I already despise them, nearly as much as I despise you.
You are SUCH. A. FUCKING. MORON. Masnick a "pro-corporate leader"?? Hell, if anyone is a corporate whoring shill, it's YOU!!
I wouldn't be surprised if you're not running bots and ip scanners to collect for your overlords, so you can put anyone who actually loves freedom into jail--jails you likely had something to do with privatizing.
So, if I am unable to lock down my wifi router (Suddenlink cable Internet), because they left the login:password as the default; and someone "hacks" it (ridiculously easy, since the there's no effective password), meaning they can get my wireless password quite easily; and they run some kind of spamop or mass download, I'm getting tagged no matter what??
I smell a class-action lawsuit coming... Hello, EFF? Can you help me sure them!
All automotive journal:tard:s think they're the best drivers in the whole world; and one of the most basic things car people will do with a car that can do it, is do donuts. They're fun, if destructive on the tires.
I dislike anyone who is biased or dishonest about that bias: it's called "hypocrisy".
I dislike anyone who profits from their dishonesty: it's called "stealing" (or embezzlement, or bribery, or selling votes, or selling "unbiased reviews", take your pick).
This very thing is what's wrong with more than just the media: it's what's wrong with our entire society.
In all honesty, I was prepared to believe the reviewer, because it's well-known that the best way to know a CEO is lying is to watch his lips move; and the best way to know a CEO is stealing is to just assume so and look for the money trail.
But I was wrong.
Sure, Musk reacted; but I don't thing he overreacted. In fact, I think he did PRECISELY what he wanted to do: get good publicity for his car by slam-dunking a biased "reviewer" and newspaper, and blowing the whole story out of proportion.
And Musk won: he got the legions of us ordinary guys who hate what things have become, because personal integrity no longer exists, to talk about his cars and technology (see the MASSIVE engineering discussions in the thread alone), and to vilify biased reporting, and the tendency of "news" corporations to kowtow to their true slavemasters.
Tesla won this one: I understand, far better than I did coming in, the capabilities and limitations of that car. And, had I the wherewithal, I would buy one IN A HEARTBEAT, because it would fill my needs very well.
So Mr Broder and his leashholders lost, Tesla won, and we have grist for our mills.
:lol: You're talking to an expert in this field: I work for one of those retailers; and I serviced copy machines in my past life, where one lives or dies by exceptional customer service.
And we come back to "reasonable expectations": if the manufacturer states certain limitations, and what steps you need to take to deal with those issues, you cannot hold them liable for your mistake. Retailers like mine have a "soft limit" on the cost of said liability: if it's below that threshhold, it's cheaper to just cave and be done with it.
It costs, typically, 3-5 new customers to cover the loss of one; so it's a darned good idea.
On the other hand, clear abuse cannot and will not be tolerated. And Broder clearly abused the car.
I say again, in caps so everyone might get it:
HAD BRODER ADMITTED WHAT HE WAS DOING UP FRONT, WE WOULD NOT BE DISCUSSING THIS.
It was a simple thing for him and his editors: just admit what you wanted to do, then do it. Don't fib, don't embellish, don't be disingenuous with the entire article, just tell the truth.
Broder failed to do this. And THAT is the real issue: JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY. Not engineering compromises leading to practical limitations--we live with those every day of our entire lives.
It still starts and ends with journalistic integrity, in this particular case. And nothing else.
Re: The Limits of Interchanging Battery Packs, to: Anonymous Coward, #52
The problem with this is merely engineering. GM did the HyWire (HAYwire in Germany), which was basically a "skateboard" platform with removable body and accessories. The batteries, drive systems, electrics, and controls were in the platform, and that was interchangeable.
Excellent idea, even tho GM screwed it up by trying to make it totally "drive by wire" at a time when they not only really didn't care about making cars, but when the computer controls weren't up to snuff in dealing with it, much less the batteries (tho I think they were trying to use fuel cells at the time).
As for "standardizing" battery packs: the key is to standardize the smallest useful package, which would then allow making a variety of shapes that can be damn near anything, depending on the space granted for the batteries.
Which brings up "transmission tunnels": those tunnels, on FWD cars, are just there for some structural integrity. It doesn't have to be shaped like the old-time "traditional" RWD transmission tunnel: it can be shaped like a perfect T, or even capital "I" (oh, how I hate sans-serif fonts when trying to make a point, or even have a readable piece).
Here, like this: |----|
And it doesn't have to be the same plane, it can be any topography needed, depending on the smallest size of the individual removable cells.
Yes, it would need an undercar lift to drop it down. But that sort of equipment is commonly used at bigger dealerships on a regular basis now, because pulling a FWD motor/trans unit requires dropping it from beneath the car; so, the hoist the car up on a two-post lift, position the motor/trans lift beneath it (usually a large-capacity scissor-lift table), run it up to support the motor, unbolt, drop. Done.
Substitute "battery pack" for "motor", and you have the problem solved.
Lead-acid batteries are still proving to be the best sources, because of their recyclability, deep-discharge ability, and simplicity. Weight is a huge issue, but that's is solvable as well.
Sliding contacts: require a power source easily accessible to the vehicle. Trains are easy: overhead wires. In-track contact works, but is dangerous to people. Cars... Are not easy. And if you look closely at those train contacts, they use rolling contacts instead. Better reliability.
So we're back to batteries. And that's an engineering exercise.
So when I run out of fuel, or lock up the motor because I refused to get oil changes, I can blame the manufacturer for "not designing an idiot-proof car"??
I don't think you understand precisely what goes into engineering a product, not with statements like that.
Give what you said: I could call Whirlpool, and accuse them of making unsuitably usable product when my fridge dies after 50 years of misuse and neglect.
Or I can call GE and blame them for my stove blowing up in my face, despite the fact I was boiling gasoline over an open flame.
How about I call Maytag and complain that my washer shook itself thru the wall? And should I tell them I threw a load of bricks into the tub??
Do you see how ridiculous your defense of the man is? Had he done an HONEST piece ("hey, guys! I just got this tesla, and I wanna see what happens when Joe the Plumber [who I doubt would even remotely abuse it] ignores the instructions he can't read--because we NYT people all know tradespeople are a bunch of stupid, ignorant, uneducated, illiterate boors"), this would be an utter non-issue.
Instead, NYT and Broder decided to publish a biased, incorrect, disingenuous piece that has only served to throw their entire ethical integrity into question.
As for your link to Wired: yet another Broder apologist. Talk about cirlcing the wagons. I'll save you the effort, and reprint my comment there, here. But there are reasons I don't read Wired anymore, or the NYT, and they're pretty much the same. And you're not helping your own cause, either.