"This is a problem with lots of new cars" Yes. It doesn't solve it.
"As with RF key fobs, the car should refuse to lock unless the phone is outside the car." Yes. It doesn't solve that. And RF range detecting the fob IN the car? That's dubious. Most cars that do this operate on the "you can't lock the door without the key in your hand" principle, not magically detecting that you left the key in the car and "not auto-locking"
"A complete non-problem. Cryptography. Relay attacks are an issue, though." Contradictory in itself. Relay attacks are being used to steal BMW etc. cars today by relaying the signal to your front door where your keys are normally nearby. 3am, someone just uses your key from inside your house, remotely, from outside, to start your car and drive it off. Plus, cryptography has a very limited lifespan and I'm not sure there's a single cryptographically secure car entry system out there.
Garages. Again, doesn't solve the problem.
Phone viruses. Er... are you suggesting it somehow magically works without integration with the phone? Pay-by-bonk technology is in phones and is rarely isolated from core NFC functionality.
"Previous owners of the car can just walk up to it with their phone to unlock it"
P.S. My car physical keys/fobs can be cleared off quite simply. I think it's ten twists of the ignition with the master key without starting the car. How many people do you think know that? Do that? Again, it doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it much more likely to happen.
Cars are NOW being resold by official manufacturers without clearing that stuff off. Plus hire cars. How would you know? No, if you sold it on "we can show you a list of all the registered keys in the car's dashboard menu", then you'd have something. That'd be a new feature you could sell.
And you could implement it without smartphone integration.
Not least "your battery runs flat, but you need to open it to jump-start it" (so either all the doors open, or you can't get into it at all), "I locked my phone in the car", "Someone sniffed the NFC transaction from across the street- NFC is short-range-powered, but long-range-ordinary-radio-signal", "Every garage has a way to open that car if the system should fail and you can buy the kit to open any car for $20k", "My phone got a virus and now anyone can open my car", "Previous owners of the car can just walk up to it with their phone to unlock it", etc. etc. etc.
Maths is not an inherently intellectual-only exercise. It can be determined to within a human margin of error quite easily by empirical evidence.
The same claim goes to the pyramid-builders. But the desert is littered with collapsed and bad pyramids that weren't right or were changed mid-construction. And those are just the ones that got left rather than "Rip it up, it's wrong, that's a billion tons of stone, we can re-use it"...
Though I don't doubt these people were not just Neanderthals bashing clubs against their head, they didn't formalise mathematics in this fashion. Pythagoras did, which is why we know his name and call him a mathematician.
You have to recognise that Stonehenge proper was 3000-2000 BC. Mesolithic posts on the site align to a lunar calendar thousands of years before that.
For thousands of years, people maintained a site with significance to their astronomical observations. Yes, for religious purposes, but they weren't idiots. Likely these people had intelligence not vastly different from our own, but they lacked a more formal education process. The ability to sit in a classroom for 18-20 years and be taught every day is the only thing that's changed. These people weren't stupid, just not formally educated. Plenty of people even today operate on the exact same principle!
How many adults, now, today, could tell you what Pythagoras' Theorem was, state it, understand it, apply it and see it's application to places like Stonehenge? It's by far not everyone.
How many adults, now, today, are going to build something that's still standing in thousands of years, and how intelligent (collectively) would everyone who worked on it have to be to do that?
I find it quite insulting that people think even Stone Age man was some thick-headed caveman. And that EVERY Stone Age person was that thick.
Hilariously, I watched a series on TV a few years ago where a group of people tried to live in an isolated area with no modern facilities and they failed MISERABLY. Literally, they ate through their initial stock of food, they couldn't build a shelter, meat was left to go rotten for days with no preparation and they were SURPRISED by that, they trekked miles to get water and came back with almost nothing, not even food gathered along the way, and when snow hit, they were all evacuated to safety because they didn't bother to make any preparations.
Just being "modern man" doesn't make us collectively intelligent. There are outliers whose knowledge benefits us all, while half of people are of "below average" intelligence (by definition - if you don't understand that, nor do half the population!). That a few thousand years ago, not long enough to have biologically changed us very much at all except under extreme evolutionary pressure, there were people capable of taking a reasonable guess at the length of a side of a basic engineering project? Yeah? And? So what?
We are doing these people a disservice. It's probably why a lot of people just assume that dinosaurs and cavemen lived together.
These people probably didn't even have TIME to sit around and think, let alone formerly school, but it doesn't mean they were stupid. They could probably only burn wood, maybe a primitive oil for light (outside of full moons) - hell we don't know what they might have been doing of an evening, they may be much cleverer than we thought. But likely the night was a loss and most of the day was used for more essential tasks like surviving and gathering food and making weapons.
You're not telling me that you're surprised a Bear Grylls existed back then who had mastered his art after generations and had time to sit and think, even if his village mates were still worshipping trees?
Pick a modern human couple at random, put them back in that environment, and we'd likely not be able to replicate anything of Mesolithic mathematics, cosmology, survival skills, etc. for dozens of generations (if they even live that long).
If you can obtain, use and apply the knowledge to create a virus from scratch or from a genetic blueprint, then it's a given that you must already have thought "What if?"
The barrier here is the tech, the chance to apply it, and access to genetic structures. Not the intent, the capability, or "Oh, I didn't think of that".
What stops this happening is international agreements to ban chemical/biological weapons, and that to get someone to do this requires a lab full of equipment that tends to cost a lot and arouse suspicion.
Russia were MAKING their own nerve agents in the 70's and for decades before then. That's just as dangerous, if not more, and they are still using them. The only reason non-state terrorists aren't doing the same is that it's hard to do, needs an awful lot of equipment, is likely to kill you too, and it's just a damn sight cheaper to hijack a plane, drive a car at people, etc.
They were going to "ramp up" to 15000 STATIONS by 2017, they'd barely achieved 9000 CHARGERS, worldwide, by mid-2018.
If anything, their own quotes and numbers make no sense and try to confuse the issue ("from 9000" when they only have 1200 even now). They were supposed to have at least 15,000. They have 1200. That's an order of magnitude out.
2) There are MUCH FEWER Superchargers than destination chargers. Literally, you can list them on their website. So the problem is even worse.
3) A supercharger is a higher-current draw. That's it. That's all the difference is. And you can find maps for my country that list every charger from super-high-draw down to a 13A wall-plug. Superchargers are far from a majority, and far from being alone in high-current draw.
4) "Like my local council, supermarket and car park have, not to mention *****normal refuelling stations*****"
You have serious parsing problems, or a serious bias.
"As of April 2017, Tesla plans to expand from approximately 9,000 destination charging stations to 15,000 during 2017, in advance of the Model 3 rollout which they expect to put significant additional demand for use of the facilities.[4]"
"As of May 2018, there were 1,229 stations globally, with 9,623 chargers."
So... yet another Musk promise which is at least one order-of-magnitude out.
Plus, "owners of vehicles purchased after January 15, 2017, were given an annual limit of 400 kWh (about 1,000 miles or 1,600 km) of free charging "credit" before they have to pay for charging."
So it's just a charging station, like any other. Like my local council, supermarket and car park have, not to mention normal refuelling stations. What's special about that?
The land those places are built on, and any local generation kit (if applicable, because it sure as hell ain't powering all the chargers for the amount of time they're used and their current draw), is worth more than anything Tesla has put on that land, or could make from that service.
Yet-another Musk loss-leader. It's easy to throw away billions. It's a lot harder to convince people to give it to you.
They "couldn't replicate it" without shooting a rifle, then they were informed by the FAA that there was nothing hinting at sabotage and the roofs were searched by the air-force.
Suddenly, after that, they could replicate it without having to use a gun.
Yes... but actually they're putting their efforts into crossovers (hybrids) and SUVs instead.
And that's only Ford in North America
Plus "pulling out" means they'll only sell 6 million such cars this year. Aw. Diddums. About 60 times more than anything Tesla have ever produced in total. In one year.
Ford produce a new car every year. Several in fact. Different models, makes and revisions. They can easily change to electric (they already have hybrids) any time they need to. They don't, because the vast, vast majority of the market is non-electric still. When the time comes to change, Ford can turn on a dime, while Tesla will suddenly actually need to COMPETE.
And, in the noise, vast amounts of other manufacturers who produce THOUSANDS of times more cars are also just waiting.
When consumers start buying this stuff, Tesla is dead in the water with a minority market share.
And also opens himself up to libel action, comments on a legal case (if there even is one!) outside the scope of his legal department, insinuates that his competitors have access to his supposedly secure network (trade secrets, et al presumably).
Honestly, there's a reason that people shut their mouths in certain situations and let the lawyers / HR people talk rather than themselves. Every employee who works near this guy will know who he is. Certainly if anything in this email is factually wrong, he would have basis to sue. Hell, if there's anything in this email that CAN'T BE PROVEN, he would have basis to sue (i.e. the supposed "confession").
This could prejudice a trial too... now a judge might need to find a jury who hasn't heard of Elon Musk and hasn't heard such a statement.
There's also - and this is critical - no need for it. You can send out a message about finding a potential saboteur, stating your suspicions that they aren't alone, reminding people of the need for security and confidentiality, and providing the line to allow whistleblowing, without mentioning half the details Musk has.
Like Trump, Musk "reacts" rather than acts. He just codifies his internal emotion towards something and sends that out to the world as a quotable company statement, rather than thinks or checks or moderates.
Anyone with a brain is just thinking "Well, you must have really poor source control, then".
And, sorry, but if your data got out, do you not have some kind of data control and audit?
These things are supposed to be life-critical systems. If you can't immediately point the finger at the author of every line of code, but send public emails about it, I'm calling bullshit.
Gosh, if only you also ran, say, a space company with thousands of tons of liquid fuel strapped to a rocket, which would give you the necessary protocols and procedures to ensure that code is managed properly and secrets don't slip out.
It literally runs every game on my Steam account (1000+) still.
It has a bundle of virtual machines on it with VMWare, and I regularly develop on one OS inside another to let me test the code compiles/runs on both.
It's always plugged in, except for when I take it on a plane (i.e. leisure, not business). Then you put it in low-power mode and it's still a laptop with a bunch of RAM and an SSD which means that it gets everything done REALLY quick and doesn't have to spin anything up to do so, which means its power requirements are low (but bursty). Just because you have to plug it in, doesn't mean it's not portable, and it doesn't mean that you run it full-whack when it's not plugged in. I always get a full-movie out of it on the plane, at least. And it's a big screen.
The "gaming laptop" is really the ideal machine. Portable enough. Fast enough to do ANYTHING. Works in low-power when you need. Survives power cuts. Does everything your work will require, plus your entertainment.
CAD - I'm not sure, but anything that has a decent enough card to run modern games will likely do most of the CAD you require. If it doesn't, sure, it's not for you. But CAD usage is niche. A laptop that people can game, browse, work and travel on isn't.
Upgrades? I bought it with maxed RAM. Apart from changing one of the two drive bays to an SSD, I've never needed to upgrade. The SSD upgrade literally doubled the speed of the thing.
Thermals? Sure, if I play GTA V for hours and hours on end, it gets hot underneath. It may even ramp a core down (visible in the Windows event log as a firmware event). I don't notice in-game because it "just works".
Nobody is saying such laptops are the absolute best thing for everyone and every purpose. But I wouldn't be interested in a machine that was the best machine for CAD.
Or one that was the best machine for gaming. Or one that was the best machine for portability. But they are EASILY the most comfortable medium, without compromising heavily in any particular area.
I'm looking at another now as, after 9 years, my battery is starting to wither. A double-capacity battery is GBP50 on Amazon. An equivalent laptop (in terms of what this was when I bought it) is about 1000-1500GBP. But I need NO other machine. Per hour of usage, that easily drops it into the fractions-of-a-penny range.
The only reason I don't is that I'll probably have to buy a new version of VMWare.
What about asbestos or CFCs or radon? Both fit your original question. Though plastic isn't directly dangerous in the same manner, it's still just a waste of oil that's causing problems. Almost all countries have an alternative. Most of them sell plastic bags. It's just single use plastics that are an absolute waste and don't degrade.
If you measuring by "time spent" you're already onto a statistical problem.
It's SO MUCH quicker for me to watch an episode of something on Netflix than on TV that it's laughable. And I watch exactly what I want and then switch off. And I don't have ads, and intros, and recaps, etc.
I imagine that Internet is already used much more than TV for such viewing. But because the Internet is about "I want to watch X and nothing else", and TV is about "I'll wait for X to come on, and then sit through any", it won't win on "minutes" but I bet it wins on "episodes".
TV is dead. Scheduled programming is dead. It's either "live" (a minority of special events) or "on-demand" and there's no need for anything in between. It's just a question of how long, to be honest.
(-- Does not own a TV. Does not watch broadcast TV. I have a projector, a smartphone and a laptop. The closest I get is TVPlayer, which I got for a year on a special deal and which relays broadcast TV legally over the web to your devices. It works. I barely touch it. For almost everything it's easier to just wait a few hours and pick up from catch-up at my leisure, with pause and all kinds of features to make viewing more comfortable. Maybe, just maybe, if aliens landed or something, I'd watch it for one source of live news, but that's it. But I'd still watch the majority online.).
Only time I ever had it was plugged into Trillian and then later Pidgin as I already had a Yahoo account, from an earlier Geocities account, and... well, why not.
I think I literally never used it past tested that it worked.
Didn't do anything that MSN/AOL/ICQ/etc. couldn't do.
Precisely. I could create a million jobs. If you want to get minimum wage for an 18 hour variable shift developing high-end HPC systems for life-critical systems with personal responsibility if it should not work for some reason.
I mean, why aren't you all flocking to it?
Oh, by the way, the jobs are all the other end of the country, 200 miles from the nearest town, there's no houses available in that town anyway, there are no direct roads (you have to take kayak, a hot air balloon, and two steam trains every day to get to work, and it take 5 hours to do so).
There's a very big difference between "a job exists" and "a job someone might take exists" and "a job that YOU might take exists".
It's really easy to create jobs. Pay people minimum wage to pick up litter, or sew fishing nets, subsidise it via government funds. That doesn't mean that ANYONE will do those things for that price.
I think it's quite telling the job situation versus who your president is. Sure, there are many jobs. Even in the upper echelons of government. Just sign your soul away here, and expect to get screwed over.
I know a guy who's published about 30+ books sold in a multitude of languages for the last 30 years.
His publishers used to be in the WTC (he was scheduled to visit them on Sept 11!).
Since then he's taken to self-publishing them all again, which he says keeps him ticking over in terms of pocket money. At least one of them he had to a copy from someone else, having lost the manuscript, and type it back in again.
He's taken the opportunity to reformat, reflow, re-edit etc. and sell them as Kindle versions, but at least one book would have been gone if he'd left it much longer.
Invariably, they will be the worst games ever, with literally nothing going for them, and then people realise why they were so "rare" (unpopular) in the first place.
I've seen the same with everything from books to LPs to consoles to games to artworks to collectibles.
I get the preservation angle. I get the "all the games from my youth" angle (I'm pretty sure I have them all still, emulated or real). I even get the "my dad says this was the greatest game ever in his youth, so I want to play it like he did" angle.
But I will never get the "gotta catch 'em all" angle.
A friend of mine paid for fortune pre-Internet for a copy of Geoffrey Trease's The Black Banner Players. It was rumoured so rare that even the author couldn't get a copy for himself, and they were changing hands for thousands of GBP (now you can get a paperback for "only" a couple of hundred GBP or a hardback for twice that).
He managed to find a copy. He read it. He sold it. He says it's one of the worst books he's ever read, and the worst of all the Banner series.
That said, I am still trying to track down a game from my SNES days that was about flying a little biplane. No it wasn't pilotwings. The problem is that I just don't know the name. It wasn't very good at all, but it would just bring back memories to play it. I certainly wouldn't pay more than a couple of quid for it.
I pay NOTHING for any unsolicited call that makes it to my phone. There's no way to make a call to me that doesn't cost some amount of money to someone somewhere. But it's certainly not me paying.
The only way to get me to pay is to try and trick me into dialling a number for whatever reason. Which ain't gonna happen unless it's a 0800 (free) or 0845 (local rate).
Why on earth would you charge someone - who's already paying monthly fees or whatever to keep the line active - for daring to use your service to receive a call, especially if anyone in the world can cause that charge to the end-user without their consent? Ridiculous.
As such, my phone stays silent of any unsolicited calls through the vast, vast majority of the year. I just received 2 texts from a credit card company to tell me their systems were down and I'm annoyed at it and looking up how to make them stop. It's really that abnormal.
My phone number is unchanged for 15+ years and been transferred through several phone companies in that time (so prime opportunity for it to "leak"). It's the number for my bank, etc. so it's in a lot of databases, but I don't get spam calls or texts.
If I ever do (rare), then it's always from a withheld number or a number that - when I Google - pops up on all the anti-spam sites detailing others experience when answering those calls. "Oh, yes, this is actually British Gas, it's genuine", or whatever. Guess whether I answer that or not, or whether I then just it to a "spam" contact with silent ringtone and auto-refuse the call.
I stopped using landlines many years ago, but pretty much it's the same there. Register for the proper services, tell people to bugger off, never tick the "you may contact me by phone" box. If it annoys, literally it costs pence to change your number.
I manage the switchboard in work too... where the phone number is 20+ years old and has gone from analog, to ISDN, to SIP over the years. The number of duff calls is really, really low and usually just companies who found the phone number online and are touting for business. GDPR is going to cut that in half, at least. We don't actually have to block any numbers that come in, because it's just not big enough a problem. And it costs a pittance to run a SIP trunk capable of supporting a huge number of lines, when you're not paying for every incoming inquiry.
I have actually reported, to police, more cyber-fraud attempts - including chatting on the phone to the finance department trying to get them to authorise a phony payment sent by email - in the last year than I've received unsolicited calls.
Because, when the spammers have to pay, it's not as easy to talk people into quickly buying some junk. We don't have (or even allow) political robocalls without explicit consent, and never have. What kind of nonsense is that?
Honestly... my last unsolicited call on my mobile was... hold on... scrolling... scrolling... September? And that's because THEY have to pay for them, not me.
America really needs to wake up about the "everything is about money" thing, and the "my data needs to be respected".
Lots of games did a lot of similar things, right into this decade.
Go run the original C&C or Red Alert on a PC. Despite being available for Windows 95 (and thus much faster chips than anything a Turbo button was designed to cope with), you still have to play with "scroll speed" at the very bottom and "game speed" somewhere about half-way (top is way too fast, and the graduations are enormous between settings)
The timing was nowhere close to actually being based on wall-clock time, despite things like processors having timing, and vsync etc information being readily available to time against (even if you didn't wait around to draw frames at that point).
Even the unofficial hacks and patches can't make it consistent on a modern machine.
(P.S. Origin sell all the C&C and Red Alert in one package - don't bother, because they don't even run on modern Windows without applying the same unofficial patches as everyone else did to their original disks, and even after that you still have these kinds of speed problems).
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh.
"This is a problem with lots of new cars"
Yes. It doesn't solve it.
"As with RF key fobs, the car should refuse to lock unless the phone is outside the car."
Yes. It doesn't solve that. And RF range detecting the fob IN the car? That's dubious. Most cars that do this operate on the "you can't lock the door without the key in your hand" principle, not magically detecting that you left the key in the car and "not auto-locking"
"A complete non-problem. Cryptography. Relay attacks are an issue, though."
Contradictory in itself. Relay attacks are being used to steal BMW etc. cars today by relaying the signal to your front door where your keys are normally nearby. 3am, someone just uses your key from inside your house, remotely, from outside, to start your car and drive it off.
Plus, cryptography has a very limited lifespan and I'm not sure there's a single cryptographically secure car entry system out there.
Garages. Again, doesn't solve the problem.
Phone viruses. Er... are you suggesting it somehow magically works without integration with the phone? Pay-by-bonk technology is in phones and is rarely isolated from core NFC functionality.
"Previous owners of the car can just walk up to it with their phone to unlock it"
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
P.S. My car physical keys/fobs can be cleared off quite simply. I think it's ten twists of the ignition with the master key without starting the car. How many people do you think know that? Do that? Again, it doesn't solve the problem, it just makes it much more likely to happen.
Cars are NOW being resold by official manufacturers without clearing that stuff off. Plus hire cars. How would you know? No, if you sold it on "we can show you a list of all the registered keys in the car's dashboard menu", then you'd have something. That'd be a new feature you could sell.
And you could implement it without smartphone integration.
- Doesn't solve any existing problem.
- Creates new problems all of its very own.
Not least "your battery runs flat, but you need to open it to jump-start it" (so either all the doors open, or you can't get into it at all), "I locked my phone in the car", "Someone sniffed the NFC transaction from across the street- NFC is short-range-powered, but long-range-ordinary-radio-signal", "Every garage has a way to open that car if the system should fail and you can buy the kit to open any car for $20k", "My phone got a virus and now anyone can open my car", "Previous owners of the car can just walk up to it with their phone to unlock it", etc. etc. etc.
Quite.
Maths is not an inherently intellectual-only exercise. It can be determined to within a human margin of error quite easily by empirical evidence.
The same claim goes to the pyramid-builders. But the desert is littered with collapsed and bad pyramids that weren't right or were changed mid-construction. And those are just the ones that got left rather than "Rip it up, it's wrong, that's a billion tons of stone, we can re-use it"...
Though I don't doubt these people were not just Neanderthals bashing clubs against their head, they didn't formalise mathematics in this fashion. Pythagoras did, which is why we know his name and call him a mathematician.
You have to recognise that Stonehenge proper was 3000-2000 BC. Mesolithic posts on the site align to a lunar calendar thousands of years before that.
For thousands of years, people maintained a site with significance to their astronomical observations. Yes, for religious purposes, but they weren't idiots. Likely these people had intelligence not vastly different from our own, but they lacked a more formal education process. The ability to sit in a classroom for 18-20 years and be taught every day is the only thing that's changed. These people weren't stupid, just not formally educated. Plenty of people even today operate on the exact same principle!
How many adults, now, today, could tell you what Pythagoras' Theorem was, state it, understand it, apply it and see it's application to places like Stonehenge? It's by far not everyone.
How many adults, now, today, are going to build something that's still standing in thousands of years, and how intelligent (collectively) would everyone who worked on it have to be to do that?
I find it quite insulting that people think even Stone Age man was some thick-headed caveman. And that EVERY Stone Age person was that thick.
Hilariously, I watched a series on TV a few years ago where a group of people tried to live in an isolated area with no modern facilities and they failed MISERABLY. Literally, they ate through their initial stock of food, they couldn't build a shelter, meat was left to go rotten for days with no preparation and they were SURPRISED by that, they trekked miles to get water and came back with almost nothing, not even food gathered along the way, and when snow hit, they were all evacuated to safety because they didn't bother to make any preparations.
Just being "modern man" doesn't make us collectively intelligent. There are outliers whose knowledge benefits us all, while half of people are of "below average" intelligence (by definition - if you don't understand that, nor do half the population!). That a few thousand years ago, not long enough to have biologically changed us very much at all except under extreme evolutionary pressure, there were people capable of taking a reasonable guess at the length of a side of a basic engineering project? Yeah? And? So what?
We are doing these people a disservice. It's probably why a lot of people just assume that dinosaurs and cavemen lived together.
These people probably didn't even have TIME to sit around and think, let alone formerly school, but it doesn't mean they were stupid. They could probably only burn wood, maybe a primitive oil for light (outside of full moons) - hell we don't know what they might have been doing of an evening, they may be much cleverer than we thought. But likely the night was a loss and most of the day was used for more essential tasks like surviving and gathering food and making weapons.
You're not telling me that you're surprised a Bear Grylls existed back then who had mastered his art after generations and had time to sit and think, even if his village mates were still worshipping trees?
Pick a modern human couple at random, put them back in that environment, and we'd likely not be able to replicate anything of Mesolithic mathematics, cosmology, survival skills, etc. for dozens of generations (if they even live that long).
Outside of w
If you can obtain, use and apply the knowledge to create a virus from scratch or from a genetic blueprint, then it's a given that you must already have thought "What if?"
The barrier here is the tech, the chance to apply it, and access to genetic structures. Not the intent, the capability, or "Oh, I didn't think of that".
What stops this happening is international agreements to ban chemical/biological weapons, and that to get someone to do this requires a lab full of equipment that tends to cost a lot and arouse suspicion.
Russia were MAKING their own nerve agents in the 70's and for decades before then. That's just as dangerous, if not more, and they are still using them. The only reason non-state terrorists aren't doing the same is that it's hard to do, needs an awful lot of equipment, is likely to kill you too, and it's just a damn sight cheaper to hijack a plane, drive a car at people, etc.
1) I do. It's quite clear in my quotes.
They were going to "ramp up" to 15000 STATIONS by 2017, they'd barely achieved 9000 CHARGERS, worldwide, by mid-2018.
If anything, their own quotes and numbers make no sense and try to confuse the issue ("from 9000" when they only have 1200 even now). They were supposed to have at least 15,000. They have 1200. That's an order of magnitude out.
2) There are MUCH FEWER Superchargers than destination chargers. Literally, you can list them on their website. So the problem is even worse.
3) A supercharger is a higher-current draw. That's it. That's all the difference is. And you can find maps for my country that list every charger from super-high-draw down to a 13A wall-plug. Superchargers are far from a majority, and far from being alone in high-current draw.
4) "Like my local council, supermarket and car park have, not to mention *****normal refuelling stations*****"
You have serious parsing problems, or a serious bias.
"As of April 2017, Tesla plans to expand from approximately 9,000 destination charging stations to 15,000 during 2017, in advance of the Model 3 rollout which they expect to put significant additional demand for use of the facilities.[4]"
"As of May 2018, there were 1,229 stations globally, with 9,623 chargers."
So... yet another Musk promise which is at least one order-of-magnitude out.
Plus, "owners of vehicles purchased after January 15, 2017, were given an annual limit of 400 kWh (about 1,000 miles or 1,600 km) of free charging "credit" before they have to pay for charging."
So it's just a charging station, like any other. Like my local council, supermarket and car park have, not to mention normal refuelling stations. What's special about that?
The land those places are built on, and any local generation kit (if applicable, because it sure as hell ain't powering all the chargers for the amount of time they're used and their current draw), is worth more than anything Tesla has put on that land, or could make from that service.
Yet-another Musk loss-leader. It's easy to throw away billions. It's a lot harder to convince people to give it to you.
And that was all hyperbole too.
They "couldn't replicate it" without shooting a rifle, then they were informed by the FAA that there was nothing hinting at sabotage and the roofs were searched by the air-force.
Suddenly, after that, they could replicate it without having to use a gun.
And it turned out to be their own incompetence.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04...
Yes... but actually they're putting their efforts into crossovers (hybrids) and SUVs instead.
And that's only Ford in North America
Plus "pulling out" means they'll only sell 6 million such cars this year. Aw. Diddums. About 60 times more than anything Tesla have ever produced in total. In one year.
Ford produce a new car every year. Several in fact. Different models, makes and revisions. They can easily change to electric (they already have hybrids) any time they need to. They don't, because the vast, vast majority of the market is non-electric still. When the time comes to change, Ford can turn on a dime, while Tesla will suddenly actually need to COMPETE.
And, in the noise, vast amounts of other manufacturers who produce THOUSANDS of times more cars are also just waiting.
When consumers start buying this stuff, Tesla is dead in the water with a minority market share.
And also opens himself up to libel action, comments on a legal case (if there even is one!) outside the scope of his legal department, insinuates that his competitors have access to his supposedly secure network (trade secrets, et al presumably).
Honestly, there's a reason that people shut their mouths in certain situations and let the lawyers / HR people talk rather than themselves. Every employee who works near this guy will know who he is. Certainly if anything in this email is factually wrong, he would have basis to sue. Hell, if there's anything in this email that CAN'T BE PROVEN, he would have basis to sue (i.e. the supposed "confession").
This could prejudice a trial too... now a judge might need to find a jury who hasn't heard of Elon Musk and hasn't heard such a statement.
There's also - and this is critical - no need for it. You can send out a message about finding a potential saboteur, stating your suspicions that they aren't alone, reminding people of the need for security and confidentiality, and providing the line to allow whistleblowing, without mentioning half the details Musk has.
Like Trump, Musk "reacts" rather than acts. He just codifies his internal emotion towards something and sends that out to the world as a quotable company statement, rather than thinks or checks or moderates.
Anyone with a brain is just thinking "Well, you must have really poor source control, then".
Quite.
git blame.
And, sorry, but if your data got out, do you not have some kind of data control and audit?
These things are supposed to be life-critical systems. If you can't immediately point the finger at the author of every line of code, but send public emails about it, I'm calling bullshit.
Gosh, if only you also ran, say, a space company with thousands of tons of liquid fuel strapped to a rocket, which would give you the necessary protocols and procedures to ensure that code is managed properly and secrets don't slip out.
And not one geek on here thought of ProgMan.exe?
Because if that tweeted by mistake, Microsoft were more forward-thinking that I thought.
Is this where God sues on the basis of prior art?
I bought a high-end laptop about 8-9 years ago.
It's still going.
It literally runs every game on my Steam account (1000+) still.
It has a bundle of virtual machines on it with VMWare, and I regularly develop on one OS inside another to let me test the code compiles/runs on both.
It's always plugged in, except for when I take it on a plane (i.e. leisure, not business). Then you put it in low-power mode and it's still a laptop with a bunch of RAM and an SSD which means that it gets everything done REALLY quick and doesn't have to spin anything up to do so, which means its power requirements are low (but bursty). Just because you have to plug it in, doesn't mean it's not portable, and it doesn't mean that you run it full-whack when it's not plugged in. I always get a full-movie out of it on the plane, at least. And it's a big screen.
The "gaming laptop" is really the ideal machine. Portable enough. Fast enough to do ANYTHING. Works in low-power when you need. Survives power cuts. Does everything your work will require, plus your entertainment.
CAD - I'm not sure, but anything that has a decent enough card to run modern games will likely do most of the CAD you require. If it doesn't, sure, it's not for you. But CAD usage is niche. A laptop that people can game, browse, work and travel on isn't.
Upgrades? I bought it with maxed RAM. Apart from changing one of the two drive bays to an SSD, I've never needed to upgrade. The SSD upgrade literally doubled the speed of the thing.
Thermals? Sure, if I play GTA V for hours and hours on end, it gets hot underneath. It may even ramp a core down (visible in the Windows event log as a firmware event). I don't notice in-game because it "just works".
Nobody is saying such laptops are the absolute best thing for everyone and every purpose. But I wouldn't be interested in a machine that was the best machine for CAD.
Or one that was the best machine for gaming. Or one that was the best machine for portability. But they are EASILY the most comfortable medium, without compromising heavily in any particular area.
I'm looking at another now as, after 9 years, my battery is starting to wither. A double-capacity battery is GBP50 on Amazon. An equivalent laptop (in terms of what this was when I bought it) is about 1000-1500GBP. But I need NO other machine. Per hour of usage, that easily drops it into the fractions-of-a-penny range.
The only reason I don't is that I'll probably have to buy a new version of VMWare.
What about asbestos or CFCs or radon? Both fit your original question. Though plastic isn't directly dangerous in the same manner, it's still just a waste of oil that's causing problems. Almost all countries have an alternative. Most of them sell plastic bags. It's just single use plastics that are an absolute waste and don't degrade.
But...
If you measuring by "time spent" you're already onto a statistical problem.
It's SO MUCH quicker for me to watch an episode of something on Netflix than on TV that it's laughable. And I watch exactly what I want and then switch off. And I don't have ads, and intros, and recaps, etc.
I imagine that Internet is already used much more than TV for such viewing. But because the Internet is about "I want to watch X and nothing else", and TV is about "I'll wait for X to come on, and then sit through any", it won't win on "minutes" but I bet it wins on "episodes".
TV is dead. Scheduled programming is dead. It's either "live" (a minority of special events) or "on-demand" and there's no need for anything in between. It's just a question of how long, to be honest.
(-- Does not own a TV. Does not watch broadcast TV. I have a projector, a smartphone and a laptop. The closest I get is TVPlayer, which I got for a year on a special deal and which relays broadcast TV legally over the web to your devices. It works. I barely touch it. For almost everything it's easier to just wait a few hours and pick up from catch-up at my leisure, with pause and all kinds of features to make viewing more comfortable. Maybe, just maybe, if aliens landed or something, I'd watch it for one source of live news, but that's it. But I'd still watch the majority online.).
Why?
There are plenty of existing studies on that, and they are only kind-of useful. There's an effect but it's probably not worth worrying about:
https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-a...
(P.S. Thank the UK taxpayer for that information, won't you, as they have NO INCENTIVE to mislead you as regards trying to sell you something).
That's the EXACT re-release I'm talking about.
No, it still needs patching to even run on some systems, using the some 10+ year old third-party patches, and still has the speed problems.
Only time I ever had it was plugged into Trillian and then later Pidgin as I already had a Yahoo account, from an earlier Geocities account, and... well, why not.
I think I literally never used it past tested that it worked.
Didn't do anything that MSN/AOL/ICQ/etc. couldn't do.
Precisely. I could create a million jobs. If you want to get minimum wage for an 18 hour variable shift developing high-end HPC systems for life-critical systems with personal responsibility if it should not work for some reason.
I mean, why aren't you all flocking to it?
Oh, by the way, the jobs are all the other end of the country, 200 miles from the nearest town, there's no houses available in that town anyway, there are no direct roads (you have to take kayak, a hot air balloon, and two steam trains every day to get to work, and it take 5 hours to do so).
There's a very big difference between "a job exists" and "a job someone might take exists" and "a job that YOU might take exists".
It's really easy to create jobs. Pay people minimum wage to pick up litter, or sew fishing nets, subsidise it via government funds. That doesn't mean that ANYONE will do those things for that price.
I think it's quite telling the job situation versus who your president is. Sure, there are many jobs. Even in the upper echelons of government. Just sign your soul away here, and expect to get screwed over.
I know a guy who's published about 30+ books sold in a multitude of languages for the last 30 years.
His publishers used to be in the WTC (he was scheduled to visit them on Sept 11!).
Since then he's taken to self-publishing them all again, which he says keeps him ticking over in terms of pocket money. At least one of them he had to a copy from someone else, having lost the manuscript, and type it back in again.
He's taken the opportunity to reformat, reflow, re-edit etc. and sell them as Kindle versions, but at least one book would have been gone if he'd left it much longer.
Invariably, they will be the worst games ever, with literally nothing going for them, and then people realise why they were so "rare" (unpopular) in the first place.
I've seen the same with everything from books to LPs to consoles to games to artworks to collectibles.
I get the preservation angle.
I get the "all the games from my youth" angle (I'm pretty sure I have them all still, emulated or real).
I even get the "my dad says this was the greatest game ever in his youth, so I want to play it like he did" angle.
But I will never get the "gotta catch 'em all" angle.
A friend of mine paid for fortune pre-Internet for a copy of Geoffrey Trease's The Black Banner Players. It was rumoured so rare that even the author couldn't get a copy for himself, and they were changing hands for thousands of GBP (now you can get a paperback for "only" a couple of hundred GBP or a hardback for twice that).
He managed to find a copy. He read it. He sold it. He says it's one of the worst books he's ever read, and the worst of all the Banner series.
That said, I am still trying to track down a game from my SNES days that was about flying a little biplane. No it wasn't pilotwings. The problem is that I just don't know the name. It wasn't very good at all, but it would just bring back memories to play it. I certainly wouldn't pay more than a couple of quid for it.
America have always had it backward.
I pay NOTHING for any unsolicited call that makes it to my phone. There's no way to make a call to me that doesn't cost some amount of money to someone somewhere. But it's certainly not me paying.
The only way to get me to pay is to try and trick me into dialling a number for whatever reason. Which ain't gonna happen unless it's a 0800 (free) or 0845 (local rate).
Why on earth would you charge someone - who's already paying monthly fees or whatever to keep the line active - for daring to use your service to receive a call, especially if anyone in the world can cause that charge to the end-user without their consent? Ridiculous.
As such, my phone stays silent of any unsolicited calls through the vast, vast majority of the year. I just received 2 texts from a credit card company to tell me their systems were down and I'm annoyed at it and looking up how to make them stop. It's really that abnormal.
My phone number is unchanged for 15+ years and been transferred through several phone companies in that time (so prime opportunity for it to "leak"). It's the number for my bank, etc. so it's in a lot of databases, but I don't get spam calls or texts.
If I ever do (rare), then it's always from a withheld number or a number that - when I Google - pops up on all the anti-spam sites detailing others experience when answering those calls. "Oh, yes, this is actually British Gas, it's genuine", or whatever. Guess whether I answer that or not, or whether I then just it to a "spam" contact with silent ringtone and auto-refuse the call.
I stopped using landlines many years ago, but pretty much it's the same there. Register for the proper services, tell people to bugger off, never tick the "you may contact me by phone" box. If it annoys, literally it costs pence to change your number.
I manage the switchboard in work too... where the phone number is 20+ years old and has gone from analog, to ISDN, to SIP over the years. The number of duff calls is really, really low and usually just companies who found the phone number online and are touting for business. GDPR is going to cut that in half, at least. We don't actually have to block any numbers that come in, because it's just not big enough a problem. And it costs a pittance to run a SIP trunk capable of supporting a huge number of lines, when you're not paying for every incoming inquiry.
I have actually reported, to police, more cyber-fraud attempts - including chatting on the phone to the finance department trying to get them to authorise a phony payment sent by email - in the last year than I've received unsolicited calls.
Because, when the spammers have to pay, it's not as easy to talk people into quickly buying some junk. We don't have (or even allow) political robocalls without explicit consent, and never have. What kind of nonsense is that?
Honestly... my last unsolicited call on my mobile was... hold on... scrolling... scrolling... September? And that's because THEY have to pay for them, not me.
America really needs to wake up about the "everything is about money" thing, and the "my data needs to be respected".
Lots of games did a lot of similar things, right into this decade.
Go run the original C&C or Red Alert on a PC. Despite being available for Windows 95 (and thus much faster chips than anything a Turbo button was designed to cope with), you still have to play with "scroll speed" at the very bottom and "game speed" somewhere about half-way (top is way too fast, and the graduations are enormous between settings)
The timing was nowhere close to actually being based on wall-clock time, despite things like processors having timing, and vsync etc information being readily available to time against (even if you didn't wait around to draw frames at that point).
Even the unofficial hacks and patches can't make it consistent on a modern machine.
(P.S. Origin sell all the C&C and Red Alert in one package - don't bother, because they don't even run on modern Windows without applying the same unofficial patches as everyone else did to their original disks, and even after that you still have these kinds of speed problems).
Weight changes constantly with addition/consumption of honey.
You'd have a hard time spotting the amount of bees from weight alone.