Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.
I just don't understand spilling coffee on a keyboard to the point it ruins it. I drink a great deal of coffee at my computer. It's the first thing I do in the morning, if I'm to do anything for the first 3 hours after I wake up.. I think I can count on one hand how many times I've dribbled coffee onto my keyboard. It's usually into my lap, if anywhere, or a small splash from overly-groggy pouring of the water into my french press.. yeah that happens.
Keyboard? Just fine.
Now, BEER? I've spilled me some beer into this keyboard. Tasty dopplebock, gone.. Had I been in an office the keyboard may have died, but I launched quickly into shutting the comp down and (drunkenly) shuffling my keyboard into the bathtub. And whiskey. Well. When shots are being shot and you're trying to pour the next shot with one eye so there's only one shot glass.. your keyboard drinks, too.
And it's full of ash, because I'm a filthy human being.
I just don't understand how people can break keyboards so easily. I've got a groove worn halfway through the ALT key on this thing thanks to my thumbnail and the nubs on my F and J key are worn to pointlessness, and it still works fine.
Best I can figure is people think spill = broken, and to hell with trying to recover what may be a perfectly functional piece of equipment (disposable economy kids..)
Either that, or milk and sugar are really really ungodly bad for keyboards, worse than beer, and so my plethora of black coffee droppings are an M80 to the mochaccino's Tsar Bomba
At worst, the efficiency of the heat pump as a heater will be 1. This happens when it's rather cold outside (a heat pump in a Tesla being used as a heater would need the outside air to warm the cooling side of the heat pump's loop, and as the temperature differential between the cool loop and the outside air decreases so does its efficiency until the outside air is as cool as the cool loop and your efficiency becomes 1, as the only energy moving into the system is that provided to the pump -- it's unable to extract any energy from the outside environment).
At best, the efficiency of a heat pump as a cooler will never be as high as its efficiency as a heater. You're adding energy to the system via the pump. When used as a heater, that energy is useful -- it's heat. As a cooler? That energy you've added to the system is now *WASTE*.
It is impossible for a cooling system to be as efficient as a heating system given equal circumstances, because THERMODYNAMICS!
If warming the cabin to 72 is too much of a drain on the batteries, I'm quite interested in what the performance would be while running A/C.
protip: cooling is more energy-intensive than heating.
I've started trips with my fuel gauge on E -- it was broken, but I knew how much gas was in the tank. The NYT article stated that Tesla's people told the author that the charge would recover, that it was displaying an incorrect charge level due to the cold. They were, obviously, wrong.
I'm sure there's records of that call but I've not seen them offered up. Wonder why?
Huh? No, the data they collected from the climate stations was *destroyed*. In the 80s. 86, IIRC. Some of it remains at the stations themselves, but the rest was 'normalized' and digitized. Yeah, that probably just means they converted units, maybe trimmed decimals to consistency.
regardless, I never said I didn't agree with their findings.. i just have a few nits to pick about their methodology and presentation. You no longer have the original data? Don't pretend that's not an issue when people are trying to review your work -- reproducible results are kinda important in science, yeah?
They collected the data from the stations, which was the original data. Yes. Some of those stations still have records, too. That data that they collected was stored, for years, until some time in the IIRC 80s when they had (a grad student I'm sure lawl) it digitized and the physical hard-copy records of the data were tossed. That data was "normalized", which was never explained. Yeah, that's a pretty typical thing in science, but it's also pretty typical to explicitly state how that was done -- so that others can read my work, find that data, understand what i did to the raw data to make it workable, and ideally reproduce my results. That's science, it's verifiable by others.
They tossed the data out and didn't explicitly state their data normalization methodology, that's just sloppy as fuck. I like to play fast and loose with science, but fuck's sake -- when something doesn't work right and I just *hit it* to make it work, "The object was struck by the heel of a fist with considerable force where the wiring connects to the apparatus, and it began to behave properly." You don't just do things and not mention it. That's hand-waving, that's magic, that has no place in science.
I did not, if you note, say that their results were bad. I do think the way in which they presented those results was questionable, and their methodology has a few eyebrow-raisers, but the actual results? I don't disagree.
And now we're at the important part -- I'm not your strawman. I don't like East Anglia not because I don't like the results they got -- those are, barring peer review, fucking immutable. Science is science and it doesn't fucking care if you like it or if you don't like it! Frankly, I DON'T like it, and HOPE it's all a load of bullshit, but the FACTS point otherwise.
That doesn't mean we take those conclusions and the goddamned gospel, immune from questioning, above all reproach, infinite and perfect in all regards. But hey, what do I know -- if you want to make it your religion, be my guest. Me? I'll continue getting upset when people who should know better make mistakes and try to talk over them like they're not mistakes. Even if they're right -- especially if they're right.
The problem is the loudest climatologists and the loudest politicians got too buddy-buddy, and you got into a situation where they were feeding off each other.
I'll listen to the particle physicist, because he's telling me about facts, science. Information.
That climatologist? Here's the problem, they got too conflated with the politicians, and I don't want to hear fucking policy talk coming from a scientist's mouth -- least of all the fearmongers who said bullshit like NYC would be underwater by 2015, that the midwest would be a barren desert by 2020, that the best beach weather would be Canadian.
I'm not an AGW denier, but I can't tolerate the scare tactics. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data. They could have just fucking made it all up, it's non-verifiable UNLESS someone else was keeping track of those weather stations that oh, no, all the records were kept at one place and then thrown out 20 years ago. Bad science. Heck, it could be accidentally bad science, but FUCKING OWN UP TO IT! Cannot stand people who talk their way around unsubstantiated data and try to pass it off as fucking immutable gospel.
Could be the hundreds of millions that were given to telecoms in the 90s to build the infrastructure, our nation's intarwab backbone, which they certainly did yeeeupp. Could also be the markets that have legislated monopolies for some of the companies, which is as good as handing them tax dollars.
If that brand of chicken had a greater likelihood of making people sick, it would be entirely reasonable to think someone would script such a scene. The long recharge time of the Tesla is a downside to the car, and that's what they were showing. The actual distance it drove wasn't an issue -- its range is pretty typical of a car of its class and during whatever conditions for whatever total range. The time between, though? Refueling, recharging? The Tesla DOES lose out. That was the important part of that bit. It's mind-boggling how you can misunderstand *so hard* that you see a problem.
It's not dishonest, is the thing. I saw that, I heard that, I knew what they meant. Tesla's range is 200 miles, but on their track it's only 55. Cars have reduced range when being driven hard, as for example on a track.
They weren't after accurate range numbers, the entire point was to illustrate the down side of an electric. Long recharge times, and no simple solution to running dry roadside. YEAH, someone is going to pipe in with some shit about tow trucks with a portable quick-charge station -- STFU, those as well as don't exist.
Everyone's focusing on it running out of power when that is completely irrelevant. Nobody fucking cares about that, cars run out of gas, cars run out of charge, but one can quickly get back onto the road and one cannot. That's what they were showing, that's what they showed.
They weren't intending to test the range of the Tesla. Tesla's engineers told them 55 miles on their track, and that was good enough for them (and that's entirely reasonable compared to other supercars).
>muppets who watch the show will have gone out the next morning and gobbed off to their friends about how the car ran out of electricity and sure
You have absolutely no idea what the purpose of that scene was. None whatsoever. Further if you've any knowledge of supercars or have even just watched Top Gear before, you'd know that the fact that it ran out of power after a short distance is not unusual in the least. Supercars get single-digit mileage when on track.
The whole exercise was to simply point out that refueling the Tesla is an onerous proposition, that you can't just walk back with a jerrycan, that you can't just dump some dinojuice down the hatch and get back out on the track.
Everyone focuses on it running out of power, missing the point entirely.
and when watching a cooking show are you similarly outraged and confused when they pull a cooked pie out of the oven immediately after putting one in to the oven to cook?
that's fucking television. the only breakdown that was scripted was the car running out of charge, which was scripted simply because they didn't want to actually have to push the goddamned thing off the track. the part that was important wasn't that it ran out after a short distance -- ALL fucking supercars get dick-all range! The Tesla's 55-mile range is NORMAL for a supercar -- the part that was important was HOW LONG it would take to recharge.
that's it. that one bit. "oh shit, 5 hours off the track? downside to electric!" Not "oh shit, it ran out of charge!" -- that part? COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT! Anyone with half a mind understands this!
Holy shit but I can buy a car for under 200 bucks that'll let me get from DC to NYC, *AND* I can fucking speed while doing so.
You can keep the fancy supercar north of 100k that has to be driven like you're a grandma, haha. I mean you really are just making shit sound even worse for the car.
What about the facts regarding the loss of charge in cold weather and the bad advice given to the reporter on how to regain the lost charge? That seems pretty indisputable. What about the horrible range-killing 0.6 miles that were driven in a parking lot that Musk was jumping up and down over like fucking Yosemite Sam? Seems pretty fucking silly to throw a shitfit over someone looking for a charging station, but then, Elon Musk seems to be pretty fucking silly and nonsensical. I've seen Catholic fathers less concerned with their daughter's virginity, Musk needs to calm the fuck down.
That skit was an excercise to illustrate to the viewer the actual and real outcome of running out of power with a Tesla. That is what happens.
They did it in a way that was amusing and elicited laughter, yes. Have you seen the show? That's what they do.
Do you... do you not understand culture at all, or is it just when the Big Bad British Boys are picking on your favorite superhero, excuse me, supercar, that you throw on the blinders and refuse to accept that the turkey that Emeril pulls out of the oven is NOT THE SAME ONE HE JUST PUT IN? FUCKING WHAT A PHONY, HOLY SHIT Y'ALL, WE BROKE THE CASE WIDE OPEN!
Wait, yeah no nobody calls out cooking shows for that bullshit. Your argument, which was Musk's argument, Tesla's argument, and the argument of a thousand other humorless twats with unfortunate cases of head-up-ass-itis, is just stupid. You probably are too.
Not all the mass will impact the atmosphere. We'd be gaining ground -- some portion would be deflected to a great enough degree that it would miss the Earth. Now, y'see that's where it gets fun, because if anything is still large enough to NOT burn up in our atmosphere?
We've got more than one bomb! We've got all KINDS of bombs! That's kinda.. sorta.. I mean, we humans! We're the fucking TITS at bombs! I mean *really really good* with 'em, and we have SO MANY just SITTING AROUND.
Reach out, and make space our bitch. With bombs. Bombs with profane language scrawled across them. We're humanity, that's just how we roll. No, seriously, the rocks that we hurled at each other thousands of years ago were scrawled with nasty words too -- now quick somebody quote Fallout.
Hell if what I read was right, the damn Dodge Dart has a automated manual, and that thing's under 20k (they called it.. double dry clutch or something else fancy, i didn't investigate but i assume that's what it is)
which really, is pretty danged rad. bodes well for wider market penetration, don't see any downside to it really
That's where the 15g turns come in -- yeah, the intention is to have our fighter jets be fighter DRONE jets. a human pilot simply can't outfly a drone. now, whether or not we're at a point where that drone can actually perform well enough? Dunno. But the drone doesn't have the human pilot's physical limitations. No blackout, no redout, a drone is as strong and nimble as you can make it.
Slashdot Mirror
You can thank Al Gore for that, adoption of electronic voting machines was touched off by his Florida fiasco.
Old people in Florida are still going to vote for the wrong people, because they're still fucking idiots.
Truth serum does not fucking work, period, at all. This has been known for many decades now. If it worked, we would've been using it against Bad Guys in Secret Prisons, and we're not. We're not because it doesn't fucking work and everyone knows that.
Except apparently the people in this court room.
I just don't understand spilling coffee on a keyboard to the point it ruins it.
I drink a great deal of coffee at my computer. It's the first thing I do in the morning, if I'm to do anything for the first 3 hours after I wake up..
I think I can count on one hand how many times I've dribbled coffee onto my keyboard. It's usually into my lap, if anywhere, or a small splash from overly-groggy pouring of the water into my french press.. yeah that happens.
Keyboard? Just fine.
Now, BEER? I've spilled me some beer into this keyboard. Tasty dopplebock, gone.. Had I been in an office the keyboard may have died, but I launched quickly into shutting the comp down and (drunkenly) shuffling my keyboard into the bathtub.
And whiskey. Well. When shots are being shot and you're trying to pour the next shot with one eye so there's only one shot glass.. your keyboard drinks, too.
And it's full of ash, because I'm a filthy human being.
I just don't understand how people can break keyboards so easily. I've got a groove worn halfway through the ALT key on this thing thanks to my thumbnail and the nubs on my F and J key are worn to pointlessness, and it still works fine.
Best I can figure is people think spill = broken, and to hell with trying to recover what may be a perfectly functional piece of equipment (disposable economy kids..)
Either that, or milk and sugar are really really ungodly bad for keyboards, worse than beer, and so my plethora of black coffee droppings are an M80 to the mochaccino's Tsar Bomba
It's called thermodynamics. Work = heat. Are you heating? Work = heat = useful output. Are you cooling? Work = waste = diminished output.
Given similar circumstances, a heater will always be more efficient than a cooler. Because thermodynamics says so.
AAAAGGHHHHH.
Under some circumstances, yes. Under others, no.
At worst, the efficiency of the heat pump as a heater will be 1. This happens when it's rather cold outside (a heat pump in a Tesla being used as a heater would need the outside air to warm the cooling side of the heat pump's loop, and as the temperature differential between the cool loop and the outside air decreases so does its efficiency until the outside air is as cool as the cool loop and your efficiency becomes 1, as the only energy moving into the system is that provided to the pump -- it's unable to extract any energy from the outside environment).
At best, the efficiency of a heat pump as a cooler will never be as high as its efficiency as a heater. You're adding energy to the system via the pump. When used as a heater, that energy is useful -- it's heat. As a cooler? That energy you've added to the system is now *WASTE*.
It is impossible for a cooling system to be as efficient as a heating system given equal circumstances, because THERMODYNAMICS!
If warming the cabin to 72 is too much of a drain on the batteries, I'm quite interested in what the performance would be while running A/C.
protip: cooling is more energy-intensive than heating.
I've started trips with my fuel gauge on E -- it was broken, but I knew how much gas was in the tank. The NYT article stated that Tesla's people told the author that the charge would recover, that it was displaying an incorrect charge level due to the cold. They were, obviously, wrong.
I'm sure there's records of that call but I've not seen them offered up. Wonder why?
Huh? No, the data they collected from the climate stations was *destroyed*. In the 80s. 86, IIRC. Some of it remains at the stations themselves, but the rest was 'normalized' and digitized.
Yeah, that probably just means they converted units, maybe trimmed decimals to consistency.
regardless, I never said I didn't agree with their findings.. i just have a few nits to pick about their methodology and presentation. You no longer have the original data? Don't pretend that's not an issue when people are trying to review your work -- reproducible results are kinda important in science, yeah?
They collected the data from the stations, which was the original data. Yes. Some of those stations still have records, too.
That data that they collected was stored, for years, until some time in the IIRC 80s when they had (a grad student I'm sure lawl) it digitized and the physical hard-copy records of the data were tossed.
That data was "normalized", which was never explained. Yeah, that's a pretty typical thing in science, but it's also pretty typical to explicitly state how that was done -- so that others can read my work, find that data, understand what i did to the raw data to make it workable, and ideally reproduce my results. That's science, it's verifiable by others.
They tossed the data out and didn't explicitly state their data normalization methodology, that's just sloppy as fuck. I like to play fast and loose with science, but fuck's sake -- when something doesn't work right and I just *hit it* to make it work, "The object was struck by the heel of a fist with considerable force where the wiring connects to the apparatus, and it began to behave properly." You don't just do things and not mention it. That's hand-waving, that's magic, that has no place in science.
I did not, if you note, say that their results were bad. I do think the way in which they presented those results was questionable, and their methodology has a few eyebrow-raisers, but the actual results? I don't disagree.
And now we're at the important part -- I'm not your strawman. I don't like East Anglia not because I don't like the results they got -- those are, barring peer review, fucking immutable. Science is science and it doesn't fucking care if you like it or if you don't like it! Frankly, I DON'T like it, and HOPE it's all a load of bullshit, but the FACTS point otherwise.
That doesn't mean we take those conclusions and the goddamned gospel, immune from questioning, above all reproach, infinite and perfect in all regards.
But hey, what do I know -- if you want to make it your religion, be my guest. Me? I'll continue getting upset when people who should know better make mistakes and try to talk over them like they're not mistakes.
Even if they're right -- especially if they're right.
+1 Depressing Reality
The problem is the loudest climatologists and the loudest politicians got too buddy-buddy, and you got into a situation where they were feeding off each other.
I'll listen to the particle physicist, because he's telling me about facts, science. Information.
That climatologist? Here's the problem, they got too conflated with the politicians, and I don't want to hear fucking policy talk coming from a scientist's mouth -- least of all the fearmongers who said bullshit like NYC would be underwater by 2015, that the midwest would be a barren desert by 2020, that the best beach weather would be Canadian.
I'm not an AGW denier, but I can't tolerate the scare tactics. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data. They could have just fucking made it all up, it's non-verifiable UNLESS someone else was keeping track of those weather stations that oh, no, all the records were kept at one place and then thrown out 20 years ago. Bad science. Heck, it could be accidentally bad science, but FUCKING OWN UP TO IT! Cannot stand people who talk their way around unsubstantiated data and try to pass it off as fucking immutable gospel.
Could be the hundreds of millions that were given to telecoms in the 90s to build the infrastructure, our nation's intarwab backbone, which they certainly did yeeeupp.
Could also be the markets that have legislated monopolies for some of the companies, which is as good as handing them tax dollars.
If that brand of chicken had a greater likelihood of making people sick, it would be entirely reasonable to think someone would script such a scene.
The long recharge time of the Tesla is a downside to the car, and that's what they were showing.
The actual distance it drove wasn't an issue -- its range is pretty typical of a car of its class and during whatever conditions for whatever total range. The time between, though? Refueling, recharging? The Tesla DOES lose out. That was the important part of that bit. It's mind-boggling how you can misunderstand *so hard* that you see a problem.
It's not dishonest, is the thing. I saw that, I heard that, I knew what they meant. Tesla's range is 200 miles, but on their track it's only 55.
Cars have reduced range when being driven hard, as for example on a track.
I got that. Most other people, I think, got that.
They weren't after accurate range numbers, the entire point was to illustrate the down side of an electric. Long recharge times, and no simple solution to running dry roadside. YEAH, someone is going to pipe in with some shit about tow trucks with a portable quick-charge station -- STFU, those as well as don't exist.
Everyone's focusing on it running out of power when that is completely irrelevant. Nobody fucking cares about that, cars run out of gas, cars run out of charge, but one can quickly get back onto the road and one cannot. That's what they were showing, that's what they showed.
They weren't intending to test the range of the Tesla. Tesla's engineers told them 55 miles on their track, and that was good enough for them (and that's entirely reasonable compared to other supercars).
>muppets who watch the show will have gone out the next morning and gobbed off to their friends about how the car ran out of electricity and sure
You have absolutely no idea what the purpose of that scene was. None whatsoever. Further if you've any knowledge of supercars or have even just watched Top Gear before, you'd know that the fact that it ran out of power after a short distance is not unusual in the least. Supercars get single-digit mileage when on track.
The whole exercise was to simply point out that refueling the Tesla is an onerous proposition, that you can't just walk back with a jerrycan, that you can't just dump some dinojuice down the hatch and get back out on the track.
Everyone focuses on it running out of power, missing the point entirely.
and when watching a cooking show are you similarly outraged and confused when they pull a cooked pie out of the oven immediately after putting one in to the oven to cook?
that's fucking television.
the only breakdown that was scripted was the car running out of charge, which was scripted simply because they didn't want to actually have to push the goddamned thing off the track. the part that was important wasn't that it ran out after a short distance -- ALL fucking supercars get dick-all range! The Tesla's 55-mile range is NORMAL for a supercar -- the part that was important was HOW LONG it would take to recharge.
that's it. that one bit. "oh shit, 5 hours off the track? downside to electric!"
Not "oh shit, it ran out of charge!" -- that part? COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT! Anyone with half a mind understands this!
Holy shit but I can buy a car for under 200 bucks that'll let me get from DC to NYC, *AND* I can fucking speed while doing so.
You can keep the fancy supercar north of 100k that has to be driven like you're a grandma, haha. I mean you really are just making shit sound even worse for the car.
What about the facts regarding the loss of charge in cold weather and the bad advice given to the reporter on how to regain the lost charge? That seems pretty indisputable.
What about the horrible range-killing 0.6 miles that were driven in a parking lot that Musk was jumping up and down over like fucking Yosemite Sam? Seems pretty fucking silly to throw a shitfit over someone looking for a charging station, but then, Elon Musk seems to be pretty fucking silly and nonsensical. I've seen Catholic fathers less concerned with their daughter's virginity, Musk needs to calm the fuck down.
THE MAGIC OF TELEVISION!
That skit was an excercise to illustrate to the viewer the actual and real outcome of running out of power with a Tesla. That is what happens.
They did it in a way that was amusing and elicited laughter, yes. Have you seen the show? That's what they do.
Do you... do you not understand culture at all, or is it just when the Big Bad British Boys are picking on your favorite superhero, excuse me, supercar, that you throw on the blinders and refuse to accept that the turkey that Emeril pulls out of the oven is NOT THE SAME ONE HE JUST PUT IN? FUCKING WHAT A PHONY, HOLY SHIT Y'ALL, WE BROKE THE CASE WIDE OPEN!
Wait, yeah no nobody calls out cooking shows for that bullshit. Your argument, which was Musk's argument, Tesla's argument, and the argument of a thousand other humorless twats with unfortunate cases of head-up-ass-itis, is just stupid. You probably are too.
Not all the mass will impact the atmosphere. We'd be gaining ground -- some portion would be deflected to a great enough degree that it would miss the Earth.
Now, y'see that's where it gets fun, because if anything is still large enough to NOT burn up in our atmosphere?
We've got more than one bomb! We've got all KINDS of bombs! That's kinda.. sorta.. I mean, we humans! We're the fucking TITS at bombs! I mean *really really good* with 'em, and we have SO MANY just SITTING AROUND.
Reach out, and make space our bitch. With bombs. Bombs with profane language scrawled across them. We're humanity, that's just how we roll. No, seriously, the rocks that we hurled at each other thousands of years ago were scrawled with nasty words too -- now quick somebody quote Fallout.
Hell if what I read was right, the damn Dodge Dart has a automated manual, and that thing's under 20k (they called it.. double dry clutch or something else fancy, i didn't investigate but i assume that's what it is)
which really, is pretty danged rad. bodes well for wider market penetration, don't see any downside to it really
Are they firing programmers now? Last I knew, some penny-pincher figured out it was cheaper to just take them out back and shoot them..
I'll throw a reply under here since I have no mod points hoping that it makes the above post more visible.
This guy's got it right.
That's where the 15g turns come in -- yeah, the intention is to have our fighter jets be fighter DRONE jets. a human pilot simply can't outfly a drone. now, whether or not we're at a point where that drone can actually perform well enough? Dunno. But the drone doesn't have the human pilot's physical limitations. No blackout, no redout, a drone is as strong and nimble as you can make it.
Er, it's never been South Korea? I've never once heard that.
Now, North Korea, that's frequently mentioned. I've never heard of any other nation, state, or organization having a sophisticated USD counterfeiting operation going..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/magazine/23counterfeit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
there's a link, it's been going on for a while.
Remastered is just code for "we fucked the dynamic range to make it louder"