Well... mebbe if you proofed your original post you'd notice that it has one piece of information (that's been repeated plenty in this discussion) surrounded by very deliberate inflammatory statements. Troll, flamebait, or whatever you want to call it-- yourpost did not add anything meaningful to the discussion. "Ideological masturbation" is not informative. "Chimpy McCokeSpoon" is not insightful.
Odds are the mod who hit you with the troll agreed with you (most of/. seems to disagree with the Iraq war)-- Improve your ability to take part in civil discourse, and *then* complain that the mods are out to get you.
Hey neat! I hadn't realized I responded to two of your posts!
Of course I'm generalizing quite a bit. I'm not speaking specifically of the Roadster in the above example. It's already been well established that the Tesla Roadster is largely unsuitable for road trips. I'm simply saying we're not as far off as you imply...
Curious exactly what it is you are driving... The majority of new "lightweight tissue framed" vehicles are worlds safer than the heavy vehicles of yore. Automotive structures these days do a phenomenal job of dispersing energy around the passenger compartment instead of through it.
But y'know, what ever makes you feel safer. More cold water to ya, man!
"more performance" is arguable, but other than that-- bingo. This car is effectively an electric Elise, which starts at around 50k. Some folks are willing to pay more for the neato new tech, some folks aren't.
I obviously don't have the numbers and am clearly too lazy to find it on the googles, but given the relative difference in mileage I get in my own fairly aerodynamic car between a 55MPH drive (stupid Oregon) and a 75MPH drive I would expect the Tesla to still beat 200 miles on a highway charge. This certainly isn't stellar compared to a gas car, but keep in mind nobody is expecting to take this on a long distance drive. Everybody nits on the range drawback of the Roadster. That's fine, it's not designed to be a long haul driver.
95% of driving can be satisfied by this car, the other 5% clearly don't care enough to make up their own statistics like I have.
20 times increase in battery capacity is not necessary *at all* even for long distance driving. A more modest improvement in capacity (2-3x) or a modest improvement in charge time (2-3x), and most importantly a charging infrastructure will suit the needs of the vast majority of long-distance road trips. At present, a long haul road trip will get you to 1000 miles in one *very* long day of driving. A 3x improvement in capacity will cover that ground and allow you to plug in for the night. Alternatively, an improvement in charge time would allow you to plug in at a rest stop, restaurant, or service station. If a high-current recharge can occur in less than an hour, this becomes feasible.
Of course, you can always find examples of individuals who this won't work for. I'm sure by the time a gasoline powered car isn't an option, the range or recharge time will cover their needs. Either way you look at it though, we need a stronger charging infrastructure for this to work outside of commuting.
Ding ding ding!!! Mod this guy up please-- Regenerative brakes *are* capable of catching a significant portion of energy, very nearly to the point where all energy spent accelerating can be recaptured decelerating. Yes, there is a loss, but it is insignificant next to the energy lost overcoming wind resistance. The regenerative braking also saves just as much energy on the highway as it would in town-- since it basically recaptures energy spent accelerating.
IIRC (and be kind if I'm wrong on this last point-- college physics was so long ago....) the force of air resistance increases as the square of the velocity.
Of course, a car running on a standard gasoline engine is generally more efficient on the highway because it has no way to recapture energy spent accelerating.
You won't change this sentiment by charging for it... Most folks I correspond with (light to moderately computer savy, mac and windows users generally) acknowledge Linux as being a good system, shying away from it for other reasons - most often software availability (games in particular), or familiarity. A lot of help for Linux still directs people to navigating the command line, which is *very* scary for most users.
I also don't see any great need to push for putting Ubuntu in stores. There's a significant shift in the younger generation to just getting things online, and "free downloads" are the norm.
For what it's worth, 9.10 is running well on my Aspire One (Intel 950 chipset if I recall correctly). Admittedly, I've only played back Flash videos, but it was significantly improved over even 8.10 for me. I went from 8.10 Xubuntu to 9.10 w/ Netbook Remix. So far very happy. Now to find some poor sap to test video chat in Empathy...
Billed by the minute? Surely if you can afford an internet connection that is billed by the minute, you can afford a CD. It's one thing to want CDs to give to folks who have never tried it before... it's another thing to be cheap.
People only have so much time to spend playing games, and your game would have to be *ridiculously* good for any broad number folks to pick it up (let alone buy it) on word of mouth alone. Can you think of many games that have gone big without a publisher backing them? They are out there, but they are few and far between, and don't reach near the success of publisher backed releases.
Word of mouth works for small productions, once any large investment has been made during development, you *have* to advertise. Be that on your own or through a publisher, you still can't rely on people telling their buddies "hey, try this game, bro."
Oh sorry, is this *your* lawn? I apologize, I can help reseed if I damaged it. I used to have my own lawn you see, and I understand how challenging they can be to maintain...
There are simply too many people making music to declare "all music from such and such decade sucks." You're right that you may not find a whole bunch of what you like on the radio (at least those that cater to newer music), but by no means does that mean it isn't out there. Pop/rock stations may not be what you like, they aren't really what I like either. But damn, music from non-mainstream artists is so retardedly easy to come across these days-- Go get some and stop complaining.
...death of the guitar solo. Old people are so cute sometimes:)
Now you're just talking crazy. This is somebody on Slashdot, the odds against him kissing *one* girl are high enough. Two within several days? I can't even fathom.
Customer sucking it up and taking it does not count as something that "the market did correct for." Each of those is a specific example of a company decision for profit (with the arguable exception of the Charter example) which was *not* corrected by the market, it just sort of begrudgingly became the norm. Every reply of yours has been "net neutrality net neutrality net neutrality" when from the start I haven't been arguing Net Neutrality, but the blind faith that the market will work things out all the time. Specifically from your original post:
Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.
I'm saying this statement is not true and that you cannot trust a single company to listen to customers when their obligation is unashamedly to the shareholders. If there were dozens of options in the network infrastructure then sure, you could let that one ignorant company burn itself to the ground. However it makes no sense to run dozens of cables to every house. I am not arguing for or against however "Net Neutrality" is defined. I am arguing allowing lassez-faire economics to apply to a monopoly. I consider myself a libertarian-- but I see the need for a check on companies that are the *sole provider of a needed good or service.* Utility companies are able to operate while regulated by local governments without the calamities you are implying.
eh... Joysticks are great for maneuvering in 3d space, the motions are very intuitive for what is actually happening with whatever you're controlling. Car control really only matters in two dimensions (...usually) which a wheel is perfect for. You can definitely learn new control methods, but I have a hard time thinking of a more intuitive system than a wheel for navigating something that doesn't steer up and down.
You're arguing my sound bites-- not the brunt of my discussion. I wasn't arguing net neutrality with those statements, I was arguing that it is foolish to trust the market to sort things out when the dominating force is a natural monopoly. You can't trust an ISP (or any company) to get slapped down hard by customers when those customers can't go walk across the street to another company to get their goods. Trust me when I say it is not a lack of understanding on my part-- it is a difference in understanding between us.
There is no worship of the principles of Net Neutrality. Notice how this discussion didn't even come up until *after* network access moved from any of a host of dial up ISPs to "the cable company" or "the phone company?" Very few slashdotters will happily say "woo, let's regulate this!" It's all we can do to keep some semblance of control over the lines that go across *our* land and were subsidized by *us.* Some industries simply are natural monopolies and regulation by the people is necessary to provide the check that used to be in place with competition.
Forced perhaps if there were solid repercussions for not following through on your lobbying. I find that unlikely.... Appreciating your company (maybe even taking pride in it?) and involving yourself in the corporate culture still doesn't make you forced or brainwashed. Influenced yes, but I'm sure out of those 300k people, plenty of them will disagree with the ATT stance.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... mebbe if you proofed your original post you'd notice that it has one piece of information (that's been repeated plenty in this discussion) surrounded by very deliberate inflammatory statements. Troll, flamebait, or whatever you want to call it-- yourpost did not add anything meaningful to the discussion. "Ideological masturbation" is not informative. "Chimpy McCokeSpoon" is not insightful.
/. seems to disagree with the Iraq war)-- Improve your ability to take part in civil discourse, and *then* complain that the mods are out to get you.
Odds are the mod who hit you with the troll agreed with you (most of
well... neither does a big damn rocket...
Hey neat! I hadn't realized I responded to two of your posts!
Of course I'm generalizing quite a bit. I'm not speaking specifically of the Roadster in the above example. It's already been well established that the Tesla Roadster is largely unsuitable for road trips. I'm simply saying we're not as far off as you imply...
Curious exactly what it is you are driving... The majority of new "lightweight tissue framed" vehicles are worlds safer than the heavy vehicles of yore. Automotive structures these days do a phenomenal job of dispersing energy around the passenger compartment instead of through it.
But y'know, what ever makes you feel safer. More cold water to ya, man!
Totally agree. No wifi. Less space than a Malibu. Lame.
(/sarcasm)
"more performance" is arguable, but other than that-- bingo. This car is effectively an electric Elise, which starts at around 50k. Some folks are willing to pay more for the neato new tech, some folks aren't.
I obviously don't have the numbers and am clearly too lazy to find it on the googles, but given the relative difference in mileage I get in my own fairly aerodynamic car between a 55MPH drive (stupid Oregon) and a 75MPH drive I would expect the Tesla to still beat 200 miles on a highway charge. This certainly isn't stellar compared to a gas car, but keep in mind nobody is expecting to take this on a long distance drive. Everybody nits on the range drawback of the Roadster. That's fine, it's not designed to be a long haul driver.
95% of driving can be satisfied by this car, the other 5% clearly don't care enough to make up their own statistics like I have.
20 times increase in battery capacity is not necessary *at all* even for long distance driving. A more modest improvement in capacity (2-3x) or a modest improvement in charge time (2-3x), and most importantly a charging infrastructure will suit the needs of the vast majority of long-distance road trips. At present, a long haul road trip will get you to 1000 miles in one *very* long day of driving. A 3x improvement in capacity will cover that ground and allow you to plug in for the night. Alternatively, an improvement in charge time would allow you to plug in at a rest stop, restaurant, or service station. If a high-current recharge can occur in less than an hour, this becomes feasible.
Of course, you can always find examples of individuals who this won't work for. I'm sure by the time a gasoline powered car isn't an option, the range or recharge time will cover their needs. Either way you look at it though, we need a stronger charging infrastructure for this to work outside of commuting.
Ding ding ding!!! Mod this guy up please-- Regenerative brakes *are* capable of catching a significant portion of energy, very nearly to the point where all energy spent accelerating can be recaptured decelerating. Yes, there is a loss, but it is insignificant next to the energy lost overcoming wind resistance. The regenerative braking also saves just as much energy on the highway as it would in town-- since it basically recaptures energy spent accelerating.
IIRC (and be kind if I'm wrong on this last point-- college physics was so long ago....) the force of air resistance increases as the square of the velocity.
Of course, a car running on a standard gasoline engine is generally more efficient on the highway because it has no way to recapture energy spent accelerating.
You won't change this sentiment by charging for it... Most folks I correspond with (light to moderately computer savy, mac and windows users generally) acknowledge Linux as being a good system, shying away from it for other reasons - most often software availability (games in particular), or familiarity. A lot of help for Linux still directs people to navigating the command line, which is *very* scary for most users.
I also don't see any great need to push for putting Ubuntu in stores. There's a significant shift in the younger generation to just getting things online, and "free downloads" are the norm.
If I've learned one thing from Stargate SG1, it's that making any sort of self replicating machine always ends up badly.
Friends don't let friends develop Von Neumman machines!
For what it's worth, 9.10 is running well on my Aspire One (Intel 950 chipset if I recall correctly). Admittedly, I've only played back Flash videos, but it was significantly improved over even 8.10 for me. I went from 8.10 Xubuntu to 9.10 w/ Netbook Remix. So far very happy. Now to find some poor sap to test video chat in Empathy...
Perhaps he's misusing memes in order to make us squirm? A la xkcd
Billed by the minute? Surely if you can afford an internet connection that is billed by the minute, you can afford a CD. It's one thing to want CDs to give to folks who have never tried it before... it's another thing to be cheap.
-1 WhatRealityDoYouLiveIn
People only have so much time to spend playing games, and your game would have to be *ridiculously* good for any broad number folks to pick it up (let alone buy it) on word of mouth alone. Can you think of many games that have gone big without a publisher backing them? They are out there, but they are few and far between, and don't reach near the success of publisher backed releases.
Word of mouth works for small productions, once any large investment has been made during development, you *have* to advertise. Be that on your own or through a publisher, you still can't rely on people telling their buddies "hey, try this game, bro."
Wait.... Where's the link to your blog again?
Oh sorry, is this *your* lawn? I apologize, I can help reseed if I damaged it. I used to have my own lawn you see, and I understand how challenging they can be to maintain...
...death of the guitar solo. Old people are so cute sometimes :)
There are simply too many people making music to declare "all music from such and such decade sucks." You're right that you may not find a whole bunch of what you like on the radio (at least those that cater to newer music), but by no means does that mean it isn't out there. Pop/rock stations may not be what you like, they aren't really what I like either. But damn, music from non-mainstream artists is so retardedly easy to come across these days-- Go get some and stop complaining.
Er... crap. Tim-- is it OK if I read your post?
So you're saying he's offended on behalf of other people? How generous.
Now you're just talking crazy. This is somebody on Slashdot, the odds against him kissing *one* girl are high enough. Two within several days? I can't even fathom.
This is Slashdot for god's sake, here we are allowing *skiing* to get between us and *fembots* ?? Think of the geeks!!!
On a more serious note, if you have sex with a sexbot... does that make you not a virgin?
Anytime a major ISP has tried something fishy they have been slapped down hard by customers.
I'm saying this statement is not true and that you cannot trust a single company to listen to customers when their obligation is unashamedly to the shareholders. If there were dozens of options in the network infrastructure then sure, you could let that one ignorant company burn itself to the ground. However it makes no sense to run dozens of cables to every house. I am not arguing for or against however "Net Neutrality" is defined. I am arguing allowing lassez-faire economics to apply to a monopoly. I consider myself a libertarian-- but I see the need for a check on companies that are the *sole provider of a needed good or service.* Utility companies are able to operate while regulated by local governments without the calamities you are implying.
eh... Joysticks are great for maneuvering in 3d space, the motions are very intuitive for what is actually happening with whatever you're controlling. Car control really only matters in two dimensions (...usually) which a wheel is perfect for. You can definitely learn new control methods, but I have a hard time thinking of a more intuitive system than a wheel for navigating something that doesn't steer up and down.
You're arguing my sound bites-- not the brunt of my discussion. I wasn't arguing net neutrality with those statements, I was arguing that it is foolish to trust the market to sort things out when the dominating force is a natural monopoly. You can't trust an ISP (or any company) to get slapped down hard by customers when those customers can't go walk across the street to another company to get their goods. Trust me when I say it is not a lack of understanding on my part-- it is a difference in understanding between us.
There is no worship of the principles of Net Neutrality. Notice how this discussion didn't even come up until *after* network access moved from any of a host of dial up ISPs to "the cable company" or "the phone company?" Very few slashdotters will happily say "woo, let's regulate this!" It's all we can do to keep some semblance of control over the lines that go across *our* land and were subsidized by *us.* Some industries simply are natural monopolies and regulation by the people is necessary to provide the check that used to be in place with competition.
Forced perhaps if there were solid repercussions for not following through on your lobbying. I find that unlikely.... Appreciating your company (maybe even taking pride in it?) and involving yourself in the corporate culture still doesn't make you forced or brainwashed. Influenced yes, but I'm sure out of those 300k people, plenty of them will disagree with the ATT stance.