"Computers to include large data centers run on DC power at the machine level."
While the HVAC is all still running AC.
" Now most of the DC comes from a AC source be this lets them put together a high efficeny AC-DC converter."
Exactly. They moved the AC-DC box out of all the cases and centralized it (saves space in each server, moves a heat generation point out of each server, and lets them improves efficiency etc). But it amounts to plugging an AC/DC box next to my computer and then plugging a DC computer and cellphone charger into it. Big whoop. Its still an AC power supply. Sticking a DC convertor in and pushing the A/C source 20 feet back out of sight doesn't make it 'sustainable DC'.
"They can also use solar power directly."
True. But almost nobody but a few off the grid survivalist types are just running on solar.
And which seem to have "2" and "3" in the subtitles... suggesting they were sequels? I haven't seen them, and based on the 1st one... I'm not sure if anyone should.
Yup so far, in windows 10. There are 2 folowup settings that I've felt the the need to after turning everything off in the customize privacy screen.
1) Turn off messages about smart screen. (You can turn off smart screen during install, windows evidently thinks this is a security risk, so it's an alert in action center. So you effectively turn off smart screen, and then follow up by turning off messages about smart screen being off. Not a huge deal... since smart screen *is* a legitimate A/V feature. And some non-tech people probably should have it on; despite the privacy implication. Its a standard feature of all modern A/V software. So its not omgz ms is evil.
2) Turn off forwarding windows search to bing. Again, another easy to access setting, but an extra step.
I prefer windows updates on for my personal desktops so I don't worry about that. The risk of a bad update screwing me over has proven to be less than the risk of not having them. In my opinion.
There is some rumbling about some telemetry features that can only be turned off with enterprise. I'd like to know more about that.
You can turn off the nags about smart screen in Action center. (simplest way to get there is to click the flag in the system tray.) but its also via control panels.
The option is literally called "turn of messages about smart screen".
Nagging about the cloud? I setup a local account, the only time i see messages at all about 'their cloud' is when i add new "metro" apps -- which i don't do much. (Same as windows 8.0/8.1).
"Oh, it would have only lasted 55 miles on our track!" SO FUCKING WHAT? That's a frigging RACE you retarded shitepile!
You do realize topgear runs pretty much every car that comes in on its track right? Every other car however, can be filled up and driven home immediately afterwards. That's a fairly signficant difference between other cars and the Tesla. They decided to make much ado about that point. Accept it and move on.
How long would a car able to go so fast last on the same track? 50-80 miles tops.
Did you not read my post? I actually answered that. I said 55 wasn't that bad on the track. I said my 911 needed to be filled up twice on a track day, plus a 3rd time to go home. I figure I was getting around 3-4 mpg... my range wouldn't be much better than a Tesla.
But I could (and did) fill it in the space of time it took to wolf down a sandwich... twice; and then get back onto the track. My track day in a Tesla would have been... cut shorter to say the least; and I'd have had to sit around for a while charging it up again to go home too.
And it would beat the same sized car in acceleration and speed OR in range on the racetrack. No similar car could beat it on all three. You'd need a proper "road legal" racer for that.
That's just fangirl talk. It wins drag races. That's about it.
The car overheated around 5 miles in. Without overheating they figured around 9 minutes. That's pretty good (but it didn't actually do it... what with the overheating.) And 9 minutes while very good is NOT amazing. LOTS of high performance 4 door sedans can do that... Mercedes C55, BMW 335i, Audi S5... are all comfortably sub 9 minute cars.
I like Tesla. I like the car. I like what the company is doing to the automotive world. But I don't want to own one (at least not one they've made so far). Its a pretty amazing car, and the torque is phenomenal... it wins drag races against almost everything.
Its a good car, but not as good your making it out to be.
. Any experienced sports car driver, like Clarkson claiks to be, could roll a Reliant Robin over inside of 50 yards
And if I'd originally written 50 you'd have claimed it should only need 25. No real point even engaging. The point remains that he set out to make the robin look like all it does is roll over, when lots of people have managed to drive one without constantly going over.
As for 'antics', punching somebody in the face isn't 'off-screen antics', it's assult with intent.
I am not defending the assault, per se; nor was i even referring to it; By off screen antics I meant his persona in general. His columns, his books, his political views, his public appearances... etc.
All the coverage I can find of a "fake breakdown" is simply an alternate phrasing for their "dramatization" of it running out of juice, and then being pushed into the garage.
That said, the drivetrain did overheat on one, and the brakes did fail on the other one. (Yes they abused them... but that's what they do. And plenty of other super and hyper cars have broken down on them too and they've taken the piss out of them too.)
Even then, Clarkson was too thick to work out how to use the charger so didn't get maximum benefit from it.
And he wasn't able to run a Reliant Robin more than a 100 yards without rolling it over either. He's Clarkson... his persona for like 15+ years is to be a bit of hooligan gorilla. Taking his on-screen and off-screen antics seriously... says more about the viewer than it does about Clarkson. Its not fair and balanced journalism. Sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
I've seen that episode several times. I like the Tesla, but I think Top Gear made a good point.
Clarkson's show also claimed a Tesla ran out of electric power after 55 miles when the claimed range was 200 miles.
The actual quote:
âoeAlthough Tesla say it will do 200 miles we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles.â
55 miles on their TRACK.
55 miles on a track isn't really even that bad... but it would be a terrible track day car. I had to fill my 911 twice last time I took it to a track, and then again to get it home. But a complete fill on my car takes less than 5 minutes at the gas station next to the track. A tesla owner would not have that luxury.
the BBC admitted in court that the scene where the car ran out of power was faked.
Not "faked", but yes it was was done purely for dramatic effect.
And, again, in context, it was simply illustrating the point that after a day on the track the car would be dead; and wouldn't make the trip home. (without another lengthy recharge.)
Only a Tesla fangirl would get all twisted up in knots over the episode. It was a legitimate criticism delivered with typical Topgear dramatic sensibilities. (Ie 'over the top') But Clarkson and the gang routinely slag excellent cars and its all in pretty good humor. Clarkson has called the 911 Turbo a car that plots to kill its driver, and compared the Carrera 4S to a boob job... meanwhile he fell over himself in adulation of the Ford GT which he pre-ordered for himself and which had proven to be something of a lemon to actually own... "leeway" is what the audience wants from that show.
There are plenty of other places to get 'boring'. Few magazines ever say anything remotely critical of anything. Its pretty refreshing and entertaining to see these supercars and hypercars both shown in their best lights but also to see them taken down a peg now and again. To see a ferrari stuck in an alley it's too wide for, to watch them try and park a lambo, to see them collectively decide a cheap VW hatchback is more fun to drive than a BMW... that's what made TopGear.
Am I the only one who thinks that the removal of the pop-out start menu with Windows Vista was a step in the wrong direction
It was terrible before too, if you wiggled the mouse too much and you were 7 layers deep into the heirarchy the start menu would close or flip over to another folder, and you'd have to start all over...it was usability garbage.
The replacement in vista was still tedious, but the previous incarnation was gouge-your-eyes-out-bad if you had to navigate to something that was deep.
So why did you remove the start menu in windows 8?
Lol, well said.
However, to be fair to MS, they didn't "remove it" they revamped it. They rightfully identified that there was a ton of functionality jammed into it, and that it was a shitty UI for most of it, while simultaneously its primary design driver was a vestigial hierarchical folder structure from Windows 95 that really was quite hideous and unusable, and rarely used.
Every one used the start menu to shutdown, to get to control panels etc, to access frequently used and pinned apps, and to search.
shutdown? because that's where it was. No real need for it to be there relative to anywhere else. control panels same thing. So they moved them (and also added them to right click start menu). pinned apps... you can still create taskbar menus and pin apps etc in win8.
search -- there's two types of search: -- type one... "power user quick launch" . For example type cmd to launch command or pow to launch powershell, etc etc... the win7 start menu worked well for this
-- type two -- actual search. Where you want to find something that you don't know what its called, or to find a document. Having your whole search interface in a small popup in the corner that was liable to disappear on you at random was silly and useless. The win7 start menu sucks for real search.
Finally... heirarchical start menu browsing... was clumsy in Windows 95 and all but useless in a modern PC. Nobody used it unless they had to, and browsing multiple levels of nested folders was clumsy.
The start screen in windows 8... was better for search. And the other commands were relocated. The problem with windows 8 was simply that the new locations were non-obvious. (how do I shutdown?) And the "type one" quick search-launch functionality was now really clutzy switching to a full screen app for quick launch makes no sense. (And really the whole 'go full screen' was a mistake. The old start menu was broken... but the new one was also broken, better in some ways, but worse in most.
But they were looking for a solution to a definite problem. Anyone who honestly looks at the windows 7 start menu has to acknowledge that it does too much, and does MUCH of it poorly. It needed attention.
Unfortunately windows 8 was a step in mostly the wrong directions. Too touch centric. Too much key functionality hidden off screen. Charms bar was just bad. Not having window border controls for mouse users was just bad. Defaulting to using 'modern ui' for viewing pictures etc was just bad. 8.1 cleaned up a lot of that, but it was still not ideal. Too much was driven by the tablet/mobile design rather than really trying to solve the problem for desktop users in a way that made sense for desktop users.
Windows 10 (build 10240) seems like a pretty good compromise so far. There's still plenty I don't like, but I think its a genuine step forward from 7 rather than a step sideways.
"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"
Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.
"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain" (clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]"
"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment". The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense. You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.
"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).
Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question. Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.
but it seems like you're denigrating what those other people did
I certainly don't mean to denigrate any of them. They all were very brave, and yup, MLK was assassinated but that's kind of my point... he was at risk but only at risk to outright illegal activities. They had to resort to assassination to kill him because they couldn't really act openly against him, they had no legal grounds to simply throw him into isolation and toss the keys forever.
With Snowden, they don't need to resort to a secret conspiracy against him, they can act in the open, with the full force of the law. It's a completely different threat level.
MLK could go on "Sunday talk shows" to paraphrase someone up in the thread. (Hell, that's one of the safest places he could be.) But Snowden would be a fool to try that; they'd pick him up immediately, and he'd never set a free foot down again.
He is not on the same level as Rosa Parks, Susan B Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr.
I don't think you grasp just how different Snowden is from Parks.
What, pray tell was the maximum penalty Rosa Parks faced for failing to comply with a Montgomery city ordinance? Legally? She wasn't in any real danger. A modest fine, or a couple nights in jail.
Her only real risk was that she could have been beaten (illegally) by police in an era and region where the people beating her would have gotten away with it.
King Jr? Arrested several times. No serious charges, and no serious penalties. Like Parks his greatest risk was illegal beatings and vigilantism. There's certainly no question what he did took courage. But the authority of the government itself wasn't really a threat to him. And the government wasn't going to threaten to shoot down a passenger plane he was on just to get their hands on him.
How about Susan B Anthony? She was arrested, and fined $100. (A lot more then than now, but still... small potatoes.)
You are right, Parks, Anthony and King Jr aren't on the same level as Snowden. He's in a level of trouble so much greater; those others never even scratched the surface.
No, Snowden is up there with Ben Franklin and the like. People who resisted their government at the very highest levels, people who would have hanged for their activities if they'd allowed themselves to get caught.
I love how fast it is, and that I don't have to hand my CC over.
I use tap to pay WITH my credit card. Its even more convenient and faster than getting out my phone. I can't even really imagine why I'd ever prefer to setup and use tap-to-pay with my phone.
The opposite of "online privacy," in many cases, is "personal brand value." I'm not sure that maximizing privacy online makes a lot of sense for most people.
Agreed. The trouble arises though when the personal brand and the person don't always mix.
I had a young real estate mortgage broker once, who as part of her attempt to develop her personal brand and maintain contact with clients sent everyone in her contact list an invitation to follow her on her then new twitter feed.
I never followed her, but I clicked on the link once some months later to review her tweets and see how it had worked out. Naturally it was a disaster.
She started out with the odd tweet about relevant news, interest rate changes, those common sense tips but as it was under name and clearly all her friends and family followed her, precisely the sort of thing one would have wanted or expected from following it. But it quickly devolved into a rapidfire feed where she used it to comment on everything from restaurants, concerts, clothes, politics, retweets of cat videos, argue with friends, etc. There's no way anyone whose only connection to her was her mortgage brokerage services would have even the slightest desire to constantly receive this stuff, and it certainly did nothing to improve her 'personal brand'.
The upshot is that the idea that she'd have a twitter account in her name to develop her personal brand wasn't a bad idea. But it ended up being a far to direct window into her personal life, which her clients neither needed (nor wanted) to see. She needed an anonymous twitter feed disconnected from her personal brand to shoot the shit with her friends with.
Last time I checked she no longer has twitter on her mortgage broker website.
if you're selling something it is concerning that you don't know where they come from.
Just as uber asserts that it assumes its drivers are properly licensed and insured to operate as a car service transporting passengers commercially; and the vehicles would pass all safety requirements. Right?
And yet one party provides better service at a better price to more people, who (democratically!) vote with their wallets and clearly prefer one service over the other.
And if sell big screen TVs cheap in private meetings in public spaces coordinated via craigslist listings? The product is sold as-is, no warranty, no box, no manuals, cash only.
And inventory acquisition? I don't know where the TVs come from; I buy them from independent contractors. Its up up to them to source the goods. I assume they obtain them legally, and I encourage them to follow all the applicable laws.
And in the meantime I'll have no trouble finding customers who "democratically" vote with their wallets and clearly prefer my services to purchasing them at retail prices in retail stores.
I'm not sure you should be drawing any grand conclusions about how good my business model is from that though.
So you go out and buy chocolate bars for $1 each and sell them for $5 and people only have to wait a minute or two to purchase them
And you don't bother getting a business license. Your business entrance isn't accessible to disabled people.
When asked whether you are insured against someone breaking their neck on your premises you mention that you've registered your place of business as your home, and that you have basic residential insurance. Besides its like having a garage sale... so its all casual and informal.
Sure its all organized and run by multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation... but other than connecting buyers with sellers with an app, handling all the money, advertising, and deciding who is allowed to participate, well... its still casual... like a garage sale.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have serious issues with the 'medallion' system and think its fundamentally wrong. But uber is a bunch of crooks.
THE CODE IS ALREADY DONE!!!! Why don't they just throw the switch?
Good question. I don't know the answer, but there's probably a reason.
Bandwidth? Is the flash version lighter than html5? Better buffering? Better caching? Client performance? Does the flash version run smoother on older hardware? Features? Is the flash version more functional? (Pause, volume controls, seek, etc..?) Advertising? Is the flash version integrated with their advertising while html5 is not (yet)?
My guess is that the damage to the tail rotor will be major and the helicopter will experience yaw stability issues, but a decent pilot should be able to make an emergency landing.
An emergency landing onto a flat open field? Sure.
An emergency landing from a small distance above the tree line above a dense forest? And don't forget there is smoke everywhere obscuring visibility... because the forest is on fire right below you where you are now trying to... "land".
What did the world look like before the British Empire? Because that was what it was like before you had a great sea power patrolling the sea lanes and making it clear that anyone that fucked with shipping was going to get shelled.
I think there's been more than enough change in the world since then that we can't assume its going to look anything like that ever again. And again, safe shipping lanes in east asia... benefit american citizens in ways that are difficult to quantify. Yes, imports/exports... but access to cheap offshored manufacturing goods at the loss of local manufacturing and local manufacturing jobs. Market efficiency realized to be sure, but the benefit of that market efficiency is largely privatized while the tax payer funds the security enabling those profits.
Our reasons for that are complicated and I won't get into it unless I I know you're asking in good faith.
Yes. I'd be interested in your argument.
A better question would be why don't we collect tribute.
Tribute implies coercion and is rarely agreed to. A more constructive approach would be to negotiate funding... it amounts to the same dollars from the same places but is nonetheless significantly different. I completely agree countries that are hiring our security should be paying for their share of it.
I'd also stipulate that corporate interests benefitting from it should likeways fund it. If goods from china for company X flow to the US in shipping lanes protected by the US military, then company X should be paying their share of the cost. The cost of the goods goes up, the cost of the military to the tax payer goes down... so its a 'wash' right? Not quite... the higher priced goods are paid for in all ports of call... western europe, south america etc. So its not solely borne by the US taxpayer. Further, by having the cost of securing the goods reflected in the price of the goods, a market distortion is eliminated. Perhaps it is cheaper to manufacture things in the US rather than manufacture them in China, and then pay an aircraft carrier to guard the shipping lanes. If so we should be making the thing here.
Having the tax payer cover the security cost allows the business to artificially externalize a cost component of the goods. I'm not some free market extremist, and I do think government is in the role of security for its citizens. Securing a shipping lane in east asia? There are lots of good reasons to do that... but it shouldn't be paid for directly by the US tax payer.
You'd have to show instances of the US navy for example interdicting trade to profit US corporations.
I'm not thinking interdiction of trade per se, but rather more along the lines of my example of it amounting to a market distortion; favoring off shoring and corporate profits. The cost of securing those lanes should be in the goods that pass through them, not funded via a taxation back channel.
The US was a very profitable exporter
Key word is *was*. Today we are a net importer to the tune of 3/4 Trillion dollars*. Today its very profitable for other countries to export to the USA. Perhaps at one time it was sensible for the US citizens to secure the shipping lanes, but today, other nations should be paying to secure the shipping lanes they are using to profit from us.
Clearly the idea that the us tax payer should pay all costs of securing foreign profits is even more unsupportable than the idea that we should be securing profits for domestic companies.
* and its even more an issue because so much of our export is intellectual property, which doesn't get moved around in shipping lanes.
No patrolling sea lanes? No maintaining an international military logistics network? No investing in air superiority? No protecting Japan? No protecting South Korea? No protecting Israel? No protecting Europe? No protecting Eastern Europe? No defense agreements in South America to defend country X if attacked by country Y?
Because if the US wasn't doing that the world would fall apart? Typical American jesus complex. What would the real impact be of not doing all that all the time?
And why, pray tell, is it on the American tax payer to fund it, exactly? And why *just* the American tax payers? Nobody else pays as much per capita as the USA does... why does the USA do it?
In a word: money. Big profits reaped by corporations both by having the force projection we have, and reaped by corporations actually providing and maintaining the 'war machine' itself. Between them its very good for business, especially since they were able to find a sucker to pay for it all: The American tax payer.
Privatize the profits, socialize the cost; the ultimate winning play in this fine republic.
Ask your insurance company and they will tell you that damage to the front of your car = your fault. Damage to the rear of your car = not your fault.
The first half, pretty much yes. The 2nd half not even close.
One time I was travelling straight through an intersection on a green light; and struck a vehicle performing a turning turn. He evidently didn't see me coming and pulled out right in front of me. I hit him in the passenger side door with the front of my car.
The 2nd attempted an illegal U-turn in an intersection. Again, I was just sailing straight through on a green light, and hit him in the passenger side door too.
I was also once stopped at an intersection, with a green light, waiting to make a left turn due to oncoming traffic. I was rear ended and pushed into oncoming traffic where I then proceeded to have a head on collision with that oncoming traffic. (Fortunately they were able to hit their brakes and slowed enough that injuries were minor.) I was found 100% not at fault.
Fault is a lot more complicated than "front = your fault"
Slashdot Mirror
"Computers to include large data centers run on DC power at the machine level."
While the HVAC is all still running AC.
" Now most of the DC comes from a AC source be this lets them put together a high efficeny AC-DC converter."
Exactly. They moved the AC-DC box out of all the cases and centralized it (saves space in each server, moves a heat generation point out of each server, and lets them improves efficiency etc). But it amounts to plugging an AC/DC box next to my computer and then plugging a DC computer and cellphone charger into it. Big whoop. Its still an AC power supply. Sticking a DC convertor in and pushing the A/C source 20 feet back out of sight doesn't make it 'sustainable DC'.
"They can also use solar power directly."
True. But almost nobody but a few off the grid survivalist types are just running on solar.
As in " Hasbro and Warner Bros. have announced Dungeons & Dragons will be getting its own film franchise." ... again.
Or are we pretending now that they they didn't already drop a bunch of D&D turds?
In 2000 (saw it, amusing for what it was, but it was awful)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
IMDB lso lists this, which I haven't seen
2005 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04... ("straight to video")
2012 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt17... ("TV movie")
And which seem to have "2" and "3" in the subtitles... suggesting they were sequels? I haven't seen them, and based on the 1st one... I'm not sure if anyone should.
Yup so far, in windows 10. There are 2 folowup settings that I've felt the the need to after turning everything off in the customize privacy screen.
1) Turn off messages about smart screen. (You can turn off smart screen during install, windows evidently thinks this is a security risk, so it's an alert in action center. So you effectively turn off smart screen, and then follow up by turning off messages about smart screen being off. Not a huge deal... since smart screen *is* a legitimate A/V feature. And some non-tech people probably should have it on; despite the privacy implication. Its a standard feature of all modern A/V software. So its not omgz ms is evil.
2) Turn off forwarding windows search to bing. Again, another easy to access setting, but an extra step.
I prefer windows updates on for my personal desktops so I don't worry about that. The risk of a bad update screwing me over has proven to be less than the risk of not having them. In my opinion.
There is some rumbling about some telemetry features that can only be turned off with enterprise. I'd like to know more about that.
You can turn off the nags about smart screen in Action center. (simplest way to get there is to click the flag in the system tray.) but its also via control panels.
The option is literally called "turn of messages about smart screen".
Nagging about the cloud? I setup a local account, the only time i see messages at all about 'their cloud' is when i add new "metro" apps -- which i don't do much. (Same as windows 8.0/8.1).
Nobody watching it would have mistaken it for a serious attempt to evaluate the Robin.
Nobody watching TopGear should take anything they do as a serious attempt to evaluate anything.
"Oh, it would have only lasted 55 miles on our track!" SO FUCKING WHAT? That's a frigging RACE you retarded shitepile!
You do realize topgear runs pretty much every car that comes in on its track right? Every other car however, can be filled up and driven home immediately afterwards. That's a fairly signficant difference between other cars and the Tesla. They decided to make much ado about that point. Accept it and move on.
How long would a car able to go so fast last on the same track? 50-80 miles tops.
Did you not read my post? I actually answered that. I said 55 wasn't that bad on the track. I said my 911 needed to be filled up twice on a track day, plus a 3rd time to go home. I figure I was getting around 3-4 mpg... my range wouldn't be much better than a Tesla.
But I could (and did) fill it in the space of time it took to wolf down a sandwich... twice; and then get back onto the track. My track day in a Tesla would have been... cut shorter to say the least; and I'd have had to sit around for a while charging it up again to go home too.
And it would beat the same sized car in acceleration and speed OR in range on the racetrack. No similar car could beat it on all three. You'd need a proper "road legal" racer for that.
That's just fangirl talk. It wins drag races. That's about it.
Here's the Tesla S at the Nurburgring
http://ecomento.com/2014/07/10...
The car overheated around 5 miles in. Without overheating they figured around 9 minutes. That's pretty good (but it didn't actually do it... what with the overheating.) And 9 minutes while very good is NOT amazing. LOTS of high performance 4 door sedans can do that... Mercedes C55, BMW 335i, Audi S5... are all comfortably sub 9 minute cars.
I like Tesla. I like the car. I like what the company is doing to the automotive world. But I don't want to own one (at least not one they've made so far). Its a pretty amazing car, and the torque is phenomenal... it wins drag races against almost everything.
Its a good car, but not as good your making it out to be.
. Any experienced sports car driver, like Clarkson claiks to be, could roll a Reliant Robin over inside of 50 yards
And if I'd originally written 50 you'd have claimed it should only need 25. No real point even engaging. The point remains that he set out to make the robin look like all it does is roll over, when lots of people have managed to drive one without constantly going over.
As for 'antics', punching somebody in the face isn't 'off-screen antics', it's assult with intent.
I am not defending the assault, per se; nor was i even referring to it; By off screen antics I meant his persona in general. His columns, his books, his political views, his public appearances... etc.
it's that they faked it breaking down.
Cite?
All the coverage I can find of a "fake breakdown" is simply an alternate phrasing for their "dramatization" of it running out of juice, and then being pushed into the garage.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...
That said, the drivetrain did overheat on one, and the brakes did fail on the other one. (Yes they abused them... but that's what they do. And plenty of other super and hyper cars have broken down on them too and they've taken the piss out of them too.)
Even then, Clarkson was too thick to work out how to use the charger so didn't get maximum benefit from it.
And he wasn't able to run a Reliant Robin more than a 100 yards without rolling it over either. He's Clarkson... his persona for like 15+ years is to be a bit of hooligan gorilla. Taking his on-screen and off-screen antics seriously... says more about the viewer than it does about Clarkson. Its not fair and balanced journalism. Sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
I've seen that episode several times. I like the Tesla, but I think Top Gear made a good point.
Clarkson's show also claimed a Tesla ran out of electric power after 55 miles when the claimed range was 200 miles.
The actual quote:
âoeAlthough Tesla say it will do 200 miles we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles.â
55 miles on their TRACK.
55 miles on a track isn't really even that bad... but it would be a terrible track day car. I had to fill my 911 twice last time I took it to a track, and then again to get it home. But a complete fill on my car takes less than 5 minutes at the gas station next to the track. A tesla owner would not have that luxury.
the BBC admitted in court that the scene where the car ran out of power was faked.
Not "faked", but yes it was was done purely for dramatic effect.
And, again, in context, it was simply illustrating the point that after a day on the track the car would be dead; and wouldn't make the trip home. (without another lengthy recharge.)
Only a Tesla fangirl would get all twisted up in knots over the episode. It was a legitimate criticism delivered with typical Topgear dramatic sensibilities. (Ie 'over the top') But Clarkson and the gang routinely slag excellent cars and its all in pretty good humor. Clarkson has called the 911 Turbo a car that plots to kill its driver, and compared the Carrera 4S to a boob job... meanwhile he fell over himself in adulation of the Ford GT which he pre-ordered for himself and which had proven to be something of a lemon to actually own... "leeway" is what the audience wants from that show.
There are plenty of other places to get 'boring'. Few magazines ever say anything remotely critical of anything. Its pretty refreshing and entertaining to see these supercars and hypercars both shown in their best lights but also to see them taken down a peg now and again. To see a ferrari stuck in an alley it's too wide for, to watch them try and park a lambo, to see them collectively decide a cheap VW hatchback is more fun to drive than a BMW... that's what made TopGear.
Am I the only one who thinks that the removal of the pop-out start menu with Windows Vista was a step in the wrong direction
It was terrible before too, if you wiggled the mouse too much and you were 7 layers deep into the heirarchy the start menu would close or flip over to another folder, and you'd have to start all over...it was usability garbage.
The replacement in vista was still tedious, but the previous incarnation was gouge-your-eyes-out-bad if you had to navigate to something that was deep.
So why did you remove the start menu in windows 8?
Lol, well said.
However, to be fair to MS, they didn't "remove it" they revamped it. They rightfully identified that there was a ton of functionality jammed into it, and that it was a shitty UI for most of it, while simultaneously its primary design driver was a vestigial hierarchical folder structure from Windows 95 that really was quite hideous and unusable, and rarely used.
Every one used the start menu to shutdown, to get to control panels etc, to access frequently used and pinned apps, and to search.
shutdown? because that's where it was. No real need for it to be there relative to anywhere else.
control panels same thing. So they moved them (and also added them to right click start menu).
pinned apps... you can still create taskbar menus and pin apps etc in win8.
search -- there's two types of search: ... "power user quick launch" . For example type cmd to launch command or pow to launch powershell, etc etc... the win7 start menu worked well for this
-- type one
-- type two -- actual search. Where you want to find something that you don't know what its called, or to find a document. Having your whole search interface in a small popup in the corner that was liable to disappear on you at random was silly and useless. The win7 start menu sucks for real search.
Finally... heirarchical start menu browsing... was clumsy in Windows 95 and all but useless in a modern PC. Nobody used it unless they had to, and browsing multiple levels of nested folders was clumsy.
The start screen in windows 8 ... was better for search. And the other commands were relocated. The problem with windows 8 was simply that the new locations were non-obvious. (how do I shutdown?) And the "type one" quick search-launch functionality was now really clutzy switching to a full screen app for quick launch makes no sense. (And really the whole 'go full screen' was a mistake. The old start menu was broken... but the new one was also broken, better in some ways, but worse in most.
But they were looking for a solution to a definite problem. Anyone who honestly looks at the windows 7 start menu has to acknowledge that it does too much, and does MUCH of it poorly. It needed attention.
Unfortunately windows 8 was a step in mostly the wrong directions. Too touch centric. Too much key functionality hidden off screen. Charms bar was just bad. Not having window border controls for mouse users was just bad. Defaulting to using 'modern ui' for viewing pictures etc was just bad. 8.1 cleaned up a lot of that, but it was still not ideal. Too much was driven by the tablet/mobile design rather than really trying to solve the problem for desktop users in a way that made sense for desktop users.
Windows 10 (build 10240) seems like a pretty good compromise so far. There's still plenty I don't like, but I think its a genuine step forward from 7 rather than a step sideways.
"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink (want a bet?)"
Short of violence and/or other behavior that most would consider animal abuse? Go figure that normal people exclude that as a valid solution to the 'problem'.
"doesn't have the horse sense to stay out of the rain"
(clearly never owned horses, they will seek shelter from rain -[...]"
"Horse sense" is a synonym for "good sense" or "sound judgment". The implication is that horses WILL stay out of the rain, and otherwise exhibit good sense. You mis-understood the proverb completely; and it means the opposite of what you think.
"you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" (try that with a fly trap).
Fine you win one, sort of... if you get to pick the species of fly in question. Yes certain species of fruit flies are attracted to the scent of vinegar. Other species not so much.
but it seems like you're denigrating what those other people did
I certainly don't mean to denigrate any of them. They all were very brave, and yup, MLK was assassinated but that's kind of my point... he was at risk but only at risk to outright illegal activities. They had to resort to assassination to kill him because they couldn't really act openly against him, they had no legal grounds to simply throw him into isolation and toss the keys forever.
With Snowden, they don't need to resort to a secret conspiracy against him, they can act in the open, with the full force of the law. It's a completely different threat level.
MLK could go on "Sunday talk shows" to paraphrase someone up in the thread. (Hell, that's one of the safest places he could be.) But Snowden would be a fool to try that; they'd pick him up immediately, and he'd never set a free foot down again.
He is not on the same level as Rosa Parks, Susan B Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr.
I don't think you grasp just how different Snowden is from Parks.
What, pray tell was the maximum penalty Rosa Parks faced for failing to comply with a Montgomery city ordinance? Legally? She wasn't in any real danger. A modest fine, or a couple nights in jail.
Her only real risk was that she could have been beaten (illegally) by police in an era and region where the people beating her would have gotten away with it.
King Jr? Arrested several times. No serious charges, and no serious penalties. Like Parks his greatest risk was illegal beatings and vigilantism. There's certainly no question what he did took courage. But the authority of the government itself wasn't really a threat to him. And the government wasn't going to threaten to shoot down a passenger plane he was on just to get their hands on him.
How about Susan B Anthony? She was arrested, and fined $100. (A lot more then than now, but still... small potatoes.)
You are right, Parks, Anthony and King Jr aren't on the same level as Snowden. He's in a level of trouble so much greater; those others never even scratched the surface.
No, Snowden is up there with Ben Franklin and the like. People who resisted their government at the very highest levels, people who would have hanged for their activities if they'd allowed themselves to get caught.
I love how fast it is, and that I don't have to hand my CC over.
I use tap to pay WITH my credit card. Its even more convenient and faster than getting out my phone. I can't even really imagine why I'd ever prefer to setup and use tap-to-pay with my phone.
The opposite of "online privacy," in many cases, is "personal brand value." I'm not sure that maximizing privacy online makes a lot of sense for most people.
Agreed. The trouble arises though when the personal brand and the person don't always mix.
I had a young real estate mortgage broker once, who as part of her attempt to develop her personal brand and maintain contact with clients sent everyone in her contact list an invitation to follow her on her then new twitter feed.
I never followed her, but I clicked on the link once some months later to review her tweets and see how it had worked out. Naturally it was a disaster.
She started out with the odd tweet about relevant news, interest rate changes, those common sense tips but as it was under name and clearly all her friends and family followed her, precisely the sort of thing one would have wanted or expected from following it. But it quickly devolved into a rapidfire feed where she used it to comment on everything from restaurants, concerts, clothes, politics, retweets of cat videos, argue with friends, etc. There's no way anyone whose only connection to her was her mortgage brokerage services would have even the slightest desire to constantly receive this stuff, and it certainly did nothing to improve her 'personal brand'.
The upshot is that the idea that she'd have a twitter account in her name to develop her personal brand wasn't a bad idea. But it ended up being a far to direct window into her personal life, which her clients neither needed (nor wanted) to see. She needed an anonymous twitter feed disconnected from her personal brand to shoot the shit with her friends with.
Last time I checked she no longer has twitter on her mortgage broker website.
if you're selling something it is concerning that you don't know where they come from.
Just as uber asserts that it assumes its drivers are properly licensed and insured to operate as a car service transporting passengers commercially; and the vehicles would pass all safety requirements. Right?
That is the 'product' they are selling.
And yet one party provides better service at a better price to more people, who (democratically!) vote with their wallets and clearly prefer one service over the other.
And if sell big screen TVs cheap in private meetings in public spaces coordinated via craigslist listings? The product is sold as-is, no warranty, no box, no manuals, cash only.
And inventory acquisition? I don't know where the TVs come from; I buy them from independent contractors. Its up up to them to source the goods. I assume they obtain them legally, and I encourage them to follow all the applicable laws.
And in the meantime I'll have no trouble finding customers who "democratically" vote with their wallets and clearly prefer my services to purchasing them at retail prices in retail stores.
I'm not sure you should be drawing any grand conclusions about how good my business model is from that though.
So you go out and buy chocolate bars for $1 each and sell them for $5 and people only have to wait a minute or two to purchase them
And you don't bother getting a business license. Your business entrance isn't accessible to disabled people.
When asked whether you are insured against someone breaking their neck on your premises you mention that you've registered your place of business as your home, and that you have basic residential insurance. Besides its like having a garage sale... so its all casual and informal.
Sure its all organized and run by multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation... but other than connecting buyers with sellers with an app, handling all the money, advertising, and deciding who is allowed to participate, well... its still casual... like a garage sale.
Now, don't get me wrong, I have serious issues with the 'medallion' system and think its fundamentally wrong. But uber is a bunch of crooks.
THE CODE IS ALREADY DONE!!!! Why don't they just throw the switch?
Good question. I don't know the answer, but there's probably a reason.
Bandwidth? Is the flash version lighter than html5? Better buffering? Better caching?
Client performance? Does the flash version run smoother on older hardware?
Features? Is the flash version more functional? (Pause, volume controls, seek, etc..?)
Advertising? Is the flash version integrated with their advertising while html5 is not (yet)?
My guess is that the damage to the tail rotor will be major and the helicopter will experience yaw stability issues, but a decent pilot should be able to make an emergency landing.
An emergency landing onto a flat open field? Sure.
An emergency landing from a small distance above the tree line above a dense forest? And don't forget there is smoke everywhere obscuring visibility... because the forest is on fire right below you where you are now trying to... "land".
What did the world look like before the British Empire? Because that was what it was like before you had a great sea power patrolling the sea lanes and making it clear that anyone that fucked with shipping was going to get shelled.
I think there's been more than enough change in the world since then that we can't assume its going to look anything like that ever again. And again, safe shipping lanes in east asia... benefit american citizens in ways that are difficult to quantify. Yes, imports/exports... but access to cheap offshored manufacturing goods at the loss of local manufacturing and local manufacturing jobs. Market efficiency realized to be sure, but the benefit of that market efficiency is largely privatized while the tax payer funds the security enabling those profits.
Our reasons for that are complicated and I won't get into it unless I I know you're asking in good faith.
Yes. I'd be interested in your argument.
A better question would be why don't we collect tribute.
Tribute implies coercion and is rarely agreed to. A more constructive approach would be to negotiate funding... it amounts to the same dollars from the same places but is nonetheless significantly different. I completely agree countries that are hiring our security should be paying for their share of it.
I'd also stipulate that corporate interests benefitting from it should likeways fund it. If goods from china for company X flow to the US in shipping lanes protected by the US military, then company X should be paying their share of the cost. The cost of the goods goes up, the cost of the military to the tax payer goes down... so its a 'wash' right? Not quite... the higher priced goods are paid for in all ports of call... western europe, south america etc. So its not solely borne by the US taxpayer. Further, by having the cost of securing the goods reflected in the price of the goods, a market distortion is eliminated. Perhaps it is cheaper to manufacture things in the US rather than manufacture them in China, and then pay an aircraft carrier to guard the shipping lanes. If so we should be making the thing here.
Having the tax payer cover the security cost allows the business to artificially externalize a cost component of the goods. I'm not some free market extremist, and I do think government is in the role of security for its citizens. Securing a shipping lane in east asia? There are lots of good reasons to do that... but it shouldn't be paid for directly by the US tax payer.
You'd have to show instances of the US navy for example interdicting trade to profit US corporations.
I'm not thinking interdiction of trade per se, but rather more along the lines of my example of it amounting to a market distortion; favoring off shoring and corporate profits. The cost of securing those lanes should be in the goods that pass through them, not funded via a taxation back channel.
The US was a very profitable exporter
Key word is *was*. Today we are a net importer to the tune of 3/4 Trillion dollars*. Today its very profitable for other countries to export to the USA. Perhaps at one time it was sensible for the US citizens to secure the shipping lanes, but today, other nations should be paying to secure the shipping lanes they are using to profit from us.
Clearly the idea that the us tax payer should pay all costs of securing foreign profits is even more unsupportable than the idea that we should be securing profits for domestic companies.
* and its even more an issue because so much of our export is intellectual property, which doesn't get moved around in shipping lanes.
No patrolling sea lanes? No maintaining an international military logistics network? No investing in air superiority? No protecting Japan? No protecting South Korea? No protecting Israel? No protecting Europe? No protecting Eastern Europe? No defense agreements in South America to defend country X if attacked by country Y?
Because if the US wasn't doing that the world would fall apart? Typical American jesus complex. What would the real impact be of not doing all that all the time?
And why, pray tell, is it on the American tax payer to fund it, exactly? And why *just* the American tax payers? Nobody else pays as much per capita as the USA does... why does the USA do it?
In a word: money. Big profits reaped by corporations both by having the force projection we have, and reaped by corporations actually providing and maintaining the 'war machine' itself. Between them its very good for business, especially since they were able to find a sucker to pay for it all: The American tax payer.
Privatize the profits, socialize the cost; the ultimate winning play in this fine republic.
Ask your insurance company and they will tell you that damage to the front of your car = your fault. Damage to the rear of your car = not your fault.
The first half, pretty much yes. The 2nd half not even close.
One time I was travelling straight through an intersection on a green light; and struck a vehicle performing a turning turn. He evidently didn't see me coming and pulled out right in front of me. I hit him in the passenger side door with the front of my car.
The 2nd attempted an illegal U-turn in an intersection. Again, I was just sailing straight through on a green light, and hit him in the passenger side door too.
I was also once stopped at an intersection, with a green light, waiting to make a left turn due to oncoming traffic. I was rear ended and pushed into oncoming traffic where I then proceeded to have a head on collision with that oncoming traffic. (Fortunately they were able to hit their brakes and slowed enough that injuries were minor.) I was found 100% not at fault.
Fault is a lot more complicated than "front = your fault"
So they'll only call the person who stole your phone? That seems to have some rather major fail on it, unless I've missed something.