Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 1) 319

by bmajik (#47932599) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

Sure, the regenerative braking probably reduces the wear on the brakes.

Point being, brake pads and rotors are normal replacement items. You should expect to replace them more than once in 12 years on a normal vehicle. I can wear down a set of pads in a weekend at the track. It depends a lot on how you drive.

I will agree that on the Tesla I test drove, I barely touched the brake pedal. The regen was turned up to maximum and that does a good job of slowing the car down if you are paying attention.

BMWs also tend to have static negative rear camber, and are RWD like the Tesla. But the wheels are smaller dia, which means the tires are more affordable.

I think over 12 years you will spend similar or more on Tesla model S brake and tire components as compared to an average BMW. I look forward to hearing from Model S owners 11 years from now...

Comment: Re:More importantly (Score 3, Informative) 319

by bmajik (#47930553) Attached to: Is the Tesla Model 3 Actually Going To Cost $50,000?

Heck. At 12-years on a BMW, there are any number of wearbale parts that replacement may exceed car value (tires, brakes (you have to replace the rotors with the pads on a BMW), etc).

Not unless the car has been damaged.

BMWs have very high resale value. 12 year old BMWs are currently 2002 models. Very few model year 2002 BMWs can be found for under $5000 in _any_ condition.

In fact, if you do a quick search on autotrader.com for model year 2002 BMWs, you'll see that there are 1200 listings with an average asking price of $9700

I happen to be quite familiar with the running costs of old BMWs. The drive train of a BMW will easily last 12 years without substantial work. The exceptions would be the plastic cooling system components, and, on some models, premature VANOS failure. Sadly, on the newer N54 engines the HPFP is a disaster, but that is not the majority of used BMWs, and certainly not MY2002 cars.

Even paying dealer prices, to replace brakes, suspension rubber, tires, cooling system, etc, will not cost you $9000.

The brake rotors and pads are a few hundred dollars per corner, and you could replace them yourself in your own garage with a jack and hand tools.

FWIW, I really like Tesla. I look forward to a time when buying one of their cars makes sense for me.

However, your consideration of the repair costs of a 12 year old BMW is way off. Thus, my response.

Also, Brakes and Tires are functionally identical between a BMW and a Tesla, and, on the Model S, the Tesla replacement parts are probably more expensive (I haven't priced them to be certain), because the Tesla has very large low profile tires and very large brakes, especially compared to the "average" BMW (instead of their X5 trucks with big wheels, or their high performance M models with larger brakes)

So comparing a 12 year old BMW and a 12 year old Tesla, the wear and maintenance parts differences are the Tesla's battery vs. the BMW's conventional drivetrain. The latter requires coolant flushes, oil changes, transmission fluid changes, air filters, etc.

The one maintenance surprise that I learned about when chatting with a Tesla service technician was that on the model S, the A/C refrigerant is serviced regularly, because it is an integral component of the battery cooling system.

Comment: Re:Anti-math and anti-science ... (Score 1) 803

by Lumpy (#47929085) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

"if we won't do something about these ISIS people, they will not stop until they reach the borders of the western world, and by then it will be too late. "

Only if dipshits vote for and pass laws disarming the american citizens.

You want to know why Japan never tried an attack on the US mainland? They knew the citizens outgunned their army 40 to 1.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Soroku Yamamoto.

Comment: Re:they will defeat themselves (Score 1, Troll) 803

by Lumpy (#47929001) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Actually technically he is right if we kill them all very fast.

nuke 80% of the middle east, full on carpet bomb every square mile with overlapping bursts and you will not have 2 more spring up. you will actually wipe them all out for good and not have any problems with middle eastern terrorisim.

The problem is surviving the 60 year nuclear winter afterwards.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2, Informative) 320

by drinkypoo (#47928733) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Xorg, which on desktop is as critical as init to keep running, is not really simple.

Never go full retard. X is not even remotely as important as init. For one thing, if X dies, who will restart it? And do we really want computers that explode when the GUI dies? I, for one, would like network services to terminate gracefully. The whole idea of TCP/IP networks, the dominant network used with Unix, is peer-to-peer. I may well run both services and clients on my machine. If X dies, the clients may die (if they're not text and running in screen) but the servers won't.

kernel, which is also as critical as init to keep running, and it is *much* *much* more complex than systemd. systemd is not at the "bottom layer" of the system, there's the whole of kernel underneath still.

So the argument is that since the kernel is complex, we should add more complexity, or that more complexity won't matter? That's an ignorant, illogical argument.

And one common myth is that systemd has these so many features and systemd is pid 1 therefore pid 1 is this huge bloated monster that does udev, logging and NTP, right? Wrong; actually, just the core bits of systemd run in pid 1 and the rest is compartmentalized in a bunch of separate daemon processes.

Systemd still has to be more complicated so that it knows how to run these other processes, which wasn't even necessary. init was never meant to manage daemons. daemons were meant to manage themselves, or be run from inetd. If you want more complexity, inetd is the place to add it. And for handling daemons which don't adequately manage themselves, there's daemontools. There was simply no need whatsoever for this to happen.

So, this "increased complexity" issue is not really as bad as it sounds, realistically.

It is bad, because PID1 is now responsible for a bunch of things which could have existed in any other daemon. And rather than roll the things which actually make sense in together, everything is getting rolled together. So now not only do we depend on a complex kernel, but we depend on a needlessly complex init system. There was no good reason to put all of this stuff into the same daemon.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 3, Informative) 320

by drinkypoo (#47928683) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You can't seriously claim that systemd provides nothing that can't be done by script based init systems, shell scripts and existing daemons

Yes, yes I can. And I did.

logind is just one example

Does nothing a script can't do

But it would be an interesting project to make a Linux SysVinit distro that tried get feature parity with systemd, so that daemons could utilize the kernel "namespaces" and "capabilities"

Systemd doesn't even fucking use capabilities, just cgroups. Which we could use before systemd. Systemd manages permissions in lieu of using capabilities, e.g. apparmor or selinux.

Isn't that argument just trying to make a virtue out of the fact, that SysVinit and the like, are totally crude and primitive init systems that are unable to anything much of interest?

No. That is the virtue. They are simple. Simplicity is still a virtue.

All the analyses I have seen shows that moving crucial processes into PID2, just makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

Making PID1 more complex makes everything more fragile and opens up security holes.

I think that there are actually very good design reasons for why systemd is designed like it is.

NIH

It only runs one process as PID1, the daemon "systemd" which is rather small. This daemon however, is capable of "talking" with with several other processes, which gives it many advantages,

This is making init do stuff it doesn't need to do, which makes it more complex, which makes it more fragile. You should not need a detailed explanation to understand why this is a bad thing.

Comment: Is that a serious question? (Score 4, Interesting) 803

by Sycraft-fu (#47928601) Attached to: ISIS Bans Math and Social Studies For Children

Because if it is, you need to pull your head out of your ass and go and do some extremely basic, cursory, research on the situation in the US. There are for sure some loud fundy Christian that like to whine about science, evolution in particular. However they have had little and less success in pushing their agenda and the US remains a powerful center of scientific research.

Trying to equate the US to ISIS is beyond stupid.

Comment: Re:Are you even aware of SystemD works? (Score 4, Informative) 320

by drinkypoo (#47928579) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

You don't seem to understand how SystemD actually works. The PID 1 is relatively simple -- it uses all sorts of separate (i.e. non-PID 1) helper processes to do all the heavy and complicated lifting.

Lifting which should not be done by PID 1. And PID 1 has to be more complex than it should be just to handle those external programs.

SystemD currently does a fuckton of stuff no other currently usable init system on Linux does.

It does a lot of stuff the init system shouldn't do.

(Reliable process supervision which cannot be evaded,

cgroups existed before systemd.

sane handling of process stdout/stderr

Up to the init script.

proper handling of dependencies at runtime

Already handled by several init systems.

socket activation

We call it inetd.

I don't particularly care which init system my system runs, but I want those features and currently only SystemD can deliver them.

That is ignorance at best, or perhaps a lie.

Please stop spreading FUD about things you know next to nothing about.

You have no idea about anything, that didn't stop you. I see why you didn't log in.

Comment: Re:Hopefully not like their TV remotes... (Score 2) 110

by Lumpy (#47927825) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

"But thus far, the logitech harmony series is the only thing I've found that actually gets that job done at all and therefore is the best by default."

Try the real stuff. Control 4, Crestron and AMX all blow the harmony remote out of the water so badly it is not funny. Hell even the URC programmable remotes make a harmony look like a joke.

Comment: Re:One day, someone will explain it to me. (Score 1) 110

by Lumpy (#47927765) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

"and I'm not letting water nor fire run when I'm not home "

I do as well as million of home owners do. Fire is in my furnace and it's running right now with me not home. And my sprinkler system was running at 8am a full hour after I had left for work. Many times I will start a load of laundry on my way out of the house and let that run, million of people do this.

Dude, get over your paranoia.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...