Why is the term "allegedly" used in the title? Either he was arrested or he was not. This isn't a matter of someone being accused of something and a decision of truth not yet made, this is a news report about an event. Is the author saying that they are not sure he was arrested or that it hasn't been proven that he was arrested? Isn't it the job of the reporter to determine the reportable facts of the story?
Producers of products ultimately aim to please their customers
If you got more material like this you could have a standup routine going by next weekend.
Producers of products ultimately aim to make a profit. Pleasing the customer is a necessary evil, at best.
And because pleasing the customer is a necessary evil, producers ultimately do it, otherwise they would not have customers. I never meant to imply that producers were altruistic. Producers don't aim to please customers because they want them to be happy, they do it so that customers are happy enough (or at least willing) to make a purchase and not return the product.
Ultimately the responsibility is the purchaser. I don't necessarily mean from a legal sense, but from a "why it is the way it is" sense. Security (when compared to convenience) is expensive, it always has been and likely always will be. The cost of security must be included in the product and paid for by the purchaser. People generally want to spend as little as possible for a product and will chose the less expensive option if everything else appears equal or near equal. Since people in general don't understand the complexities and costs of a secure product, they don't feel the need to pay for it. Producers of products ultimately aim to please their customers and if customers don't want to pay for security, baring external regulation, they won't put security features in their products. Some day customers may demand security and when that happens manufacturers will oblige. I mentioned regulation as in "the government forces it". While this may happen, if it happens it will happen only if consumers get tired of insecure products and ask their governmental representatives to make the regulations. Either way the purchasers ultimately have the responsibility for why we don't have security in our products.
As for your comment about 10mbps being sufficient for a 70 inch television, that really just shows you don't understand the difference between resolution and sheer size.
I watch Netflix streams on my 70" TV all the time. It is not a 4K TV but it is a HD TV, I am not watching at 480p, I am watching at 1080. Network bandwidth is typically under 10 Mbps when I am doing this. Is the quality as good as when playing directly off of a Blu Ray player? No. Is it good enough? Yes. Would it be good enough if I was watching it on a 10" screen at the same resolution? Absolutely.
As long as Verizon or its "select partners" don't get a pass and are not allowed to stream video faster, it's not a net neutrality thing. Prioritization by protocol (as long as the rules are the same for all endpoints) does not violate the concept of net neutrality. There is a physical limit on the bandwidth available in any radio based system and it is the responsibility of a network provider to manage that bandwidth properly for the health of the network itself. Why is it unreasonable to put limits protocols that are known to use lots of bandwidth (eg video) as long as those limits are applied universally? And from the summary, they are talking about 10Mbs video streaming bandwidth limit - that is sufficient for a high definition stream on a 70 inch television (with multi-channel surround sound), certainly it is enough for the screen size of a phone or tablet being listened to in stereo at best.
Also, according to TFA, it is common in Japan for car buyers to only receive one key, which cannot be duplicated. So I guess the Japanese just never lose their keys, or if they do, they just buy a new car.
Actually the article says:
"This was not the case; as the manager just informed me, most cars sold by auction in Japan come with only one key and they haven't gotten anything else from the auction since."
I assume that "by auction" implies sales of used cars that are not private party to private party. Surely new cars come with multiple keys.
Corporations should not have opinions on social matters.
Depends. GoDaddy is legally within its rights to refuse or continue (further) service. If the site calls for and supports continued violence, GoDaddy is (at least morally) obligated to report such calls to the relevant authorities and to discontinue service.
In order for GoDaddy to report such calls, GoDaddy would have to monitor the content of such calls. Do we want our hosting providers monitoring the content of what they host for us? How about other service providers such a cellular companies, should they monitor our phone calls to ensure their customers are not inciting violence?
I know that the "calls" referred to in the article are content which is a "call to action" and not a phone call and that web sites are way more publicly accessible than are private phone calls, but there is a continuum from public communication to private communication and it is good question as where where along that line (if anywhere) hosting providers should intervene. Somewhere in the middle is a private website that requires a log in. Should GoDaddy (or any provider) be monitoring the content of private web sites? Should Go To Meeting be monitoring the content of web meetings?
Owning a car is stupid: about 50% or more of car ownership cost is tax in all Western countries.
Gas - taxed heavily
Mandatory service and inspections - self explanatory
Toll roads - self explanatory
Parking - in case of public parking
Vehicle tax - self explanatory
Consumables - do you know that quite a few countries put extra tax on motor oil?
Driving license renewal - in case of taking exams at public licensory
Perhaps you mean expensive instead of stupid. I would agree that owning a car is expensive, but it is stupid only if the cost benefit analysis of ownership is negative and you don't have money to spend on frivolous things. Sure, it costs you money to own a car, but you get benefits from car ownership as well. If you can afford (or need) those benefits, you are not being stupid.
For people that live in a city with good transportation infrastructure, who live close to work and where they shop, who have regular life schedules compatible with public transit, who don't need to frequently stray far from home (or some combination of these things), car ownership may not make sense. For those who live in suburbs or in rural areas where public or private transportation options aren't readily available, for those with random schedules, for those who value their time (can't afford to wait for a cab, uber, or the bus), or for those that just enjoy driving and the freedom a personal automobile provides, car ownership makes all kinds of sense (even if it is expensive).
So what's to prevent them from back dating new certificates?
Removal of the CA's root certificate from the browser's (operating system's in the case of IE) list of trusted root authorities would do it, but it sounds like they are not doing that yet.
Sounds like Microsoft is playing nice and not yanking the root cert now, instead they are creating a soft landing where they will not honor new certs (with the assumption that new backdated certs won't be created.) In a year when all of the certs would have expired anyway, the root cert would be removed.
Personally I would have just yanked the root cert at the first sign of weirdness from the CA. After all we are only talking about the default list of trusted roots, users can add their own if they feel the need to trust something untrustworthy.
Only 1 had 5" floppies, and the rest were networked via the cassette ports via a cool rotary switch box. You could upload your basic code to the server and save to floppy.
That box with the rotary switch was more of an audio distribution device as opposed to what we would call a network today. The main computer would save a program and the switch box would send the audio that would normally go to a cassette recorder to all of the other computers. (Everyone had to load at the same time.) The rotary switch would select which computer the master would get the audio from and the process would be reversed, one computer at a time. Actually worked pretty well for instructor to send everyone a starter program, have the students modify it, and then one by one get the results back from the students.
The sever did have a punch card reader, which some older kid got working when the school paid him $100.
Wasn't a stock piece of TRS-80 equipment then as they didn't sell punch card readers for the TRS-80 line. If true, then that would have been a cool hack. Parallel and serial ports were present, so certainly possible.
The more effective solution would be to electrify the lamp posts so they give you a safe but unpleasant shock if you walk into them (since apparently the blow isn't enough to discourage people from not watching where they are going).
Since the electronic device is the root of the problem, the voltage should be high enough to damage the device. This would eliminate the problem of repeat offender devices. It is not sufficient to simply electrocute the operator of the device, as some other operator could pick up the device and continue to cause problems.
I did read the article, which is how I knew it wasn't about systemd taking down all of Netflix, rather a select group of users who couldn't get to Netflix because they were running a distribution that used systemd in conjunction with a dns resolver library that couldn't deal with underscores (either rightly or wrongly so.)
There are so many articles (here and in other places) that I don't have time to read them all and I have to rely on headlines to help make the cut. Call it "sensationalized" or just call it "click bait", in my opinion the headline was written to imply something bigger than the story was in order to get folks to read it. It was enough to get me to look and my post was my way of complaining. I get that sensational / click bait headlines are now common in other forums, it is sad that it is happening here with the frequency that it does. It is also sad that like other places the editors don't really do much editing.
But users with systemd is NOT an 'edge case' really. In fact it's becoming more like users WITHOUT systemd would be the edge cases, within *nix.
I believe the edge case is Netflix viewers running systemd, not just users with systemd. Sure many people view Netflix via Linux, but I doubt it is a significant portion of all Netflix viewers, thus an edge case. Offended by being referred to as an edge case? Perhaps "edge case" is a bit too much troll as the parent post is getting modded, "relatively minor case" may be more accurate.
Any yeah, systemd still sucks, but doesn't warrant sensationalized headlines.
Treat it as a gift. They have just given you an account for whatever service it is. If they sign up with a credit card, even better. Just reset the password and go to town. Clearly by using your email address they intended for you to have the account.
I hope this is a kind of joke. If it is not, then he should pass a law to trump gravity, so that Australian can quickly become a world-class leader as flying cars supplier.
I don't think we want to legally allow Trump mess with gravity, he might try.
Setting aside for the moment the sillyness of the no fly list and our specific paranoia about terrorists on airplanes (as compared to other more practical threats)...
If the purpose of the scan is strictly to more quickly and accurately answer the question "Is this person on a list of people we have decided should not fly?", I don't find the concept so offensive and in conflict with unreasonable search. However if the the purpose of the scan is (or becomes) to track the movement of citizens who are not charged with any crime and who are not on the no fly list, then scanning everyone that passes seems to be or at least encroaches on unreasonable search. The problem is the shift from the first purpose to the second purpose is way too easy.
I use a browser plug in to add the following HTTP header to every request I make:
X-Terms-Of-Service:By responding to this request, you agree to place no restrictions on the data you send (or that is sent on your behalf). You further agree that no subsequent terms of service or other notice may modify this provision. Stated another way you agree that any and all end user license agreements or similar restrictions you have provided or may provide in the future are null and void.
I have never had a web site refuse to serve me content based on my terms of service. Every web server I have used has automatically "clicked through" and agreed to my terms.
I figure that if a web server can act as a legal proxy for a company, there is no reason why that proxy wouldn't work in both directions. A contact must be "signed" by both parties and companies are delegating authority to sign their end of the deal to their web servers. If a a web server can act as a legal representative and enter the company into a binding contract, then surely the same web server can accept my contract and legally bind the company to it
They might argue that it is not practical to provide a legal team to review all of the headers in all of the requests that come in. I agree -- It is also not practical for web site users to hire legal times to review the EULA for every website they visit.
Is my approach legally sound? Probably not. Am I a lawyer? No. Is it an interesting legal question? I think it is. Does it provide me entertainment thinking about it? Definitely.
A real cloud solution is much more then just running a single virtual machine in someone else's data center. With a real cloud solution you specify to your cloud provider the workload you want to run along with your performance and availability requirements. The cloud provider then provisions and manages whatever hardware is necessary to meet your requirements. Assuming that you have asked for (and paid for) redundancy, hardware failures are transparent to you as failing hardware is automatically detected and replaced for you. If you need more (or less performance) you can adjust your declared requirements and the cloud provider will either swap out your existing (potentially virtual) machines for larger or smaller ones (or add / remove machines from your pool); they will do this without you having to redeploy your workload, in some cases you can do this with no downtime.
Azure (and other cloud providers) don't just offer pure virtual machines, they also offer virtual components that you can use to build applications with. Components include storage (relational, non-relational tables, basic blob), communication (queues, message routing, load balancing), compute component hosting, web content component hosting, authentication services, etc. By developing a cloud based application, you can worry about your logic and architecture, and not have to worry about deploying and maintaining basic infrastructure services.
What exactly is a "private cloud" if not a server? What am I missing?
A private cloud (a real private cloud, not just a single server offering file storage over the Internet) is a set of management tools that takes a pool of hardware and offers it up as logical computing components that can be leveraged by application developers with the goal of being able to develop your applications against a generic model and leaving the hardware and resource allocation and maintenance to the cloud management software (which is typically operated by people other than your development staff.)
Why should CNN have this power? I'm loathe to defend either in this case, but it seems that free speech (in lieu of libel/slander) gives a troll a right to his/her boorish behavior.
Free speech (the version you get from the US constitution) is about the government preventing you from speaking, it is not about private parties or corporations preventing you from speaking. Even though free speech lets you express your opinion without the government preventing it, it was never about speaking without non-governmental consequences. If you say something, you are responsible for what you say. If what you say is true (so you don't have to worry about libel/slander), you still have to consider your fellow citizens reactions and opinions of you.
Call up a friend/relative, tell them to pick me up. It's free, and I know exactly who the driver will be and the condition of their vehicle. They tend to speak my language, give good smalltalk, and not be an asshole, as well.
There are stand up roller coasters which have safety / restraint systems designed to keep riders safe, even when upside down. So from the perspective of keeping passengers in place during flight, it is technically possible. Comfort is of course another matter. If you ever been on a stand up roller coaster, are male, and have had the lower restraint (bicycle seat) set too high, you would fear turbulence on a stand up plane.
Which means that this car can reach as far as you can before you need to take break. (Most place recommand taking break every 1h30 of driving. After 2h, you definitely need a 30min rest - by which time batteries could be fully charged again by a supercharger).
And please don't start about driving 8 hours straigh with only a single pee brak in the middle. That's dangerous and borderline illegal (actually is under some circumstance and in some jurisdictions).
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the term "allegedly" used in the title? Either he was arrested or he was not. This isn't a matter of someone being accused of something and a decision of truth not yet made, this is a news report about an event. Is the author saying that they are not sure he was arrested or that it hasn't been proven that he was arrested? Isn't it the job of the reporter to determine the reportable facts of the story?
Producers of products ultimately aim to please their customers
If you got more material like this you could have a standup routine going by next weekend.
Producers of products ultimately aim to make a profit. Pleasing the customer is a necessary evil, at best.
And because pleasing the customer is a necessary evil, producers ultimately do it, otherwise they would not have customers. I never meant to imply that producers were altruistic. Producers don't aim to please customers because they want them to be happy, they do it so that customers are happy enough (or at least willing) to make a purchase and not return the product.
Ultimately the responsibility is the purchaser. I don't necessarily mean from a legal sense, but from a "why it is the way it is" sense. Security (when compared to convenience) is expensive, it always has been and likely always will be. The cost of security must be included in the product and paid for by the purchaser. People generally want to spend as little as possible for a product and will chose the less expensive option if everything else appears equal or near equal. Since people in general don't understand the complexities and costs of a secure product, they don't feel the need to pay for it. Producers of products ultimately aim to please their customers and if customers don't want to pay for security, baring external regulation, they won't put security features in their products. Some day customers may demand security and when that happens manufacturers will oblige. I mentioned regulation as in "the government forces it". While this may happen, if it happens it will happen only if consumers get tired of insecure products and ask their governmental representatives to make the regulations. Either way the purchasers ultimately have the responsibility for why we don't have security in our products.
Without knobs how would I turn it up to 11?
As for your comment about 10mbps being sufficient for a 70 inch television, that really just shows you don't understand the difference between resolution and sheer size.
I watch Netflix streams on my 70" TV all the time. It is not a 4K TV but it is a HD TV, I am not watching at 480p, I am watching at 1080. Network bandwidth is typically under 10 Mbps when I am doing this. Is the quality as good as when playing directly off of a Blu Ray player? No. Is it good enough? Yes. Would it be good enough if I was watching it on a 10" screen at the same resolution? Absolutely.
As long as Verizon or its "select partners" don't get a pass and are not allowed to stream video faster, it's not a net neutrality thing. Prioritization by protocol (as long as the rules are the same for all endpoints) does not violate the concept of net neutrality. There is a physical limit on the bandwidth available in any radio based system and it is the responsibility of a network provider to manage that bandwidth properly for the health of the network itself. Why is it unreasonable to put limits protocols that are known to use lots of bandwidth (eg video) as long as those limits are applied universally? And from the summary, they are talking about 10Mbs video streaming bandwidth limit - that is sufficient for a high definition stream on a 70 inch television (with multi-channel surround sound), certainly it is enough for the screen size of a phone or tablet being listened to in stereo at best.
Also, according to TFA, it is common in Japan for car buyers to only receive one key, which cannot be duplicated. So I guess the Japanese just never lose their keys, or if they do, they just buy a new car.
Actually the article says:
"This was not the case; as the manager just informed me, most cars sold by auction in Japan come with only one key and they haven't gotten anything else from the auction since."
I assume that "by auction" implies sales of used cars that are not private party to private party. Surely new cars come with multiple keys.
Corporations should not have opinions on social matters.
Depends. GoDaddy is legally within its rights to refuse or continue (further) service. If the site calls for and supports continued violence, GoDaddy is (at least morally) obligated to report such calls to the relevant authorities and to discontinue service.
In order for GoDaddy to report such calls, GoDaddy would have to monitor the content of such calls. Do we want our hosting providers monitoring the content of what they host for us? How about other service providers such a cellular companies, should they monitor our phone calls to ensure their customers are not inciting violence?
I know that the "calls" referred to in the article are content which is a "call to action" and not a phone call and that web sites are way more publicly accessible than are private phone calls, but there is a continuum from public communication to private communication and it is good question as where where along that line (if anywhere) hosting providers should intervene. Somewhere in the middle is a private website that requires a log in. Should GoDaddy (or any provider) be monitoring the content of private web sites? Should Go To Meeting be monitoring the content of web meetings?
Owning a car is stupid: about 50% or more of car ownership cost is tax in all Western countries.
Gas - taxed heavily Mandatory service and inspections - self explanatory Toll roads - self explanatory Parking - in case of public parking Vehicle tax - self explanatory Consumables - do you know that quite a few countries put extra tax on motor oil? Driving license renewal - in case of taking exams at public licensory
Perhaps you mean expensive instead of stupid. I would agree that owning a car is expensive, but it is stupid only if the cost benefit analysis of ownership is negative and you don't have money to spend on frivolous things. Sure, it costs you money to own a car, but you get benefits from car ownership as well. If you can afford (or need) those benefits, you are not being stupid.
For people that live in a city with good transportation infrastructure, who live close to work and where they shop, who have regular life schedules compatible with public transit, who don't need to frequently stray far from home (or some combination of these things), car ownership may not make sense. For those who live in suburbs or in rural areas where public or private transportation options aren't readily available, for those with random schedules, for those who value their time (can't afford to wait for a cab, uber, or the bus), or for those that just enjoy driving and the freedom a personal automobile provides, car ownership makes all kinds of sense (even if it is expensive).
So what's to prevent them from back dating new certificates?
Removal of the CA's root certificate from the browser's (operating system's in the case of IE) list of trusted root authorities would do it, but it sounds like they are not doing that yet.
Sounds like Microsoft is playing nice and not yanking the root cert now, instead they are creating a soft landing where they will not honor new certs (with the assumption that new backdated certs won't be created.) In a year when all of the certs would have expired anyway, the root cert would be removed.
Personally I would have just yanked the root cert at the first sign of weirdness from the CA. After all we are only talking about the default list of trusted roots, users can add their own if they feel the need to trust something untrustworthy.
Only 1 had 5" floppies, and the rest were networked via the cassette ports via a cool rotary switch box. You could upload your basic code to the server and save to floppy.
That box with the rotary switch was more of an audio distribution device as opposed to what we would call a network today. The main computer would save a program and the switch box would send the audio that would normally go to a cassette recorder to all of the other computers. (Everyone had to load at the same time.) The rotary switch would select which computer the master would get the audio from and the process would be reversed, one computer at a time. Actually worked pretty well for instructor to send everyone a starter program, have the students modify it, and then one by one get the results back from the students.
The sever did have a punch card reader, which some older kid got working when the school paid him $100.
Wasn't a stock piece of TRS-80 equipment then as they didn't sell punch card readers for the TRS-80 line. If true, then that would have been a cool hack. Parallel and serial ports were present, so certainly possible.
The more effective solution would be to electrify the lamp posts so they give you a safe but unpleasant shock if you walk into them (since apparently the blow isn't enough to discourage people from not watching where they are going).
Since the electronic device is the root of the problem, the voltage should be high enough to damage the device. This would eliminate the problem of repeat offender devices. It is not sufficient to simply electrocute the operator of the device, as some other operator could pick up the device and continue to cause problems.
I did read the article, which is how I knew it wasn't about systemd taking down all of Netflix, rather a select group of users who couldn't get to Netflix because they were running a distribution that used systemd in conjunction with a dns resolver library that couldn't deal with underscores (either rightly or wrongly so.)
There are so many articles (here and in other places) that I don't have time to read them all and I have to rely on headlines to help make the cut. Call it "sensationalized" or just call it "click bait", in my opinion the headline was written to imply something bigger than the story was in order to get folks to read it. It was enough to get me to look and my post was my way of complaining. I get that sensational / click bait headlines are now common in other forums, it is sad that it is happening here with the frequency that it does. It is also sad that like other places the editors don't really do much editing.
But users with systemd is NOT an 'edge case' really. In fact it's becoming more like users WITHOUT systemd would be the edge cases, within *nix.
I believe the edge case is Netflix viewers running systemd, not just users with systemd. Sure many people view Netflix via Linux, but I doubt it is a significant portion of all Netflix viewers, thus an edge case. Offended by being referred to as an edge case? Perhaps "edge case" is a bit too much troll as the parent post is getting modded, "relatively minor case" may be more accurate.
Any yeah, systemd still sucks, but doesn't warrant sensationalized headlines.
Headline implies that the scope of the problem is much bigger than it is. While I don't like systemd, it's not like systemd took out all of Netflix.
Treat it as a gift. They have just given you an account for whatever service it is. If they sign up with a credit card, even better. Just reset the password and go to town. Clearly by using your email address they intended for you to have the account.
I hope this is a kind of joke. If it is not, then he should pass a law to trump gravity, so that Australian can quickly become a world-class leader as flying cars supplier.
I don't think we want to legally allow Trump mess with gravity, he might try.
Not sure I have seen or heard of Stranger Things and The Crown, but it sounds interesting.
Setting aside for the moment the sillyness of the no fly list and our specific paranoia about terrorists on airplanes (as compared to other more practical threats)...
If the purpose of the scan is strictly to more quickly and accurately answer the question "Is this person on a list of people we have decided should not fly?", I don't find the concept so offensive and in conflict with unreasonable search. However if the the purpose of the scan is (or becomes) to track the movement of citizens who are not charged with any crime and who are not on the no fly list, then scanning everyone that passes seems to be or at least encroaches on unreasonable search. The problem is the shift from the first purpose to the second purpose is way too easy.
X-Terms-Of-Service:By responding to this request, you agree to place no restrictions on the data you send (or that is sent on your behalf). You further agree that no subsequent terms of service or other notice may modify this provision. Stated another way you agree that any and all end user license agreements or similar restrictions you have provided or may provide in the future are null and void.
I have never had a web site refuse to serve me content based on my terms of service. Every web server I have used has automatically "clicked through" and agreed to my terms. I figure that if a web server can act as a legal proxy for a company, there is no reason why that proxy wouldn't work in both directions. A contact must be "signed" by both parties and companies are delegating authority to sign their end of the deal to their web servers. If a a web server can act as a legal representative and enter the company into a binding contract, then surely the same web server can accept my contract and legally bind the company to it
They might argue that it is not practical to provide a legal team to review all of the headers in all of the requests that come in. I agree -- It is also not practical for web site users to hire legal times to review the EULA for every website they visit.
Is my approach legally sound? Probably not. Am I a lawyer? No. Is it an interesting legal question? I think it is. Does it provide me entertainment thinking about it? Definitely.
Azure (and other cloud providers) don't just offer pure virtual machines, they also offer virtual components that you can use to build applications with. Components include storage (relational, non-relational tables, basic blob), communication (queues, message routing, load balancing), compute component hosting, web content component hosting, authentication services, etc. By developing a cloud based application, you can worry about your logic and architecture, and not have to worry about deploying and maintaining basic infrastructure services.
What exactly is a "private cloud" if not a server? What am I missing?
A private cloud (a real private cloud, not just a single server offering file storage over the Internet) is a set of management tools that takes a pool of hardware and offers it up as logical computing components that can be leveraged by application developers with the goal of being able to develop your applications against a generic model and leaving the hardware and resource allocation and maintenance to the cloud management software (which is typically operated by people other than your development staff.)
Why should CNN have this power? I'm loathe to defend either in this case, but it seems that free speech (in lieu of libel/slander) gives a troll a right to his/her boorish behavior.
Free speech (the version you get from the US constitution) is about the government preventing you from speaking, it is not about private parties or corporations preventing you from speaking. Even though free speech lets you express your opinion without the government preventing it, it was never about speaking without non-governmental consequences. If you say something, you are responsible for what you say. If what you say is true (so you don't have to worry about libel/slander), you still have to consider your fellow citizens reactions and opinions of you.
Call up a friend/relative, tell them to pick me up. It's free, and I know exactly who the driver will be and the condition of their vehicle. They tend to speak my language, give good smalltalk, and not be an asshole, as well.
Damn. I have to get better friends and relatives.
There are stand up roller coasters which have safety / restraint systems designed to keep riders safe, even when upside down. So from the perspective of keeping passengers in place during flight, it is technically possible. Comfort is of course another matter. If you ever been on a stand up roller coaster, are male, and have had the lower restraint (bicycle seat) set too high, you would fear turbulence on a stand up plane.
Which means that this car can reach as far as you can before you need to take break. (Most place recommand taking break every 1h30 of driving. After 2h, you definitely need a 30min rest - by which time batteries could be fully charged again by a supercharger). And please don't start about driving 8 hours straigh with only a single pee brak in the middle. That's dangerous and borderline illegal (actually is under some circumstance and in some jurisdictions).
Citations needed