[According to the article] there was nothing wrong with the software. It was that the network couldn't be accessed [was down]. This sounds more like a core router failure or a router that polluted the routing tables.
Airline reservations systems fall into the "mission critical" software development category. They tend to have fewer bugs because they get so much testing before deployment.
And one of the reasons AA spun off its [in-house] Sabre system was so that it could be kept modern. Another reason, IIRC, was that when it was in-house, they were being accused of antitrust, because other systems couldn't access it. At the time, the only serious competitor was United's(?) Apollo system.
In my experience [of 40 years as computer engineer], fast code actually has fewer bugs, because, it order to make it fast you find the simplest way to state the problem. This simplicity [or elegance] tends to keep the code clean, maintainable, fast--all at the same time. When you don't keep an eye on performance, your code can become convoluted (i.e. slow) since you don't care about performance, you can get sloppy. That's when bugs creep in.
I know you've said that you show the cards beforehand. As you've talked to B5 fans over the years, what percentage realize that the mid-series shocker of Valen's true identity was actually revealed [cleverly disguised] in the pilot episode?
How would the B5 arc been different if Andrea Thompson had wished to remain as Talia Winters?
- Would Ivanova have been revealed as the mole/control [instead of Talia]? - Would Lyta have become such a strong telepath or would Andrea's gift from her lover Jason made her the stronger one? That is, was the reintroduction of Lyta part of the arc or an adaptation?
No, it is removed from your device. This is done rarely because Apple screens most apps for malware before being put on appstore/iTunes. But, if one slips by, they can and have removed it.
Even if were set up that way, we already know Apple wipes [malicious] apps without user intervention/approval. It's not much of a stretch to assume they could [already have the capability to] surreptitiously download and run an app that snoops your private keys, since these keys must be in the clear on the user's iWhatever for iMessage to work in the first place.
IIRC, IBM, also, published a white paper on a system similar to Fraunhofer's about 10 years ago [to head off broad patent claims] based on research they had done.
Um, no. The config option is still there [and has been unchecked on my system for years]. They removed the code that read that option and supported it [which is what I said in the first place].
If Gnome 3.8 still has application popup windows that are "pinned" below the app's window bar, then it still reeks.
This started at Gnome 3.0, and [as far as I can tell from a quick perusal of the source code] they removed the code [from metacity, mutter, gnome-whatever] that corresponded to the config option to allow these windows to float.
For an example, play gnomines. When you complete a game, the popup comes up and obscures the top part of the board. You can't see your time [or a portion of the board]. This can't be overridden.
As a far worse example, do an "open file" [ctrl-O] in Firefox. See how much information is obscured (tabs, toolbar, url, etc.).
To remove working code that provided a useful option to force "A Brave New Paradigm" is just asinine.
From the 1959 movie: "An impoverished backward nation declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose, but things don't go according to plan."
NK can't feed its people and they are starving. NK leadership is foolish, incompetent, venal, sadistic,... To distract from that, what better way than to whip them up into a patriotic/militaristic frenzy and claim that the "real" reason things are terrible is that the U.S. intends to attack them.
Or... Start a war, lose immediately, and get "postwar" economic aid to rebuild the country.
Or... They truly [delusionally] believe what they say. Think "The Black Knight" from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" or Hitler in the bunker inventing mythical armies he no longer has to mount counter-offensives. [*]
[*] Disclaimer: Normally, I don't "play the Hitler card", but NK has certainly earned it...
IIRC, didn't Dick Tracy have a two-way wrist radio back in the 60's? And the "Search" [nee "Probe"] TV series had a tricorder-like device [they called a "scanner"] that could fit on top of an agent's ring.
So, such things were imagined just not realized. Just getting the prior art out there before the youngster lawyers start claiming so-and-so company invented the concept.
This is one government agency being given access to a government database collected by another government agency.
Yes, that's the proposed extension.
Your own "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are not involved.
The above information can only be collected because of the PATRIOT Act and the "Bank Secrecy Act". Without these, [which could be rescinded by the legislature or judiciary], it would be a fourth amendment violation. There is already case law to this effect in other areas (cloud, email retention, etc.) that would be cited if not for patriot/bank secrecy acts.
Just quoting the actual 4th text [for your argument that it doesn't apply] isn't much use. Partly, because it's [deliberately] broad and open to interpretation as to how it applies in a given situation. What actually governs all this is all the derived case law gathered over the last two centuries.
Very few new cases cite the amendment directly, but build on precedent setting prior case law. For example, an explicit "right to privacy" isn't codified in the constitution, but has been established through court decisions [as judicial interpretations of the 1st/4th text]. These [most recent] decisions [that survive the appellate process] state what is permissible or not.
Within the last week, the 9th circuit court just issued a ruling that severely restricted what may be searched on a laptop at a border crossing. The court reasoned that a laptop wasn't like "personal papers" that could just be left at home if one didn't want them searched, because of the impracticality of separating out this information. Further, if the information was encrypted, this was deemed tantamount to "leaving it at home" and decryption keys/passwords could not be [no longer] coerced from the owner.
Thus, it is permissible for border agents to routinely [physically] search the laptop for weapons (e.g. concealed explosives), but searching the data on it is not [without "reasonable suspicion"--on a watch list, etc.]. The previous argument/practice, overturned by this ruling, was that 4th didn't apply because, at a crossing, one was not yet "in the country".
IIRC, the constitution doesn't mention the word "laptop" anywhere.
I hope you're kidding, but... I live in California. If one makes a payment to a doctor, the type of doctor might disclose the type of illness one has. Disclosure of this runs afoul of California's strict medical privacy law. Also, possibly, the privacy provisions of the federal HIPAA...
whois 175.45.177.217
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[Redirected to whois.apnic.net]
[Querying whois.apnic.net]
[whois.apnic.net]
% [whois.apnic.net node-3]
% Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html
inetnum: 175.45.176.0 - 175.45.179.255
netname: STAR-KP
descr: Ryugyong-dong
descr: Potong-gang District
country: KP
admin-c: SJVC1-AP
tech-c: SJVC1-AP
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-lower: MAINT-STAR-KP
mnt-routes: MAINT-STAR-KP
remarks: This object can only be updated by APNIC hostmasters.
remarks: To update this object, please contact APNIC
remarks: hostmasters and include your organisation's account
remarks: name in the subject line.
changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20091221
source: APNIC
In my town they recently added such a plastic bag ban (with a mandated 10 cent fee for a paper bag). My supermarket now has a shortage of the hand carry plastic shopping baskets that you use while in the store because people are now walking off with them.
The point about the charge levels is exactly that an electric car is not like a regular car. You can fill up a regular car in seconds, so going only 1/4 full is dumb, unless you're having money problems. Spend the extra 30 seconds and fill it up. With an electric, it isn't like that. Charging at a regular power outlet takes HOURS. So you only charge it up enough to get you to a supercharge station.
It seems that Broder started to go wrong at the second recharge at a super, where he only charged to 72%. By not recharging enough there, he was forced to make his unscheduled stop at point #3. So, now the question is "what is enough charge" to get him to the next super? Since the car seems to estimate conservatively [as one would hope], did Broder stop charging when the reading was "you'll get to point #3 with 5 miles to spare" or with "30 miles to spare"? Since he didn't have much experience with estimated vs actual mileage with the car, one would think he would err on the side of caution, until he got some genuine experience with the car. Also, how much extra/marginal recharge time would be required to guarantee arrival at the next supercharge?
Further complicating matters was the fact that a cold battery will read lower, and go up as it warms up. So it seems like a very difficult problem to estimate range, or how much charging you need to get to where you're going. Again, charging = time. According to the story, the Tesla rep told him the range would increase as the battery warmed up, so after charging for an hour as advised, he left even though the range estimator still showed him short. (*)
Since he had already messed up at the 72% recharge point, forcing him to stop at the regular charge station (#3), he should have just lumped it and waited until the car told him it was okay. He was trying to skate on thin ice. The car performed well, the Tesla support people should have told him to just suck it up and wait. They would never tell a regular customer to leave #3 as Broder did. They would tell a regular customer to trust [and follow] the car's readouts. They were giving Broder special treatment because he was doing a review. It turns out that this extra advice was ill advised.
Also, the charging speed is not linear. The first 50% goes quickly, but to go above 90% would take a long time even at a superstation.
The question is, at point #2, how much extra time [in hours], would it take to bring the car from 72% to 90% [or whatever percentage that would guarantee safe arrival at the next supercharge, rather than the unscheduled stop Broder had to make]?
(*) This is where the story breaks down. Instead of "following orders" blindly, he should have stayed where he was, and kept charging as the battery warmed up, until the range reading allowed him to get to the charging station. Had he done this, there would be no story.
Yes, I agree. Which is why I've been mentioning that in several places. Most automotive publications like Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and Consumer Reports [er... perhaps just C&D and CR:-)] use automotive engineers and/or professional test drivers to do their evaluations and not a tyro [with an anti-electric car axe to grind] like Broder.
Tesla is just being dumb here. They are hyping up this car as the vehicle for Joe Everyday, when it's clearly not ready for prime time, and is nowhere close to being a replacement for all common use cases.
A number of automotive analysts have commented that Tesla is right to make an issue about the review. But, at the Model S's price tag, it isn't affordable for Joe Everyday, so I think they're positioning it as a luxury car. And, as you [and I] mention below, the key is battery life.
For example, as much as I think electric cars are sexy, it would be pointless for me to get one. I barely drive around the city (I w
It's on the NJ turnpike, so as is typical for toll roads (at least all around the north east out to Illinois) you don't have to exit and reenter.
Although I currently live in California, I have family in Massachusetts, so I've driven the Mass Pike in the last few years. You don't exit the freeway itself, but you do take an off ramp that leads directly into the plaza, sometimes with the gas vs parking fork I already mentioned. For the Mass Pike, each direction has its own separate plaza and you "exit" to the right. You need the ramp because there are guard rails all along the right and a concrete center divide, etc. This is in contrast to what it's like on, say, I70 in Kansas [1 or 2 lanes each way and no center divider], where you just can pull off the roadway into the station/plaza just like you would on a city street.
My parents and I lived in N.J. from 1960-1965, so I'm familiar with the NJ Turnpike [and the Garden State Parkway]. On one or more of these roads, the plaza is in the center, common to both directions, and you exit to the left, or have a mini-clover leaf. It's been 25 years since I drove there, so I'm a bit hazy on exactly what it's like. But, what I can say, is back in the day, it wasn't burger whatever, it was pure 100% Howard Johnson's.
There's no street view of the plaza itself so I can't check for certain, but that is exactly what I would expect. The thing is, because charging takes so long (relative to gas), the workflow is a lot closer to (1) park (2) charge (3) get a burger and hang out during the charge (4) leave. In other words, the appropriate place for the charger is exactly the same as the appropriate place for most people to park when eating -- the parking lot.
Good point about the length of time for charging [and there is more space in the parking lot].
The assembly line design you mention is exactly counter-productive to the goal of EV charging.
This layout is what most plazas have, because it works for the gasoline model. Since gas cars will be around for quite some time, unless they start building electric only plazas [prohibitively expensive], the layout will remain for the foreseeable future.
There is a shopping center parking lot nearby where I live that has EV charging stations. Where are they? In the parking lot...
I'll grant that and the remainder I've snipped.
Yeah, but did Musk? IMO, for as transparent as he's pretending to be, he actually gives very little data about the data he's released. (As another example, he claims that the car was never out of power, even when being loaded onto the flatbed. But from some reports, the car has two battery sets -- the main battery, and a 12V. Presumably the graph Musk shows is of the main battery. Where's the data for the 12V? Are the charges combined together somehow on that chart? Is it gathered?
The data probably doesn't include data for the 12V because you could probably only get across a parking before draining it dry:-) Easy enough to test with a gasoline manual transmission car. Disconnect the spark plugs, put it in gear, turn it over, and see how far you get.
There is a plausible explanation that the main batteries still had charge but the 12V died; if so, then it did need towed after all, making Musk's statement about the charge on the main batteries meaningless. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not actually on Broder's side on this really. Rather I don't find either side particularly credible at the moment.
Most likely the main battery recharges the 12V, so it's more likely the main battery goes first. What keeps the car going is the main battery. I'm guessing the main battery is, say, 48V [or whatever]. Since regular cars use 12V for many accessories, stereo, headlights, etc. it's far cheaper to run these t
He was at a "regular" charging station, not a supercharging station. It was an unscheduled stop and he charged it for an hour, which he says Tesla support staff told him would be enough to get back to the supercharging station. Reportedly, they said that the lost range would be recovered as he continued to drive, warming the batteries. It would have taken as much as five hours to fully charge the car at that station.
Thanks for the additional info about the regular vs super charging stations.
In a way, it makes things more baffling if the whole original premise for the story was [ostensibly] to test out the new supercharging network. Why was the stop unscheduled? One would think Broder would plan his trip better to leap from one supercharger to another. If he didn't want to wait the 5 hours, he should have anticipated that better.
The car, no doubt, told him how far it would go on the charge he put on [and that he wouldn't be able to make it to the supercharger]. He might not have needed a full charge, perhaps [say] only an additional hour to make it to the supercharger [with some reasonable margin to spare]. He was trying to let the gas gauge go to "empty".
Personally, I never let mine go below 1/4 full and usually look to fill up at 1/2 [particularly, if I'm driving across mountains, etc.]. For example, I once drove cross-country on I70 [east-to-west]. After hitting Colorado, I had 1/2 tank [which would let me go ~100 miles]. There was a sign that said "last gas for next 100 miles", which I believed because, IIRC, the first 100 miles is desert-like and sparsely populated. If I had driven slowly, steadily, and carefully, I might have been able to squeeze an additional 5-10 miles out of the remaining tank. But, that isn't something that one should plan for and rely on. It is only something to do if one has no choice. At that point, I had a choice: To fill'er up [which I did]. The sign might have been merely a rip-off [as the gas was quite expensive], but I didn't feel the need to press my luck [in the era before cell phones].
The tricks suggested by the Tesla people would have some marginal benefit. Obviously, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the first thing they told him was to charge to a certain [recommended] level. They probably explained why this was necessary or a good idea, etc. This is what they'd tell an ordinary customer. But [based on his previously published disdain for electric cars], he probably groused about that advice, so they said, because he was doing a review [something like]: "Okay, if you must, under ideal conditions, you might be able to [just] make it doing this...". If Broder carped about the first/best advice he got, he has only himself to blame.
If the Tesla support people gave him the "warm the battery" advice as their first suggestion, a mild rebuke of their customer service might be justified. As an engineer, I know the the "regenerative braking" trick would not work as there is extra loss [otherwise a perpetual motion machine is possible], so Tesla's oopsy. However, savaging the car itself [or the supercharger network] is a setup/hatchet job. He was trying to operate the car beyond its specs and squeak by. If he lacks that amount of acumen, or enough sense to evaluate the advice he is given, he has no business reviewing cars in general, let alone a state of the art one.
If Broder had done a review of the first Model-T, we'd all still be using horse drawn wagons...
Oops, my bad on the plaza thing [I assumed you had to take an exit off the freeway to go to a gas station that also had a charger].
---
But, as most such plazas are laid out, the parking lot is usually far away from the pump area. The parking lot comes first as you exit the freeway and enter the plaza and the pumps are farther down. This is because [ordinarily] you park, get a burger, then refuel and leave. The plaza is laid out like an assembly line to facilitate this. In fact, in some plazas, you "exit" [again] to hit the parking lot or proceed straight to get to the pumps, and this is clearly marked.
Unless I'm missing something [again;-)], Broder might have circled the pump area, but meandering around the parking area doesn't make sense to me. With GPS, Tesla would be able to tell the difference.
But, then again, if the charging stations were actually in individual parking spaces in the parking lot this might make sense. That is, you park, connect the cable from the charger [which is like a parking meter], and insert your credit card, then Broder's actions might seem plausible. But, if this were true, Tesla would know this and I don't think they'd mention it as an issue.
However, having a charging cable in a parking slot might not be a good idea. Because, the parking lot is an area where children get in/out of cars. Letting them get near something that is potentially hazardous doesn't seem like a good idea. Upon further reflection, I would guess that the charger is in a special area near the gas pumps [similar to a "diesel-only" pump island].
For speed, GPS would seem to me to be more accurate on the long haul. If the car wheels were slipping somewhat, this could throw the speedometer/odometer off slightly. But, I suspect that both speedometer and GPS data were logged. They could be combined/cross-checked to produce the most accurate result. That said, speedometers are usually pretty accurate [my 1991 Miata speedo is 2 mph off as measured against a radar gun]. No speedometer glitches to 80 mph. While the speedometer might be more accurate for instantaneous speed, a speed calculated [even as an average] over a minute+ with GPS would be pretty accurate.
According to the Tesla data, Broder's charge percentages after leaving a charging station were 90%, 72%, and 28%. While 90% may be reasonable, and 3/4 of a tank a bit dicey, who in their right mind only fills up to just over 1/4 of a tank? If he were refueling a gasoline powered car in this manner, he'd be deemed a fool.
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
I don't know for sure, but it seems like there was. When Broder claims he was driving around [nearby streets, presumably] looking for the [in his words] poorly marked charging station, Tesla is saying that he was driving around in a parking lot. The only way Tesla could know the difference would be GPS data. This stands to reason because as remarked elsewhere, when an electric car is low on charge, it alerts you verbally, and asks if it can "lay in a course" [Star Trek term:-)] to the nearest charging station. This strongly implies GPS. Plus, for such a high end car, a built in [GPS] navigation system is one of the expected extras.
Doesn't matter what the subject matter is. Operations such as Phantom Works are prohibited from commenting at all, plus or minus, on anything. When in doubt [or not], say [absolutely] nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
[According to the article] there was nothing wrong with the software. It was that the network couldn't be accessed [was down]. This sounds more like a core router failure or a router that polluted the routing tables.
Airline reservations systems fall into the "mission critical" software development category. They tend to have fewer bugs because they get so much testing before deployment.
And one of the reasons AA spun off its [in-house] Sabre system was so that it could be kept modern. Another reason, IIRC, was that when it was in-house, they were being accused of antitrust, because other systems couldn't access it. At the time, the only serious competitor was United's(?) Apollo system.
In my experience [of 40 years as computer engineer], fast code actually has fewer bugs, because, it order to make it fast you find the simplest way to state the problem. This simplicity [or elegance] tends to keep the code clean, maintainable, fast--all at the same time. When you don't keep an eye on performance, your code can become convoluted (i.e. slow) since you don't care about performance, you can get sloppy. That's when bugs creep in.
I know you've said that you show the cards beforehand. As you've talked to B5 fans over the years, what percentage realize that the mid-series shocker of Valen's true identity was actually revealed [cleverly disguised] in the pilot episode?
How would the B5 arc been different if Andrea Thompson had wished to remain as Talia Winters?
- Would Ivanova have been revealed as the mole/control [instead of Talia]?
- Would Lyta have become such a strong telepath or would Andrea's gift from her lover Jason made her the stronger one? That is, was the reintroduction of Lyta part of the arc or an adaptation?
No, it is removed from your device. This is done rarely because Apple screens most apps for malware before being put on appstore/iTunes. But, if one slips by, they can and have removed it.
Even if were set up that way, we already know Apple wipes [malicious] apps without user intervention/approval. It's not much of a stretch to assume they could [already have the capability to] surreptitiously download and run an app that snoops your private keys, since these keys must be in the clear on the user's iWhatever for iMessage to work in the first place.
IIRC, IBM, also, published a white paper on a system similar to Fraunhofer's about 10 years ago [to head off broad patent claims] based on research they had done.
Um, no. The config option is still there [and has been unchecked on my system for years]. They removed the code that read that option and supported it [which is what I said in the first place].
If Gnome 3.8 still has application popup windows that are "pinned" below the app's window bar, then it still reeks.
This started at Gnome 3.0, and [as far as I can tell from a quick perusal of the source code] they removed the code [from metacity, mutter, gnome-whatever] that corresponded to the config option to allow these windows to float.
For an example, play gnomines. When you complete a game, the popup comes up and obscures the top part of the board. You can't see your time [or a portion of the board]. This can't be overridden.
As a far worse example, do an "open file" [ctrl-O] in Firefox. See how much information is obscured (tabs, toolbar, url, etc.).
To remove working code that provided a useful option to force "A Brave New Paradigm" is just asinine.
From the 1959 movie: "An impoverished backward nation declares a war on the United States of America, hoping to lose, but things don't go according to plan."
NK can't feed its people and they are starving. NK leadership is foolish, incompetent, venal, sadistic, ... To distract from that, what better way than to whip them up into a patriotic/militaristic frenzy and claim that the "real" reason things are terrible is that the U.S. intends to attack them.
Or ... Start a war, lose immediately, and get "postwar" economic aid to rebuild the country.
Or ... They truly [delusionally] believe what they say. Think "The Black Knight" from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" or Hitler in the bunker inventing mythical armies he no longer has to mount counter-offensives. [*]
[*] Disclaimer: Normally, I don't "play the Hitler card", but NK has certainly earned it ...
IIRC, didn't Dick Tracy have a two-way wrist radio back in the 60's? And the "Search" [nee "Probe"] TV series had a tricorder-like device [they called a "scanner"] that could fit on top of an agent's ring.
So, such things were imagined just not realized. Just getting the prior art out there before the youngster lawyers start claiming so-and-so company invented the concept.
This is one government agency being given access to a government database collected by another government agency.
Yes, that's the proposed extension.
Your own "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are not involved.
The above information can only be collected because of the PATRIOT Act and the "Bank Secrecy Act". Without these, [which could be rescinded by the legislature or judiciary], it would be a fourth amendment violation. There is already case law to this effect in other areas (cloud, email retention, etc.) that would be cited if not for patriot/bank secrecy acts.
Just quoting the actual 4th text [for your argument that it doesn't apply] isn't much use. Partly, because it's [deliberately] broad and open to interpretation as to how it applies in a given situation. What actually governs all this is all the derived case law gathered over the last two centuries.
Very few new cases cite the amendment directly, but build on precedent setting prior case law. For example, an explicit "right to privacy" isn't codified in the constitution, but has been established through court decisions [as judicial interpretations of the 1st/4th text]. These [most recent] decisions [that survive the appellate process] state what is permissible or not.
Within the last week, the 9th circuit court just issued a ruling that severely restricted what may be searched on a laptop at a border crossing. The court reasoned that a laptop wasn't like "personal papers" that could just be left at home if one didn't want them searched, because of the impracticality of separating out this information. Further, if the information was encrypted, this was deemed tantamount to "leaving it at home" and decryption keys/passwords could not be [no longer] coerced from the owner.
Thus, it is permissible for border agents to routinely [physically] search the laptop for weapons (e.g. concealed explosives), but searching the data on it is not [without "reasonable suspicion"--on a watch list, etc.]. The previous argument/practice, overturned by this ruling, was that 4th didn't apply because, at a crossing, one was not yet "in the country".
IIRC, the constitution doesn't mention the word "laptop" anywhere.
Hmph. Everyone knows corn nuts are the best snack for well-reasoned and rational comment watching!
And corn nuts don't get stuck between your teeth ...
I hope you're kidding, but ... I live in California. If one makes a payment to a doctor, the type of doctor might disclose the type of illness one has. Disclosure of this runs afoul of California's strict medical privacy law. Also, possibly, the privacy provisions of the federal HIPAA ...
Just asking ...
Perhaps they only became tiny, flying murder machines after being overcaffeinated ...
6 ae-7.r20.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.52)
7 ae-4.r21.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.102)
8 ae-2.r23.amstnl02.nl.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.145)
9 ae-2.r02.amstnl02.nl.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.159)
10 xe-4-1.r02.dsdfge01.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.65)
11 * * *
12 213.198.77.122 (213.198.77.122)
13 * * *
14 xe-0-1-0-3.r02.frnkge03.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.5.62)
15 xe-0.level3.frnkge03.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.8.202)
16 vlan90.csw4.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.154.254)
17 ae-82-82.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.25)
18 ae-61-61.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.66)
19 ae-21-70.car1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.67)
20 INTELSAT-IN.car1.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.156.82.14)
21 209.159.170.215 (209.159.170.215)
22 202.72.96.6 (202.72.96.6) 837.620
23 175.45.177.217 (175.45.177.217)
---
whois 175.45.177.217
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[Redirected to whois.apnic.net]
[Querying whois.apnic.net]
[whois.apnic.net]
% [whois.apnic.net node-3]
% Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html
inetnum: 175.45.176.0 - 175.45.179.255
netname: STAR-KP
descr: Ryugyong-dong
descr: Potong-gang District
country: KP
admin-c: SJVC1-AP
tech-c: SJVC1-AP
status: ALLOCATED PORTABLE
mnt-by: APNIC-HM
mnt-lower: MAINT-STAR-KP
mnt-routes: MAINT-STAR-KP
remarks: This object can only be updated by APNIC hostmasters.
remarks: To update this object, please contact APNIC
remarks: hostmasters and include your organisation's account
remarks: name in the subject line.
changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20091221
source: APNIC
role: STAR JOINT VENTURE CO LTD - network administrat
address: Ryugyong-dong Potong-gang District
country: KP
phone: +66 81 208 7602
fax-no: +66 2 240 3180
e-mail: sahayod@loxley.co.th
admin-c: SJVC1-AP
tech-c: SJVC1-AP
nic-hdl: SJVC1-AP
mnt-by: MAINT-STAR-KP
changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20091214
source: APNIC
Doesn't Safari already do this by default?
In the first bugzilla entry for the patch, it details what Safari does and proposes to mimic it.
In my town they recently added such a plastic bag ban (with a mandated 10 cent fee for a paper bag). My supermarket now has a shortage of the hand carry plastic shopping baskets that you use while in the store because people are now walking off with them.
The point about the charge levels is exactly that an electric car is not like a regular car. You can fill up a regular car in seconds, so going only 1/4 full is dumb, unless you're having money problems. Spend the extra 30 seconds and fill it up. With an electric, it isn't like that. Charging at a regular power outlet takes HOURS. So you only charge it up enough to get you to a supercharge station.
It seems that Broder started to go wrong at the second recharge at a super, where he only charged to 72%. By not recharging enough there, he was forced to make his unscheduled stop at point #3. So, now the question is "what is enough charge" to get him to the next super? Since the car seems to estimate conservatively [as one would hope], did Broder stop charging when the reading was "you'll get to point #3 with 5 miles to spare" or with "30 miles to spare"? Since he didn't have much experience with estimated vs actual mileage with the car, one would think he would err on the side of caution, until he got some genuine experience with the car. Also, how much extra/marginal recharge time would be required to guarantee arrival at the next supercharge?
Further complicating matters was the fact that a cold battery will read lower, and go up as it warms up. So it seems like a very difficult problem to estimate range, or how much charging you need to get to where you're going. Again, charging = time. According to the story, the Tesla rep told him the range would increase as the battery warmed up, so after charging for an hour as advised, he left even though the range estimator still showed him short. (*)
Since he had already messed up at the 72% recharge point, forcing him to stop at the regular charge station (#3), he should have just lumped it and waited until the car told him it was okay. He was trying to skate on thin ice. The car performed well, the Tesla support people should have told him to just suck it up and wait. They would never tell a regular customer to leave #3 as Broder did. They would tell a regular customer to trust [and follow] the car's readouts. They were giving Broder special treatment because he was doing a review. It turns out that this extra advice was ill advised.
Also, the charging speed is not linear. The first 50% goes quickly, but to go above 90% would take a long time even at a superstation.
The question is, at point #2, how much extra time [in hours], would it take to bring the car from 72% to 90% [or whatever percentage that would guarantee safe arrival at the next supercharge, rather than the unscheduled stop Broder had to make]?
(*) This is where the story breaks down. Instead of "following orders" blindly, he should have stayed where he was, and kept charging as the battery warmed up, until the range reading allowed him to get to the charging station. Had he done this, there would be no story.
Yes, I agree. Which is why I've been mentioning that in several places. Most automotive publications like Motor Trend, Car & Driver, and Consumer Reports [er... perhaps just C&D and CR :-)] use automotive engineers and/or professional test drivers to do their evaluations and not a tyro [with an anti-electric car axe to grind] like Broder.
Tesla is just being dumb here. They are hyping up this car as the vehicle for Joe Everyday, when it's clearly not ready for prime time, and is nowhere close to being a replacement for all common use cases.
A number of automotive analysts have commented that Tesla is right to make an issue about the review. But, at the Model S's price tag, it isn't affordable for Joe Everyday, so I think they're positioning it as a luxury car. And, as you [and I] mention below, the key is battery life.
For example, as much as I think electric cars are sexy, it would be pointless for me to get one. I barely drive around the city (I w
It's on the NJ turnpike, so as is typical for toll roads (at least all around the north east out to Illinois) you don't have to exit and reenter.
Although I currently live in California, I have family in Massachusetts, so I've driven the Mass Pike in the last few years. You don't exit the freeway itself, but you do take an off ramp that leads directly into the plaza, sometimes with the gas vs parking fork I already mentioned. For the Mass Pike, each direction has its own separate plaza and you "exit" to the right. You need the ramp because there are guard rails all along the right and a concrete center divide, etc. This is in contrast to what it's like on, say, I70 in Kansas [1 or 2 lanes each way and no center divider], where you just can pull off the roadway into the station/plaza just like you would on a city street.
My parents and I lived in N.J. from 1960-1965, so I'm familiar with the NJ Turnpike [and the Garden State Parkway]. On one or more of these roads, the plaza is in the center, common to both directions, and you exit to the left, or have a mini-clover leaf. It's been 25 years since I drove there, so I'm a bit hazy on exactly what it's like. But, what I can say, is back in the day, it wasn't burger whatever, it was pure 100% Howard Johnson's.
There's no street view of the plaza itself so I can't check for certain, but that is exactly what I would expect. The thing is, because charging takes so long (relative to gas), the workflow is a lot closer to (1) park (2) charge (3) get a burger and hang out during the charge (4) leave. In other words, the appropriate place for the charger is exactly the same as the appropriate place for most people to park when eating -- the parking lot.
Good point about the length of time for charging [and there is more space in the parking lot].
The assembly line design you mention is exactly counter-productive to the goal of EV charging.
This layout is what most plazas have, because it works for the gasoline model. Since gas cars will be around for quite some time, unless they start building electric only plazas [prohibitively expensive], the layout will remain for the foreseeable future.
There is a shopping center parking lot nearby where I live that has EV charging stations. Where are they? In the parking lot ...
I'll grant that and the remainder I've snipped.
Yeah, but did Musk? IMO, for as transparent as he's pretending to be, he actually gives very little data about the data he's released. (As another example, he claims that the car was never out of power, even when being loaded onto the flatbed. But from some reports, the car has two battery sets -- the main battery, and a 12V. Presumably the graph Musk shows is of the main battery. Where's the data for the 12V? Are the charges combined together somehow on that chart? Is it gathered?
The data probably doesn't include data for the 12V because you could probably only get across a parking before draining it dry :-) Easy enough to test with a gasoline manual transmission car. Disconnect the spark plugs, put it in gear, turn it over, and see how far you get.
There is a plausible explanation that the main batteries still had charge but the 12V died; if so, then it did need towed after all, making Musk's statement about the charge on the main batteries meaningless. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, I'm not actually on Broder's side on this really. Rather I don't find either side particularly credible at the moment.
Most likely the main battery recharges the 12V, so it's more likely the main battery goes first. What keeps the car going is the main battery. I'm guessing the main battery is, say, 48V [or whatever]. Since regular cars use 12V for many accessories, stereo, headlights, etc. it's far cheaper to run these t
He was at a "regular" charging station, not a supercharging station. It was an unscheduled stop and he charged it for an hour, which he says Tesla support staff told him would be enough to get back to the supercharging station. Reportedly, they said that the lost range would be recovered as he continued to drive, warming the batteries. It would have taken as much as five hours to fully charge the car at that station.
Thanks for the additional info about the regular vs super charging stations.
In a way, it makes things more baffling if the whole original premise for the story was [ostensibly] to test out the new supercharging network. Why was the stop unscheduled? One would think Broder would plan his trip better to leap from one supercharger to another. If he didn't want to wait the 5 hours, he should have anticipated that better.
The car, no doubt, told him how far it would go on the charge he put on [and that he wouldn't be able to make it to the supercharger]. He might not have needed a full charge, perhaps [say] only an additional hour to make it to the supercharger [with some reasonable margin to spare]. He was trying to let the gas gauge go to "empty".
Personally, I never let mine go below 1/4 full and usually look to fill up at 1/2 [particularly, if I'm driving across mountains, etc.]. For example, I once drove cross-country on I70 [east-to-west]. After hitting Colorado, I had 1/2 tank [which would let me go ~100 miles]. There was a sign that said "last gas for next 100 miles", which I believed because, IIRC, the first 100 miles is desert-like and sparsely populated. If I had driven slowly, steadily, and carefully, I might have been able to squeeze an additional 5-10 miles out of the remaining tank. But, that isn't something that one should plan for and rely on. It is only something to do if one has no choice. At that point, I had a choice: To fill'er up [which I did]. The sign might have been merely a rip-off [as the gas was quite expensive], but I didn't feel the need to press my luck [in the era before cell phones].
The tricks suggested by the Tesla people would have some marginal benefit. Obviously, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the first thing they told him was to charge to a certain [recommended] level. They probably explained why this was necessary or a good idea, etc. This is what they'd tell an ordinary customer. But [based on his previously published disdain for electric cars], he probably groused about that advice, so they said, because he was doing a review [something like]: "Okay, if you must, under ideal conditions, you might be able to [just] make it doing this ...". If Broder carped about the first/best advice he got, he has only himself to blame.
If the Tesla support people gave him the "warm the battery" advice as their first suggestion, a mild rebuke of their customer service might be justified. As an engineer, I know the the "regenerative braking" trick would not work as there is extra loss [otherwise a perpetual motion machine is possible], so Tesla's oopsy. However, savaging the car itself [or the supercharger network] is a setup/hatchet job. He was trying to operate the car beyond its specs and squeak by. If he lacks that amount of acumen, or enough sense to evaluate the advice he is given, he has no business reviewing cars in general, let alone a state of the art one.
If Broder had done a review of the first Model-T, we'd all still be using horse drawn wagons ...
---
But, as most such plazas are laid out, the parking lot is usually far away from the pump area. The parking lot comes first as you exit the freeway and enter the plaza and the pumps are farther down. This is because [ordinarily] you park, get a burger, then refuel and leave. The plaza is laid out like an assembly line to facilitate this. In fact, in some plazas, you "exit" [again] to hit the parking lot or proceed straight to get to the pumps, and this is clearly marked.
Unless I'm missing something [again ;-)], Broder might have circled the pump area, but meandering around the parking area doesn't make sense to me. With GPS, Tesla would be able to tell the difference.
But, then again, if the charging stations were actually in individual parking spaces in the parking lot this might make sense. That is, you park, connect the cable from the charger [which is like a parking meter], and insert your credit card, then Broder's actions might seem plausible. But, if this were true, Tesla would know this and I don't think they'd mention it as an issue.
However, having a charging cable in a parking slot might not be a good idea. Because, the parking lot is an area where children get in/out of cars. Letting them get near something that is potentially hazardous doesn't seem like a good idea. Upon further reflection, I would guess that the charger is in a special area near the gas pumps [similar to a "diesel-only" pump island].
For speed, GPS would seem to me to be more accurate on the long haul. If the car wheels were slipping somewhat, this could throw the speedometer/odometer off slightly. But, I suspect that both speedometer and GPS data were logged. They could be combined/cross-checked to produce the most accurate result. That said, speedometers are usually pretty accurate [my 1991 Miata speedo is 2 mph off as measured against a radar gun]. No speedometer glitches to 80 mph. While the speedometer might be more accurate for instantaneous speed, a speed calculated [even as an average] over a minute+ with GPS would be pretty accurate.
According to the Tesla data, Broder's charge percentages after leaving a charging station were 90%, 72%, and 28%. While 90% may be reasonable, and 3/4 of a tank a bit dicey, who in their right mind only fills up to just over 1/4 of a tank? If he were refueling a gasoline powered car in this manner, he'd be deemed a fool.
Was there a GPS logging that could confirm one story or the other? 54 mph vs 60 is quite a big difference on this long of a journey...
I don't know for sure, but it seems like there was. When Broder claims he was driving around [nearby streets, presumably] looking for the [in his words] poorly marked charging station, Tesla is saying that he was driving around in a parking lot. The only way Tesla could know the difference would be GPS data. This stands to reason because as remarked elsewhere, when an electric car is low on charge, it alerts you verbally, and asks if it can "lay in a course" [Star Trek term :-)] to the nearest charging station. This strongly implies GPS. Plus, for such a high end car, a built in [GPS] navigation system is one of the expected extras.
Doesn't matter what the subject matter is. Operations such as Phantom Works are prohibited from commenting at all, plus or minus, on anything. When in doubt [or not], say [absolutely] nothing.