I'd guess I wouldn't get the one they took from me back and I'd have to keep this new/old/different one.
Yup, and probably have to pay the difference between the core (which is what they'll classify your old battery as, regardless of how new it might be) and the brand-new retail price of the pack. How much does one of those cost new, anyway?
If Tesla owns all the swap stations in-house, you might get off lucky (after all, who would want to royally piss of their own customers by screwing them over and over again? In the private sector, anyway); but if the swap stations are independently owned, it would likely be a completely different story.
In an electric car, close to 100% of the stored energy is used for locomotion (unless maybe you have the heater on).
And the headlights, and the radio, and the bluetooth adapter, and the fans for the climate control system, and the ECU, and the BCU, etc.
Which leads me to a question I've wanted answered for some time: under normal usage, when all those things I mentioned are drawing power... how does it all break down usage wise? For example, I can go into the Settings screen on my Android device and see how much battery power has been used by what hardware/apps; what do you think that screen might look like for a Tesla S?
The next time you say, "how the fuck did they not see that coming," remember that you were the one who told them to keep their eyes closed and their ears covered.
Who is "they," and what are you claiming that they won't see coming? The government? Terrorist attacks?
Yea, if you honestly believe that no one in the US government saw 9/11 or the Boston bombing coming, you're a sucker with a capital S. Hell, the NSA spy machine was in full swing for the Boston shit, plus the international community had alerted the feds to the two dangerous men who perpetuated it, and "they" still let it happen. Almost as if they wanted it to.
Nobody with any amount of power is that fucking incompetent, and anyone who would believe that they are is an absolute fucking imbecile who should be sterilized for the good of the species.
Not at all. This isn't about one child claiming that the other child took a cookie, too. This is one child, upon finding out that the sibling took a cookie, says, "oh my, you know you should never, ever take a cookie without permission!" only to have to admit 5 minutes later that they surreptitiously took a cookie too.
OK, so now spying on a handful of diplomats (Read: spies by another name) within your own borders is exactly equivalent to gobbling up and storing indefinitely the communications of every single human on the planet? You do realize there's just a bit of a difference in scale and scope, don't you?
This isn't about whether it's right or wrong, it's about getting caught in a double standard.
Is it against Brazilian law to spy on diplomats within Brazil? Because if not, then no, there is no double standard - Brazil would be operating within the constraints of their own legal system, whereas the US government is decidedly not following the Constitution.
Plus, all that stuff I said before about scale and scope; not all sins are equal.
Can someone tell me what all the fuss about "LiFi" is? We've had free space optical networking for decades. It's not new and it's not a good general networking solution, especially for household use, which the LiFi buzz seems to be implying.
This.
Hell, the Romans had an optical communication network that stretched across a good portion of their empire, in the form of a chain of signal towers equipped with torches and mirrors.
If "Li-Fi" is news, then please excuse me while I go hit the bath and discover buoyancy.
Yes, latency may ruin your Skype session, but you know that will happen with any satellite link.
I think there's a discrepancy between what your and OP's definitions of the term, "good internet," are.
I.e., if the latency is so high the user can't engage in certain, normal online activities (like a Skype call or pwning chumps in CoD), in Lord Apathy's eyes it falls more under the "adequate or usable" category, rather than "good."
Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment.
Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.
Because, see, the First Amendment gives the People a right to petition the government for redress of grievances; what it does not provide for is a way for any person or group to buy the legislation they want to have enacted.
Besides, according to the Constitution money cannot equal speech, because free speech is an equal proposition, and having more money than other people is not supposed to mean you have more free speech than they do. I don't even understand how such a thing could make sense to anyone.
I would say once enough of the middle class are unable to continue throwing billions of dollars at the corporate entities and that bubble does finally pop, mass starvation will hit.
I would believe that is when the revolution and major changes will take place. It is not a question of If but when (is that the question anymore?).
This is why I'm glad I own a remote farm and know how to work it.
What size, and how's the power draw on that thing?
I'm looking at LED TVs for my next display purchase, although I might miss the "free" heat my LCDs grace me with; my office is downright toasty during the winter months.
The ultimate point is this: If everyone obeyed the Golden Rule, there would be no moral questions to be answered. Yes, I know that's not how things actually work, but that's not the point I'm making. It never has been.
However, I will state this: Just because other people are dicks and do evil, amoral things, does not give anyone else an excuse to follow suit.
Really? Say there is some poisoned food, but you don't know that it is poisoned, and you are hungry. But someone else does.
According to your claim, that other person should not stop you from eating that stuff, because after all, you know best what is good for you.
Oh, come now. You know as well as I do that is a ridiculous non-sequitur; hell, in your next couple of sentences you pretty much call yourself out on it!
OK, now you will say "ah, but that's just a lack of knowledge, if I knew what is in that food, I'd certainly decide not to eat it." So let's slightly modify the situation:
You know quite well that there's cyanide in the food, but you believe cyanide would be harmless. The other person knows quite well that cyanide will kill you. So should that other person still stop you?
That other person would have to ask themselves, "If I was about to eat something that would kill me, and someone else knows that I shouldn't, would I want that person to tell me about it?"
The Golden Rule still applies.
OK, let's modify again: The person doesn't know that there's cyanide in the food, but only firmly believes it. Should she still prevent your from eating it?
Is that something you would want someone else to do to you? Because that's your answer. Personally, I wouldn't be poisoning other people's food to begin with, because I'm not an amoral asshole.
OK, make another slight change: She doesn't believe that there's cyanide in the food, but she believes that God will throw you in hell if you eat that food. Should she still prevent you from eating it?
Well, for starters, she should ask herself the Golden Question.
Secondly, if I'm the one who's got the food, how is the other person's decision on whether or not to do the moral thing my responsibility? In your attempts to negate the Golden Rule, I fear you may have lost track of your own train of thought.
Now I'm pretty sure that in the first scenario you'd say "prevent" (thus violating your own rule), and in the last scenario you would say "not prevent". But where would you make the switch, and why?
And where does this nonsense come from? At what point does "treat other people the way you want to be treated" become a bad thing, outliers and sociopaths aside?
Things are simply not as simple as you want them to make.
Yea, actually they are. Stop trying to rationalize bad behavior.
You know that 50,000 hours is over 5 years of non-stop use.
Yes, I do, but apparently I'm not your typical American consumer, who feels they have to buy something new every couple of years, even when the old one works fine.
My point being, the fact that they point out the lifespan of plasma televisions (while omitting the lifespan of other types of display) works, in a psychological sense, to scare away most consumers, who aren't going to take the time to do back-of-the-napkin calculations while standing in Best Buy; rather, they hear the phrase "limited lifespan" and subconsciously remove that product from their mental list of potential purchases.
I mean, OK, we all know that electronic devices have a truncated lifespan... but when you go to buy a plasma TV, they make a point to tell you it will only work for about 50,000 hours, after which you have to go buy a brand new one. Hence the reason all the flat panels I own (which were bought before LED TV prices started to come down) are LCD and not plasma.
You might be right. What I was referring to might not be "morality," but more closely related to "ethics." The definitions for these are not strict. Some examples of why treating everyone like you want yourself to be treated is a bit iffy:
Some people like questionable things. It's not a good idea to treat others as if they like the same things.
In statistics those people are called 'outliers,' because they fall outside spec. Most of those people understand that their choices are against the norm of human psychology, and thus can adjust their interpretation of The Rule appropriately; the ones that can't, or won't, are sociopaths, and thus excluded from the count.
There are difficult moral choices where harming someone is actually beneficial to society at large. Snowden's leaks are an example, but there are far more extreme examples like wars.
OK, so the Snowden's leak example: I can imagine ol' Ed asking himself, "Would I want my tax dollars to pay for my own government to break its own laws and cause harm to my fellow citizens, loved ones included?" Obviously the answer is no, so he did what he thought was morally just - expose the governments crimes. However, if the government were morally just, there would have been no illegal surveillance for Snowden to expose.
Speaking of war, the aggressor is never morally just.
Whose shoes do you place yourself in to make this decision?
My own. Who else's point of view would I know to make the decision from?
Considering the greater society is inevitable.
Sorry, don't agree with that; IMO, doing much more than asking yourself that Golden question is just an attempt to rationalize bad behavior.
- We don't want our country invaded and blown up, so we shouldn't invade other countries and blow them up.
- I'd wager that Saddam Hussein probably wouldn't be keen on being tortured, dismembered, murdered, etc., so if he had been a moral person, he wouldn't have treated the Kurds so poorly, and they wouldn't have wanted us to invade.
That's the problem, I think: most people seem to have trouble applying The Rule universally.
Anyways, any sensible interpretation of the Golden Rule re-interprets it to treat others as they wish to be treated in preference to how you like to be treated, if you happen to know how their preferences are not yours. I.e. don't take a vegetarian out for steaks.
Sigh... boy do I tire of explaining apparently simple concepts...
For one thing, it's not amoral to invite a person to a steak dinner, regardless of what their eating preference is; granted, if you know they're a vegan beforehand, then it is a dick move, but not amoral, because A) it causes no harm, and B) you're not treating them in a way that you would not appreciate being treated (not a vegan myself, but I wouldn't be offended in the least if one invited me to their favorite non-meat-serving establishment).
Conversely, forcing a vegan to eat steak would be amoral, because you would not appreciate it if someone forced you to eat something you refused to eat.
FWIW, I really shouldn't complain, considering the mental gymnastics some folks perform to justify things that actually do cause harm, like wars and racism.
Slashdot Mirror
The pricing scheme is supposed to be set lower than an equivalent amount of gasoline in the local market, so there's that.
There's what? Idle speculation based on what a for-profit company says they might do in the future?
"Supposed to" == vaporware, for all intents and purposes. I'll believe it when I see it.
I'd guess I wouldn't get the one they took from me back and I'd have to keep this new/old/different one.
Yup, and probably have to pay the difference between the core (which is what they'll classify your old battery as, regardless of how new it might be) and the brand-new retail price of the pack. How much does one of those cost new, anyway?
If Tesla owns all the swap stations in-house, you might get off lucky (after all, who would want to royally piss of their own customers by screwing them over and over again? In the private sector, anyway); but if the swap stations are independently owned, it would likely be a completely different story.
What's the range of the petrol car once you're at 132mph?
Better than an electric piece of shit.
Jeremy Clarkson, is that you?
Nah, he'd have had a much better burn than 'electric piece of shit.' That's the kind of wit I would expect to come from a James May fan.
In an electric car, close to 100% of the stored energy is used for locomotion (unless maybe you have the heater on).
And the headlights, and the radio, and the bluetooth adapter, and the fans for the climate control system, and the ECU, and the BCU, etc.
Which leads me to a question I've wanted answered for some time: under normal usage, when all those things I mentioned are drawing power... how does it all break down usage wise? For example, I can go into the Settings screen on my Android device and see how much battery power has been used by what hardware/apps; what do you think that screen might look like for a Tesla S?
The next time you say, "how the fuck did they not see that coming," remember that you were the one who told them to keep their eyes closed and their ears covered.
Who is "they," and what are you claiming that they won't see coming? The government? Terrorist attacks?
Yea, if you honestly believe that no one in the US government saw 9/11 or the Boston bombing coming, you're a sucker with a capital S. Hell, the NSA spy machine was in full swing for the Boston shit, plus the international community had alerted the feds to the two dangerous men who perpetuated it, and "they" still let it happen. Almost as if they wanted it to.
Nobody with any amount of power is that fucking incompetent, and anyone who would believe that they are is an absolute fucking imbecile who should be sterilized for the good of the species.
Not at all. This isn't about one child claiming that the other child took a cookie, too. This is one child, upon finding out that the sibling took a cookie, says, "oh my, you know you should never, ever take a cookie without permission!" only to have to admit 5 minutes later that they surreptitiously took a cookie too.
OK, so now spying on a handful of diplomats (Read: spies by another name) within your own borders is exactly equivalent to gobbling up and storing indefinitely the communications of every single human on the planet? You do realize there's just a bit of a difference in scale and scope, don't you?
This isn't about whether it's right or wrong, it's about getting caught in a double standard.
Is it against Brazilian law to spy on diplomats within Brazil? Because if not, then no, there is no double standard - Brazil would be operating within the constraints of their own legal system, whereas the US government is decidedly not following the Constitution.
Plus, all that stuff I said before about scale and scope; not all sins are equal.
Beautiful switch you did there, substituting "mass surveillance" for "spying on diplomats." I wonder how many people will notice?
By the way, how do you know that Brazil both doesn't do it, and isn't heading in that direction if they aren't?
Does the Brazilian Constitution prohibit their government from searching citizens without a warrant? Because the American Constitution does.
Can someone tell me what all the fuss about "LiFi" is? We've had free space optical networking for decades. It's not new and it's not a good general networking solution, especially for household use, which the LiFi buzz seems to be implying.
This.
Hell, the Romans had an optical communication network that stretched across a good portion of their empire, in the form of a chain of signal towers equipped with torches and mirrors.
If "Li-Fi" is news, then please excuse me while I go hit the bath and discover buoyancy.
Yes, latency may ruin your Skype session, but you know that will happen with any satellite link.
I think there's a discrepancy between what your and OP's definitions of the term, "good internet," are.
I.e., if the latency is so high the user can't engage in certain, normal online activities (like a Skype call or pwning chumps in CoD), in Lord Apathy's eyes it falls more under the "adequate or usable" category, rather than "good."
I tend to agree with them, personally.
Could you supply GPS coordinates and a harvest date?
Yea, sure thing:
It's somewhere between 32.20 N, 64.45 W | 18.5 N, 66.9 W | and 25.48N, 80.18 W.
Harvest is between June 1 and November 30; come on down, the more the merrier.
What kind of remotes do you grow? And can you teach my grandmother? She can never figure out how to work her remote.
Those universal ones that work with every TV in the world except the one you own.
Local politicians really are in it for their communities.
FWIW, just because one mayor isn't a total douche about broadband does not mean that all local politicians are "in it for their communities."
Hell, it doesn't even mean that any of that same mayor's other policies are sound.
Passing an Amendment is difficult enough, and you want to repeal the First Amendment.
Not necessarily; to me, it sound like he wants to get rid of this stupid concepts that corporation == a person, and that money == speech.
Because, see, the First Amendment gives the People a right to petition the government for redress of grievances; what it does not provide for is a way for any person or group to buy the legislation they want to have enacted.
Besides, according to the Constitution money cannot equal speech, because free speech is an equal proposition, and having more money than other people is not supposed to mean you have more free speech than they do. I don't even understand how such a thing could make sense to anyone.
I would say once enough of the middle class are unable to continue throwing billions of dollars at the corporate entities and that bubble does finally pop, mass starvation will hit.
I would believe that is when the revolution and major changes will take place. It is not a question of If but when (is that the question anymore?).
This is why I'm glad I own a remote farm and know how to work it.
This problem will solve itself just as soon as the RIAA lawyers decide the malware is transmitting copyrighted works.
Why not use IR? you can make nice p2p links, without all that irritating noise.
Hey - it worked for the Romans.
Meh - I'll be impressed when I can "write code" by telling my computer what I want it to do, ST:TNG style.
What size, and how's the power draw on that thing?
I'm looking at LED TVs for my next display purchase, although I might miss the "free" heat my LCDs grace me with; my office is downright toasty during the winter months.
The ultimate point is this: If everyone obeyed the Golden Rule, there would be no moral questions to be answered. Yes, I know that's not how things actually work, but that's not the point I'm making. It never has been.
However, I will state this: Just because other people are dicks and do evil, amoral things, does not give anyone else an excuse to follow suit.
Really? Say there is some poisoned food, but you don't know that it is poisoned, and you are hungry. But someone else does.
According to your claim, that other person should not stop you from eating that stuff, because after all, you know best what is good for you.
Oh, come now. You know as well as I do that is a ridiculous non-sequitur; hell, in your next couple of sentences you pretty much call yourself out on it!
OK, now you will say "ah, but that's just a lack of knowledge, if I knew what is in that food, I'd certainly decide not to eat it." So let's slightly modify the situation:
You know quite well that there's cyanide in the food, but you believe cyanide would be harmless. The other person knows quite well that cyanide will kill you. So should that other person still stop you?
That other person would have to ask themselves, "If I was about to eat something that would kill me, and someone else knows that I shouldn't, would I want that person to tell me about it?"
The Golden Rule still applies.
OK, let's modify again: The person doesn't know that there's cyanide in the food, but only firmly believes it. Should she still prevent your from eating it?
Is that something you would want someone else to do to you? Because that's your answer. Personally, I wouldn't be poisoning other people's food to begin with, because I'm not an amoral asshole.
OK, make another slight change: She doesn't believe that there's cyanide in the food, but she believes that God will throw you in hell if you eat that food. Should she still prevent you from eating it?
Well, for starters, she should ask herself the Golden Question.
Secondly, if I'm the one who's got the food, how is the other person's decision on whether or not to do the moral thing my responsibility? In your attempts to negate the Golden Rule, I fear you may have lost track of your own train of thought.
Now I'm pretty sure that in the first scenario you'd say "prevent" (thus violating your own rule), and in the last scenario you would say "not prevent". But where would you make the switch, and why?
And where does this nonsense come from? At what point does "treat other people the way you want to be treated" become a bad thing, outliers and sociopaths aside?
Things are simply not as simple as you want them to make.
Yea, actually they are. Stop trying to rationalize bad behavior.
You know that 50,000 hours is over 5 years of non-stop use.
Yes, I do, but apparently I'm not your typical American consumer, who feels they have to buy something new every couple of years, even when the old one works fine.
My point being, the fact that they point out the lifespan of plasma televisions (while omitting the lifespan of other types of display) works, in a psychological sense, to scare away most consumers, who aren't going to take the time to do back-of-the-napkin calculations while standing in Best Buy; rather, they hear the phrase "limited lifespan" and subconsciously remove that product from their mental list of potential purchases.
I mean, OK, we all know that electronic devices have a truncated lifespan... but when you go to buy a plasma TV, they make a point to tell you it will only work for about 50,000 hours, after which you have to go buy a brand new one. Hence the reason all the flat panels I own (which were bought before LED TV prices started to come down) are LCD and not plasma.
You might be right. What I was referring to might not be "morality," but more closely related to "ethics." The definitions for these are not strict. Some examples of why treating everyone like you want yourself to be treated is a bit iffy:
Some people like questionable things. It's not a good idea to treat others as if they like the same things.
In statistics those people are called 'outliers,' because they fall outside spec. Most of those people understand that their choices are against the norm of human psychology, and thus can adjust their interpretation of The Rule appropriately; the ones that can't, or won't, are sociopaths, and thus excluded from the count.
There are difficult moral choices where harming someone is actually beneficial to society at large. Snowden's leaks are an example, but there are far more extreme examples like wars.
OK, so the Snowden's leak example: I can imagine ol' Ed asking himself, "Would I want my tax dollars to pay for my own government to break its own laws and cause harm to my fellow citizens, loved ones included?" Obviously the answer is no, so he did what he thought was morally just - expose the governments crimes. However, if the government were morally just, there would have been no illegal surveillance for Snowden to expose.
Speaking of war, the aggressor is never morally just.
Whose shoes do you place yourself in to make this decision?
My own. Who else's point of view would I know to make the decision from?
Considering the greater society is inevitable.
Sorry, don't agree with that; IMO, doing much more than asking yourself that Golden question is just an attempt to rationalize bad behavior.
"Give me a break!" -- satisfied iPhone user with iOS7
I thought that was the problem; the update did break the WiFi Whatchamacallit...
Think of it this way:
- We don't want our country invaded and blown up, so we shouldn't invade other countries and blow them up.
- I'd wager that Saddam Hussein probably wouldn't be keen on being tortured, dismembered, murdered, etc., so if he had been a moral person, he wouldn't have treated the Kurds so poorly, and they wouldn't have wanted us to invade.
That's the problem, I think: most people seem to have trouble applying The Rule universally.
Anyways, any sensible interpretation of the Golden Rule re-interprets it to treat others as they wish to be treated in preference to how you like to be treated, if you happen to know how their preferences are not yours. I.e. don't take a vegetarian out for steaks.
Sigh... boy do I tire of explaining apparently simple concepts...
For one thing, it's not amoral to invite a person to a steak dinner, regardless of what their eating preference is; granted, if you know they're a vegan beforehand, then it is a dick move, but not amoral, because A) it causes no harm, and B) you're not treating them in a way that you would not appreciate being treated (not a vegan myself, but I wouldn't be offended in the least if one invited me to their favorite non-meat-serving establishment).
Conversely, forcing a vegan to eat steak would be amoral, because you would not appreciate it if someone forced you to eat something you refused to eat.
FWIW, I really shouldn't complain, considering the mental gymnastics some folks perform to justify things that actually do cause harm, like wars and racism.