Um, that doesn't make them innocent, that makes them guilty but coerced. Innocent would be if the Russian spies were sniffing through their telemetry without them knowing, but that still means they are just as much of a security hole. I will admit that I didn't know that anti-virus software sent the user's files off-site for "inspection" if they were "suspicious". That is ridiculously insecure for the user's private data.
Your "innocent" scenario is exactly what Kaspersky says (may have) happened in the case with the case where an NSA contractor's files were scanned by Kaspersky and then immediately hacked by the Russians. From Eugene Kaspersky:
Even though we have an internal security team and run bug bounty programs, we can’t give a 100% guarantee that there are no security issues in our products... Now, if we assume that what is reported is true: that Russian hackers exploited a weakness in our products installed on the PC of one of our users
A space elevator requires fixed points at both ends.
No it doesn't. A space elevator is in orbit (geosynchronous orbit if you want it to be useful), neither end need to be hooked to something. In practice, it will be easier to have an end hooked to the planet and a counterweight past geosync so you don't have to make a tether that is twice as long but it's certainly not required. The parent post to yours wasn't suggesting stringing an elevator from the earth to the moon (which wouldn't work at all) -- he was talking about making a lunar elevator, which would be much shorter and would be feasible with current materials.
Has nobody heard of the world-wide network known as "The Internet"? Why would you take any incriminating data past a border crossing if you can just download it once you are in the country? Using steganography would mean one would have to think ahead, and if you're thinking ahead you wouldn't physically bring your incriminating data past the border anyway. The exception would be authoritarian countries that have the entire country firewalled off, but even in that case it is easier to get around the firewall than it is to bring data past the border.
No, they announced they planned to have 20 (not 20+) electric models by 2023 (not 2020). Announcing a plan is a lot different than delivering cars, carmakers are notorious for not following through on plans. I'll believe it once they actually start shipping cars (or at least set up production lines for them) and I think that's when Tesla will start worrying about them as well. They are currently shipping the Bolt, which is a decent competitor to the Model 3.
Ford
Ford is planning electric vehicles but all they sell now is "compliance cars", gas cars that have been converted to electricity. Their first designed electric car is planned for 2020.
Toyota
They have the plug-in Prius, but other than that I'm not aware of an all-electric Toyota that competes with Tesla. There was the Scion iQ EV, but AFAIK they no longer produce that and even when they did they only made a few hundred of them.
Nissan
This is where the competition comes for the Model 3, the Leaf is a capable vehicle and Nissan seems to be serious about keeping it up to date.
Honda
Well, technically they did just start shipping the Clarity electric in August, but with an 89 mile range, it certainly isn't a serious competitor to the Model 3 or Leaf.
Yes, Tesla will have competition for existing automakers, but that's good for the consumer and good for the environment. I hope they all can execute well on their plans and I'm sure Tesla does as well, having viable electric vehicles from multiple manufacturers will expand the EV market and infrastructure.
And the entire point of long term stock options was to get companies thinking long term instead of per quarter profits only. If your stock only vest after 5 years, you have to think 5 years.
But the difference is that if I have RSUs/options that have not yet vested and leave the company, I no longer have that stock. If executives do the same thing, they keep their non-vested shares and often get the vesting accelerated. Maybe if they actually enforced the vesting period on departing execs, having long vesting periods might make a difference in long-term thinking at the top, but since boards are made up of executives from other companies (who also want their boards to give them sweetheart deals) this will never happen. The executive class is still looting companies and shareholders have little power to stop it because "everyone does it" and "we need to attract top talent".
my phone is almost dead. My 6 Plus has "touch disease", so I need to get a new one soon.
So your current Apple product is failing horribly, so you are considering getting a new Apple product? Why reward them for making a crappy phone that failed on you?
Henry Ford offered a substantially higher wage at his factories. Those wages were closer to the actual productivity of the workers, thus creating a feedback loop where the workers were able to afford the cars his factories were producing, and the increased sales produced more work for them and more wealth for Ford.
I see this narrative a lot, but it doesn't stand up to basic math. If the sole source of income for Ford workers is from Ford then there is no "feedback loop", it would be impossible for Ford to make enough money off the extra car sales to pay for the wage increase. The reason Henry Ford increased wages was for worker retention, not so they could buy his cars. Before the wage increase, his employee turnover rate was 370%. So to maintain his workforce of 13,000-14,000 he would need to hire more than 50,000 people per year. He also had a 10% absenteeism rate which causes a lot of problems on an assembly line. The wage increase was to increase employee satisfaction thereby decreasing turnover. It wasn't altruism or sympathy for the workers, it was a business decision to make the company more money and to make the plant run better.
If the only people who buy your product are your employees then you lose money. In 2016, Ford had around 200,000 employees and sold about 6.6 million automobiles. If EVERY Ford employee bought a new Ford EVERY YEAR, they still would only account for around 3% of sales.
This is also what probably protected Canada from this breach. According to my Canadian bank, Equifax Canada was not affected by this breach
Well, it doesn't appear that your bank knows if you are affected or not. According to this article, "Credit reporting giant Equifax has yet to reveal how many Canadians had their personal information hacked over the spring and summer when the company’s database was breached." and "The breach exposed the information of an 'unknown' number of people living in Canada and the United Kingdom." It sounds to me like Canadians are affected, they just haven't said how many yet.
But the AC asserted that the "household income" figures commonly in use come from the IRS and only includes people that are related. The wiki article on household income in the US gives a little more information on what it includes:
"A household's income can be calculated various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it in the following manner: the income of every resident of that house that is over the age of 15, including wages and salaries, as well as any kind of governmental entitlement such as unemployment insurance, disability payments or child support payments received, along with any personal business, investment, or other recurring sources of income.[7] The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income."
Money. This is a $400,000+ treatment. People are willing to bankrupt themselves for their kids, even if they aren't for themselves.
What? Of course people are willing to bankrupt themselves for medical treatment, whether it's for their children or for themselves. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US, 62% of ALL bankruptcies are for medical bills (and 78% of those people had some form of health insurance). We are literally killing people and ruining survivor's lives just so the medical insurance company owners can make more profits. Profit is sacrosanct in the US -- single payer will never happen because Congress is owned by these wealthy individuals and they don't take kindly to anyone who messes with their profits.
There were literally never any pictures of a swap occurring. There is exactly as much evidence that they simply hooked up a remote coolant source and did a super fast charge as there is that they actually did battery swaps. No customer was ever permitted to observe the process.
Bullshit. Why do you come into these threads and spout easily disprovable points? Here is a site with a first-person account of a Tesla owner having their battery swapped with a picture of the swap occurring, so your statement is false. It's fine that you don't like Tesla, but please stop telling lies.
VCR trade-ins weren't popular, but VCR rentals were exceedingly popular. Suppose when you bought your car you had the option of either getting a brand-new factory battery or you could instead subscribe to a battery swapping service that has sufficient capacity for your needs and get a discount on the car equal to the cost of the battery pack. You wouldn't own the batteries, so you wouldn't have any qualms about getting a "lemon" battery -- if that did occur you would just return to the station and get a different one. With a sufficiently developed network range anxiety would disappear, a battery swap could easily happen as fast or faster than a tank fill. Battery swap stations would have the ability to use cheap off-peak power and also be able to rent their packs to the utilities as a grid-stabilization system. The only problem with a system is getting it started - it would take an immense investment to build or retrofit stations, obtain battery packs and convince manufacturers to implement the system into cars. Tesla piloted a system to do this and got little response, but perhaps it was too early and it would see a higher acceptance rate today or in the future.
In other cases they drop off one trailer and pick up another already loaded and are gone with very little wait time (which is more common at many distribution centers, just not so much at mine), those were the smaller percentage of trailers that would stay for longer periods as we accumulated enough items for that destination.. So turnaround times are very important, and waiting on a charge might be an issue for many typical distribution centers.
That is why they are going about this all wrong. For these systems, the bulk of the batteries should be in the trailer, not in the tractor. While the trailer is on the loading dock getting filled, it is plugged in and charging its large battery bank. The tractor then shows up and hooks up electrical lines at the same time they are currently hooking up brake lines. If it's a long haul, they could also add a pup trailer that adds even more range. Standard box trailers already have a large unused space low to the ground underneath the box which could be filled with the batteries, even existing trailers could be retrofitted pretty easily and it would be a great position for a battery swapping system as well. A side effect of filling that space would be to prevent Teslas from decapitating their drivers drving under trucks, so win-win!
Do you have a source for that? There is a pretty extensive section in his memo about how he thinks Google discriminates against conservatives (quoted below), I find it hard to believe that someone who wasn't a conservative would include this in his writing:
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Did these "corrected" measurements also cause the Northwest Passage to open? Did it make the glaciers recede? Did it cause sea levels to rise? Those tricky scientists and their temperature adjustments, is there anything they can't do?
There were around 20,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2016. I couldn't find total deaths for 2016 but there were 2.6 million deaths in 2014 so assume it's somewhere in that same neighborhood. So less than 1% of deaths were from opioid overdoses and you really think that number is causing a "statistical blip", particularly since opioid overdose deaths weren't at 0 (there were around 10,000 deaths ten years ago) before the current "epidemic"? A far more likely culprit is the increasing obesity rate and the poor state of healthcare in the US, the #1 killer is heart disease which is directly influenced by obesity.
You math is off, because the fatties are a lot less healthy than the average but you use the average healthcare costs in your calculations. Heart bypasses, diabetes treatments and 24 hour nursing care cost a ton of money and obese people are a lot more likely to need these services where thinner people don't use them as much.
Also I think they're improved diet and lack of smoking/drinking comes more from having less poverty. We've been gutting our anti-poverty programs for 30+ years. Junk food is cheap. Cigarettes are cheap (and subsidized). Booze is cheap. Education? Not so much. Not in America.
Do you have data that says Americans smoke and drink more than their European counterparts? The US is 57th in per-capita cigarette consumption, behind many countries in Europe. It is 47th in per-capita alcohol consumption, again behind many European countries. I was unable to find stats for the EU as a whole but it certainly doesn't look like Americans smoke or drink more than the average country.
I totally agree that the two parties are Coke vs. Coke, but you went off the rails with the cry for jail time for "rigging the primary". What law was broken? As far as I know, the parties can use whatever method they like to choose their candidates. I think the democrat's "super delegates" are bullshit but they aren't illegal. The problem with the system is that there are 2 parties and there can only be 2 viable parties due to our voting system. If we used another system like preferential voting or instant runoff it would allow other parties to become viable, in the current system voting for a party other than the 2 majors is wasting your vote. Of course, this change will never happen. Just like campaign finance reform or term limits, the people currently in power benefit from keeping the system exactly how it is and they certainly won't do anything that might decrease their power.
As usual, the/. pants-wetting crowd is quickly on the case, pointing out that yet another thing can be targeted by terrorists. News flash, EVERYTHING can be targeted by terrorists, and most of the time they are not. Quit listening to those that seek to gain power by instilling fear in the populace, they aren't doing you a favor.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, that doesn't make them innocent, that makes them guilty but coerced. Innocent would be if the Russian spies were sniffing through their telemetry without them knowing, but that still means they are just as much of a security hole. I will admit that I didn't know that anti-virus software sent the user's files off-site for "inspection" if they were "suspicious". That is ridiculously insecure for the user's private data.
Your "innocent" scenario is exactly what Kaspersky says (may have) happened in the case with the case where an NSA contractor's files were scanned by Kaspersky and then immediately hacked by the Russians. From Eugene Kaspersky:
A space elevator requires fixed points at both ends.
No it doesn't. A space elevator is in orbit (geosynchronous orbit if you want it to be useful), neither end need to be hooked to something. In practice, it will be easier to have an end hooked to the planet and a counterweight past geosync so you don't have to make a tether that is twice as long but it's certainly not required. The parent post to yours wasn't suggesting stringing an elevator from the earth to the moon (which wouldn't work at all) -- he was talking about making a lunar elevator, which would be much shorter and would be feasible with current materials.
Has nobody heard of the world-wide network known as "The Internet"? Why would you take any incriminating data past a border crossing if you can just download it once you are in the country? Using steganography would mean one would have to think ahead, and if you're thinking ahead you wouldn't physically bring your incriminating data past the border anyway. The exception would be authoritarian countries that have the entire country firewalled off, but even in that case it is easier to get around the firewall than it is to bring data past the border.
Sorry, I was trying to reply to your parent. I must have replied to the wrong comment. Yes, I must be new here.
Here's one of yours from 3/16/2006:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The oldest of mine that I could find was 2002, but the Google index of posts that far back seems really spotty.
GM just this week announced 20+ models by 2020
No, they announced they planned to have 20 (not 20+) electric models by 2023 (not 2020). Announcing a plan is a lot different than delivering cars, carmakers are notorious for not following through on plans. I'll believe it once they actually start shipping cars (or at least set up production lines for them) and I think that's when Tesla will start worrying about them as well. They are currently shipping the Bolt, which is a decent competitor to the Model 3.
Ford
Ford is planning electric vehicles but all they sell now is "compliance cars", gas cars that have been converted to electricity. Their first designed electric car is planned for 2020.
Toyota
They have the plug-in Prius, but other than that I'm not aware of an all-electric Toyota that competes with Tesla. There was the Scion iQ EV, but AFAIK they no longer produce that and even when they did they only made a few hundred of them.
Nissan
This is where the competition comes for the Model 3, the Leaf is a capable vehicle and Nissan seems to be serious about keeping it up to date.
Honda
Well, technically they did just start shipping the Clarity electric in August, but with an 89 mile range, it certainly isn't a serious competitor to the Model 3 or Leaf.
Yes, Tesla will have competition for existing automakers, but that's good for the consumer and good for the environment. I hope they all can execute well on their plans and I'm sure Tesla does as well, having viable electric vehicles from multiple manufacturers will expand the EV market and infrastructure.
so they have the process rather down packed
Just an aside, the phrase is down pat .
And the entire point of long term stock options was to get companies thinking long term instead of per quarter profits only. If your stock only vest after 5 years, you have to think 5 years.
But the difference is that if I have RSUs/options that have not yet vested and leave the company, I no longer have that stock. If executives do the same thing, they keep their non-vested shares and often get the vesting accelerated. Maybe if they actually enforced the vesting period on departing execs, having long vesting periods might make a difference in long-term thinking at the top, but since boards are made up of executives from other companies (who also want their boards to give them sweetheart deals) this will never happen. The executive class is still looting companies and shareholders have little power to stop it because "everyone does it" and "we need to attract top talent".
my phone is almost dead. My 6 Plus has "touch disease", so I need to get a new one soon.
So your current Apple product is failing horribly, so you are considering getting a new Apple product? Why reward them for making a crappy phone that failed on you?
Henry Ford offered a substantially higher wage at his factories. Those wages were closer to the actual productivity of the workers, thus creating a feedback loop where the workers were able to afford the cars his factories were producing, and the increased sales produced more work for them and more wealth for Ford.
I see this narrative a lot, but it doesn't stand up to basic math. If the sole source of income for Ford workers is from Ford then there is no "feedback loop", it would be impossible for Ford to make enough money off the extra car sales to pay for the wage increase. The reason Henry Ford increased wages was for worker retention, not so they could buy his cars. Before the wage increase, his employee turnover rate was 370%. So to maintain his workforce of 13,000-14,000 he would need to hire more than 50,000 people per year. He also had a 10% absenteeism rate which causes a lot of problems on an assembly line. The wage increase was to increase employee satisfaction thereby decreasing turnover. It wasn't altruism or sympathy for the workers, it was a business decision to make the company more money and to make the plant run better.
If the only people who buy your product are your employees then you lose money. In 2016, Ford had around 200,000 employees and sold about 6.6 million automobiles. If EVERY Ford employee bought a new Ford EVERY YEAR, they still would only account for around 3% of sales.
This is also what probably protected Canada from this breach. According to my Canadian bank, Equifax Canada was not affected by this breach
Well, it doesn't appear that your bank knows if you are affected or not. According to this article, "Credit reporting giant Equifax has yet to reveal how many Canadians had their personal information hacked over the spring and summer when the company’s database was breached." and "The breach exposed the information of an 'unknown' number of people living in Canada and the United Kingdom." It sounds to me like Canadians are affected, they just haven't said how many yet.
I wonder exactly how that was figured out? Access logs, ransom note etc...?
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM 'allthepeople';
But the AC asserted that the "household income" figures commonly in use come from the IRS and only includes people that are related. The wiki article on household income in the US gives a little more information on what it includes:
"A household's income can be calculated various ways but the US Census as of 2009 measured it in the following manner: the income of every resident of that house that is over the age of 15, including wages and salaries, as well as any kind of governmental entitlement such as unemployment insurance, disability payments or child support payments received, along with any personal business, investment, or other recurring sources of income.[7]
The residents of the household do not have to be related to the head of the household for their earnings to be considered part of the household's income."
The AC's assertion appears to be incorrect.
Money. This is a $400,000+ treatment. People are willing to bankrupt themselves for their kids, even if they aren't for themselves.
What? Of course people are willing to bankrupt themselves for medical treatment, whether it's for their children or for themselves. Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US, 62% of ALL bankruptcies are for medical bills (and 78% of those people had some form of health insurance). We are literally killing people and ruining survivor's lives just so the medical insurance company owners can make more profits. Profit is sacrosanct in the US -- single payer will never happen because Congress is owned by these wealthy individuals and they don't take kindly to anyone who messes with their profits.
[citation needed]. This article says it's everyone under one roof, it doesn't say anything about "mommy, daddy and dependents".
"Household income is a measure of the combined incomes of all people sharing a particular household or place of residence."
There were literally never any pictures of a swap occurring. There is exactly as much evidence that they simply hooked up a remote coolant source and did a super fast charge as there is that they actually did battery swaps. No customer was ever permitted to observe the process.
Bullshit. Why do you come into these threads and spout easily disprovable points? Here is a site with a first-person account of a Tesla owner having their battery swapped with a picture of the swap occurring, so your statement is false. It's fine that you don't like Tesla, but please stop telling lies.
VCR trade-ins weren't popular, but VCR rentals were exceedingly popular. Suppose when you bought your car you had the option of either getting a brand-new factory battery or you could instead subscribe to a battery swapping service that has sufficient capacity for your needs and get a discount on the car equal to the cost of the battery pack. You wouldn't own the batteries, so you wouldn't have any qualms about getting a "lemon" battery -- if that did occur you would just return to the station and get a different one. With a sufficiently developed network range anxiety would disappear, a battery swap could easily happen as fast or faster than a tank fill. Battery swap stations would have the ability to use cheap off-peak power and also be able to rent their packs to the utilities as a grid-stabilization system. The only problem with a system is getting it started - it would take an immense investment to build or retrofit stations, obtain battery packs and convince manufacturers to implement the system into cars. Tesla piloted a system to do this and got little response, but perhaps it was too early and it would see a higher acceptance rate today or in the future.
In other cases they drop off one trailer and pick up another already loaded and are gone with very little wait time (which is more common at many distribution centers, just not so much at mine), those were the smaller percentage of trailers that would stay for longer periods as we accumulated enough items for that destination.. So turnaround times are very important, and waiting on a charge might be an issue for many typical distribution centers.
That is why they are going about this all wrong. For these systems, the bulk of the batteries should be in the trailer, not in the tractor. While the trailer is on the loading dock getting filled, it is plugged in and charging its large battery bank. The tractor then shows up and hooks up electrical lines at the same time they are currently hooking up brake lines. If it's a long haul, they could also add a pup trailer that adds even more range. Standard box trailers already have a large unused space low to the ground underneath the box which could be filled with the batteries, even existing trailers could be retrofitted pretty easily and it would be a great position for a battery swapping system as well. A side effect of filling that space would be to prevent Teslas from decapitating their drivers drving under trucks, so win-win!
You realize the guy identifies as liberal, right?
Do you have a source for that? There is a pretty extensive section in his memo about how he thinks Google discriminates against conservatives (quoted below), I find it hard to believe that someone who wasn't a conservative would include this in his writing:
Did these "corrected" measurements also cause the Northwest Passage to open? Did it make the glaciers recede? Did it cause sea levels to rise? Those tricky scientists and their temperature adjustments, is there anything they can't do?
There were around 20,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2016. I couldn't find total deaths for 2016 but there were 2.6 million deaths in 2014 so assume it's somewhere in that same neighborhood. So less than 1% of deaths were from opioid overdoses and you really think that number is causing a "statistical blip", particularly since opioid overdose deaths weren't at 0 (there were around 10,000 deaths ten years ago) before the current "epidemic"? A far more likely culprit is the increasing obesity rate and the poor state of healthcare in the US, the #1 killer is heart disease which is directly influenced by obesity.
You math is off, because the fatties are a lot less healthy than the average but you use the average healthcare costs in your calculations. Heart bypasses, diabetes treatments and 24 hour nursing care cost a ton of money and obese people are a lot more likely to need these services where thinner people don't use them as much.
Also I think they're improved diet and lack of smoking/drinking comes more from having less poverty. We've been gutting our anti-poverty programs for 30+ years. Junk food is cheap. Cigarettes are cheap (and subsidized). Booze is cheap. Education? Not so much. Not in America.
Do you have data that says Americans smoke and drink more than their European counterparts? The US is 57th in per-capita cigarette consumption, behind many countries in Europe. It is 47th in per-capita alcohol consumption, again behind many European countries. I was unable to find stats for the EU as a whole but it certainly doesn't look like Americans smoke or drink more than the average country.
I totally agree that the two parties are Coke vs. Coke, but you went off the rails with the cry for jail time for "rigging the primary". What law was broken? As far as I know, the parties can use whatever method they like to choose their candidates. I think the democrat's "super delegates" are bullshit but they aren't illegal. The problem with the system is that there are 2 parties and there can only be 2 viable parties due to our voting system. If we used another system like preferential voting or instant runoff it would allow other parties to become viable, in the current system voting for a party other than the 2 majors is wasting your vote. Of course, this change will never happen. Just like campaign finance reform or term limits, the people currently in power benefit from keeping the system exactly how it is and they certainly won't do anything that might decrease their power.
As usual, the /. pants-wetting crowd is quickly on the case, pointing out that yet another thing can be targeted by terrorists. News flash, EVERYTHING can be targeted by terrorists, and most of the time they are not. Quit listening to those that seek to gain power by instilling fear in the populace, they aren't doing you a favor.