Bullshit. That's like saying that Amazon used to lose money on every book they sold. In reality Amazon were building their business for future profitability, just as Tesla are.
"Symbolism"? Ha ha. You hate Tesla because you see their success as somehow attacking your anti-science climate denialism. What a loser you are.
Another solution that is sometimes proposed is inductance charging from the road, whilst actually in motion on a highway. Of course even if practical that's a long way off.
I think shorter term, that hybrids with small ICE engines are the answer to people who have range anxiety. Use battery most of the time, but have the ability to extend range with gasoline. I think for a lot of people it wouldn't matter if performance was reduced with gas - it's more about reducing the anxiety of range issues than actually something that would be used very much.
"PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in," -- Ed Colligan, Palm CEO, 2006 on the prospect of Apple making a smartphone.
The time for skepticism on Tesla was 10 years ago. Now you just like a dinosaur who can't figure out why the sun isn't shining any more.
There are very real limits on how much energy density that can be obtained in a battery, and still make it robust enough to handle being bumped around in a vehicle.
The oil industry would like us to believe we're into diminishing returns on battery improvements. The reverse is true.
As to being "bumped around" if gasoline were being proposed as a new fuel these days it would never be allowed. You forget what a dangerous substance cars are already using, without actually having too many incidents.
As for you're other comments, they are pie-in-the-sky. EVs are real and actual products. They're not just the future, they are already becoming the present. All the car manufacturer's know it.
Meaningless statistics. The "security bugs" are tests for specific coding constructs - lint like tests - which vary per language. The figures don't even have the same headers per language. A higher number of "security bugs" in a language may mean they simply test for more, or the language allows testing for more.
The whole thing is a slashvertisement for the tool. The "report" mentioned is only available by giving the company personal details.
You're confused if you think there's a conflict there.
The only way you could think that is if painting by numbers is the total extent of your artistic sensibility.
That's right. And if I get some code where the indentation has been mangled, I can just run it through indent, and get some indented code out. Unless, of course, it's python. Then it's just fucked.
And if you get some text where braces have been mangled by indentation is intact, you're equally fucked in c like languages.
That's correct. And if I want to see what the compiler sees, I simply run the program through one formatting tool (built into most IDEs, of course) and then the problem becomes obvious.
i.e. you need a tool to show you the contradictions between two different truths. You just don't understand that DRY is the problem you're running the tool to fix.
There is never a single truth, because there are always multiple perspectives. You're seeking something that does not exist, and you're just shifting to different bugs.
You only think that because you don't program in python. Python has the single truth for marking blocks.
(Well, bar the one mistake Guido made of not mandating either tab or space indentation. That *is* a problem of python, and lets down the one truth principle. But it's not a problem with the concept of block structure by indentation.)
You're confused. You can't decide if indentation is an artistic medium, or something that a machine can simply auto-indent based on structure.
I should be able to use it artistically if I want, and still have the program execute, because there is always a risk that a format conversion will artistically reimagine my indentation and/or line breaks.
Which is exactly what computer science would expect when you are repeating yourself. There should be one source of truth, whether it's a database, a function, or an indication of block structure.
It's clear from your answer that you, like everyone else are not able to follow code that has not been indented. Curly braces do not allow you to see the structure. The compiler follows them, whilst you, like every other human programmer, follow the indentation. This repetition and the lack of a single truth causes bugs.
I've never done anything with power steering fluid, so genuine questions:
What's the difference between power steering fluid and brake fluid? They're both hydraulic fluids, right. So why are they of different kinds? Are they different consistencies?
How would you check which they've put in, before leaving the lot?
Why would it require anything more than draining and flushing the brake system? I did that myself on the driveway at home when I was young and cheap. About an hour's work for an amateur.
If you think these helpful animations are distracting, I certainly don't want to use any software you've written. You've missed the point entirely. The animations are there to keep context or provide hints.
Note for others: That information is about preserving iPhone app data using a Mac as a tool. As such it has nothing to do with this slashdot story about Mac apps from the Mac App Store.
It was a complete nightmare. I ran my copy of Dash, which I'd bought from the Mac App Store. And I was asked me for my iTunes password. Then it worked.
APPLE IS TERRIBLE. THEY HOLDING CERTS WRONG. THEY HAVE LESS SPACE THAN A NOMAD. I WILL NEVER USE AN APPLE PRODUCT AGAIN.
You've got to be impressed with the homeopath's ability to store large numbers of litre bottles though. I think I'd run out of space on the second Korsakov dilution.
Because almost is very useful. If a site like Amazon can kill 99% of fake reviews that's an extremely worthwhile thing to do. It doesn't have to be perfect.
And spam filtering does a hell of a lot better than 99% these days. I honestly can't remember when I last got a real email spam. It may be years.
Then either it's a crap theory or you are misusing it. But there's no fame in pointing out that spam filtering works. It's surprising you haven't realised it.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it backwards. Tesla is the company with the big supercharger network.
I derive enjoyment from shifting a 6-speed on a hair-pin turn and the roar of an overpowered engine.
And people on the wrong side of the previous technology shift derived enjoyment from the clip clop of hooves and the crack of the whip.
People who have actually tried Tesla's prefer them.
What are you talking about? Tesla's can charge at all charging points.
And the fact that Porsche and VW beetles have always had their engines in the back.
Bullshit. That's like saying that Amazon used to lose money on every book they sold. In reality Amazon were building their business for future profitability, just as Tesla are.
"Symbolism"? Ha ha. You hate Tesla because you see their success as somehow attacking your anti-science climate denialism. What a loser you are.
Another solution that is sometimes proposed is inductance charging from the road, whilst actually in motion on a highway. Of course even if practical that's a long way off.
I think shorter term, that hybrids with small ICE engines are the answer to people who have range anxiety. Use battery most of the time, but have the ability to extend range with gasoline. I think for a lot of people it wouldn't matter if performance was reduced with gas - it's more about reducing the anxiety of range issues than actually something that would be used very much.
"PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in,"
-- Ed Colligan, Palm CEO, 2006 on the prospect of Apple making a smartphone.
The time for skepticism on Tesla was 10 years ago. Now you just like a dinosaur who can't figure out why the sun isn't shining any more.
There are very real limits on how much energy density that can be obtained in a battery, and still make it robust enough to handle being bumped around in a vehicle.
Oh really? Where do you suppose that is?
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/ma...
The oil industry would like us to believe we're into diminishing returns on battery improvements. The reverse is true.
As to being "bumped around" if gasoline were being proposed as a new fuel these days it would never be allowed. You forget what a dangerous substance cars are already using, without actually having too many incidents.
As for you're other comments, they are pie-in-the-sky. EVs are real and actual products. They're not just the future, they are already becoming the present. All the car manufacturer's know it.
Meaningless statistics. The "security bugs" are tests for specific coding constructs - lint like tests - which vary per language. The figures don't even have the same headers per language. A higher number of "security bugs" in a language may mean they simply test for more, or the language allows testing for more.
The whole thing is a slashvertisement for the tool. The "report" mentioned is only available by giving the company personal details.
Marketing, not news or analysis.
You're confused if you think there's a conflict there.
The only way you could think that is if painting by numbers is the total extent of your artistic sensibility.
That's right. And if I get some code where the indentation has been mangled, I can just run it through indent, and get some indented code out. Unless, of course, it's python. Then it's just fucked.
And if you get some text where braces have been mangled by indentation is intact, you're equally fucked in c like languages.
That's correct. And if I want to see what the compiler sees, I simply run the program through one formatting tool (built into most IDEs, of course) and then the problem becomes obvious.
i.e. you need a tool to show you the contradictions between two different truths. You just don't understand that DRY is the problem you're running the tool to fix.
There is never a single truth, because there are always multiple perspectives. You're seeking something that does not exist, and you're just shifting to different bugs.
You only think that because you don't program in python. Python has the single truth for marking blocks.
(Well, bar the one mistake Guido made of not mandating either tab or space indentation. That *is* a problem of python, and lets down the one truth principle. But it's not a problem with the concept of block structure by indentation.)
You're confused. You can't decide if indentation is an artistic medium, or something that a machine can simply auto-indent based on structure.
I should be able to use it artistically if I want, and still have the program execute, because there is always a risk that a format conversion will artistically reimagine my indentation and/or line breaks.
Which is exactly what computer science would expect when you are repeating yourself. There should be one source of truth, whether it's a database, a function, or an indication of block structure.
It's clear from your answer that you, like everyone else are not able to follow code that has not been indented. Curly braces do not allow you to see the structure. The compiler follows them, whilst you, like every other human programmer, follow the indentation. This repetition and the lack of a single truth causes bugs.
Good luck trying to understand a program that hasn't been indented.
OH! You meant curly braces AND indentation is better than indentation alone. Well that breaks the DRY principle.
The only problem with indentation only for blocks is cutting and pasting. And that problem is sorted by using an IDE that properly supports python.
If your computer can't understand the newlines in a textfile, you need a new computer. Seriously, has anyone had that problem since the 1960s?
Foundation Framework is being reimplemented and will be released as part of the Swift 3 open source distribution.
https://github.com/apple/swift...
You can expect the same to happen in future years with other frameworks, either by Apple or by other contributors.
FaceTime was encumbered by patents Apple don't own. So until they expire, it's not going to be open source.
As to Swift - they only announced it was going open source at WWDC this summer. So no, not years. It's not even years old yet.
And by the way, a lot of slashdotter's cynicism that Swift would not be open sourced is hereby proved wrong.
Wow! Thanks for the heads up.
I've never done anything with power steering fluid, so genuine questions:
What's the difference between power steering fluid and brake fluid? They're both hydraulic fluids, right. So why are they of different kinds? Are they different consistencies?
How would you check which they've put in, before leaving the lot?
Why would it require anything more than draining and flushing the brake system? I did that myself on the driveway at home when I was young and cheap. About an hour's work for an amateur.
If you think these helpful animations are distracting, I certainly don't want to use any software you've written. You've missed the point entirely. The animations are there to keep context or provide hints.
Thankfully OSX UI is designed around your ideas.
Worst thing ever. I may need counselling.
Note for others: That information is about preserving iPhone app data using a Mac as a tool. As such it has nothing to do with this slashdot story about Mac apps from the Mac App Store.
It was a complete nightmare. I ran my copy of Dash, which I'd bought from the Mac App Store. And I was asked me for my iTunes password. Then it worked.
APPLE IS TERRIBLE. THEY HOLDING CERTS WRONG. THEY HAVE LESS SPACE THAN A NOMAD. I WILL NEVER USE AN APPLE PRODUCT AGAIN.
You've got to be impressed with the homeopath's ability to store large numbers of litre bottles though. I think I'd run out of space on the second Korsakov dilution.
Because almost is very useful. If a site like Amazon can kill 99% of fake reviews that's an extremely worthwhile thing to do. It doesn't have to be perfect.
And spam filtering does a hell of a lot better than 99% these days. I honestly can't remember when I last got a real email spam. It may be years.
And no, it's not my theory. You could see it as an off-shot of things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..
Then either it's a crap theory or you are misusing it. But there's no fame in pointing out that spam filtering works. It's surprising you haven't realised it.
And yet spam email detection has got so good that I almost never get a spam.
And my ad-blocker is so good that I almost never see an ad.
So I don't think much to your theory of inevitable defeat.
Useless. I directed it to a book with 467 reviews. It claimed where were not enough reviews to analyse.