The correct question is: "is GM going to continue developing and improving electric cars?" to which the answer is already clearly yes.
The only question is "when?" - their track record on it is terrible. They've "improved" to the point they were at a decade ago. The EV-1 had a range of up to 140 miles. The Chevy Volt (all electric) has a range of UNDER 40 miles. The hybrid gets a "whopping" 38 MPGe (which various gasoline only cars manage or are only a few mpg away from today).
So... "continue developing"? Yes
..."and improving"? Not yet - they've went backwards so far. Still waiting on this "don't have a clue when we'll make one" car that would be their first real improvement since the EV-1 over a decade ago.
Until they prove they are "improving" (with a car that's actually in production), I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a statement.;-)
Firing SysAdmins because... "At the end of the day it's about people and trust... if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.'
The most ironic thing is the sheer idiocy in their implied position that we, the people, are "ok with the NSA spying on us - as long as they have less people doing the spying."
They really need to hire a very good PR firm if they want to foist such nonsense on us. Or perhaps they can just stop their spying program. I kinda have a feeling that doing so will cause the trust issues will diminish significantly.;-)
I would be wary of the NHTSA front crash test ratings for the Tesla. The NHTSA front crash test is a full frontal crash into a wall at 35, while the IIHS does a more real world scenario of 25% and 40% of the bumper hitting a wall at 40mph. Without a large motor in the way Tesla is able to use the whole front compartment as a crumple zone as opposed to most combustion vehicles that primary use the sides as a crumple zone. While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system. Unfortunately the IIHS crash test ratings have not been released yet but I can't imagine them doing as well, in the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%, in the 25% test Tesla will lose 75% and the combustion engine is still at a little over 50%.
I don't understand the point you are making - are you saying that because most of the front end of a Tesla Model S, including left side front, right side front, AND middle, are crumple-zone worthy, that it is less safe? Wouldn't that make it more safe?
The app could be a legitimate one or a malicious one, but it will include some code that, once the app is installed, will reach out to an ad network. Many apps include such code for legitimate ad revenue purposes, but these apps are connecting to a malicious ad network.
Inotherwords "but it has malware in it for the ad portion that goes to a malicious ad network" - or the app IS malicious and not legitimate. An app isn't magically legitimate if only some portions of it are malware.
Eventually, a core of loyal Microsoft customers will form
Right. I'm sure the largest, most successful software company on the planet is eagerly waiting for loyal customers. Right.
Do you happen to work for some sort of News Corp owned company? Your amazing in-depth business analysis is on par with something I'd hear from the awe inspiring mind of Sarah Palin.
Actually, they are. They have a strong fan following in the gaming community - but that's it. They have no following (but a few zealots and fanboys) in the Windows Phone community (aren't enough users in this country - or any other - to have that "core..."). Their "following" in the OS world doesnt really exist because Windows is more a tool for users (those who even realize that it isn't some magical part of the actual hardware) and not an "I have to get the latest and greatest version" item.
First, Microsoft wasn't late to the game. They (with various OEM hardware manufacturers trying to support their efforts) were first to the game for both mainstream tablets and business tablets.
Second, their strategy problem is far greater than that. Any tablet can be an RDP enabled entry point to one's home machine - and currently, that market (for as long as Android and iDevices don't capitalize on it) is one they aren't really touting. Which makes no sense, especially after all their "click" commercials demoing a product setup that would be ideal for such use. Their restrictive cloud efforts aren't helping either - no matter how robust they may be in some areas (and lacking in others).
The only way to win this is to get FISA eliminated. Without first eliminating the gag orders and the Star Chamber...I mean FISA courts, we cannot succeed on the whole.
Sadly, I think it will take a lot more than getting FISA (and the Patriot Act, and the rest) eliminated. I for one don't believe that they will simply stop their secret spying if those get eliminated.
While it may be true that such earthquakes are better than the eventual earthquake if such tectonic tension isn't released while it's at lower levels, I suspect that is speculation on various posters' parts - it doesn't take into account that those "sub-plates" weren't moving into a more stable configuration (such as the ancient ones in New York).
That aside, it's a matter of economics and no due diligence on the part of the "energy creators" - such events as these are probably an "economic loss" that is negligible compared to the income such activities cause. And even that (an economic impact) would be dependent on a suit against them being successfully won - and that's something unlikely to happen.
Either way, I doubt they care about any impact or damages unless they are in excess of their profit margins. After all, some of these energy conglomerates/companies had once proposed to drill into the Yellowstone Caldera to create geothermal energy (that one seems like a brilliant plan).
Rear wheel drive is not a problem. Read wheel drive with all the weight over the front wheels is a problem, especially in low traction situations. Ideal is really all wheel drive with weight distributed close to evenly.
OSS groups release security fixes, they are applauded for caring about people's safety and security.
Microsoft releases security fixes, they are appaled that they would let such a problem exist.
No, some of us are appalled that they have the balls to tell us "Oh, it's really fixed this time" and then still have to patch a vulnerability that's a decade or two old. How many "it's really fixed this time!!!" patches are there for.NET? And gee, looks like they missed what's being deemed as a major vulnerability in *XP* - if memory serves, XP is getting kinda old.
It's not that there are vulnerabilities... it's (a) the quantity, (b) the amount of effort they put into hiding them, (c) the "ooh, it's fixed" stuff they post on crap-ass hack job patches and (d) the length of time it's taken to fix various major vulnerabilities - even often after they've been found and announced by others.
Because (a) virtually no one had computers, (b) home internet access was near impossible to get...
Really silly question, isn't it? A niche device was made that only worked in certain areas, for an infrastructure that existed near anywhere - with a price point (for if it were to be "consumerized") that nearly no one could have afforded. The time wasn't right.
Most of the congress critters don't even read the bill that's being put up for a vote, assuming they bother to show up for the vote.
To be fair, most of the bills being put up for a vote are unnecessarily wordy and obscure, with six zillion unrelated amendments attached. All of which makes a very dry reading and makes layman's head spin (before exploding.)
So, all we need to do to fix this situation is force the congress critters to actually read these bills!!! Then, when their heads explode, we can replace them!
Model M history lesson for you. The IBM Terminal Keyboard (the beast based off the Model M, which had a bunch of extra keys) was designed in 1984 and released/built the next year. The PC keyboard variant (the terminal keyboard will not work with a PC) was released in 1985. Perhaps he's surfing the net on an ancient IBM dumb terminal? Somehow I doubt that.;-) They are the only ones that even have a chance of having been built in 1984, and to date, no one has come up with credible evidence of such - but again, they won't work on a PC. Different timing, different lots of things.
Anyway, a lot of people keep claiming their Model M is from 1984 because they are reading the copyright date (which is the same on all IBM Model M's and most Lexmark Model M's) instead of the "date of birth" spot which has the actual manufacturer date to the specific day (which is on all IBM and Lexmark Model M's). And of course, there are a few who keep trying to make such an incorrect claim, because claiming to have the oldest Model M seems to be a badge of fame in the Model M world.
No. Just because they patented it doesn't mean they're actually using it. Companies patent lots of things all the time.
True perhaps as a generalization. But rather funny, in this specific case, where they definitely do so (and report to me what sites my friends have visited when I am on certain partner (but non-FB) sites).
Only thing is, XP had all of those capabilities. Only new capability is the working search box tool. Pinning items, most recent, all of that was capable in XP.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct question is: "is GM going to continue developing and improving electric cars?" to which the answer is already clearly yes.
The only question is "when?" - their track record on it is terrible. They've "improved" to the point they were at a decade ago. The EV-1 had a range of up to 140 miles. The Chevy Volt (all electric) has a range of UNDER 40 miles. The hybrid gets a "whopping" 38 MPGe (which various gasoline only cars manage or are only a few mpg away from today).
So... "continue developing"? Yes
..."and improving"? Not yet - they've went backwards so far. Still waiting on this "don't have a clue when we'll make one" car that would be their first real improvement since the EV-1 over a decade ago.
Until they prove they are "improving" (with a car that's actually in production), I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a statement. ;-)
US Subs does this - from smaller ones (for one or two people) to yacht style 200' long ones that you can park a Smart Car in.
Firing SysAdmins because... "At the end of the day it's about people and trust ... if they misuse that trust they can cause huge damage.'
The most ironic thing is the sheer idiocy in their implied position that we, the people, are "ok with the NSA spying on us - as long as they have less people doing the spying."
They really need to hire a very good PR firm if they want to foist such nonsense on us. Or perhaps they can just stop their spying program. I kinda have a feeling that doing so will cause the trust issues will diminish significantly. ;-)
I would be wary of the NHTSA front crash test ratings for the Tesla. The NHTSA front crash test is a full frontal crash into a wall at 35, while the IIHS does a more real world scenario of 25% and 40% of the bumper hitting a wall at 40mph. Without a large motor in the way Tesla is able to use the whole front compartment as a crumple zone as opposed to most combustion vehicles that primary use the sides as a crumple zone. While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system. Unfortunately the IIHS crash test ratings have not been released yet but I can't imagine them doing as well, in the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%, in the 25% test Tesla will lose 75% and the combustion engine is still at a little over 50%.
I don't understand the point you are making - are you saying that because most of the front end of a Tesla Model S, including left side front, right side front, AND middle, are crumple-zone worthy, that it is less safe? Wouldn't that make it more safe?
Not artificially high? How come North American cars don't have amber turn signals then?
Funnily, mine does.
Mandated? Perhaps not. On many cars anyway? Yup!
The app could be a legitimate one or a malicious one, but it will include some code that, once the app is installed, will reach out to an ad network. Many apps include such code for legitimate ad revenue purposes, but these apps are connecting to a malicious ad network.
Inotherwords "but it has malware in it for the ad portion that goes to a malicious ad network" - or the app IS malicious and not legitimate. An app isn't magically legitimate if only some portions of it are malware.
Eventually, a core of loyal Microsoft customers will form Right. I'm sure the largest, most successful software company on the planet is eagerly waiting for loyal customers. Right. Do you happen to work for some sort of News Corp owned company? Your amazing in-depth business analysis is on par with something I'd hear from the awe inspiring mind of Sarah Palin.
Actually, they are. They have a strong fan following in the gaming community - but that's it. They have no following (but a few zealots and fanboys) in the Windows Phone community (aren't enough users in this country - or any other - to have that "core..."). Their "following" in the OS world doesnt really exist because Windows is more a tool for users (those who even realize that it isn't some magical part of the actual hardware) and not an "I have to get the latest and greatest version" item.
First, Microsoft wasn't late to the game. They (with various OEM hardware manufacturers trying to support their efforts) were first to the game for both mainstream tablets and business tablets.
Second, their strategy problem is far greater than that. Any tablet can be an RDP enabled entry point to one's home machine - and currently, that market (for as long as Android and iDevices don't capitalize on it) is one they aren't really touting. Which makes no sense, especially after all their "click" commercials demoing a product setup that would be ideal for such use. Their restrictive cloud efforts aren't helping either - no matter how robust they may be in some areas (and lacking in others).
The only way to win this is to get FISA eliminated. Without first eliminating the gag orders and the Star Chamber...I mean FISA courts, we cannot succeed on the whole.
Sadly, I think it will take a lot more than getting FISA (and the Patriot Act, and the rest) eliminated. I for one don't believe that they will simply stop their secret spying if those get eliminated.
On the other hand, if a voice I recognize yells "ping!" in a crowded street, I will turn around and yell "ping!" back.
If I don't recognize the voice, not so much.
The correct reply is "pong!".
I'm sorry, we were looking for "Destination host unreachable..." ;-)
Actually, Chrome can be set to link such things to the Google/Chrome account.
The rest of the "behavior" being complained about in the article is "this is actually a function in every browser - let's pick on Chrome". :-(
But of course - it sure doesn't apply to US who will indeed (and already do) suffer the consequences.
While it may be true that such earthquakes are better than the eventual earthquake if such tectonic tension isn't released while it's at lower levels, I suspect that is speculation on various posters' parts - it doesn't take into account that those "sub-plates" weren't moving into a more stable configuration (such as the ancient ones in New York).
That aside, it's a matter of economics and no due diligence on the part of the "energy creators" - such events as these are probably an "economic loss" that is negligible compared to the income such activities cause. And even that (an economic impact) would be dependent on a suit against them being successfully won - and that's something unlikely to happen.
Either way, I doubt they care about any impact or damages unless they are in excess of their profit margins. After all, some of these energy conglomerates/companies had once proposed to drill into the Yellowstone Caldera to create geothermal energy (that one seems like a brilliant plan).
Why not just force load it in incognito mode? And I'd rather Chrome talk to Google than IE talking to MS.
Rear wheel drive is not a problem. Read wheel drive with all the weight over the front wheels is a problem, especially in low traction situations. Ideal is really all wheel drive with weight distributed close to evenly.
A friend of mine had a Mustang too. ;-)
OSS groups release security fixes, they are applauded for caring about people's safety and security. Microsoft releases security fixes, they are appaled that they would let such a problem exist.
No, some of us are appalled that they have the balls to tell us "Oh, it's really fixed this time" and then still have to patch a vulnerability that's a decade or two old. How many "it's really fixed this time!!!" patches are there for .NET? And gee, looks like they missed what's being deemed as a major vulnerability in *XP* - if memory serves, XP is getting kinda old.
It's not that there are vulnerabilities... it's (a) the quantity, (b) the amount of effort they put into hiding them, (c) the "ooh, it's fixed" stuff they post on crap-ass hack job patches and (d) the length of time it's taken to fix various major vulnerabilities - even often after they've been found and announced by others.
Because (a) virtually no one had computers, (b) home internet access was near impossible to get...
Really silly question, isn't it? A niche device was made that only worked in certain areas, for an infrastructure that existed near anywhere - with a price point (for if it were to be "consumerized") that nearly no one could have afforded. The time wasn't right.
Point to you! ;-)
Most of the congress critters don't even read the bill that's being put up for a vote, assuming they bother to show up for the vote.
To be fair, most of the bills being put up for a vote are unnecessarily wordy and obscure, with six zillion unrelated amendments attached. All of which makes a very dry reading and makes layman's head spin (before exploding.)
So, all we need to do to fix this situation is force the congress critters to actually read these bills!!! Then, when their heads explode, we can replace them!
Model M history lesson for you. The IBM Terminal Keyboard (the beast based off the Model M, which had a bunch of extra keys) was designed in 1984 and released/built the next year. The PC keyboard variant (the terminal keyboard will not work with a PC) was released in 1985. Perhaps he's surfing the net on an ancient IBM dumb terminal? Somehow I doubt that. ;-) They are the only ones that even have a chance of having been built in 1984, and to date, no one has come up with credible evidence of such - but again, they won't work on a PC. Different timing, different lots of things.
Anyway, a lot of people keep claiming their Model M is from 1984 because they are reading the copyright date (which is the same on all IBM Model M's and most Lexmark Model M's) instead of the "date of birth" spot which has the actual manufacturer date to the specific day (which is on all IBM and Lexmark Model M's). And of course, there are a few who keep trying to make such an incorrect claim, because claiming to have the oldest Model M seems to be a badge of fame in the Model M world.
No. Just because they patented it doesn't mean they're actually using it. Companies patent lots of things all the time.
True perhaps as a generalization. But rather funny, in this specific case, where they definitely do so (and report to me what sites my friends have visited when I am on certain partner (but non-FB) sites).
Cisco and Motorola ARE suing them - pre-emptively.
Google Search
This is commercial use we are discussing.
The oxygen has a similar effect, and that's part of the reason it's administered.
Only thing is, XP had all of those capabilities. Only new capability is the working search box tool. Pinning items, most recent, all of that was capable in XP.