And amazing the idiot survived. Should have been a Darwin award winner for sure. Testament to how tough that Model S really is, even before the added stuff.

I wouldn't even say it was political. This is merely dealing with stupid. It's Tesla's fault that there was a fire after the incident described in Mexico? Puh-lease! The trailer hitch thing in Tennessee was even a fluke accident that could have easily ruptured a fuel line under the car and caused a fire if it was a gas powered vehicle. That kind of thing is just plain rare no matter what. My concern at this point is how much range was lost because of safety features added to the vehicle because of these incidents. I would imagine a few tens of miles. At least the vehicle is getting even safer and further outpacing its fossil fuel brethren for safety. Consumer Reports may have to go to 11 for this car with the added safety features.

You got modded funny but I wonder how insightful that comment REALLY is.

All Dice crap is now slammed down our throats whether we vote for it or not. It bypasses the firehouse and pees directly on us.

Brought to you by the same people responsible for the redressing of /. Also, complete fucking garbage.

You've never worked with specialized equipment that costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars have you? Either that or you work for a DoE lab with deep pockets. Businesses, universities and private research labs usually don't get to replace equipment costing that much on a four to five year cycle. They get the equipment and use it until it just flat out doesn't work anymore then they spend the money to get something new. If the machine that interfaces with the equipment requires a 16-bit DOS or older version of Windows and has a proprietary dongle or need for some 16-bit ISA card then that's what stays. You buy replacement computers that will support the equipment at auction or on eBay and you keep the thing running. If the equipment can still be used, you use it. Like was said above, the computer's only job is to interface with the equipment. It's not networked, doesn't need to be. Modern malware can't effect it because it won't run on it, dummies! You can't run 32-/64-bit malware on a 16-bit machine! XP maybe, but there are very good ways around the security issues. You don't obsolete $250,000 plus machine that still gets used because the OS needed to interface with it is "old". Why is this so hard for some people to understand? You just don't treat capital expenses like that unless you have a ridiculous amount of money to burn. There really isn't a good analogy for this. It is what it is. I am sure you know the common euphemism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That saying isn't just a saying, just like stereotypes exist because there are people that fit them.

http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

As a scientist you seem naive to the personal gains from the work that is done. This "scientist" fraudulently published results and gained public and private research dollars for it. That's a crime not science. You don't have to be a scientist to do good science but you do have to rigorously follow the scientific method. Clearly, the "scientist" in question needs to go back to school and learn that. Perhaps jail time will afford them the opportunity, because taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to produce fraud is a crime NOT SCIENCE.

Ok, you obviously know very little about how academia works. If a researcher publishes something, they get credit for it and gain personally in many ways. They may receive an advanced degree and go out to a high paying job. They may gain greater academic standing by being promoted which brings money in the form of increased research and salary dollars. If that information is false then they personally gained by trickery and/or deceit. That's a crime. That's fraud and NOT SCIENCE.

Whoa, brakes! That's the victimless crime argument and there is no such thing. That's like saying if I steal apples from an orchard and nobody notices there is no crime. Bullshit. You're still committing a crime whether you get caught or not. It's ok if someone personally benefits from fraud in your world as long as it "affects no one"? Wrong. It affects the whole of the scientific community when someone publishes false results. It in fact affects everyone.

I think the crux of it has been said above, but my $0.02:

Optimized

Well formatted

Commented in areas where reading the code isn't obvious to even the newest entrant into programming

Well supported by the author(s) or corporation that produced it

I will also admit that I don't write a lot of elegant code, because I usually don't have the time to fully optimize it. But most of my code is well formatted, commented and supported.

FTFY

Yeah, bad anaolgy/false equivalency. Hunting requires several things, license, gun, ammo, tree stand, location scouting and the ability to sit on your ass for several hours at a time. Yeah, real strenuous "sport". It's not a sport, sorry. It's one of two things: a for-food necessity or a conservation act. To call it a sport is a joke. Hell, most people don't even hike to scout anymore, they use four wheelers, so again, where's the "sport" activity that would qualify hunting? I have been around hunting and hunters all my life. My uncles and cousins all hunt deer and turkey and a lot of my friends and acquaintances hunt. Most of them are athletic but hunting is not how they work out nor would they categorize hunting as a sport (see above). If you're not hunting for food then you are participating in a leisure activity or game--not a sport. That's why it's called "game hunting". Sport fishing is another one of those iffy classifications. I don't have to be in shape to fish either. Sports usually have a physical fitness requirement. Hunting, not so much. If you're breathing and can pull a trigger, you're good.

Define significant? I was unable to find any data on an estimated number, either. I would guess based on Census data that it's less than 0.1% of the U.S. population, or less than 350,000 people nationwide. That's a conservative estimate based on populations below poverty level in rural areas. It's probably much, much smaller in reality.