Electric cars only suck because of their current cost. The range satisfies 95% of most commuters requirements and even that can be overcome by the many potential solutions that have been presented. Electric cars have a lower ongoing ownership cost due to the limited amount of maintenance required. The largest cost of the vehicle maintenance will be tires. Brakes will last 3+ times longer, no transmission, engine or cooling system fluid changes, no belts, chains, pulleys. Electric motors are much simpler than combustion engines hence the limited number of failure points.
Where do you get this information. If you install it within the first year it's free for the life of the device:
I appreciate the feedback. I didn't test to that extent. We have good H/W and felt the compiling and editing was pretty good. I could see benefits in moving but the time required to do so was going to eat into actually coding time. We are short staffed (still to this day) and work with what we have.
VS2015 is a definite move over. Guess I'll have to consider TFS as well as we are running on TFS2010 and only really use it for change tracking.
Switching to unrefusable automatic updates in the face of unavoidable (but forgivable, it's generally acknowledged that no one is immune to at least some of those) system-breaking bugs is pretty awful
There's benefits and downfalls to either way of doing. On one side having a breaking change sucks. Most users currently get updates installed at 3am daily. MS's track record is pretty good with publishing good updates. Very few users were affected by the bad updates released in the last 5 years.
Fact is that MS will back track on this issue because there is enough pressure to do so. Production environments will refuse to use Windows 10 until there's a way to control when updates are applied. Possibly this can already be done through WSUS and group policies but for end users that's still an issue.
just because you don't want to pay an extra $80 for the privilege of a system you don't have to let them break
I'm out of the loop on this one. What $80 are you talking about?
And this from a company that has recently stooped to pushing adware
Well I guess the weekly paper that's dropped for free on my porch is vile as well. I have to pick it up and put it in the recycling. As far as I'm concerned this was only an issue for people with OCD and those who hate MS in the first place. Just gave them an excuse to complain more.
Most users I know were happy to see that icon pop up to find out they would get the next upgrade at no cost.
Why are you always ranting about MS? You know you don't have to use their products right?
You know that software bugs are part of every eco system right? Linux, MAC and MS have them. Many of them come in the form of bad firmware or bad drivers that can actually ruing hardware.
Should we all go after Seagate for putting out millions of drives with defective firmware that eventually self terminates the hard drive? I think that's far more destructive than this
Should we start talking about the heart bleed security flaw? I think a defective OS library is far less damaging to a person than their identify being stolen due to a bug in a security protocol.
If you hate MS that much stop using/buying their products because you clearly can't handle them. If you don't have MS products then just shut up or get a bias opinion that we can actually respect instead of this childish ranting.
So much for a new 'improved' version
I don't know if you were being negative or playful when you wrote this but with all major overhauls there's going to be bugs. You just need to give them a little bit of time to work out the quirks they didn't catch during internal QC. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe this was ever a public BETA.
I only installed VS2013 a few months ago after it reached SP4
I used VS2005 6 months after. It was perfectly fine. VS2010 was a welcomed upgrade that encountered minor issues along the way that were resolved with the patches released not that much later. I didn't force a 2013 upgrade for our dev team but I did trial it on a VM. VS2013 had noticeable issues at launch but that appeared all solved by the 30 day mark. We decided to wait for VS2015 because 2010 was fine and we didn't find 2013 had enough to offer in terms of improvement for our dev team.
The good news is that it was caught and will be fixed quickly by the sound of it.
Your brother in law was killed by hitting a moose TWICE? Resilient fellow, isn't he?
Wow... I don't need to say anymore. At least I know who I'm dealing with.
Although it sounds perfect it's not. Tax breaks aren't all used for evil such as paying back campaign funding sources. There are legitimate reasons for providing certain industries tax breaks.
You haven't even shown that it's more likely than a moose related fatality or a deer attack
The moose incident is not avoidable without major inconvenience. That was the point.
My brother in law who is a trucker has 2 on his record (1 000 000km driven). It's about where you live and when you travel. Up north moose / deer incidents are in weekly news during the summer. Drive at night and you increase your chances of hitting a moose by more than 10 fold. That's very comparable to the test they did. Don't do it and you don't increase chances of an accident and do it and it's an infinite % increase in change of accident.
It's very likely the author accepted a larger risk of an accident in the process of going to see Valasek and Miller than he did during the test
That's pretty obvious but it's not the case for the other people on the highway.
The point is simple. Don't do testing in an uncontrolled environment. It's easily avoided with no impact on the test itself.
Unneeded risk is just that, unneeded. There are a millions things you do daily to avoid even smaller % of danger and yet you roll your eyes at a completely avoidable scenario.
If you can admit to facts and common sense there's not much more to say here.
If you told me it's inconvenient to address the issue for a situation that occurs less than 1% of the time I'd agree but because there is no additional cost or inconvenience to do it on a closed circuit it's a no brainer. What they did (all of them) was add unneeded risk to an exercise that didn't gain anything by being done in a "non test" environment. That's the point the previous guy was trying to make and it was very valid.
All major applications we use here are making full use of said features. Clearly CALC.EXE doesn't need it but CAD and other design software make great use of it.
Some of the application developed internally have multithreading to allow live data without the need to wait or get GUI interruptions.
So, 1.8% of an unlikely thing involves stalled cars
You didn't read the link did you? 1.8% of highway accidents are stalled vehicle which more often result in fatality. Where I travel there's an average 5 accidents per day. That would mean every 11 days there's an accident involving a stalled car. If you told me it's inconvenient to address the As someone who drives on the interstate, I frequently see cars on the side long enough to be tagged for impound with no evidence of being hit.
Maybe you travel a stretch that is less dangerous. City stretches tend to be more chaotic and law usually forces vehicles to accept the first tow.
The police routinely pull people over to the side of the interstate
Yes, and they follow a protocol to stay safe. They need to do this because highways are dangerous places to stop.
Even marked vehicles are in danger. 4-5 years ago 3 police officers with vehicles parked 2 feet from the line (on the shoulder) with their lights on got hit. This stretch of highway wasn't even chaotic and you could see for miles ahead.
Quit trying to stuff words in my mouth. The answer is "not really".
So 1.8% of interstate accidents in Kentucky involved a stalled vehicle.
The link is old but it makes the point.
If you don't live close to a busy highway I can understand why you don't understand the danger of stalling on the road while cars are passing you at 75 MPH
Ask the author of TFA, he wasn't a random victim
Who said random? The blame is on all of them. There's a reason testing is done on isolated tracks.
What does this have to do with the topic?
Someone went from the tech being useless, to being explained that the tech works at improving visibility if one isn't a tard behind the wheel to now talking about tards again. If one can't drive safely then that's just a problem in itself isn't it? No amount of lighting will help that driver.
People voluntarily wash their windshield while driving all the time. They also drive in the rain, even heavy rain.
And they know its going to happen because they either initiate the action or anticipate it. In this case he didn't know it was going to happen.
People's cars stall on the highway all the time. At no point was he in the situation your link talks about. Even if he had been on the shoulder, that too happens all the time and rarely leads to a problem.
Would you say it's dangerous to have your car stall on the highway? The answer is yes.
So why would you intentionally put yourself or someone else in that position of danger?
Usually people like putting the odds of survival on their side. Test environments are there so we don't have to create unneeded danger.