Horseshit, more importantly there was no reason at all to serve live content in a HTTP page via FTP in the first place. All you effectively do is break the efforts to optimise HTTP by introducing a random and woefully slow and inefficient protocol into part of the page rendering.
Really this should have been blocked from the onset.
Wow, tough crowd in here. If you RTFA (yeah I know, bear with me here) they seem very sincere about pushing forward the state of open source computer systems. No, they may not be fabbing their own chips or using your favorite Linux distro, but I'd think the Slashdot crowd would be more receptive of another player putting significant skin in the game.
Just because they are good in one area doesn't mean they deserve praise in all, and likewise note that no one is criticizing their products, quite the opposite they are actually praised here.
What is being criticized is the fact that being in the unique position of offering a niche product not competing on cost, they a) should not have outsourced to the lowest bidder in the first place, and b) not be praised for what is actually not a hell of a lot of effort on their behalf.
Did you expect them to make the CPUs and the hard drives and the screens all on day one?
Do you expect them to ever given the amount of pull they have in the market? Comparing them to Apple is being disingenuous.
At least System76 is making more of an effort than anyone else
No they really aren't. System76 are a niche market player not competing with general purpose computing on raw cost and are in the best position to be able to do whatever the hell they want for manufacturer. It's a nice token move, but hardly a resemblance of effort. A better question would be, given their products and market position why weren't they assembling in the USA in the first place.
The petrol is mostly use as a way to attract people to the shops/cafes.
Sorry but that is simply not the case for nearly all petrol stations. Actually where it is (highway rest stops) petrol also happens to have the highest profit margin.
There's no station in Europe that survives as a shop with petrol just bringing in customers for something else, even the highway service stations. You are however leaning towards being right by profit margins. Petrol has the lowest profit margin of any product sold at a service station. The highest profit margin is actually in the coffee, specifically single espresso. But petrol has a ludicrous amount of volume that makes the ~3-27c/L profit worthwhile, even on the low end.
The shop exists as a free (as in beer) addition. The space is already there and the customers are already coming in so why not offer them something with a higher margin on the off chance that the occasional person buys something.
Also you may have noticed the rise in "express" stations in Europe. It's been a while since I've been at a petrol station that even has a shop. I typically now only fill up at those places that are nothing more than a roof over a dispenser which allows you to swipe a credit card. They make a lot of money too. (Retail is approximately 20% of the profit for any oil company covering all parts of the process).
You're assuming nothing changes. For one your 1998 petrol car wouldn't even be allowed in my city and the trend of banning clunkers is only increasing. You're also ignoring demographics. The age of cars varies depending on location with outside city limits cars average age being considerably older than inside. This leads to areas with dense housing and high energy usage being far more likely to have high turnover of vehicles and as has been shown already these areas are also the high adopters of electric vehicles.
This is a stupid part of your comment. While the rest is technically quite accurate, danger is the likely ability to cause harm or injury. When you consider the risk profile of 400v at 100mA, and 12v at 2000A, then the 400v is orders of magnitude more dangerous as people don't routinely run around licking wires. You can hold on to those 12v wires all day but unless you do something unlikely like jam them into a freshly opened wound, or in your eyes the odds of you feeling anything at all, let alone pain or death are incredibly low. The same cannot be said for 400v. The potential difference is what promotes current flow through insulating surfaces, and your body for all intents and purposes is a pretty damn good insulator.
So while you're technically right that it is the current through your body that kills, your premise that 400v isn't dangerous is utterly stupid, especially given that very few 400v systems out there are limited in current to a safe level, and they sure as hell don't exist in an electric car.
If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.
I think you don't understand the difference between a capital investment and a financial investment. A car as the former is critical in most parts of the world. Even I in a city with excellent public transport and cycling culture could not get to work without a car and as such I would have to give up not only my generous income settling for something quite less, but also a great amount of convenience.
Right now, energy driven cars seem to be the future, but we don't even know what kind of energy storage is the best.
You talk about "right now" as if it isn't a generation defining event. So I repeat: we'll never get anything done.
And all of that is completely and utterly irrelevant as well. We don't need to see what energy storage *will be* best, we just need to implement whatever passes cost-benefit now, and if something better comes along, great, if not well we may have accidentally worked to build a better world for nothing. Damn.
Also there are people who have been off the grid for many years who would laugh at your caution. I thought you were an Opportunist?
Olun Misk: "In the long run I plan to shit gold bricks".
Your snide comment aside, he has well and truly already done so.
I think the point is that Elon Musk frequently fails to deliver on his promises in respect of Tesla.
Yes you could get that impression when you cherry pick from everything to suit your agenda.
I'm sorry, but you would be crazy to believe anything Musk says without convincing independent evidence to back it up. He is not trustworthy.
Actually he has shown himself to deliver on quite a lot of things he has said, and do so repeatedly. You on the other hand are just some unknown knob on the internet.
That is both partially true and incredibly nihilist. Ultimately Facebook will end and signify nothing, but while it exists people make quite a lot of use of it. The negative hype is all about an end goal. The positive hype is about current usage, and the only relevant part of that Shakespeare quote as applied to positive hype is "hour upon the stage".
Looks like FaceBook will be put down pretty soon compared to AOL.
You are in for a disapointment if you think people in general give a shit about the media whipping horse of the day. You can summarise all the negative news about Facebook with a quote by Shakespeare: it "struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
What was your first humiliating, deviant, or illegal thought? What was your first felony that you got away with? What was your first object you dry humped?
That can be easily guessed for basically an entire generation: Stealing a porno magazine, stealing a porno magazine, the closest soft thing you can find after stealing a porno magazine.
Poor kids today with their internet connections missing out.
This is an impressive feat to run the datacenters entirely off renewable energy.
No it isn't. Building a green datacentre run from renewable energy is pretty much par for the course for a long time now. Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft etc all have been building renewable only datacentres for a while now.
What is more difficult is retrofitting older datacentres, so forgive me for yawning at this "me too" announcement on the back of the far larger Google with its higher number of legacy projects that achieved the same milestone this week.
If Apple want some serious praise they can start by not producing disposable devices and put some effort into not bricking devices that people dare to get repaired themselves.
But I'm fair, I hereby present Apple with the Datacentre Environmental Participation Award. Hurray! *patts condensendingly on the head*
Elon Musk, 2013: "Model S is designed to allow a fast battery swap -- True: Indeed it was and was demonstrated as such. Just because consumer demand wasn't there didn't change this fact.
Elon Musk, 2014: "I expect that in the long run, Tesla will build a battery factory in Germany." -- Not realised: The long run hasn't happened yet. Not in terms of an industry in its infancy. Give them a chance to learn to walk before we complain they haven't decided what to study at university yet.
Elon Musk, 2015: "The response has been overwhelming, OK, like crazy. In the course of like less than a week, we've had 38,000 reservations for the Powerwall, 2,500 reservations for Powerpack. -- True: Reservation was an easy process with no cost. There was huge interest in the Powerwall.
Elon Musk, 2015: "We should be able to do 90 percent of miles driven within three years," -- And they may have were it not for a huge supplier spat that kicked them back to the past. If I bought a Tesla right now I would probably already be able to do 95% given my commute using the current sub par autopilot. Not everyone drives down the road through and underconstruction school zone covered in snow without lanemarkings.
Elon Musk, 2016: "We plan to fund about $1.5 billion in capital expenditures without accessing any outside capital -- True: They did plan for it. Didn't work, but they did plan for it.
Elon Musk, 2016: "The probability of having an accident is 50 percent lower if you have Autopilot on () Even with our first version -- True: When you're quoting NHTSA. The fact that the report had its flaws doesn't change the comment, or do you expect a company CEO to actively market against his own company?
Elon Musk, 2016: "With your Model S, Model X, or Model 3, your solar panel system, and your Powerwall all in place, you would be able to deploy and consume energy in the most efficient and sustainable way possible, lowering your costs and minimizing your dependence on fossil fuels and the grid. () Culturally, this is a great fit." -- True. Also makes perfect sense so I'm not sure why you're even quoting this given how it's one of the most positive things in your post.
Elon Musk, 2016: Musk told analysts the company's current plan "does not require any capital raise for the Model 3 at all." -- True: The current plan didn't. Plans change.
Ultimately your post seems quite full of senseless hate. There's several things you quote that were plans laid in place, several more that are true and goals Tesla achieved. The only truly stupid thing for a CEO to do would be stick to a plan just becuase he tweeted it even if something isn't working.
Next time you want to crap on others, stick to the tangiable, like the short term Model 3 production forecasts.
I don't think Apple intentionally wants to upset this many premium customers.
There's a solution to that. They could actually offer legitimate parts for sale to repairers.
Personally given the cost of a screen replacement from Apple vs one from a repair shop, I actually think even if Apple unintentionally upset this many premium customers, they are probably still happy about it.
On the third hand, Apple (unlike many other manufacturers) controls the supply chain tightly enough to prevent people actually obtaining hardware to make the repair. If may not be bricking devices intentionally but they certainly aren't making it easy to prevent getting caught in that situation.
And of course not, because why offer screens for sale when you can charge a small fortune for their repair along with getting the opportuntity to guilt the owner into buying a new iShiny when they get into the store?
Seriously, who cares about this, or anything else Apple does that's shady? They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least.
I've heard of reality distortion but this is some next level shit right there. I'd much sooner have Samsung sell some data on me to advertisers than push out an update that bricked my phone.
Local events are listed in your local online newspapers and community forums, right?
Local online newspapers and community forums? You do realise it is 2018 and not 2001 right? Oh and no, you're not right in case my sarcasm didn't make that clear. There are businesses and entire community scenes (e.g. underground music) which exist exclusively on Facebook, though the latter occasionally still direct me towards... Myspace (yeah I know I was surprised it is still up too).
You act as if Facebook is the entirety of the internet. Didn't AOL try that shit?
I'm interested in exactly what point you're trying to make given I remember a world where the only advertisement to anyone's online presence was AOL keywords rather than URLs.
Same problem. And yes in some cases Facebook IS the entire internet. E.g. the local underground music scene advertises on Facebook, and that's about it. My local Japanese / Korean restaurant doesn't have a website, it does have a Facebook business listing which is also the only place they advertise their weekly specials.
Slashdot Mirror
Horseshit, more importantly there was no reason at all to serve live content in a HTTP page via FTP in the first place. All you effectively do is break the efforts to optimise HTTP by introducing a random and woefully slow and inefficient protocol into part of the page rendering.
Really this should have been blocked from the onset.
Wow, tough crowd in here. If you RTFA (yeah I know, bear with me here) they seem very sincere about pushing forward the state of open source computer systems. No, they may not be fabbing their own chips or using your favorite Linux distro, but I'd think the Slashdot crowd would be more receptive of another player putting significant skin in the game.
Just because they are good in one area doesn't mean they deserve praise in all, and likewise note that no one is criticizing their products, quite the opposite they are actually praised here.
What is being criticized is the fact that being in the unique position of offering a niche product not competing on cost, they a) should not have outsourced to the lowest bidder in the first place, and b) not be praised for what is actually not a hell of a lot of effort on their behalf.
Did you expect them to make the CPUs and the hard drives and the screens all on day one?
Do you expect them to ever given the amount of pull they have in the market? Comparing them to Apple is being disingenuous.
At least System76 is making more of an effort than anyone else
No they really aren't. System76 are a niche market player not competing with general purpose computing on raw cost and are in the best position to be able to do whatever the hell they want for manufacturer. It's a nice token move, but hardly a resemblance of effort. A better question would be, given their products and market position why weren't they assembling in the USA in the first place.
The petrol is mostly use as a way to attract people to the shops/cafes.
Sorry but that is simply not the case for nearly all petrol stations. Actually where it is (highway rest stops) petrol also happens to have the highest profit margin.
There's no station in Europe that survives as a shop with petrol just bringing in customers for something else, even the highway service stations. You are however leaning towards being right by profit margins. Petrol has the lowest profit margin of any product sold at a service station. The highest profit margin is actually in the coffee, specifically single espresso. But petrol has a ludicrous amount of volume that makes the ~3-27c /L profit worthwhile, even on the low end.
The shop exists as a free (as in beer) addition. The space is already there and the customers are already coming in so why not offer them something with a higher margin on the off chance that the occasional person buys something.
Also you may have noticed the rise in "express" stations in Europe. It's been a while since I've been at a petrol station that even has a shop. I typically now only fill up at those places that are nothing more than a roof over a dispenser which allows you to swipe a credit card. They make a lot of money too. (Retail is approximately 20% of the profit for any oil company covering all parts of the process).
You're assuming nothing changes. For one your 1998 petrol car wouldn't even be allowed in my city and the trend of banning clunkers is only increasing. You're also ignoring demographics. The age of cars varies depending on location with outside city limits cars average age being considerably older than inside. This leads to areas with dense housing and high energy usage being far more likely to have high turnover of vehicles and as has been shown already these areas are also the high adopters of electric vehicles.
400v isn't dangerous though
This is a stupid part of your comment. While the rest is technically quite accurate, danger is the likely ability to cause harm or injury. When you consider the risk profile of 400v at 100mA, and 12v at 2000A, then the 400v is orders of magnitude more dangerous as people don't routinely run around licking wires. You can hold on to those 12v wires all day but unless you do something unlikely like jam them into a freshly opened wound, or in your eyes the odds of you feeling anything at all, let alone pain or death are incredibly low. The same cannot be said for 400v. The potential difference is what promotes current flow through insulating surfaces, and your body for all intents and purposes is a pretty damn good insulator.
So while you're technically right that it is the current through your body that kills, your premise that 400v isn't dangerous is utterly stupid, especially given that very few 400v systems out there are limited in current to a safe level, and they sure as hell don't exist in an electric car.
If you are looking at a car as an investment, you're doing it wrong.
I think you don't understand the difference between a capital investment and a financial investment. A car as the former is critical in most parts of the world. Even I in a city with excellent public transport and cycling culture could not get to work without a car and as such I would have to give up not only my generous income settling for something quite less, but also a great amount of convenience.
Right now, energy driven cars seem to be the future, but we don't even know what kind of energy storage is the best.
You talk about "right now" as if it isn't a generation defining event. So I repeat: we'll never get anything done.
And all of that is completely and utterly irrelevant as well. We don't need to see what energy storage *will be* best, we just need to implement whatever passes cost-benefit now, and if something better comes along, great, if not well we may have accidentally worked to build a better world for nothing. Damn.
Also there are people who have been off the grid for many years who would laugh at your caution. I thought you were an Opportunist?
Olun Misk: "In the long run I plan to shit gold bricks".
Your snide comment aside, he has well and truly already done so.
I think the point is that Elon Musk frequently fails to deliver on his promises in respect of Tesla.
Yes you could get that impression when you cherry pick from everything to suit your agenda.
I'm sorry, but you would be crazy to believe anything Musk says without convincing independent evidence to back it up. He is not trustworthy.
Actually he has shown himself to deliver on quite a lot of things he has said, and do so repeatedly. You on the other hand are just some unknown knob on the internet.
If I could mod this up I would.
That is both partially true and incredibly nihilist.
Ultimately Facebook will end and signify nothing, but while it exists people make quite a lot of use of it. The negative hype is all about an end goal. The positive hype is about current usage, and the only relevant part of that Shakespeare quote as applied to positive hype is "hour upon the stage".
Let's first of all finish inventing the storage before we ponder spending the energy.
Lets not. If we spend our lives waiting for perfection before starting anything then we will never get anything done.
he was likely motivated to take a public position
He had a public position in the form of a Facebook account. What you mean is he changed his public position to align with the outrage of the day.
Looks like FaceBook will be put down pretty soon compared to AOL.
You are in for a disapointment if you think people in general give a shit about the media whipping horse of the day. You can summarise all the negative news about Facebook with a quote by Shakespeare: it "struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
#deletefacebookbutweknowmostpeoplewon't
Anyone got a list of who all voted for it?
Yeah, here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What was your first humiliating, deviant, or illegal thought?
What was your first felony that you got away with?
What was your first object you dry humped?
That can be easily guessed for basically an entire generation: Stealing a porno magazine, stealing a porno magazine, the closest soft thing you can find after stealing a porno magazine.
Poor kids today with their internet connections missing out.
Stop wanting to be that product.
If you think that is driving people then you have a fundamental lack of understanding of why people do what they do.
Turn off social media.
If you think that is driving people then you have a fundam... yeah you get the picture.
Give your friends email. Use quality video chat. Join a forum, chat room on one topic.
Why not just post that people should roll back the technology clock by 20 years? Or does that sound like a much harder sell?
This is an impressive feat to run the datacenters entirely off renewable energy.
No it isn't. Building a green datacentre run from renewable energy is pretty much par for the course for a long time now. Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft etc all have been building renewable only datacentres for a while now.
What is more difficult is retrofitting older datacentres, so forgive me for yawning at this "me too" announcement on the back of the far larger Google with its higher number of legacy projects that achieved the same milestone this week.
If Apple want some serious praise they can start by not producing disposable devices and put some effort into not bricking devices that people dare to get repaired themselves.
But I'm fair, I hereby present Apple with the Datacentre Environmental Participation Award. Hurray! *patts condensendingly on the head*
Indeed he does, but let's look at your examples:
Elon Musk, 2013: "Model S is designed to allow a fast battery swap -- True: Indeed it was and was demonstrated as such. Just because consumer demand wasn't there didn't change this fact.
Elon Musk, 2014: "I expect that in the long run, Tesla will build a battery factory in Germany." -- Not realised: The long run hasn't happened yet. Not in terms of an industry in its infancy. Give them a chance to learn to walk before we complain they haven't decided what to study at university yet.
Elon Musk, 2015: "The response has been overwhelming, OK, like crazy. In the course of like less than a week, we've had 38,000 reservations for the Powerwall, 2,500 reservations for Powerpack. -- True: Reservation was an easy process with no cost. There was huge interest in the Powerwall.
Elon Musk, 2015: "We should be able to do 90 percent of miles driven within three years," -- And they may have were it not for a huge supplier spat that kicked them back to the past. If I bought a Tesla right now I would probably already be able to do 95% given my commute using the current sub par autopilot. Not everyone drives down the road through and underconstruction school zone covered in snow without lanemarkings.
Elon Musk, 2016: "We plan to fund about $1.5 billion in capital expenditures without accessing any outside capital -- True: They did plan for it. Didn't work, but they did plan for it.
Elon Musk, 2016: "The probability of having an accident is 50 percent lower if you have Autopilot on () Even with our first version -- True: When you're quoting NHTSA. The fact that the report had its flaws doesn't change the comment, or do you expect a company CEO to actively market against his own company?
Elon Musk, 2016: "With your Model S, Model X, or Model 3, your solar panel system, and your Powerwall all in place, you would be able to deploy and consume energy in the most efficient and sustainable way possible, lowering your costs and minimizing your dependence on fossil fuels and the grid. () Culturally, this is a great fit." -- True. Also makes perfect sense so I'm not sure why you're even quoting this given how it's one of the most positive things in your post.
Elon Musk, 2016: Musk told analysts the company's current plan "does not require any capital raise for the Model 3 at all." -- True: The current plan didn't. Plans change.
Ultimately your post seems quite full of senseless hate. There's several things you quote that were plans laid in place, several more that are true and goals Tesla achieved. The only truly stupid thing for a CEO to do would be stick to a plan just becuase he tweeted it even if something isn't working.
Next time you want to crap on others, stick to the tangiable, like the short term Model 3 production forecasts.
I don't think Apple intentionally wants to upset this many premium customers.
There's a solution to that. They could actually offer legitimate parts for sale to repairers.
Personally given the cost of a screen replacement from Apple vs one from a repair shop, I actually think even if Apple unintentionally upset this many premium customers, they are probably still happy about it.
On the third hand, Apple (unlike many other manufacturers) controls the supply chain tightly enough to prevent people actually obtaining hardware to make the repair. If may not be bricking devices intentionally but they certainly aren't making it easy to prevent getting caught in that situation.
And of course not, because why offer screens for sale when you can charge a small fortune for their repair along with getting the opportuntity to guilt the owner into buying a new iShiny when they get into the store?
Why would anyone go for aftermarket repairs when the device is still under warranty?
You do know repairs and warranty repairs are two different things right?
Seriously, who cares about this, or anything else Apple does that's shady? They're not harvesting or selling our data, at least.
I've heard of reality distortion but this is some next level shit right there. I'd much sooner have Samsung sell some data on me to advertisers than push out an update that bricked my phone.
Local events are listed in your local online newspapers and community forums, right?
Local online newspapers and community forums? You do realise it is 2018 and not 2001 right? Oh and no, you're not right in case my sarcasm didn't make that clear. There are businesses and entire community scenes (e.g. underground music) which exist exclusively on Facebook, though the latter occasionally still direct me towards ... Myspace (yeah I know I was surprised it is still up too).
You act as if Facebook is the entirety of the internet. Didn't AOL try that shit?
I'm interested in exactly what point you're trying to make given I remember a world where the only advertisement to anyone's online presence was AOL keywords rather than URLs.
Same problem. And yes in some cases Facebook IS the entire internet. E.g. the local underground music scene advertises on Facebook, and that's about it. My local Japanese / Korean restaurant doesn't have a website, it does have a Facebook business listing which is also the only place they advertise their weekly specials.