Subjective, so this point isn't a "pro".

True.

Depends. Not always. Not everywhere. Not for everyone. For the vast majority of the population, EV isn't cheaper.

Definitely not. Maybe *slightly* less, but even that is doubtful too. Current IC engines *will* last for hundreds of thousands of miles with nothing more than filters/plugs/oil being changed. The electric motor + battery will *definitely* not last as long as current IC engines. They (battery, mostly) will need replacement much sooner than my IC engine, and my IC engine is damn cheap to rebuild - around $2500 gives me an engine that will last yet another few hundred thousand miles.

I've got three cars, the newest of which is 10 years old this year and has completed 180000km. My total cost for plugs/filters/oil for the newest over the last 9 years has been (less than 2 services per year @ avg $50/service), comes to around $1k. The ICE has never broken down, but I did spend $2k on renewing the cooling system (water-pump, thermostat, anti-freeze) which the EV won't have (or need).

My oldest car is 15 years old and has over 300000km on the clock, and cost over that time for plugs/filters/oil and cooling system renewal and a single engine failure (coil-pack) is under $2k. It's my daily driver right now.

So now I'm wondering how you figure that EV's need less servicing/cost less/etc - replacing batteries will happen every five - seven years, at a cost that is around $5k - $7k, won't they?

I, together with many of the other people who don't have an ideology to speak off, will jump on the EV bandwagon the minute it becomes cheaper to do so. We've been waiting now for a decade for the prices to fall; if we're that patient you just *know* that we'll wait a little while longer.

Seriously, for EV to take off it needs to be cheaper. A poster upthread pointed out that second-hand cars are no longer a fraction of the new price - they are closely priced, and this results in people who buy a car believing that they can get 50% of their money back in 5 years when they sell it. For an EV, in five years the cost of the battery might be more than the cost of the car, so these people (like me) know we won't get anything back. So it's not cheaper to go with EV.

When it gets cheaper, we'll buy it.

and you can make it's fuel yourself at home.

I own three cars. I don't have monthly car payments.

*That's* the full joke (is it still funny if you have to explain it?)

Are you really that slow a learner? Multiple times you were told that birdshot would come down safely, yet here you are continuing to parrot that incorrect line.

TFA and your quote doesn't say he was charged with firing a gun. TFA says he was charged with what amounts to disturbing the peace.

This wasn't in his driveway. Technically, it went indoors (under the patio), so it wasn't even in his yard at all times - it was in his house!

Nope. As far as I can tell, if you tell someone they are not allowed on your property, and they and three of their buddies make it clear they are going to ignore your wishes, then *they* are being aggressive, at which point it is self-defence if gang-of-four invades your property against your wishes - you have nowhere else to run to.

He didn't say there was a shortage, he said we have used up all the easily accessible resources. The resources left need a lot of technological advancement to get at, which we won't have if we *need* to ignite a second industrial revolution.

Yeah, and all the user has to do is place in *a single non-english phrase* from their favourite fantasy book/dream destination/scifi series/song and they've suddenly broken the attackers ability *as well as* possessing a password that they can easily remember. "correct horse? je t@ime staple" is almost never going to be broken. Nor is "correct horse? luke's lightsabr3 staple", nor "correct horse? fr0do of the shire staple", etc...

All of those are easy to remember, easy to type in but still orders of magnitude harder to break than "8 printable chars " or whatever nonsense the IT department came up with last week. Go ahead - try your rainbow table dictionary attack against "correct horse? samuel vimes 0f ankh-morpork staple" and let us know how it goes. We'll wait.

I note that you aren't addressing the fact that Ms Wu herself has no record of filing a case. You can claim police incompetent all you want, but you have no actual fact to back up the claim of police incompetence. Rather than claim a grand conspiracy, I'd prefer to stick with the known facts instead of who claims what. The only fact that remains is that Ms Wu has no record associated with filing a case.

FWIW, now that the case presumably *is* filed, there is apparently not enough credibility in her claims to pursue, which makes you whole argument about whether she is lying moot.

Nope, I pointed out (politely, mind) that he found *some* way to work his personal belief system into the conversation. Proselytizing is almost never welcome.

Hmm... He said...

Because... that's the correct way to respond to someone being dismissive? I can see why CS is an attractive and desirable place for females...

BTW, this thread is an excellent example of why females aren't happy in the CS environment. I plan to link to it the next time some forward thinking intellectual goes on about CS being female-hostile. It's just plain hostile to everyone. If women can't handle being called knob-ends then they don't belong, right?

Insults, derision, micro-aggression - yup! We don't have a clue why there aren't more females in CS.

Well, that just it, isn't it? Absence of an ideology is the same as absence of a religion - just because I contradict your ideologically-driven claims doesn't mean that I have an ideology of my own, in much the same way that just because I contradict claims of a god doesn't mean I have a god-based claim of my own - "baldness is not a hair colour".

Nope. You send your little insults my way and, like the way I deal with all theists, I stick to what facts are known.

Doesn't sound like that at all - there is no ambiguity from LEO's statement - no report was filed. They did not say a report was *lost*, or *miscommunicated*, or anything. Not only did they say that no report was filed, they go further and say that there was no contact from Ms Wu either. She neither contacted them nor filed a report. By her own accounts, she never had a case number either (meaning, it was never filed with the police).

That's a god-of-the-gaps argument if I ever saw one - "If there is no evidence connecting $X and $Z, then it *MUST* be this thing-that-can't-be-proven $Y. Our evidence exists in the gaps between the steps." Face it - if she at least had a case number, or the name of the officer who took down the report, hell... even the *date* she claims she made the report she might be believable. She has no record of ever approaching the police, no case number nor a name or description of the officer who helped her. The LEO's are standing firm on this as well - they have no record.

Where did we claim that? I personally claimed that, according to all the evidence that we have, there is no record of her approaching the police - none that she can provide and certainly none that the police can provide. If she wanted her claim to be taken seriously she should have at least kept the case number you get for filing an incident with the cops.

In this case at least, there is little doubt that she lied.

I honestly thought that was the difficult part; it's halting-problem hard, if I understand correctly. If you cannot predict whether a program will ever reach the end-state, then you cannot predict if it will ever reach *any* particular state. To know whether to prefetch something requires you to have knowledge about the program's future state.

To my knowledge prediction of program state only works if your predicting a *very* short time in the future (say, no more than a hundred instructions). If you're limited to that then the best you can do is branch prediction or similar (only a few hundred instructions?). This is why the cache helps - if you use something then the probability is high you will use it again soon. Compilers can then take limited advantage of this by locality of variables/instructions.

It's the negation of the problem of deciding what *will* be needed in some future state. This makes it equally hard (halting-problem hard) to deciding what to prefetch. For both problems it appears to me that computer science has already settled on "no solution" as the answer to the question "can we predict the programs future state?". NP-hard is NP-hard, no matter how much engineering talent is thrown at it; it remains mathematically impossible. Hence, I figure that what this kid has got is some great new mitigation scheme for program state prediction. That, or maybe he skipped the automata theory classes (I see that a lot with engineers-turned-programmers).

(I think - feel free to correct my understanding).