in prelude to their 9-engine 160-foot tall rocket that they will test at altitudes of up to 300,000 feet. When you have that working in your backyard, you let us know and we'll be happy to pat you on the back. Or, if you're as competent at designing rocket control systems as you seem to think, go ahead and work for them. I'm sure Elon Musk pays his people well.
You should watch The Big Lebowski sometime. It's a good movie. And thorough.
No, but saying the word "cunt" bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Cunt. They don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
I might want to try again? I didn't try anything in the first place. I'm asking what is so different about the setup process of a Windows PC versus an iMac, to get the machine unboxed and booted to the desktop so that you can go online (or whatever arbitrary task you want to set as the goal once the thing is booted to the OS), where the PC requires "hours" more time.
Step 1: remove iMac, keyboard, mouse and power cable from the box.
Step 2: plug in power cable into back of iMac and wall socket.
Step 3. plug in keyboard and mouse.
Step 4. plug phone cord into phone socket in back of iMac and wall.
Step 5. Turn on iMac
Step 6. Launch AOL.
What's so different about setting up a Windows PC that requires "hours" more time? Individually plugging in the monitor and speakers isn't exactly a time sink. You have to spend a few minutes going through the Windows setup process, but I assume there was something similar on an iMac. Or was it just a single-user-account computer?
Oh, today that sounds so cruel, so mean, so discriminatory. Bullcrap -- what it did was guarantee that the people making the decisions had something to lose if the decisions were bad. In today's terms, they had 'skin in the game'. The landowners had every personal incentive to strive to improve the country and society, because you can't pick the land up and move it somewhere else, after all.
I think you're conveniently glossing over the fact that if only a certain relatively small group is allowed to vote, then the only people who will get voted in are people who pander to that group, at the possible expense of other groups. That's a big problem for everyone not part of that group.
If you *were* to restrict voting to a small group, people who own land or businesses are a pretty stupid group to give that power to. If you want to restrict voting to a small group, restrict it to people who have a degree from an accredited university.
As thin as the victory was for GWB in 2000, if Ralph Nader hadn't have been in, Gore would probably have won the election.
So what? And if everyone had voted for Nader, then he would have been president. Having more candidates is not the problem, it is the solution.
That doesn't change the fact that the corporate owned media gets to screen who gets the airtime they need to reach the public.
The media are not in control, they are held hostage by the Commission on Presidential Debates to figure out who gets the juicy prime time debates that everyone will watch. The commission, in turn, in controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, so guess who gets to debate on TV? It used to be different, debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters, but they refused to participate in the 1988 election and released this statement:
"the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."
So the Democrats and Republicans took over the debates, and that's what we have today. The Democratic and Republican parties are controlling the system, together. The media is their bitch, the media is not in power. The problem is the commission, and the Democratic and Republican parties. They are the reason for the entrenched 2-party system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
And unlike other elections, you do not get to write-in for the president.
That's not true, several third-party candidates had write-in access in several states. They would prefer to actually be on the ballet, but they did have write-in access.
How were we supposed to know he was going to pull this crap
Flush out your headgear, new guy. He signed the Patriot Act extension before the fucking election, in 2011. He failed to do anything substantive about Guantanamo, and he failed to reign in the Patriot Act. Both of those were campaign promises from 2008. Those reasons are the reasons why I voted for Gary Johnson instead. If you weren't aware of those facts, then you weren't paying attention. And if you voted for him, I see no reason not to put some of the blame on you. You knew or should have known what kind of president he was after his first term. If you got distracted by his health care program and forgot about all of the promises he made and failed to live up to, then yeah, it's kind of your fault.
I've never seen that behavior with the Evo 4G or HTC One. If wifi is off, the radio is off (as far as I can tell). I was looking at the comments wondering why people are walking around with wifi enabled, I don't see any point in doing that. It's actually kind of stupid, you're draining the battery and exposing yourself to whatever vulnerabilities would use wifi.
We can tell it's still you, you know.
I don't think so, I don't think that when NASA fires off a rocket, that the rocket contains the exact minimum amount of fuel required for the trip, I'm sure there is a small degree of additional fuel added for anything unforseen. I'm sure they plan those missions so that they can add low-weight things, like a DVD, without increasing the fuel that the rocket otherwise would have launched with. If that is the case, then the launch cost would be the same with or without the DVD, it would just end up with slightly more fuel without it.
Where do you see the cost with this? If you notice, the contest website is hosted by the University of Colorado in Boulder, not NASA. The poems were created and submitted by the public, not NASA. The poems were judged by the public, not NASA. They could literally print the winners out on a piece of paper and tape it to the outside of the spacecraft. Instead though, they are burning the poems to a DVD and shipping that along with the spacecraft. I doubt that NASA is paying for the DVD, and I doubt that they are paying whoever it is that burns the DVD.
So, where exactly is the cost to NASA in all of this? You seem to know, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to post that stupid post. So, where exactly is the cost?
It was a duplicate of an article posted only a few hours before. Here's the first one, which is still on the main page:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/08/08/1956215/encrypted-email-provider-lavabit-shuts-down-blames-us-govt