As much as I'd like to see emission free cars, there are huge issues with electrical cars. Range, charge times and even politics are actually just the smaller issues. The big issue is scaling it up. Imagine what will happen when everybody in your street starts power charging his/her car when they get home from work. There is no way the current electrical infrastructure is going to cope with that, and making it cope is going to be very expensive. Distributing electricity is not quite as easy as distributing petrol. That, and we still haven't got a clean sustainable way of producing electricity which actually scales to that kind of demand.
Broder is not trying to duck those logs, as seen in his follow-up:
Mr. Musk promised on Monday to write a blog post critiquing my drive and to publish the logs he says he has of how I drove and why the battery pack drained. We will link to those when they appear.
And he actually did link to TFA when it became available, while Musk never even mentions the follow-up.
Any car with a range of 244 miles in an EPA cycle will run empty before the day is over when driven hard on an track, you don't need to test anything to expect that outcome. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to write a script towards an expected outcome. And lets not forget, they where right, a Tesla won't reach it's mileage when driven hard on a track. In TFA Musk is actually complaining Broder drove the car to fast, which is an interesting statement about a car marketed as 'a new standard for premium performance'.
Geez, you missed the point pretty badly.
I know what to do when my car runs out of fuel. When I'm lucky I have to get a jerrycan from the back and empty it into the tank. When unlucky I have to walk to the nearest petrol station (or perhaps somebody gives me a lift), fill up my jerrycan and get back to fill the car up. Now explain to me how you'd do that with an electric car? You can't, you'll have to move the car, which is not as easy as moving some petrol.
FTFY
As usual it about somebody's profit margin vs. somebody's profit margin. It's not like Musk is doing this to save the planet, he's doing it to make money, preferably lots of it. The oil industry is pretty rotten, but it's pretty naive to assume the green industry is any better.
Of course you can take a break, or you can buy a petrol powered car and not take a break. The fact that a Tesla won't get through a full day on the track without needing a lengthy recharge is still valid and relevant information regardless of how you decide to deal with that info.
It's not even log data. It's a handful of graphs and a bunch of statements, but not the data it is based upon. So it's actually easier to fake then log data. So far it's just the word of Musk against that of Broder. Without any real independent evidence you'll have to make up your own mind, do you trust the CEO or the journalist (or they might actually both be guilty).
But it also is somewhat onerous that Musk could get that much information, damning or not. I think that tracking that deeply is an invasion of privacy.... although it's a double-edged sword at this rate.
It's also kind of annoying the data seems to be available to Tesla only, there is no way to verify it. Musk showed some graphs which are easy enough to fake, I'd like to see the raw data for independent verification.
On top of that, if they want accurate reporting about their cars they should actually provide reporters access to this data, preferably during the trip. It would allow reporters to 'replay' their trip which would be really helpful. But somehow Tesla decided to keep this info to only to make it pop up when they don't like a review, even though it would add a lot of additional depth to any review.
They initially made money selling the browser, later they had an add-supported version besides the paid version. Currently they make money on the desktop from search placements (e.g. using Google as default search engine) and a some stuff like certain bookmarks in the default setup. Besides the desktop they make money from OEMs licensing Opera for with mobile operators and for devices like mobiles and smart tv's.
Me neither, normally
However, to me sites like StackOverflow and newsgroups or mailinglists pretty much represent the same activity (over different protocols). I really like having those together in the same application, and Opera merges those rather nicely.
On top of that they where the first to implement tabs, which for me was the initial reason to start using Opera. And afaik they are still the only browser to have mouse gestures out of the box, something which I wouldn't want to do without anymore.
Then all the problems just get moved up a week. Unless you do all elections for the rest of time right now, there's always going to be someone wondering what the result of an election which hasn't happened yet. And a prediction market is a good way to answer those questions.
The other option would be to accept you don't know the outcome of an election till after the election. Sure people will keep asking 'who will win?', but there is no pressing need to answer that question in any other way then counting the votes. I'm serious here, what is it that goes horribly wrong if we don't know the outcome of the elections beforehand?
Stock markets, particularly with respect to stock options, are also prediction markets. Sure you may be right that it is betting for snobs. But there are a bunch of incredibly rich snobs as a result.
Yeah, so? People got rich in all sorts of ways, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea or something we should want as a society. 'Make a few people rich at the expense of a lot of others' doesn't fit my idea of 'useful'.
I know, you would rather wait until it's a serious problem so you can complain about why no one did anything. Cause complaining is all you do.
I'll do something. Starting right now I'll vigorously ignore prediction markets. If enough people do the same their impact will be minimal and we won't have about it ever again. Sometimes ignoring the problem actually does make it go away. This is one of those times:)
If we want to know the outcome of elections, can't we just count the votes?
Because the election hasn't happened yet? And it's an important decision that affects a lot of us?
Well, if that's an issue to you hold the elections a week earlier.
And if we want to loose money placing bets can't we just bet on sports games or buy lottery tickets?
Because that is useless shit?
Agreed, but it is what prediction markets are, a way to bet on something. All the talk about it is just people trying to pretend their betting somehow isn't the useless shit it really is. Prediction markets is betting for snobs, nothing more.
Honestly, I can't make anything out of this stuff. If we want to know the outcome of elections, can't we just count the votes? And if we want to loose money placing bets can't we just bet on sports games or buy lottery tickets?
And even if the numbers would be reliable it doesn't measure usage, but only the amount of 'chat' around a language. So it will favor languages which are badly documented, buggy, in the news somehow, controversial as well as educational languages and languages used by hobbyists. All of those are reasons to write blog posts, ask questions on forums or create youtube videos boasting the rating.
For example the rating of C might actually be boosted by all the people writing about the death of Dennis Ritchie...
But since everybody seems to think paying $3.99 for the app is too much already, the changes of somebody actually paying the $25,- google fee on top of that seem pretty slim. (You could skip the $3.99 and port dosbox yourself though. Should be feasible, at least two people did so before.)
In the Netherlands countings are public (this might be true in the UK as well), anybody can just walk in after the polling station is closed and watch or even film the whole affair. Results are published per polling station so you can just sit there, count along and just along and compare your result to the published one. This makes it pretty hard to mess with the votes.
There's a nice paradox with paper ballots, because the counting is split between lots of people it does become more likely somebody tries to mess with the votes but it becomes really really hard to mess with the votes in a significant way. You can't make a full polling station vote for a candidate without at least attracting (unless everybody was voting for this candidate anyway, but in that case you won't gain much). You also can't realistically get rig the count in enough polling stations to make a difference. This is the single biggest advantage of paper ballots over computer voting. A handful of software developers might skew the results with a few percent in lots of polling stations, which could actually make a difference.
RDP can share a single application, rdesktop supports application sharing mode. You can run a single Outlook window over RDP on you linux box, works like a charm.
You can bid ridiculously low prices, or ask ridiculously high prices, and no trades will be made, but this won't affect the stock prices. Stock prices are set based on trades that do occur. It's like selling a house - some bozo can offer you half what it's worth, but the net effect on the house price statistics for your area is precisely zero.
With automated trading systems this probably isn't entirely true anymore, since automated systems are likely take these bids into account when making their trading decisions. You could use this to trick your competitors into buying or selling a certain stock.
Automated trading shouldn't be accepted by regulators anyway. It probably is a nice game to play, but at the end of the day it takes money without giving anything back in return. Most other ways of making money without doing something useful are called theft or fraud. All those 'schemes' to become richer without actually adding any value is pretty bad for an economy (and essentially just theft, however fancy).
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I'd like to see emission free cars, there are huge issues with electrical cars. Range, charge times and even politics are actually just the smaller issues. The big issue is scaling it up. Imagine what will happen when everybody in your street starts power charging his/her car when they get home from work. There is no way the current electrical infrastructure is going to cope with that, and making it cope is going to be very expensive. Distributing electricity is not quite as easy as distributing petrol. That, and we still haven't got a clean sustainable way of producing electricity which actually scales to that kind of demand.
Mr. Musk promised on Monday to write a blog post critiquing my drive and to publish the logs he says he has of how I drove and why the battery pack drained. We will link to those when they appear.
And he actually did link to TFA when it became available, while Musk never even mentions the follow-up.
Pre scripted result == Having done your homework
Any car with a range of 244 miles in an EPA cycle will run empty before the day is over when driven hard on an track, you don't need to test anything to expect that outcome. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to write a script towards an expected outcome. And lets not forget, they where right, a Tesla won't reach it's mileage when driven hard on a track. In TFA Musk is actually complaining Broder drove the car to fast, which is an interesting statement about a car marketed as 'a new standard for premium performance'.
Except that it didn't, and they lied.
That's what Tesla said, but the judges ruled otherwise.
Geez, you missed the point pretty badly.
I know what to do when my car runs out of fuel. When I'm lucky I have to get a jerrycan from the back and empty it into the tank. When unlucky I have to walk to the nearest petrol station (or perhaps somebody gives me a lift), fill up my jerrycan and get back to fill the car up. Now explain to me how you'd do that with an electric car? You can't, you'll have to move the car, which is not as easy as moving some petrol.
This is about oil vs. greenwashing.
FTFY
As usual it about somebody's profit margin vs. somebody's profit margin. It's not like Musk is doing this to save the planet, he's doing it to make money, preferably lots of it. The oil industry is pretty rotten, but it's pretty naive to assume the green industry is any better.
And a car running out of gas (or in this case batteries) is...not such an obviously absurd scenario.
They bitched about the small fuel capacity (calling it a Zippo) of the Lexus LFA in a recent episode as well.
Of course you can take a break, or you can buy a petrol powered car and not take a break. The fact that a Tesla won't get through a full day on the track without needing a lengthy recharge is still valid and relevant information regardless of how you decide to deal with that info.
It's not even log data. It's a handful of graphs and a bunch of statements, but not the data it is based upon. So it's actually easier to fake then log data. So far it's just the word of Musk against that of Broder. Without any real independent evidence you'll have to make up your own mind, do you trust the CEO or the journalist (or they might actually both be guilty).
But it also is somewhat onerous that Musk could get that much information, damning or not. I think that tracking that deeply is an invasion of privacy.... although it's a double-edged sword at this rate.
It's also kind of annoying the data seems to be available to Tesla only, there is no way to verify it. Musk showed some graphs which are easy enough to fake, I'd like to see the raw data for independent verification.
On top of that, if they want accurate reporting about their cars they should actually provide reporters access to this data, preferably during the trip. It would allow reporters to 'replay' their trip which would be really helpful. But somehow Tesla decided to keep this info to only to make it pop up when they don't like a review, even though it would add a lot of additional depth to any review.
They initially made money selling the browser, later they had an add-supported version besides the paid version. Currently they make money on the desktop from search placements (e.g. using Google as default search engine) and a some stuff like certain bookmarks in the default setup. Besides the desktop they make money from OEMs licensing Opera for with mobile operators and for devices like mobiles and smart tv's.
Personally, I don't want an all-in-one
Me neither, normally
However, to me sites like StackOverflow and newsgroups or mailinglists pretty much represent the same activity (over different protocols). I really like having those together in the same application, and Opera merges those rather nicely.
On top of that they where the first to implement tabs, which for me was the initial reason to start using Opera. And afaik they are still the only browser to have mouse gestures out of the box, something which I wouldn't want to do without anymore.
Then all the problems just get moved up a week. Unless you do all elections for the rest of time right now, there's always going to be someone wondering what the result of an election which hasn't happened yet. And a prediction market is a good way to answer those questions.
The other option would be to accept you don't know the outcome of an election till after the election. Sure people will keep asking 'who will win?', but there is no pressing need to answer that question in any other way then counting the votes. I'm serious here, what is it that goes horribly wrong if we don't know the outcome of the elections beforehand?
Stock markets, particularly with respect to stock options, are also prediction markets. Sure you may be right that it is betting for snobs. But there are a bunch of incredibly rich snobs as a result.
Yeah, so? People got rich in all sorts of ways, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea or something we should want as a society. 'Make a few people rich at the expense of a lot of others' doesn't fit my idea of 'useful'.
I know, you would rather wait until it's a serious problem so you can complain about why no one did anything. Cause complaining is all you do.
I'll do something. Starting right now I'll vigorously ignore prediction markets. If enough people do the same their impact will be minimal and we won't have about it ever again. Sometimes ignoring the problem actually does make it go away. This is one of those times :)
If we want to know the outcome of elections, can't we just count the votes?
Because the election hasn't happened yet? And it's an important decision that affects a lot of us?
Well, if that's an issue to you hold the elections a week earlier.
And if we want to loose money placing bets can't we just bet on sports games or buy lottery tickets?
Because that is useless shit?
Agreed, but it is what prediction markets are, a way to bet on something. All the talk about it is just people trying to pretend their betting somehow isn't the useless shit it really is. Prediction markets is betting for snobs, nothing more.
Honestly, I can't make anything out of this stuff. If we want to know the outcome of elections, can't we just count the votes? And if we want to loose money placing bets can't we just bet on sports games or buy lottery tickets?
Welcome to 'Democratic Airways', the airline which frees you from the dictatorship of pilots.
Well hey, dying is an activity practised at least once by the entire population of this planet.
Last time I checked there were about 7 billion people who never actually did it.
And even if the numbers would be reliable it doesn't measure usage, but only the amount of 'chat' around a language. So it will favor languages which are badly documented, buggy, in the news somehow, controversial as well as educational languages and languages used by hobbyists. All of those are reasons to write blog posts, ask questions on forums or create youtube videos boasting the rating.
For example the rating of C might actually be boosted by all the people writing about the death of Dennis Ritchie...
So true. High-frequency trading should be made illegal, like most things which just extract money from others without providing value in return.
But since everybody seems to think paying $3.99 for the app is too much already, the changes of somebody actually paying the $25,- google fee on top of that seem pretty slim. (You could skip the $3.99 and port dosbox yourself though. Should be feasible, at least two people did so before.)
In the Netherlands countings are public (this might be true in the UK as well), anybody can just walk in after the polling station is closed and watch or even film the whole affair. Results are published per polling station so you can just sit there, count along and just along and compare your result to the published one. This makes it pretty hard to mess with the votes.
There's a nice paradox with paper ballots, because the counting is split between lots of people it does become more likely somebody tries to mess with the votes but it becomes really really hard to mess with the votes in a significant way. You can't make a full polling station vote for a candidate without at least attracting (unless everybody was voting for this candidate anyway, but in that case you won't gain much). You also can't realistically get rig the count in enough polling stations to make a difference. This is the single biggest advantage of paper ballots over computer voting. A handful of software developers might skew the results with a few percent in lots of polling stations, which could actually make a difference.
RDP can share a single application, rdesktop supports application sharing mode. You can run a single Outlook window over RDP on you linux box, works like a charm.
You can bid ridiculously low prices, or ask ridiculously high prices, and no trades will be made, but this won't affect the stock prices. Stock prices are set based on trades that do occur. It's like selling a house - some bozo can offer you half what it's worth, but the net effect on the house price statistics for your area is precisely zero.
With automated trading systems this probably isn't entirely true anymore, since automated systems are likely take these bids into account when making their trading decisions. You could use this to trick your competitors into buying or selling a certain stock.
Automated trading shouldn't be accepted by regulators anyway. It probably is a nice game to play, but at the end of the day it takes money without giving anything back in return. Most other ways of making money without doing something useful are called theft or fraud. All those 'schemes' to become richer without actually adding any value is pretty bad for an economy (and essentially just theft, however fancy).