Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The speed difference between them is huge... (Score 1) 609

When Broder claims he was driving around [nearby streets, presumably] looking for the [in his words] poorly marked charging station...

Um, I'm not sure why you'd think he'd be driving around nearby streets, or what streets are nearby (in a driving sense) to the service plaza with the charging station that he could have been driving on.

(And the original article states that's where the charge was made.)


A more interesting question is what Musk's speed data is based on. Is it based on the GPS which is no doubt present in the car (as you say and I agree), or is it based on a more traditional speedometer reading based on wheel revolutions?

Comment Re:The speed difference between them is huge... (Score 5, Insightful) 609

If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?

30-40 times? Hah.

My estimate of the perimeter around the main parking lot area is about 500 feet. That would put it at 6-7 times max to get 0.6 miles.

But look: the Tesla charger isn't in that group of parking spaces, it's lower down to the left. Directly in front of the building. (Google helpfully has it marked.) Going around the whole building would take the distance up quite a bit more, depending on what path you follow. (It's not totally clear from there what paths are legal, and there doesn't seem to be street view.) If you got there, drove around the main parking lot a couple times looking for something that wasn't there, went up and down an aisle or two, then found yourself going around the north side of that building, that'd probably be sufficient to hit 0.6 miles.

And furthermore, 0.6 is even an overestimate. Based on Musk's own graphic, that 0.6 includes much of the exit into the service plaza. Just that exit could easily account for 20% of that 0.6 miles.

I'm not saying that Broder is in the right when it comes to the whole story. I think there are a number of unanswered questions, and some parts of his review + Musk's data that are suspicious. But, I also think that a couple part in particular of Musk's post are grasping at straws, and I think "Broder was driving around trying to run the car out of power" is one of them -- I find Broder's explanation way more credible than Musk's pseudo-accusation of sabotage.

Comment Re:A couple of points (Score 5, Informative) 609

A charging station he had previously been to...which makes his claim seem pretty suspect to me.

When? On the way up?

Not true: there are separate service plazas on each side of the highway. Furthermore, if you look at Google's "satellite" photo, they are not symmetric -- the parking lot is a completely different layout on the two sides, and the Tesla charging station (marked on the Google image) is in a different location.

Comment Re:You clearly didn't review the charts given. (Score 4, Insightful) 609

So to start, I am totally down with the idea of electric cars; I think that the utility of them around town would outweigh for many people the range problems for longer trips*. I personally try to drive relatively little; I've put an average of well under 5,000 mi/year on my car. I probably shouldn't say this, but Tesla is the answer to "what's your dream car?" security question on some website. Believe me when I say I don't have a bias against electric cars.

(* There was some discussion about this in the previous thread which I almost participated in, but didn't. Ballpark figures for the Tesla seem to be an hour of charge for about every three hours of driving. Personally, this is enough of an increase in stopping time compared to what I currently do on long trips that I really wouldn't want to do a long trip in one.)

But... I've read Musk's comments and both responses on the NY Times blog (ironically I haven't actually read the original article), and to be honest I didn't really find Musk's blog post all that convincing. And this is after a bit of me wanting to see the NY Times review get nailed to the wall.

For instance, Musk claims that the logs show that the heat was turned up when the reporter said he turned it down. But within 20 minutes of the point at which Musk says proves his point, the temperature was turned down -- dramatically. The NY Times article doesn't really give a precise "I turned down the heat at milepost 182"; that's a mileage that Musk seems to have derived from the following quote from the original article:

As I crossed into New Jersey some 15 miles later, I noticed that the estimated range was falling faster than miles were accumulating. At 68 miles since recharging, the range had dropped by 85 miles, and a little mental math told me that reaching Milford would be a stretch. I began following Teslaâ(TM)s range-maximization guidelines, which meant dispensing with such battery-draining amenities as warming the cabin.

But Musk doesn't say how he arrived at that number in his blog post; he just asserts that's the point at which the reviewer says. IMO it's not too much of a stretch to think that the above review is imprecise enough that skirting that arrow over just 20 miles to where the temperature was lowered could be what actually happened.

This point in particular sits very poorly with me on Musk's side; I really feel like he was looking for faults with the data hard enough that he was probably prone to find ones that weren't actually there.

Note that I'm not by any means absolving Broder. I think that this story still has a bit more to play out until it reaches its resolution (if it ever does, without phone calls). But I really do feel like the "oh the NY Times got served!" people are really jumping to conclusions, even given Musk's data. I've been burned too many times my assuming things when they looked so clear before.

Comment Re:If anything the numbers are UNDER stated (Score 1) 361

My software came from and is updated via my Linux distro. Add in all the Linux downloads and the install number used in his analysis is very under stated.

I suspect that you'd see something similar to Firefox, though to a less extent: even though Firefox is pretty universally used among Linux users (maybe less so since Chrom(e|ium)), Linux Firefox users are still a very small part of overall Firefox users. Similarly, I expect there are far more Windows OpenOffice users than there are Linux OpenOffice users.

And I suspect that the number of Windows OpenOffice "users" like me -- I download Open/LibreOffice every couple years to see if Impress is still shitty -- rather outweighs the number of Linux users getting it from their repo instead of the OO/LO site.

Comment Re:potentially worth... (Score 1) 361

Not really. OpenOffice is something you can try on a whim. Maybe you hear from a friend that it exists, and decide to give it a try. Maybe you like it, but maybe you don't. (There are plenty of people who feel strongly for one side or the other, as shown by the comments on this story.) But if you don't, the cost of trying it out is very low to zero depending on how you count.

That's not true of MS Office. Who is going to go spend $150 on a lark just to try it out? Very few.

Now, MS Office does have another thing going "unfairly" for it: bundling. In the above analysis, I'm counting people who go out and actually buy it explicitly, including upgrades and checking the "give me Office" box when buying a computer, not people who just go out to Best Buy and walk out the door with a computer with Office preloaded.

(You could say that counting one but not the other is a bit unfair; to some extent you're right. However, I maintain that the two characteristics are very different, and that the original comment was on just the one.)

Comment Re:potentially worth... (Score 1) 361

FWIW, I don't know what you did to get that then.

I tried it in LibreOffice 4.0 on Windows and on 3.5 on Ubuntu 12.04. The correction suggestions on the Windows one has 11 words, none of which are "quick". The Linux one did, but it was #13 of 13.

As another point of comparison, Opera on Windows suggests it as #2 out of a pretty-obnoxiously-long list of options.

Now, that being said, that's one word. I'm certainly prepared to believe that Word gives better suggestions, but "qick" is far from proof. For instance, "qyick" and "qjick" will give "quick" as the first suggestion.

Comment Re:potentially worth... (Score 1) 361

Yes and no.

Let's take your examples:

If a group of doctors volunteer their time and work in a clinic and treat the poor, pro bono, are they not entitled to claim the value that they provide is based on their normal rate? Same question for lawyers who provide pro bono counsel to those who cannot afford it. Can't they claim the value they produce per their normal hourly rates?

What about the doctor who stepped into the clinic to ask a few questions and ask how things are done, applied a couple bandages, then walked out? Can he say that he provided the same amount of value as one of the long-term doctors?

What about the lawyer who decided to download the latest version of LibreOffice to see if Impress was less donkey ass, then decided to go back to MS Office?

A lot of those downloads are going to be for things like that -- where there was a download, but it really didn't provide value. Or what's the incremental increase in value for someone who went from LO 3.5 to 4.0 vs. someone who stuck with Office 2007?

Comment Re:What? (Score 2) 361

I understand that the word processing of LO and MS Office are about par, but is the same thing at all true about the Excel & PowerPoint programs?

I can't speak to Writer or Calc... but when it comes to Impress, IMO the answer is a big fat "NO!"

I've done a fair bit of evaluation of the two back when I was trying to decide whether to buy MS Office or stick with OO (spoiler: I did), and about the only thing that Impress manged to impress me with was how impressively bad it was. I haven't used Office XP for a while but I don't think it was even as good as that version of PowerPoint. And while I'm generally pretty indifferent on the ribbon, I think 2007 improved on 2003 a ton, and somehow 2010 actually managed to improve on 2007, though not enough for me to upgrade. (My use of 2010 was a "use at work" thing.)

Just a couple days ago I wanted to make a diagram, and decided to give LibreOffice Draw a try. The block corner arrow doesn't even have a handle to adjust the width of the arrow, which means that unless I'm missing something that shape is essentially useless. This problem is in both Draw and Impress.

(I'd love to try Keynote... but my usual line there is that I don't want to spend $1000 on presentation software, even if it does come with a free computer. :-))

Comment Re:Banking passwords are overrated (Score 1) 195

I have some kind of account with three different banks (a local credit union for checking & savings, an online "high yield" (not so much any more) savings, and a credit card); to my knowledge, none of the three offer those dongles.

I get the impression they're common in Europe, but I think they're pretty unheard of in the US.

Comment Re:MS Office mewlers and shills, queue here! (Score 1) 249

Also, I needed to make a diagram just this morning, and decided to give LibreOffice Draw a try. Even in the new LO release, the corner block arrow has no handle for changing the width of the line, which means that AFAICT the thickness scales to the overall size of the diagram portion.

This one thing basically left Draw dead in the water for what I wanted to do.

(Actually Impress seems to have the same problem. I wonder if lack of control like that was part of why I disliked Impress.)

Slashdot Top Deals

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.