Yeah, because there's absolutely no one out there with an ax to grind against electric cars. No one would ever try to portray them in an unfairly unfavorable light. Are you for real?
The Top Gear incident was agreed by all parties to be a staged hoax that's not representative of how the car behaves.
Broden's article was a pure hit piece.
Tesla has every right to speak out against "journalism" that unfairly maligns their products.
I have no dog in this fight, mind you. I don't own an EV and probably won't anytime soon, but anyone who calls himself or herself a "journalist" has an obligation not to taint their reporting with an irrational agenda. I know it's hard to keep all bias out. That's why a professional actively works to quell it, rather than making it the centerpiece of their narrative.
True, but the way most gas stations are designed, they waste a lot of space already. You should be able to charge more electric cars per square meter.
An hour is admittedly a long time to have to wait for a full charge, but perhaps that's where the idea of locating them in random parking lots comes in. You don't need the full infrastructure of a service station, just put them in, say, mall parking lots and shopping plazas. Let people charge up while they go run some errands or shop. Those parking lots tend to be bigger, and people are going to be hanging out a while anyway.
But this is assuming the footprint of a charging station must be the same as a gas pump. While it looks like Tesla's Supercharger terminals take up about as much room as a traditional gas pump (maybe a little less), it doesn't seem to me that there's any real reason it has to. You're just running wires to a plug. You could potentially have a lot more charging outlets than gas pumps in the same amount of space.
I had a friend who unwittingly served as a mule for dirty money to be laundered through his account. He was approached, asked if he'd be willing to deposit some checks, wait a few days, then transfer them (minus a small percentage for himself) to another account. He didn't see a problem with that, and hey, it was easy money! So he agreed.
When the feds came a-knockin', he was lucky all he had to do was pay the money back, rather than go to prison.
The encryption key fobs you describe are not generally used by consumers as part of their typical banking practices. I don't know if they are even available to most people for that purpose.
But yes, I've seen them used internally within firms that highly value the security of their data/money.
So true. You're lucky if you have requirements set down on paper before you begin coding. You're even luckier if they don't change substantially by the end of design, much less construction. And it happens often enough where you're halfway through coding it, and a critical requirement change is slotted in. You just have to roll with it.
Of course, what we have here is a classic game theory problem! It's like a Prisoner's Dilemma, but switched around.
We have two actors in this scenario, and each can make one of two possible choices: camp or pursue. If both camp, neither can kill the other, so no one wins. If both run out into the open, they are on equal footing. If one chooses to camp and the other chooses to pursue/search for the camper, the camper is at an advantage because they should be able to spot the aggressor's approach and kill him.
This means the optimal solution for the individual is to camp, but the optimal solution for the group is to either camp (if survival is the only goal) or pursue (if the death of one opponent is the only goal.)
I'm sure guns are a good target for theft, but then that diminishes the argument that they make you safer. It seems to me that the people who oppose gun control are trying to have it both ways on this one. If the guns only make you safer when nobody knows you have them, and they put you at greater risk if anyone does know you have them, that seems like a strange way to live.
I must say it's a little bizarre to hear that gun enthusiasts try to keep their hobby under wraps, for fear of being robbed. Usually, they are quite open about it. And I thought the guns were supposed to make you safer, not put you at more risk of victimization.
How do they know you aren't actually carrying a gun on your person?
"This person has guns" is a far cry from "this person has guns, which they always leave at home, in a location I can easily find and obtain them from once I break in."
Then you might as well not drive a nice car, because you are begging for it to be stolen. Don't live in a nice house, either, because criminals will see it, assume you have lots of nice, expensive things, and break in to steal them.
What makes guns so special that people should be afraid to let anyone know they own some?
You hit the nail on the head. It's an arms race. Criminals want to rob you, so you buy some pepper spray. The criminal knows you have pepper spray, so they get a knife. You know they have a knife, so you get a handgun. They know you have a handgun, so they get a semiauto rifle. Where does it stop, other than with dead bodies?
If you take the guns most commonly used in crimes and outlaw them, you immediately create a black market, which constrains supply and increases price. While I don't think that is an ideal solution (and certainly isn't the sole solution), it does poke holes in the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument. No, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws who can afford those guns will have them, or they'll have to steal them from other outlaws. I am just tired of the simplistic "if x then y" logic employed on all sides. It is a complex issue. Doing nothing is not an option. Well-intended but poorly-conceived regulation will either do little or no good, or make things worse. Guns are a part of the problem, and yes, they must be addressed, but they also aren't the whole problem.
I find the gun debate in the US so frustrating because the arguments tend to consist of accusing the other side of being extremists. It's tedious, it's dishonest, and it keeps anything substantive from being done.
People say this a lot but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would criminals deliberately break into a house where the know the occupants are armed? Finding out which people don't have guns would seem to be a much safer home invasion strategy.
What you described sounds like a case of "not invented here." Large companies with a lot of inertia are notorious for this. "Nothing produced at any other company could possibly be as good, so let's just make everything ourselves, regardless of whether it's related to our core competency."
Smaller companies and startups can't really afford to roll everything themselves, so they will look for off-the-shelf solutions as much as possible.
Incidentally, this is how startups in the software industry smash the old players. Looks like that's what's going on in the space industry, too, assuming others can follow SpaceX's example.
Although it depends on what your memory restrictions are, if you know the file you're reading isn't enormous (that is, bigger than the memory you can spare), it's easier to just yank the whole thing into an array off the bat:
lines = open('somefile.txt','r').readlines() # set up your regex and compile it here for l in lines:
# do your re.search or whatever
You only have to compile once if you aren't changing the regular expression from line to line.
I agree that it's more explicit, but I don't see how that makes it "clunky." Rather, it makes it quite clear what you are doing with each line/command.
I've not found python's mechanism for using regexes to be any less powerful than perl's. It is inherently object-oriented, so it works rather differently. I've used both facilities and have never been unable to do what I wanted in either language.
Also note that perl is only faster with regexes if they are static (that is, known at compilation time.) Python does them faster if they aren't known until runtime.
People are still harping about this? Get over it. Python doesn't care how you do your indentation, as long as you do it in a consistent way. You also aren't wasting lines putting curly braces on everything. And you barely even have to worry about it if you're using any kind of python-supporting code editor for it. I'm not even talking about a full IDE. Even IDLE alone will do the job.
I used to use perl as my "glue" language, too, until I got into python. Python works just as well in most cases, and usually leaves you with much more readable code. People who haven't used python before can usually figure out what some code is doing just by reading it. With perl? Good luck.
Re:Web Server development
on
Perl Turns 25
·
· Score: 2
You guys should be glad you don't write MUMPS code.
One wonders what Blizzard's excuse is for this. It's not like they're some fly-by-night studio that's under distributor deadlines to "get this out by Christmas or you're all fired." They have the time and the money for development to "take as long as it takes." Instead, they're playing the exact same "release now, patch later" game everyone else does.
Tell me about it. MS SQL supports this, but doesn't support that, but MySQL supports it, and Postgres supports it slightly differently, and let's not talk about Sybase.
Standards sure are awesome when every implementation of it is non-standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because there's absolutely no one out there with an ax to grind against electric cars. No one would ever try to portray them in an unfairly unfavorable light. Are you for real?
The Top Gear incident was agreed by all parties to be a staged hoax that's not representative of how the car behaves.
Broden's article was a pure hit piece.
Tesla has every right to speak out against "journalism" that unfairly maligns their products.
I have no dog in this fight, mind you. I don't own an EV and probably won't anytime soon, but anyone who calls himself or herself a "journalist" has an obligation not to taint their reporting with an irrational agenda. I know it's hard to keep all bias out. That's why a professional actively works to quell it, rather than making it the centerpiece of their narrative.
True, but the way most gas stations are designed, they waste a lot of space already. You should be able to charge more electric cars per square meter.
An hour is admittedly a long time to have to wait for a full charge, but perhaps that's where the idea of locating them in random parking lots comes in. You don't need the full infrastructure of a service station, just put them in, say, mall parking lots and shopping plazas. Let people charge up while they go run some errands or shop. Those parking lots tend to be bigger, and people are going to be hanging out a while anyway.
But this is assuming the footprint of a charging station must be the same as a gas pump. While it looks like Tesla's Supercharger terminals take up about as much room as a traditional gas pump (maybe a little less), it doesn't seem to me that there's any real reason it has to. You're just running wires to a plug. You could potentially have a lot more charging outlets than gas pumps in the same amount of space.
I had a friend who unwittingly served as a mule for dirty money to be laundered through his account. He was approached, asked if he'd be willing to deposit some checks, wait a few days, then transfer them (minus a small percentage for himself) to another account. He didn't see a problem with that, and hey, it was easy money! So he agreed.
When the feds came a-knockin', he was lucky all he had to do was pay the money back, rather than go to prison.
The encryption key fobs you describe are not generally used by consumers as part of their typical banking practices. I don't know if they are even available to most people for that purpose.
But yes, I've seen them used internally within firms that highly value the security of their data/money.
So true. You're lucky if you have requirements set down on paper before you begin coding. You're even luckier if they don't change substantially by the end of design, much less construction. And it happens often enough where you're halfway through coding it, and a critical requirement change is slotted in. You just have to roll with it.
Of course, what we have here is a classic game theory problem! It's like a Prisoner's Dilemma, but switched around.
We have two actors in this scenario, and each can make one of two possible choices: camp or pursue. If both camp, neither can kill the other, so no one wins. If both run out into the open, they are on equal footing. If one chooses to camp and the other chooses to pursue/search for the camper, the camper is at an advantage because they should be able to spot the aggressor's approach and kill him.
This means the optimal solution for the individual is to camp, but the optimal solution for the group is to either camp (if survival is the only goal) or pursue (if the death of one opponent is the only goal.)
ACORN stole the election for him, obviously.
I'm sure guns are a good target for theft, but then that diminishes the argument that they make you safer. It seems to me that the people who oppose gun control are trying to have it both ways on this one. If the guns only make you safer when nobody knows you have them, and they put you at greater risk if anyone does know you have them, that seems like a strange way to live.
I must say it's a little bizarre to hear that gun enthusiasts try to keep their hobby under wraps, for fear of being robbed. Usually, they are quite open about it. And I thought the guns were supposed to make you safer, not put you at more risk of victimization.
No, I wouldn't, but then I can't just turn around and kill somebody with $20,000, either. (Yes, yes, I could hire a hitman, easy joke there.)
How do they know you aren't actually carrying a gun on your person?
"This person has guns" is a far cry from "this person has guns, which they always leave at home, in a location I can easily find and obtain them from once I break in."
Then you might as well not drive a nice car, because you are begging for it to be stolen. Don't live in a nice house, either, because criminals will see it, assume you have lots of nice, expensive things, and break in to steal them.
What makes guns so special that people should be afraid to let anyone know they own some?
You hit the nail on the head. It's an arms race. Criminals want to rob you, so you buy some pepper spray. The criminal knows you have pepper spray, so they get a knife. You know they have a knife, so you get a handgun. They know you have a handgun, so they get a semiauto rifle. Where does it stop, other than with dead bodies?
If you take the guns most commonly used in crimes and outlaw them, you immediately create a black market, which constrains supply and increases price. While I don't think that is an ideal solution (and certainly isn't the sole solution), it does poke holes in the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument. No, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws who can afford those guns will have them, or they'll have to steal them from other outlaws. I am just tired of the simplistic "if x then y" logic employed on all sides. It is a complex issue. Doing nothing is not an option. Well-intended but poorly-conceived regulation will either do little or no good, or make things worse. Guns are a part of the problem, and yes, they must be addressed, but they also aren't the whole problem.
I find the gun debate in the US so frustrating because the arguments tend to consist of accusing the other side of being extremists. It's tedious, it's dishonest, and it keeps anything substantive from being done.
People say this a lot but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would criminals deliberately break into a house where the know the occupants are armed? Finding out which people don't have guns would seem to be a much safer home invasion strategy.
What you described sounds like a case of "not invented here." Large companies with a lot of inertia are notorious for this. "Nothing produced at any other company could possibly be as good, so let's just make everything ourselves, regardless of whether it's related to our core competency."
Smaller companies and startups can't really afford to roll everything themselves, so they will look for off-the-shelf solutions as much as possible.
Incidentally, this is how startups in the software industry smash the old players. Looks like that's what's going on in the space industry, too, assuming others can follow SpaceX's example.
Although it depends on what your memory restrictions are, if you know the file you're reading isn't enormous (that is, bigger than the memory you can spare), it's easier to just yank the whole thing into an array off the bat:
lines = open('somefile.txt','r').readlines()
# set up your regex and compile it here
for l in lines:
# do your re.search or whatever
You only have to compile once if you aren't changing the regular expression from line to line.
I agree that it's more explicit, but I don't see how that makes it "clunky." Rather, it makes it quite clear what you are doing with each line/command.
I've not found python's mechanism for using regexes to be any less powerful than perl's. It is inherently object-oriented, so it works rather differently. I've used both facilities and have never been unable to do what I wanted in either language.
Also note that perl is only faster with regexes if they are static (that is, known at compilation time.) Python does them faster if they aren't known until runtime.
People are still harping about this? Get over it. Python doesn't care how you do your indentation, as long as you do it in a consistent way. You also aren't wasting lines putting curly braces on everything. And you barely even have to worry about it if you're using any kind of python-supporting code editor for it. I'm not even talking about a full IDE. Even IDLE alone will do the job.
I used to use perl as my "glue" language, too, until I got into python. Python works just as well in most cases, and usually leaves you with much more readable code. People who haven't used python before can usually figure out what some code is doing just by reading it. With perl? Good luck.
You guys should be glad you don't write MUMPS code.
It's only going to piss off people whose money Blizzard already got.
One wonders what Blizzard's excuse is for this. It's not like they're some fly-by-night studio that's under distributor deadlines to "get this out by Christmas or you're all fired." They have the time and the money for development to "take as long as it takes." Instead, they're playing the exact same "release now, patch later" game everyone else does.
The Sacred series isn't bad, either.
Tell me about it. MS SQL supports this, but doesn't support that, but MySQL supports it, and Postgres supports it slightly differently, and let's not talk about Sybase.
Standards sure are awesome when every implementation of it is non-standard.