A Tesla costs a 100 fucking thousand dollars, and I'm sure they're losing money on every car. It's not a matter of convenience.
Larry Seltzer Contributing Editor, PC Magazine [email protected] http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of seclists Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [funsec] climate gate and programming bugs Well, I'm given to wonder how affordable is defined. Short term convenience versus medium term extinction? Yeh, convenience is important. Sounds like a good bet to me, at least we will no longer have silly debates over the reality of a warming planet. On 11/12/09 07:50, Larry Seltzer wrote: > Anybody would prefer an affordable Tesla. The problem is that they're > not, and they won't be any time soon. Do you think the solution is to > make gasoline-based cars unaffordable as well? > > Larry Seltzer > Contributing Editor, PC Magazine > [email protected] > http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Collins [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:32 PM > To: Dan Kaminsky > Cc: Larry Seltzer; funsec > Subject: Re: [funsec] climate gate and programming bugs > > But it's so much more *fun* to protect current business models and > outmoded energy production techniques rather than grab a brave new > future, Dan. > > Seriously, I don't understand, even apart from the climate change > issue while people are so happy to keep sending money to the > custodians of the two shrines and continue the operation of petroleum > cracking plants. Those bastards stink like three graves invading your > nasal cavity. I appreciate the sweet pickup of a nice V8 as the next > man, but I'll happily buy a Tesla when they're affordable. > > > > On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Dan Kaminsky wrote: > > >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Larry Seltzer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> The reality is that for a whole bunch of reasons, a lot of stuff >>>> >> just isn't available. If you want it, if you want to reimplement >> it, you get documentation in the form of a paper showing how to >> achieve what is claimed. Is the paper enough? Sometimes it is, >> yeah. But always? Even often? No, not at all. >> >> That's as may be. If we're expected to impose massive taxes and >> regulations on the economy based on this supposedly settled science >> we need to expect more in the way of proof. >> >> >> >> >> It's a talking point. Delay, delay, delay, ignore reality when it's >> inconvenient. >> >> The scientific consensus around climate change is *overwhelming*. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. >> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec >> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. >> > Mike Collins > [email protected] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > > _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
