CGurrell

My thought was that the electric motor was the culprit, as that's the only part of the car that consumes electricity (besides things like lights, sat-nav, AC etc). The figure of 444wh/km refers to distance, and the only part of a normal electric car that creates movement is the motor, sending power to the wheels. Heck it could be a wiring issue or an issue with the drivetrain, who knows, but I'm almost certain it isn't the batteries.

Gues, can we get off of the topic of Climate Change? It divides opinion and just causes multiple arguments. I'm more interested in how Tesla and the Singaporean Government will decide which of the test results are accurate, the 444wh/km the government found, or the 181wh/km Tesla found. It should be interesting to see, as it's the different between a S$15,000 fine, and a S$10,000 incentive.

Can't disagree, virtual "possessions" are just as valuable as physical possessions nowadays.

This is interesting. A twitch streamer recently divorced her husband, with whom she created a twitch Channel. During their divorce, an agreement was made between the streamer and her husband, where she received a substantial cash sum in exchange for the channel (or at least her half of it). The streamer also collected the PayPal and patreon funds of the channel, with any new funds going to her husband. A new personality is now streaming on the channel, claiming to be the husbands cousin. The story itself is not particularly interesting, what is more interesting is the response Twitch will have. It is thought that twitch will comment on the matter, and clarify how channel ownership works in the case where two people start up the channel, especially when finance is involved. Source: http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/jon-martindale/twitch-channel-purportedly-exchanged-as-part-of-divorce/

LinusChefTips? Anyway, technical difficulties aside, great show guys. Glad to be a part of it Not sure if Linus saw my post about the Tesla model S news from Singapore but I'd love to see his reaction to the title

What gets me is the amount of environmentalists that went batshit crazy over the Toyota Prius back in the day about how clean it was, yet the mining of the nickel used in the batteries caused more pollution (I think it was CO2) than a normal car would produce in its lifetime, yet this isn't addressed when deciding how much Road tax it requires. In fact they also don't factor the pollution created when most of them were recalled for bad accelerators. In the UK I believe they're still free, or at least very cheap, to tax.

The scroll click on my current mouse is dying, works every now and again, and my keyboard is starting to show its age too. Could really use a new one of either Good luck everyone

Just added this to the top post and credited you.

Um... Wut? That's the reaction I had when reading this headline. A man in Singapore applied for a tax rebate due to owning a Tesla Model S. The result of this process? He was fined the equivalent of just over US$10,000 (S$15,000) for owning a high-emissions vehicle. Confused? Let me explain. The Tesla Model S in question was rated by the Singaporean Government at 444 watt-hours per kilometer driven. With a grid emissions factor (pollution created when the electricity is generated by the national grid) of 0.5g CO2/Wh, the emissions of the car equate to 222g/km (444 x 0.5). This puts the car in the high-emissions "CEVS surcharge" band. Tesla have disputed this in a statement, claiming that they, and the Singaporean government on import, rated the car at 181 Wh/km, which results in emissions of 90(.5)g CO2/km, meaning the owner should be getting an incentive for owning a low-emissions car, instead of a fine for owning a high-emissions car. This is a very odd situation in my opinion. We have an electric car that supposedly uses so much electricity, it's polluting more than most small petrol-powered cars, yet if we are to believe Tesla and the Singaporean Governments car import division, the car should be using less than half of the electricity the governments emissions division claims, meaning the man should get an incentive instead of a fine. EDIT (Credit: dragoon20005): Tesla's full response is available here Source: http://www.eteknix.com/tesla-model-s-owner-singapore-receives-fine-emissions/

problem is, I doubt the government would listen to the public if there even was a backlash. The UK government hasn't listened in regards to the Junior Doctors contracts, and the government pretty much controls the printed media.

Installing a camera is equivalent to having an access log on your devices, problem is, if the person accessing your device remotely is using a VPN, this is pointless. It would be like the person hiring somebody to enter the house for them, getting all the information from them, then killing them to destroy the trail.

But literally ANYBODY could come and open your door is what I'm getting at, and the person is not specified. You cannot see them, you don't even know straight away that it's happened. Coming away from the metaphor slightly, you may have an IP address or something like that, but anybody smart enough to figure out how to get your info will also hide themselves behind multiple VPNs, making them untraceable.

Ok then lets say you keep everything open. Anybody can see anything, so some guys in Egypt, where as far as I can tell your grandpa lives, intercept your call to him and find out information about you and about him. They then decide it's a good idea to kidnap him and hold him for ransom. Yes this is an extreme situation and I wouldn't wish for it to happen to anybody, but it's a possibility in the world you're describing. EDIT: Added more (see below). Ok so I have a really nice half-decent metaphor for the idea you're coming up with. It's like having a house, a normal house with belongings inside, documents (e.g. social security information), family photos etc. You then lock the house, and leave a key on display outside of the front door. Yeah you might be fine for a while, maybe nobody notices it, but then one day somebody sees the key, goes inside, takes anything they want, and you can't do anything about it. The difference between this, and "digital transparency" as I'm now calling it, is that in the digital space, you would never even know your information was stolen. It's digital, made up of 1's and 0's. It can be copied, it can be distributed, and it's personal data, so will sell for a high price.

No, but you can't, this is the point. If I had the ability to brute force, say my dads iPhone (i know the PIN anyway, 6253 jk, I do know it but I'm not that stupid) to find out something about my dad, all I'd have to do is enter every possible combination of 4 numbers from 0-9. Once I eventually hit the right number, I'm in. Nothing is kept on the phone about who entered the correct pin, as it's a phone, it doesn't know who is holding it or using it. All it knows is that it should unlock as the right PIN was entered after numerous failed attempts. This is why Apple has the 10-try safeguard available.

Ahh but no, this is the mistake. If everything is open, you can see what everyone does. However, you cannot see who is looking at who, there is no way to do this. So whilst every device may be open, no theoretical log is kept of everyone who has looked at it. After all, as Ars stated, the FBI want to be able to brute fore the PIN key. If anyone can do this, all we know is that somebody unidentified entered the correct 4 digit PIN. Nothing else.

All that really states is that they want a vulnerability instead of a backdoor (look back through my post, I know this, I didn't use "backdoor" once). The problem is, once this has been done once, it will be recreated and it will happen again. Already there's another case in New York with the same argument going on, so it's obvious that, if this can be done once, it can be done again and again and again

I haven't seen the evidence that supports this and if you provide it I'll happily take a look, but this was probably before Apple had given up their ability to access any given iPhone in its property. "We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business" - http://apple.com/customer-letter/

Yet safety of the majority is more at risk if these powers come into effect. Lets take the San Bernardino iPhone for example. If Apple was to retrieve the data, the only way to do so is to write a vulnerability into the OS. This OS is then either distributed to all other iPhones, or kept away at Apple. Problems arise either way, if the OS is platform-wide, iPhones are then vulnerable as anybody can target the vulnerability of the OS, and exploit it to gain access. This could be, for example, by a criminal who accesses the iPhone of the Chief of Police, gets into his work emails, finds the patrol schedule of all police officers on a given night, and does something with the information. If Apple keep the OS for themselves, the government keeps requesting access to the OS, one day somebody with not-so-great intentions in the government makes a copy of the OS, distributes it, we have the same problem. Governments are not just entities, they're groups of people, and often in ANY group of people large enough, you have one "bad egg" who will make use of information they have and distribute it. Laws are there to be followed in most cases, but in all cases, a criminal will not care about breaking the law, as they're a criminal.

It gets worse in the UK. The leaders of the Conservative Party and Labour Party have a tools they can use called Whips (not the physical item). If a leader decides to use the parliamentary whips, what they're basically saying to their members is "vote the way we tell you to or resign".

umm... yay?

If the french government is similar to the UK government, then maybe not. The way the UK government works, a bill is proposed and voted on within the house of commons, i.e. all of the local members of parliament who we vote for in the election vote on our behalf, similar to the way a bill is passed in the US senate I believe, I could be wrong. With the exception of voting for a different person years before, the people really have no say at all.

Running Windows 10 Education after running Pro for a while, got it as a free download from Microsoft Dreamspark. Haven't noticed a whole lot of differences tbh, but as that table states, lots of additional features.

After watching the fight between the FBI and Apple unfold regarding the San Bernardino attack, other governments are unfortunately starting to push legislation through to avoid this happening to them. The UK are doing it with the Investigatory powers bill (or Snoopers Charter), and now France are getting in on the act. eTeknix have reported that France are about to accept an amendment to a bill, "amendment 90", that could see companies face a fine, or 5 years of jail time, if they fail to hand over encrypted data. "Amendment 51" is also being considered, and went as far to say that companies who refuse to assist the French government in retrieving data from encrypted devices would be considered "accomplices to terrorism". Another amendment being considered, "amendment 221" (they are really creative naming these aren't they...) suggests increasing the fine by over 5 times, and “all relevant information" would need to be handed over, not just the message they are looking for. It is important to note that the bill is only in its first reading, so a lot may change between now and becoming law, but if the UK government have set any precedent, we could see this forced through very quickly indeed. Source: eTeknix http://www.eteknix.com/france-punish-companies-refusing-decrypt-devices EDIT: I misunderstood the amendments and how they're all being considered, updated the post to reflect this. Apologies.

SLI GTX 970s, 2 monitors (4k via DP, 1080p via HDMI). Unfortunately I upgraded to Windows 10 before getting my 2nd 970 so I haven't been able to test if the issue occurs on Windows 8.1 as well as 10, but it has occured over 2 different Windows 10 installs.

Thanks ClownFace1511, I'll have him do that asap. I've already recommended the sfc /scannow too so we're on the right track at least