Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:This is good for people with EV's already (Score 1) 143

> Tacking them on where?

Annual or registration fees. An extra $150-$200 per period in many states, with some of them charging more based on weight.

For example, New Jersey charges an additional $1080 to register a battery electric vehicle, which is four years worth of the $270/yr fee they will start charging you on year five and beyond.

> I've been thinking about swapping a worn out ICE in a classic car with a Tesla crate motor.

Tesla doesn't do crate motors, and Tesla drivetrains are traverse axles which are not drop-in replacements for classic cars. What you may be thinking of is some third party solution?
=Smidge=

Comment Re:attack (Score 5, Informative) 66

From another source it sounds like the plant's SCADA system was compromised and shut down/disabled, causing some plants to go offline.

The immediate consequence is they would lose remote control over the pumps, fans, and valves at these facilities and either default to some safe state or just shut down entirely. Someone would have to drive over and manually reset/control everything, which is exactly what they did. Addressed promptly enough most people would even notice something was wrong.

The long term consequences could be that they end up getting incorrect status information about the facility's operation, causing a longer disruption until complaints start coming in and they have to run around trying to figure out what's wrong. Loss of water pressure, distribution of untreated water, distribution of over treated water, depletion of reserves are all obvious problems a bad enough attack could cause. Physical damage to equipment is also not impossible, which would be the worst case scenario.... you're not fixing a broken well/system pump or AOP reactor in two or three hours, and it you lose a bunch of them at once you could be at reduced capacity for months.
=Smidge=

Comment Re:Plausible deniability is better (Score 4, Informative) 218

Not legal advice, but lying to police generally is not illegal. You are only subject to criminal charges if you lie about your identity and a handful of other specific circumstances. Giving an "incorrect" password likely would not fall under that, and if it does do to court he can simply claim he misspoke, or that the police entered it incorrectly, or any other number of excuses to create plausible deniability.

He was not under oath, so it's not perjury. He was not under investigation - the phone was seized without a warrant - so it's not obstruction. He did not make false allegations of criminal activity. He did not try to falsify his identity.

His lawyer should have an easy time getting any charges dropped, *especially* with how incompetent the current US DoJ is these days.
=Smidge=

Comment Ford, too. (Score 2) 160

I bought a Ford F-150 XLT (the full-hybrid pickup) and was very disappointed to find that several of the features (Including Blue Cruise and navigation) were subscription-based with an initial free period of a year or so.

Other than that the vehicle is fantastic - but was very pricey when I bought it, so having to pay over and over for the features was a very annoying surprise. (They quit working rather than quit updating when the subscriptions run out.)

Comment Maybe not to individual people, but ... (Score 2) 14

... a bunch of cancer progression theories based on cell culture progression had to be thrown out when it was discovered that the cultures were being contaminated by a particularly robust and aggressive cancer cell culture, HeLa, which had contaminated lab equipment like environmental chambers or survived equipment sterilization and eventually took over culture lines in labs.

Comment Re:Going to be interesting in CA (Score 1) 105

> Once, the one time 5% is spent the state will have to figure out how to do the one time 5% more than once to keep feeding the spending machine.

The money to be raised is already budgeted as a separate fund for a specific purpose. It is not intended to be general funds nor is it intended to be ongoing funding.

Think of as a bond. When the government wants to raise money for a project or investment in the future, they will often issue and sell bonds to raise that money. Bonds mature and pay back with some interest, and are not recurring or factored into the normal budgeting.

This is functionally the same thing, except instead of borrowing via bonds and paying back with interest, it's just a straight up tax on billionaires.

=Smidge=

Comment Foccused ultrasound but yes. (Score 1) 37

microwave labotomy ... We just put the machine against your head here for a bit and those bad urges go away, all better.

Another poster mentioned that it's actually focussed ultrasound.

Still sounds like breaking a piece of a system by stirring the brain with a knife (lobotomy) or burning it out with heat (cauterization), electricity (electroshock) or mechanical shock (blow to the head) - just carefully focused without (substantial) damage to other parts of the brain or its casing.

Ultrasonic destruction of a piece of the brain's reward/punishment/desire/avoidance mechanism rather than persistent unwanted fat.

Comment Re:Tooling exceeds Machinist Cost (Score 1) 128

The most important difference in all your examples is things like tooling and equipment are either strictly necessary to complete the job, or produce so much value in terms of productivity that they are worth the cost. Also, most tooling and equipment lasts longer than an AI token so the cost tends to get spread our over several jobs...

Using AI coding agents has not proven to increase quality or productivity in any meaningful way - increased volume of code does not mean productivity unless you're a middle manager. It's known that it is not strictly needed for the software engineer to do their job. You are not improving the engineer's workflow by mandating AI use, you're just making it more expensive.
=Smidge=

Comment Re:And water (Score 1) 330

> Meanwhile, that CAFE standards put in place by Bush and Obama mandated ever larger trucks and SUV

It absolutely did not.

The regulations had an exception for trucks and work vehicles. The auto industry then conspired to sell more trucks as high end personal vehicles in order to keep building vehicles without having to meet the regulatory requirements.

The lack of a small vehicle segment is entirely, 100% on the shoulders of auto manufacturers who desperately do not want to build them.
=Smidge=

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...