If Clarkson had driven the extra 5-20 miles and actually run out of power, and they actually had to push it back, would Tesla's sales have suffered less?
The dishonesty didn't affect the fundamental points though. They did have a brake failure. The cause of the brake failure may have been a blown fuse, but presumably the circuit is there for a reason.
And they said they'd get about 55 miles of track time from a full charge. This seems to be true. Are Tesla claiming that the remaining charge would have given the car 145 more miles on the track?
The point being that food is carbon neutral - the carbon used in growing the crops is the same as than emitted by eating the food and exhaling. Technically so are fossil fuels over long periods but that's over millions of years.
Also it's not that simple because farm machinery uses fossil fuels, but the State Rep didn't mention that so I assume he's a moron.
Luck is always a factor. Valve had no way of knowing before hand whether their DRM would be accepted by the public. If they did then someone would have beaten them to it. It was a gamble. It paid off big.
But this is what makes businessmen successful. They're good at judging risk. Make 10 decisions, 9 of which will be a failure and one of which pays out 10 times your investment and you break even. Nobody cares about the individual gambles. It's the overall performance that matters. Sometimes that 1 in 10 is a statistical anomoly.
So, you pay $30 a month for a set of channels and watch 5 of them, with a couple you might occasionally have a look at.
Instead there's an a la carte option. Now, the cable company knows that you're willing to pay $30 a month for those 5 channels. Why would they not simply charge you $6 each?
This sort of thing is elegant, and appeals to engineers who love everything to be neatly organised and categorised in an easy to remember system.
Problem is, DNS hasn't been about engineering considerations for some time. It's very much a marketing thing. Microsoft and Apple would love to have websites at www.microsoft and www.apple respectively. The ".com" just means "on the internet" which was cool a decade ago and even cooler back in the mid 1990's but that's nothing special any more.
As for being "fuxxored", I think a big problem was the inclusion of non-national domains, and the stupid way the.us domain system worked (third level domain and lower only until 2002).
There are all sorts of issues. I wonder how long this will be the case for though. A drone can be made a lot smarter. I'm sure in a generation or two the pilot will just give the bird a rough direction and give the thing permission to fire (I really can't see that being taken out of human hands).
Advantages to the drone would be tolerating extreme G forces, fast reaction times, and the fact that it doesn't mind ramming its opponent.
There are quite a few largely independent third and even fourth level domains. International URLs for example often have something like com.au or.co.uk. Then there are ISPs in those countries. It's less common now but there are still a few username.demon.co.uk accounts kicking about.
Honestly, I can see there's an argument for guns to protect from an oppressive government, even if I'm not sure I agree with it.
What I find daft is the extremes some people take it to. Using a gun to oppose what is largely a popular law is suggesting that people with guns are more important than the will of the people. The reason copyright isn't likely to change is that most people think that the media cartels deserve it.This is not something that's being imposed by an oppressive government but by the popular majority. You can't use a gun to defend against popular opinion. you'll be outnumbered.
It's not an out and out nullification, but it's an argument. Similar to the draft card burning opposition to the Vietnam War. There is little justification for robbing banks within the law, but protesting perceived infringement of free speech by repeating that "speech" is a well established political tactic.
Actually it's not too bad an argument. The purpose here is not to infringe copyright - that's just a side effect - but to make a political statement. It's a protest against copyright, and the main thing they get out of it is political capital.
Absolutely. Nothing gets people on the side of greater freedom, in the nuanced debate of freedom of speech versus copyright protection more than "I'll shoot you if you disagree".
There's probably several working but incomplete versions. Different iterations apparently used 3D Realms home grown "Build" engine, the Quake 2 engine and the Unreal engine, and while I guess the engines may have been designed with some compatibility but it's rarely easy to just switch.
The FOSS community rarely needs anything. At least in terms of tools. they're the sort of people who are willing to make tools themselves if they have an itch to scratch.
But there are all sorts of utilities you could produce that will be useful to someone. Maybe a free utility that handles mp3s allows the user to add tags, and create a playlist based on arbitrary searches. Or something that manages photos. Or a recipe app that can find a recipe for the ingredients you have
It's not about storing energy in a spring (which if it is obvious, why has nobody done so before for a radio?) but about getting the energy out of the spring without running out too quickly.
I'm not sure. It seems an odd think to lie about. Actually it seems unlikely that he'd tell outright lies. Journalists are more likely to go for half truths because it's a lot safer if they get caught. It is plausible that poorly trained support staff will pick up some advice and not understand it.
I guess he might have misinterpreted the advice. Possibly deliberately.
A lot of the inconsistencies can be explained. The biggest oddity seems to be the difference between his reported speed and the log's reported speed. It seems strange to lie about something that will only have a fairly minor effect - heating and a few mph in speed. If you don't know you're being logged, then make it a big lie. Add an extra 40 miles by taking a detour. If you do know you're being logged, then be as honest as possible or you'll be caught out. If it as a mistake, he seems strangely specific. But I can't work out how the logs could be wrong either. They're presumably based on GPS or the car's built in logging.
As for your first point, sure it's common knowledge that batteries are less effective in the cold.. It's why it makes sense to test in suboptimal conditions.
His obvious hostility isn't really the issue as long as he's reasonably honest. We need a lot less fawning from journalists. It's just a little hard to say whether he is honest. Musk has pointed out some inaccuracies, but these don't actually indicate the overall message is false. The car clearly didn't behave as well as should be expected given the driving style.
He was given bad advice. It seems he was taking the opportunity to see how well it performed when things started going a bit wrong, and felt that taking advice without question from the support reps was part of this. I'd say this was a valid test, and it was bad advice.
He was driving it for 200 miles, at non exactly extreme speed, and it ran down the projected range by 240. After charging it up to a decent level and then leaving it overnight, the projected range dropped alarmingly.
The key difference seems to be the weather (weather reports suggests Eastern US is a little warmer than it was when he did his test).
Slashdot Mirror
What is it for then? It's hardly a practical car.
If Clarkson had driven the extra 5-20 miles and actually run out of power, and they actually had to push it back, would Tesla's sales have suffered less?
The dishonesty didn't affect the fundamental points though. They did have a brake failure. The cause of the brake failure may have been a blown fuse, but presumably the circuit is there for a reason.
And they said they'd get about 55 miles of track time from a full charge. This seems to be true. Are Tesla claiming that the remaining charge would have given the car 145 more miles on the track?
Yes, but this comes under the same general category of my point about fossil fuels for farm machinery.
I'm all in favour of encouraging carbon neutral food production and if Rep. Orcutt is advocating that then he has my support.
Or does he assume that all cars fun of biofuels.
The point being that food is carbon neutral - the carbon used in growing the crops is the same as than emitted by eating the food and exhaling. Technically so are fossil fuels over long periods but that's over millions of years.
Also it's not that simple because farm machinery uses fossil fuels, but the State Rep didn't mention that so I assume he's a moron.
Luck is always a factor. Valve had no way of knowing before hand whether their DRM would be accepted by the public. If they did then someone would have beaten them to it. It was a gamble. It paid off big.
But this is what makes businessmen successful. They're good at judging risk. Make 10 decisions, 9 of which will be a failure and one of which pays out 10 times your investment and you break even. Nobody cares about the individual gambles. It's the overall performance that matters. Sometimes that 1 in 10 is a statistical anomoly.
So, you pay $30 a month for a set of channels and watch 5 of them, with a couple you might occasionally have a look at.
Instead there's an a la carte option. Now, the cable company knows that you're willing to pay $30 a month for those 5 channels. Why would they not simply charge you $6 each?
No real need. I just added it because "microsoft" doesn't look like a domain.
Slashdot.org, of course has always been ahead of its time:)
This sort of thing is elegant, and appeals to engineers who love everything to be neatly organised and categorised in an easy to remember system.
.us domain system worked (third level domain and lower only until 2002).
Problem is, DNS hasn't been about engineering considerations for some time. It's very much a marketing thing. Microsoft and Apple would love to have websites at www.microsoft and www.apple respectively. The ".com" just means "on the internet" which was cool a decade ago and even cooler back in the mid 1990's but that's nothing special any more.
As for being "fuxxored", I think a big problem was the inclusion of non-national domains, and the stupid way the
There are all sorts of issues. I wonder how long this will be the case for though. A drone can be made a lot smarter. I'm sure in a generation or two the pilot will just give the bird a rough direction and give the thing permission to fire (I really can't see that being taken out of human hands).
Advantages to the drone would be tolerating extreme G forces, fast reaction times, and the fact that it doesn't mind ramming its opponent.
There are quite a few largely independent third and even fourth level domains. International URLs for example often have something like com.au or .co.uk. Then there are ISPs in those countries. It's less common now but there are still a few username.demon.co.uk accounts kicking about.
The original design had plenty. They just took a lot off because it looked nicer.
Well, they could at least give the crew binoculars:)
Seriously though, replica ships do make some compromises for modern safety laws. The replica of The Matthew for example has a Diesel engine in there.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/ For those who are interested, the expression on the ship's funnel indicates just how good a film this is.
Honestly, I can see there's an argument for guns to protect from an oppressive government, even if I'm not sure I agree with it.
What I find daft is the extremes some people take it to. Using a gun to oppose what is largely a popular law is suggesting that people with guns are more important than the will of the people. The reason copyright isn't likely to change is that most people think that the media cartels deserve it.This is not something that's being imposed by an oppressive government but by the popular majority. You can't use a gun to defend against popular opinion. you'll be outnumbered.
It's not an out and out nullification, but it's an argument. Similar to the draft card burning opposition to the Vietnam War. There is little justification for robbing banks within the law, but protesting perceived infringement of free speech by repeating that "speech" is a well established political tactic.
I think that's the argument.
Actually it's not too bad an argument. The purpose here is not to infringe copyright - that's just a side effect - but to make a political statement. It's a protest against copyright, and the main thing they get out of it is political capital.
Absolutely. Nothing gets people on the side of greater freedom, in the nuanced debate of freedom of speech versus copyright protection more than "I'll shoot you if you disagree".
There's probably several working but incomplete versions. Different iterations apparently used 3D Realms home grown "Build" engine, the Quake 2 engine and the Unreal engine, and while I guess the engines may have been designed with some compatibility but it's rarely easy to just switch.
The FOSS community rarely needs anything. At least in terms of tools. they're the sort of people who are willing to make tools themselves if they have an itch to scratch.
But there are all sorts of utilities you could produce that will be useful to someone. Maybe a free utility that handles mp3s allows the user to add tags, and create a playlist based on arbitrary searches. Or something that manages photos. Or a recipe app that can find a recipe for the ingredients you have
It's not about storing energy in a spring (which if it is obvious, why has nobody done so before for a radio?) but about getting the energy out of the spring without running out too quickly.
I'm not sure. It seems an odd think to lie about. Actually it seems unlikely that he'd tell outright lies. Journalists are more likely to go for half truths because it's a lot safer if they get caught. It is plausible that poorly trained support staff will pick up some advice and not understand it.
I guess he might have misinterpreted the advice. Possibly deliberately.
Doing so because a company representative tells you is a logical reason though, surely. Maybe not smart but logical.
A lot of the inconsistencies can be explained. The biggest oddity seems to be the difference between his reported speed and the log's reported speed. It seems strange to lie about something that will only have a fairly minor effect - heating and a few mph in speed. If you don't know you're being logged, then make it a big lie. Add an extra 40 miles by taking a detour. If you do know you're being logged, then be as honest as possible or you'll be caught out. If it as a mistake, he seems strangely specific. But I can't work out how the logs could be wrong either. They're presumably based on GPS or the car's built in logging.
As for your first point, sure it's common knowledge that batteries are less effective in the cold.. It's why it makes sense to test in suboptimal conditions.
His obvious hostility isn't really the issue as long as he's reasonably honest. We need a lot less fawning from journalists. It's just a little hard to say whether he is honest. Musk has pointed out some inaccuracies, but these don't actually indicate the overall message is false. The car clearly didn't behave as well as should be expected given the driving style.
He was given bad advice. It seems he was taking the opportunity to see how well it performed when things started going a bit wrong, and felt that taking advice without question from the support reps was part of this. I'd say this was a valid test, and it was bad advice.
He was driving it for 200 miles, at non exactly extreme speed, and it ran down the projected range by 240. After charging it up to a decent level and then leaving it overnight, the projected range dropped alarmingly.
The key difference seems to be the weather (weather reports suggests Eastern US is a little warmer than it was when he did his test).