You act like this is a new phenomena in the US. For example, political speech was legally supressed with the backing of the Supreme Court up until the mid-20th century, when they overruled themselves in order to protect the Ku Klux Klan.
I'm not exactly sure how it happened and the only person who's admitted to taking advantage of this isn't either: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0 As far as anyone can tell, enough mining nodes forgot their transaction history due to being shut down and restarted on 0.7 that some transactions only confirmed on the newer 0.8 side of the fork, allowing the attacker to submit a conflicting transaction that would replace their payment transaction after it had already been confirmed and after they'd already withdrawn the funds. (There were probably other ways of doing it, such as taking advantage of the rules on when fees are required on transactions.)
The security was broken. Suddenly, an attacker had the ability to easily spend the exact same set of coins twice, violating one of the key security properties Bitcoin was meant to have.
Apparently the exact limits varied depending on the exact OS and BDB version you were using, so some nodes running the old version accepted the blocks whilst others didn't. This isn't a sustainable situation.
Malfeasance already happened. It looks like someone took advantage of this to have another shot at their losing Satoshi Dice bets: http://blockchain.info/double-spends
The problem is that there's no way to get 100% of the userbase to either upgrade to 0.8 or downgrade to 0.7 instantly. However, since the new version accepts everything that the old version does it was possible to mend the fork merely by getting enough people to move over to 0.7 and start mining on that fork. Eventually the 0.7 side of the fork became longer than the 0.8 side at which point all the clients running Bitcoin 0.8 recognised it as the correct version of the blockchain and everyone was working from the same version of history again, so it didn't matter if a few people were still using the wrong version of the client. Doing this the other way around wasn't possible because the 0.7 clients couldn't ever switch to the other side of the fork no matter what happened.
Well, porny ads certainly seem to be part of the justification for the proposal, but what matters is what it actually prohibits, and I'm not sure I trust some random blog post to get the details right...
Tesla admitted the 55 miles of track time was correct. They tried to argue libel by claiming that viewers would falsely believe it was incapable of more than 55 miles on the road too, but failed to convince any of the judges.
USB 2.0 is 480 Mbit/s, which is more than fast enough to stream compressed video over - in fact, the video compression and decompression hardware they're using almost certainly caps out at far below that bitrate. (For comparison, the maximum video bitrate supported on Blu-Ray DVDs is 40 Mbit/s and they're generally considered to be relatively high bitrate).
As far as I know, Maplin only sell the Pi bundled with a starter kit for £75 (about 85 EUR / $115) which includes a keyboard, mouse, USB hub, mains power supply, preloaded SD card, cables and a USB wifi dongle. Chances are the person you're replying to is already looking at the cheapest supplier. (Also, RS and Allied Elec apparently take months to ship.)
Bitcoin is not an anonymous currency. Every single Bitcoin transaction is permanently recorded in a public, globally replicated database. True, there may not be any way to link the transactions to your identity now (that you know of anyway!) but you don't just have to worry about whether anyone can now, you have to worry about whether they'll figure out some way to extract it from the transaction history in the future as well.
For instance, for years there was a ridiculous bug that made it a lot easier to figure out that different addresses belonged to the same person than the public documentation claimed it was. The bug's been fixed now, but all the past transactions affected by it are still affected and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
Gold is probably not the best comparison, since it seems to be in a massive speculative bubble right now which is presumably going to pop, just like the previous gold bubbles did.
And NVidia still support cards that are much older than that in their closed source Linux drivers, plus open source support for their cards seems to be coming along much better than support for AMD cards right now. Also, some of the GPUs that AMD dropped support for were still being sold in new machines - particularly laptops - when they abandoned them.
At least one Tesla owner who attempted 110V charging in cold weather actually reported that they lost charge, not gained it. Not sure why exactly, but at a guess it's something to do with the fact that the battery needs to be kept warm in order to charge.
It didn't just borrow significant elements from US currency, his entire business model was based on selling the coins to merchants at a discount to their face value and encouraging the merchants to pass them off as US dollars in their change to customers. Hell, the creator of Liberty Dollars even took part in a video segment on the Learning Channel to promote them, and actually demonstrated how easy it is to convince people to take them by passing them off to an unsuspecting store owner as, I quote, "the new dollar". Given he did this with the cameras rolling on a nationally-broadcast puff piece it was rather hard for him to deny that they were intended to be passed off as US dollars.
Of course, if he had ignored Tesla's instructions, hung around in the cold for several hours, and wrote a negative comment about that in his article he could've expected responses like this (currently at +5, Insightful elsewhere in the thread) instead:
This has been discussed ad nauseum but apparently you missed all of the memos.
The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns. It's a problem with how the current charge status is read by the electronics, NOT electrons bleeding away through the tires....
Stop spreading the completely inaccurate FUD.
So basically, it doesn't matter which choice he made - whether he chose to believe tech support and set off, or stand around freezing for a few more hours until the reported range was enough - his decision would still be potrayed as evidence of him maliciously trying to discredit Tesla either way. Poor guy.
The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns.
That's what Tesla staff supposedly told Broder was going to happen when he set of, and yet this thread and every other thread are full of people blaming Broder for setting off when he "knew" - based on the range reported by the car - that he could never possibly have made it and arguing that the only reason for him to do so was because he wanted to run out of power. Oddly enough no-one's accused them of spreading FUD or modded them down to -1, Troll...
It's almost like Slashdotters is trying to rationalize this any way they can, regardless of whether the arguments are even vaguely logically consistent.
That's actually the weird thing; if you look at the graphs Tesla have released, it appears he did only lose about 5% of charge overnight, but for some reason this caused the available range - again from their graphs, not relying on anything Broder said - to plummet from a safe 90 miles to an oh-fuck-can't-reach-the-Supercharger 20 miles.
The stop was unscheduled because he thought he had enough charge until he unexpectedly lost 65 miles worth of range overnight - you can see the sudden drop in range remaining on Tesla's graph at the 400-mile mark. Apparently the Model S often does this in cold weather, but Tesla Motors don't like to talk about it much and presumably didn't bother to mention the issue to him either. (Also, I make it more like 10 hours to fully charge at that station.)
The CNN reporter didn't duplicate the test - he did it in warmer weather and most importantly in one day rather than two. The thing which did Broder's trip in - and which Tesla Motors don't want to talk about - was most of the available range disappearing overnight. If he'd done it in one day then he'd have made it, easily, even without charging the car any further than he did. (You can actually see the range disappearing at the 400 mile line on the graph Tesla released.)
It's quite possible that took less time than it would have taken to charge it sufficiently. It definitely took less time than it would have taken him to charge the car fully - that would have taken him about 10 hours at that charger, significantly longer than it took to charge it partly, run out of power, hang around waiting for a while, get towed to the Supercharger in Milford, charge the car fully there, and drive to the Tesla dealership in New York to drop it off.
Errrrm, try reading his original article again - not Elon Musk's blog post about it, but what he actually wrote . He said the same things about the advice he'd got from Tesla then as he's saying now - this obviously isn't just something he came up with after Tesla released their interpretation of the logs.
He didn't lie about it - read his original article carefully: "Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately." He actually said that he was driving beyond the displayed range and that, in retrospect, he should've charged longer at Norwich even though that would require a multi-hour stop there.
Slashdot Mirror
You act like this is a new phenomena in the US. For example, political speech was legally supressed with the backing of the Supreme Court up until the mid-20th century, when they overruled themselves in order to protect the Ku Klux Klan.
I'm not exactly sure how it happened and the only person who's admitted to taking advantage of this isn't either: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0 As far as anyone can tell, enough mining nodes forgot their transaction history due to being shut down and restarted on 0.7 that some transactions only confirmed on the newer 0.8 side of the fork, allowing the attacker to submit a conflicting transaction that would replace their payment transaction after it had already been confirmed and after they'd already withdrawn the funds. (There were probably other ways of doing it, such as taking advantage of the rules on when fees are required on transactions.)
The security was broken. Suddenly, an attacker had the ability to easily spend the exact same set of coins twice, violating one of the key security properties Bitcoin was meant to have.
Apparently the exact limits varied depending on the exact OS and BDB version you were using, so some nodes running the old version accepted the blocks whilst others didn't. This isn't a sustainable situation.
Malfeasance already happened. It looks like someone took advantage of this to have another shot at their losing Satoshi Dice bets: http://blockchain.info/double-spends
The problem is that there's no way to get 100% of the userbase to either upgrade to 0.8 or downgrade to 0.7 instantly. However, since the new version accepts everything that the old version does it was possible to mend the fork merely by getting enough people to move over to 0.7 and start mining on that fork. Eventually the 0.7 side of the fork became longer than the 0.8 side at which point all the clients running Bitcoin 0.8 recognised it as the correct version of the blockchain and everyone was working from the same version of history again, so it didn't matter if a few people were still using the wrong version of the client. Doing this the other way around wasn't possible because the 0.7 clients couldn't ever switch to the other side of the fork no matter what happened.
Well, porny ads certainly seem to be part of the justification for the proposal, but what matters is what it actually prohibits, and I'm not sure I trust some random blog post to get the details right...
Supposedly they also had an SSH gateway that employees could use instead of VPN.
Not a chance. They'll just come up with some argument that gay male porn is also about demeaning and degrading women, if they haven't already.
Tesla admitted the 55 miles of track time was correct. They tried to argue libel by claiming that viewers would falsely believe it was incapable of more than 55 miles on the road too, but failed to convince any of the judges.
USB 2.0 is 480 Mbit/s, which is more than fast enough to stream compressed video over - in fact, the video compression and decompression hardware they're using almost certainly caps out at far below that bitrate. (For comparison, the maximum video bitrate supported on Blu-Ray DVDs is 40 Mbit/s and they're generally considered to be relatively high bitrate).
As far as I know, Maplin only sell the Pi bundled with a starter kit for £75 (about 85 EUR / $115) which includes a keyboard, mouse, USB hub, mains power supply, preloaded SD card, cables and a USB wifi dongle. Chances are the person you're replying to is already looking at the cheapest supplier. (Also, RS and Allied Elec apparently take months to ship.)
Bitcoin is not an anonymous currency. Every single Bitcoin transaction is permanently recorded in a public, globally replicated database. True, there may not be any way to link the transactions to your identity now (that you know of anyway!) but you don't just have to worry about whether anyone can now, you have to worry about whether they'll figure out some way to extract it from the transaction history in the future as well.
For instance, for years there was a ridiculous bug that made it a lot easier to figure out that different addresses belonged to the same person than the public documentation claimed it was. The bug's been fixed now, but all the past transactions affected by it are still affected and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
Gold is probably not the best comparison, since it seems to be in a massive speculative bubble right now which is presumably going to pop, just like the previous gold bubbles did.
And NVidia still support cards that are much older than that in their closed source Linux drivers, plus open source support for their cards seems to be coming along much better than support for AMD cards right now. Also, some of the GPUs that AMD dropped support for were still being sold in new machines - particularly laptops - when they abandoned them.
At least one Tesla owner who attempted 110V charging in cold weather actually reported that they lost charge, not gained it. Not sure why exactly, but at a guess it's something to do with the fact that the battery needs to be kept warm in order to charge.
It didn't just borrow significant elements from US currency, his entire business model was based on selling the coins to merchants at a discount to their face value and encouraging the merchants to pass them off as US dollars in their change to customers. Hell, the creator of Liberty Dollars even took part in a video segment on the Learning Channel to promote them, and actually demonstrated how easy it is to convince people to take them by passing them off to an unsuspecting store owner as, I quote, "the new dollar". Given he did this with the cameras rolling on a nationally-broadcast puff piece it was rather hard for him to deny that they were intended to be passed off as US dollars.
Of course, if he had ignored Tesla's instructions, hung around in the cold for several hours, and wrote a negative comment about that in his article he could've expected responses like this (currently at +5, Insightful elsewhere in the thread) instead:
This has been discussed ad nauseum but apparently you missed all of the memos.
The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns. It's a problem with how the current charge status is read by the electronics, NOT electrons bleeding away through the tires. ...
Stop spreading the completely inaccurate FUD.
So basically, it doesn't matter which choice he made - whether he chose to believe tech support and set off, or stand around freezing for a few more hours until the reported range was enough - his decision would still be potrayed as evidence of him maliciously trying to discredit Tesla either way. Poor guy.
The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns.
That's what Tesla staff supposedly told Broder was going to happen when he set of, and yet this thread and every other thread are full of people blaming Broder for setting off when he "knew" - based on the range reported by the car - that he could never possibly have made it and arguing that the only reason for him to do so was because he wanted to run out of power. Oddly enough no-one's accused them of spreading FUD or modded them down to -1, Troll...
It's almost like Slashdotters is trying to rationalize this any way they can, regardless of whether the arguments are even vaguely logically consistent.
That's actually the weird thing; if you look at the graphs Tesla have released, it appears he did only lose about 5% of charge overnight, but for some reason this caused the available range - again from their graphs, not relying on anything Broder said - to plummet from a safe 90 miles to an oh-fuck-can't-reach-the-Supercharger 20 miles.
The stop was unscheduled because he thought he had enough charge until he unexpectedly lost 65 miles worth of range overnight - you can see the sudden drop in range remaining on Tesla's graph at the 400-mile mark. Apparently the Model S often does this in cold weather, but Tesla Motors don't like to talk about it much and presumably didn't bother to mention the issue to him either. (Also, I make it more like 10 hours to fully charge at that station.)
The CNN reporter didn't duplicate the test - he did it in warmer weather and most importantly in one day rather than two. The thing which did Broder's trip in - and which Tesla Motors don't want to talk about - was most of the available range disappearing overnight. If he'd done it in one day then he'd have made it, easily, even without charging the car any further than he did. (You can actually see the range disappearing at the 400 mile line on the graph Tesla released.)
It's quite possible that took less time than it would have taken to charge it sufficiently. It definitely took less time than it would have taken him to charge the car fully - that would have taken him about 10 hours at that charger, significantly longer than it took to charge it partly, run out of power, hang around waiting for a while, get towed to the Supercharger in Milford, charge the car fully there, and drive to the Tesla dealership in New York to drop it off.
Errrrm, try reading his original article again - not Elon Musk's blog post about it, but what he actually wrote . He said the same things about the advice he'd got from Tesla then as he's saying now - this obviously isn't just something he came up with after Tesla released their interpretation of the logs.
He didn't lie about it - read his original article carefully: "Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard warnings to recharge immediately." He actually said that he was driving beyond the displayed range and that, in retrospect, he should've charged longer at Norwich even though that would require a multi-hour stop there.