LOL WHO THE FUCK NEEDS TO BE DRIVING FOR 18 HOURS A DAY?
I'm thinking you're not asserting people drive for 18 hours a day, but that it takes 18 hours to recharge. This is a common mistake made by morons who forget that you don't empty your tank everyday. So, in the same way that you don't have to fill up your tank everyday, your entire charge isn't drained, everyday. Meaning it takes less time.
Everybody points to the fact that they didn't SAY it, however it was implied, as many people have pointed out.
To the point that I've had the following conversation over and over again: "I wouldn't get a Tesla, their batteries run flat in no time! I saw it on Top Gear, he was going around the track, and then it just died." "No, they don't. That was a dramatized fake thing they showed on Top Gear." "Really? Because I thought that's what happened."
Seriously, I've had these conversations over and over again. Same as a lot of their "stunts", "challenges", and similar. I end up having the same "No, it's bullshit, please recognize it's a stupid fucking show." conversations.
So in this case, while what they said was "our calculations show", a reasonable bystander likely takes the rest of the contextual information to mean "the car died on us".
With the same accuracy, can you please tell me how much PCP is currently consumed? What about Marijuana? How's about crack? Since none of those operate on an open market, all of these statistics would be heavily inferred from other proxy variables, and all would be WAY off the mark. If you're seeing a drop, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a drop, but instead there was a change in reporting. Additionally, even in an unregulated market with an open exchange giving us all the awesome information we could want, it can be hard to estimate these rates. While I would have expected prohibition to have had an effect, from seeing documentaries about people who lived in that time, and talking to people who lived through it, I know that the effect was more for show.
In fact, the rates between those dates, from the source you've listed, are under-reported by its own admission. They did not calculate those rates over this period, which is odd, given they were calculating it consistently before and after. This could suggest that the rates didn't change at all. In fact, given the market was flooded with lower quality alcohol (READ: Dangerous), it could mean it was higher. But that's just speculation.
Additionally when looking at epidemiology (an often deeply flawed method), you need to scrutinize what they're doing to the data to display it. For instance, this data is mostly Age-Adjusted, which means that it likely doesn't truly represent the observed rate at that time.
Lastly, while liver cirrhosis is terrible, I think the worst thing about prohibition was the "super gangs" it created. Some of which are still around, and many of which used this model for other things that were made illegal, that shouldn't have been. The statistics from that, would be way worse than any others, but calculating run on effects, is always hard.
No, I believe Top Gear has since admitted that it hadn't ran out of power, but they just put on that show, to show what it would be like if it did lose power. So, it wasn't due to it running low or similar.
Except, it didn't run out of power, and in normal driving it wouldn't, hence not needing to buy two, and also not needing to recharge from flat.
I watched that episode, and more so, I've had many many many conversations with people, who believe that the Tesla DID run out of power, and that they'd never buy it because of that. This extremely misrepresents its capabilities, and they likely could have lost money form it.
They don't SAY it ran out, but they do IMPLY it ran out. They go "But then... Oh..." he looks down and it decreases its acceleration.
"For libel in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement."
The statement was false, it should last for 200mph (given Tesla aren't lying). They lost sales (likely). They didn't actually test it, just said our calculations show.
Welcome to the Commonwealth, where nobody can own water, or the area closely around water. That's crown land. Though I'm sure there's certain provisions to sort out some of the problems with this, these days.
Also, that was his own land, since he owns 700 square kilometres in the Northern Territory. However, I think you're alluding to he's flying and so not on land, and I'm unsure of the regulation in that regard, but it's likely similarly retarded.
I was taught in ethics at university to go behind peoples back if the situation requires it. They even advocate going behind the companies back, or anyones back. An emphasis on doing the right thing for society is generally emphasized.
I have always looked at asian countries where I could get reasonable employment, but at the same time, I'd fucking hate to work in a company with these weird archaic cultures. Hell, I've gone behind my "superiors" back many many times, but he's always been cool with it, and never seen it as something bad. I used to talk regularly with the CEO of the company about everything, something considered a faux pas in asia.
It's interesting to read about how this has contributed to these problems.
I've got a friend who works for various companies on making their solar cells more powerful.
There are heaps of emissions released in the creation of the solar cells. At significant quantities, they become a lot more expensive. They produce a LOT of waste in production.
On top of that, I doubt they'd withstand a hurricane, and given it's "hurricane weather", they likely wouldn't be producing any power. There is still a lot of red tape to wade through (though granted, less), because of the subsidies required to make this economical.
Small home wind turbines don't generate enough, because most small homes aren't in windy areas, and small turbines already produce very little, and most people hate the noise, and sight of wind turbines.
Many people that deal with marine life, also don't want tidally generated power, as that means introducing huge inefficient things which invade the native animals areas.
Everything you've said regarding the profits they could make is wrong. These sources are more expensive, especially in the quantities you're talking about (even if they were small and spread over time). They will maintain the panels? They'll come and clean/wash them? They will want to make my home energy efficient, adding how much annoyance to me? So on top of the cost of it, you've got the maintenance of it by them, you've got the usual power infrastructure maintenance, and you've got something that becomes increasingly expensive at larger production amounts.
What you've proposed, should only be a small part of the solution, until the tech improves, as it would be amazingly expensive.
Hey, you need to go and update the article Energy in Germany and its sources.
Besides that, you might want to read up on Electric power transmission which was T.Boone Pickens biggest problem.
You also might want to read up on other differences between these 2 countries. Such as Germanys population density of 229 people per square kilometer, versus the United States 33 people per square km.
You might be interested to know that Germany imports most of its energy from Russia.
You might be interested to know that the US is the largest producer of wind power. You might be interested to know that the US is the largest producer of geothermal power. You might be interested to know that the US is the largest producer of biomass power.
You might be interested to know a lot, as it seems you don't know much on this subject. Though, granted I didn't know that much about Germany, but it only took a few seconds to read about why it's not like Germany and faces its own problems.
tell me again why you trust people ever at all again to do the right thing
Because society is based on trust, and while we are free to be cautious, no matter what, we will have to trust someone. You'll either be trusting the alternative energy people, the coal people, or the nuclear people. Maybe read more about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society and then tell me again why I can't ever trust anyone at all again to do the right thing.
better spend in alternatives
I've read a reasonable amount on this, and I've yet to hear anyone suggest any alternative power, that could be done today, and be used to replace the coal+nuclear plants already in place.
The best bet is actually to start saving and lower consumption over all.
Even the most optimistic forecasts, with extreme incentives, show consumption increasing.
In all likelihood many strategies will and should be pursued, however nuclear is hear now, the others aren't.
The best thing would be to see a shift towards gen 3/4 reactors, breeder reactors (which while more expensive, can be subsidized by the others for taking their waste), more investment in transmission infrastructure (which would enable wind/solar to be more competitive), and to have alternative sources continually pursued in whatever manner investors/entrepreneurs/companies want to try.
Yeah, I gotta say, before this I didn't know much about BizSpark, though depending on the "Developing software?" requirement, I'm not sure we'd have met it. Do they mean developing software, as in it runs on the server side, or developing the software to sell, on the client side?
Either way, good to know for future reference. Though, I'm also not sure how this applies to us paying for hosting, as they usually set their own requirements, and charge a lot more for windows hosting.
Oh sorry, should have mentioned, I've been apart of a few startups.
Also, since you brought it up, I completed an MBA a few years ago (actually, a fair few years ago now), and at the moment I'm studying a double degree in Honours Economics and Finance, and accounting. Mainly to change the direction of my career, as while I love developing and creating, I hate not being in control of it.
Generally they don't, while there are incentives by some companies, unless you absolutely can't do without it, or unless the other costs you'd deal with (man hours), then it does cost more relatively. So you end up going these other routes. Also, while some startups are resource intensive (cpu, memory, hdd, bandwidth, etc), not many are. As such those costs (especially bandwidth and associated hosting costs) are huge. So you want to keep those as low as possible, and spend more on development. However, the plans for that sort of hosting, are far more expensive than the plans for an equivalent Linux plan.
So, it's not as easy as a decision as it seems.
Also, there was a post somewhere here talking about how in smaller companies, its more expensive to put developers on it, than spending money on it. However, at some startups, its cheaper to put people on it (as they're paid peanuts), than it is to spend on hardware.
I was thinking more about Windows licensing, as to run those you need to run Windows, and server versions of Windows are fucking expensive with licensing.
Any company which presumes something about its employees, because they have written in some language, or presumes that the language isn't good.
More so any developer which hasn't used.NET, especially if the solution they were implementing could have been developed in.NET, I would be more worried about. I have many friends like this guy, who are "code purists", where they stick to only certain low level languages, and write everything needed themselves. The problem being that many solutions don't need that. If you've done windows application development, then.NET is really quite good, and Visual Studio is awesome.
After reading this article, all he's basically communicated to me, is "Don't apply to work for my company, we're language zealots".
(I keep reading language, which is annoying, but I guess by.NET they mean "all languages supported by Visual Studio that aren't supported by other compilers")
The filter says I use caps too much, well this wouldn't make much sense if I didn't, it would come off with the wrong tone, so consider this entire sentence a way of me correcting the ratio. Fucking retarded Slashdot.
Exactly. A lot of jobs, and most of my C++ skills/knowledge transfer well.
This article is one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.
"Just press the right button and follow the beeping lights, and you can churn out flawless 1.6 oz burgers faster than anybody else on the planet. However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t."
I assume by this, he means there's something you can't do in it, because all of the shit is built in. Well, I guess.NET isn't the ONLY solution to EVERY possible problem. Who would have known? Besides that, it's a pretty good solution, to many problems.
"Instead, we look for a very different sort of person. The sort of person who grew up cooking squirrels over a campfire with sharpened sticks"
Awesome. I never want to work for you. I've got several friends, and they're good friends, but they're retards. They are C purists, and like to write everything in more low level languages because it's "leet". They have lots of knowledge about C, understand some amazingly complex concepts, but get them to implement something simple, and they're going to write everything from scratch. Why? Because that's the kind of person who isn't used to using all this other code. Isn't used to finding other libraries, or just re-using someone else's code.
If they see.NET as bad on a resume, especially if that was on a resume from when the person worked at a reasonably large enterprise, and even more so if that was a windows environment, then they're retarded. If I saw a lack of it, especially when developing small applications, I'd be looking further at their work, to see if they really make smart decisions on the best language to use for the given solution.
I'd say startups don't use.NET and Windows in general, because of licensing. Simple. They don't have to cash to do it. You might also find that the people who have worked at startups are used to dealing with this, because of their own monetary constraints.
Sure. Rephrase it whatever way you want, the result is the same, isn't it? You essentially didn't provide any different information, you just chose to restate it in a manner which made it nefarious. I choose to take a different way of rephrasing it.
"Is that just the way a certain non-nuclear proliferation treaty has been interpreted to keep fucking hippies appeased?"
Those fucking hippies and their influence, always controlling the nuclear policy.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL WHO THE FUCK NEEDS TO BE DRIVING FOR 18 HOURS A DAY?
I'm thinking you're not asserting people drive for 18 hours a day, but that it takes 18 hours to recharge. This is a common mistake made by morons who forget that you don't empty your tank everyday. So, in the same way that you don't have to fill up your tank everyday, your entire charge isn't drained, everyday. Meaning it takes less time.
Everybody points to the fact that they didn't SAY it, however it was implied, as many people have pointed out.
To the point that I've had the following conversation over and over again:
"I wouldn't get a Tesla, their batteries run flat in no time! I saw it on Top Gear, he was going around the track, and then it just died."
"No, they don't. That was a dramatized fake thing they showed on Top Gear."
"Really? Because I thought that's what happened."
Seriously, I've had these conversations over and over again. Same as a lot of their "stunts", "challenges", and similar. I end up having the same "No, it's bullshit, please recognize it's a stupid fucking show." conversations.
So in this case, while what they said was "our calculations show", a reasonable bystander likely takes the rest of the contextual information to mean "the car died on us".
With the same accuracy, can you please tell me how much PCP is currently consumed? What about Marijuana? How's about crack? Since none of those operate on an open market, all of these statistics would be heavily inferred from other proxy variables, and all would be WAY off the mark. If you're seeing a drop, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a drop, but instead there was a change in reporting. Additionally, even in an unregulated market with an open exchange giving us all the awesome information we could want, it can be hard to estimate these rates. While I would have expected prohibition to have had an effect, from seeing documentaries about people who lived in that time, and talking to people who lived through it, I know that the effect was more for show.
In fact, the rates between those dates, from the source you've listed, are under-reported by its own admission. They did not calculate those rates over this period, which is odd, given they were calculating it consistently before and after. This could suggest that the rates didn't change at all. In fact, given the market was flooded with lower quality alcohol (READ: Dangerous), it could mean it was higher. But that's just speculation.
Additionally when looking at epidemiology (an often deeply flawed method), you need to scrutinize what they're doing to the data to display it. For instance, this data is mostly Age-Adjusted, which means that it likely doesn't truly represent the observed rate at that time.
Lastly, while liver cirrhosis is terrible, I think the worst thing about prohibition was the "super gangs" it created. Some of which are still around, and many of which used this model for other things that were made illegal, that shouldn't have been. The statistics from that, would be way worse than any others, but calculating run on effects, is always hard.
LOL Stupidest comment yet. It's almost entirely predicated on your assumptions about me.
WELL DONE! YOU WIN USELESS RESPONSE OF THE MONTH!
No, I believe Top Gear has since admitted that it hadn't ran out of power, but they just put on that show, to show what it would be like if it did lose power. So, it wasn't due to it running low or similar.
Except, it didn't run out of power, and in normal driving it wouldn't, hence not needing to buy two, and also not needing to recharge from flat.
I watched that episode, and more so, I've had many many many conversations with people, who believe that the Tesla DID run out of power, and that they'd never buy it because of that. This extremely misrepresents its capabilities, and they likely could have lost money form it.
They don't SAY it ran out, but they do IMPLY it ran out. They go "But then... Oh..." he looks down and it decreases its acceleration.
"For libel in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement."
The statement was false, it should last for 200mph (given Tesla aren't lying).
They lost sales (likely).
They didn't actually test it, just said our calculations show.
They've possibly got quite a good case for libel.
That was about it.
They said it ran out of power, and similar. When it didn't.
I've heard so many people quote that (I live in Australia), that they've got a pretty good case for libel. They would have been affected by this.
Also for nerds. I like to be kept apprise of nerd fights!
Do you know anything more nerdy, than two nobodies arguing over pointless details?
I sure as fuck don't.
This is TRUE news for nerds.
Welcome to the Commonwealth, where nobody can own water, or the area closely around water. That's crown land. Though I'm sure there's certain provisions to sort out some of the problems with this, these days.
Also, that was his own land, since he owns 700 square kilometres in the Northern Territory. However, I think you're alluding to he's flying and so not on land, and I'm unsure of the regulation in that regard, but it's likely similarly retarded.
I was taught in ethics at university to go behind peoples back if the situation requires it. They even advocate going behind the companies back, or anyones back. An emphasis on doing the right thing for society is generally emphasized.
I have always looked at asian countries where I could get reasonable employment, but at the same time, I'd fucking hate to work in a company with these weird archaic cultures. Hell, I've gone behind my "superiors" back many many times, but he's always been cool with it, and never seen it as something bad. I used to talk regularly with the CEO of the company about everything, something considered a faux pas in asia.
It's interesting to read about how this has contributed to these problems.
I've got a friend who works for various companies on making their solar cells more powerful.
There are heaps of emissions released in the creation of the solar cells.
At significant quantities, they become a lot more expensive.
They produce a LOT of waste in production.
On top of that, I doubt they'd withstand a hurricane, and given it's "hurricane weather", they likely wouldn't be producing any power. There is still a lot of red tape to wade through (though granted, less), because of the subsidies required to make this economical.
Small home wind turbines don't generate enough, because most small homes aren't in windy areas, and small turbines already produce very little, and most people hate the noise, and sight of wind turbines.
Many people that deal with marine life, also don't want tidally generated power, as that means introducing huge inefficient things which invade the native animals areas.
Everything you've said regarding the profits they could make is wrong. These sources are more expensive, especially in the quantities you're talking about (even if they were small and spread over time). They will maintain the panels? They'll come and clean/wash them? They will want to make my home energy efficient, adding how much annoyance to me? So on top of the cost of it, you've got the maintenance of it by them, you've got the usual power infrastructure maintenance, and you've got something that becomes increasingly expensive at larger production amounts.
What you've proposed, should only be a small part of the solution, until the tech improves, as it would be amazingly expensive.
Shit dude, I did not know that!
Hey, you need to go and update the article Energy in Germany and its sources.
Besides that, you might want to read up on Electric power transmission which was T.Boone Pickens biggest problem.
You also might want to read up on other differences between these 2 countries. Such as Germanys population density of 229 people per square kilometer, versus the United States 33 people per square km.
You might be interested to know that Germany imports most of its energy from Russia.
You might be interested to know that the US is the largest producer of wind power.
You might be interested to know that the US is the largest producer of geothermal power.
You might be interested to know that the US is the largest producer of biomass power.
You might be interested to know a lot, as it seems you don't know much on this subject. Though, granted I didn't know that much about Germany, but it only took a few seconds to read about why it's not like Germany and faces its own problems.
Thanks for making me learn about Germany!
Who do you trust to run the coal power plants?
Who do you trust to run the current nuclear plants?
Who do you trust to build the buildings you go into?
Who do you trust to build and maintain the bridges you drive on?
Who do you trust to build and fly the planes, especially the military ones?
All it takes is one accident, and you've got a disaster on your hands.
While the fuel itself is dangerous, many things are, and we've learnt a lot since these plants which have messed up, were built.
Life is about trade offs...
Are you more worried about energy independence?
Are you more worried about climate change?
Are you more worried about nuclear power?
Are you more worried about the price of living?
Pick any 2, but realize nothing will change, and only the status quo will be maintained, if others don't agree with you.
tell me again why you trust people ever at all again to do the right thing
Because society is based on trust, and while we are free to be cautious, no matter what, we will have to trust someone. You'll either be trusting the alternative energy people, the coal people, or the nuclear people. Maybe read more about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society and then tell me again why I can't ever trust anyone at all again to do the right thing.
better spend in alternatives
I've read a reasonable amount on this, and I've yet to hear anyone suggest any alternative power, that could be done today, and be used to replace the coal+nuclear plants already in place.
The best bet is actually to start saving and lower consumption over all.
Even the most optimistic forecasts, with extreme incentives, show consumption increasing.
In all likelihood many strategies will and should be pursued, however nuclear is hear now, the others aren't.
The best thing would be to see a shift towards gen 3/4 reactors, breeder reactors (which while more expensive, can be subsidized by the others for taking their waste), more investment in transmission infrastructure (which would enable wind/solar to be more competitive), and to have alternative sources continually pursued in whatever manner investors/entrepreneurs/companies want to try.
Yeah, I gotta say, before this I didn't know much about BizSpark, though depending on the "Developing software?" requirement, I'm not sure we'd have met it. Do they mean developing software, as in it runs on the server side, or developing the software to sell, on the client side?
Either way, good to know for future reference. Though, I'm also not sure how this applies to us paying for hosting, as they usually set their own requirements, and charge a lot more for windows hosting.
Fuck loads!
But... but... but... but... he brought it up!
Other skills we look for...
Banjo Playing
Oh sorry, should have mentioned, I've been apart of a few startups.
Also, since you brought it up, I completed an MBA a few years ago (actually, a fair few years ago now), and at the moment I'm studying a double degree in Honours Economics and Finance, and accounting. Mainly to change the direction of my career, as while I love developing and creating, I hate not being in control of it.
Generally they don't, while there are incentives by some companies, unless you absolutely can't do without it, or unless the other costs you'd deal with (man hours), then it does cost more relatively. So you end up going these other routes. Also, while some startups are resource intensive (cpu, memory, hdd, bandwidth, etc), not many are. As such those costs (especially bandwidth and associated hosting costs) are huge. So you want to keep those as low as possible, and spend more on development. However, the plans for that sort of hosting, are far more expensive than the plans for an equivalent Linux plan.
So, it's not as easy as a decision as it seems.
Also, there was a post somewhere here talking about how in smaller companies, its more expensive to put developers on it, than spending money on it. However, at some startups, its cheaper to put people on it (as they're paid peanuts), than it is to spend on hardware.
Yeah, that's still a problematic solution though.
I was thinking more about Windows licensing, as to run those you need to run Windows, and server versions of Windows are fucking expensive with licensing.
Exactly!
Any company which presumes something about its employees, because they have written in some language, or presumes that the language isn't good.
More so any developer which hasn't used .NET, especially if the solution they were implementing could have been developed in .NET, I would be more worried about. I have many friends like this guy, who are "code purists", where they stick to only certain low level languages, and write everything needed themselves. The problem being that many solutions don't need that. If you've done windows application development, then .NET is really quite good, and Visual Studio is awesome.
After reading this article, all he's basically communicated to me, is "Don't apply to work for my company, we're language zealots".
(I keep reading language, which is annoying, but I guess by .NET they mean "all languages supported by Visual Studio that aren't supported by other compilers")
Let's try to stay civil this time.
THAT'S JUST WHAT I'D EXPECT FROM YOU! SHIT COCK!
The filter says I use caps too much, well this wouldn't make much sense if I didn't, it would come off with the wrong tone, so consider this entire sentence a way of me correcting the ratio. Fucking retarded Slashdot.
Exactly. A lot of jobs, and most of my C++ skills/knowledge transfer well.
This article is one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.
"Just press the right button and follow the beeping lights, and you can churn out flawless 1.6 oz burgers faster than anybody else on the planet. However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t."
I assume by this, he means there's something you can't do in it, because all of the shit is built in. Well, I guess .NET isn't the ONLY solution to EVERY possible problem. Who would have known? Besides that, it's a pretty good solution, to many problems.
"Instead, we look for a very different sort of person. The sort of person who grew up cooking squirrels over a campfire with sharpened sticks"
Awesome. I never want to work for you. I've got several friends, and they're good friends, but they're retards. They are C purists, and like to write everything in more low level languages because it's "leet". They have lots of knowledge about C, understand some amazingly complex concepts, but get them to implement something simple, and they're going to write everything from scratch. Why? Because that's the kind of person who isn't used to using all this other code. Isn't used to finding other libraries, or just re-using someone else's code.
If they see .NET as bad on a resume, especially if that was on a resume from when the person worked at a reasonably large enterprise, and even more so if that was a windows environment, then they're retarded. If I saw a lack of it, especially when developing small applications, I'd be looking further at their work, to see if they really make smart decisions on the best language to use for the given solution.
I'd say startups don't use .NET and Windows in general, because of licensing. Simple. They don't have to cash to do it. You might also find that the people who have worked at startups are used to dealing with this, because of their own monetary constraints.
Sure. Rephrase it whatever way you want, the result is the same, isn't it? You essentially didn't provide any different information, you just chose to restate it in a manner which made it nefarious. I choose to take a different way of rephrasing it.
"Is that just the way a certain non-nuclear proliferation treaty has been interpreted to keep fucking hippies appeased?"
Those fucking hippies and their influence, always controlling the nuclear policy.
See, we can both do this, fun isn't it?