Slashdot Mirror

Even re-releases were affected and I think it's the main reason why vinyls are still here.

Vinyl records are still a thing because of "audiophiles" who like to pretend that they have special hearing powers the rest of us don't and hipster douchebags who like the idea of using what amounts to steampunk technology to seem superior and "edgy". Acoustically vinyl is better than cassette tape but that's pretty much the definition of damning with faint praise.

Considering cars with casette players are still available (yes, 2nd hand, I know), some may choose that compromise.

Nobody buys a car because it has a cassette player and they certainly don't base their music library around the fact that they are buying cars that are probably >10 years old. There hasn't been any cars sold with a cassette player as OEM equipment since 2010 and most dropped the equipment long before that.

As for "sucks on SO many levels", I just hope you don't base that on unmaintained cheap players and casettes

No I base it on several decades of having to live with tapes. I'm old enough to pre-date CDs (heck I pre-date the Sony walkman) and there were very good reasons why the market stampeded to CDs and dumped tapes decades ago.

Honda has had 15 engines on the Ward's 10 best engines lists over the years. GM has had 29.
Sure, GM's had a few lemons in their time, but so have all the Japanese ones. The Civic del Sol got a "Not Recommended" rating from Consumer Reports, due to "the worst body integrity" in the industry, or something like that. (Been a long time since I read that review, and I don't remember the exact wording.)

J.D. Power's Vehicle Dependability Study for 2013 vehicles, based on complaints for vehicles between 2-3 years old, included at least 3 GM products listed on the "most reliable" side: Buick Encore, Chevy Silverado HD, and Camaro.
Incidentally, GMC, Chevrolet, and Buick all receive better Problems/100 vehicles scores than Honda, Acura, and Infiniti. Buick's score is even better than Toyota's.
http://canada.jdpower.com/pres...

Similarly, J.D. Power's 10 most reliable vehicles for 2016 includes four GM products: Buick Verano and LaCrosse, and the Chevy Malibu and Camaro.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

Another where GM has as many or more cars on the most reliable list as any other manufacturer:
http://www.jdpower.com/cars/ar...

It's funny, because I hear people complain about GM reliability all the time, and they're usually either referring to some neighbour who has an entry level Cobalt (sample of 1) or stuff from 20-30 years ago. These same people who decry old GM reliability would sometimes praise Hyundai reliability, while completely and totally failing to remember the debacle that was the Pony and Excel. Every single one of them burned oil badly after 2-3 years, and virtually all of them had rust perforation holes within 6 years. 80s GM cars, while slow due to overly ambitious emissions regulations for the time (just like most other manufacturers in the world, though, with the strange exception of the Buick turbos) were paragons of reliability compared to Hyundai at the time.

Safety standards haven't changed much. A newer vehicle isn't necessarily safer

That sounds nice, but the facts are not on your side.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

From that article:

It probably wasn’t hard for NHTSA to prove its point, but here’s the interesting part: the chances of walking away from a crash uninjured rose from 79 to 82 percent between 2000 and 2008. That means cars built in 2000 that packed little more than a few airbags, anti-lock brakes and a horn left you with a solid chance to fight another day after exchanging paint. Almost a decade later, with piles of tech-related “safety” features, that figure rose less than 0.5 percent per year.

Yep; sounds just like the sky is falling.

A 2003 car is still perfectly safe on the road.

Are you sure?

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

My 2001 GTI was not missing any safety features compared to today.

You might think that, but the numbers don't lie:

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

Cars are in fact safer today than they were in 2001.

Safety standards haven't changed much. A newer vehicle isn't necessarily safer

That sounds nice, but the facts are not on your side.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

You're literally suggesting that someone should ditch a perfectly capable car because it's 14 years old?

If you have the money to buy a brand new iPhone, then yes, you should. If you don't, then your brain isn't working, because the older car is more likely to kill you in a crash, the phone won't help with that.

Seriously, if you're driving a 14 year old car and you think spending $650 on a phone is a good choice, your brain is not working right.

If you're going to quibble, the base model Tesla starts at $75k. That's not much more than a pick-up truck these days.

And that, my friends, is why CAFE[1] standards are a stupid way of reducing emissions.

Except this isn't about CAFE at all, but a specific ZEV mandate in CARB standards for the 6 largest automakers.

These rules gave us the GM EV1, Nissan Leaf, the Toyota Prius, the Chevy Volt, and more. I'd say those vehicles are indications that the regulations are highly effective. You're free to disagree (once you get onto the correct subject), but I think the above list stands on its own.

While there are a number of other "compliance cars" that aren't as noteworthy, they're still helping support ZEV R&D, and amortization of the costs.

A web search for "compliance car" turns up numerous insightful write-ups:

http://www.greencarreports.com...

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

The ZR1 that set the 7:19.63 Nurburgring lap time survived.

Too bad the Blue Devil ZR-1 was lost.

Proud owner of a 2011 Grand Sport, 666 RWHP...

There have only been maybe 5000 of them made and the development is at what now over 5 years?

25k as of December, actually.

25k@$100k per gives you $2.5B in sales. Plus I just read an article about Tesla selling ZEV credits to the other manufacturers...

I can remember them licensing Honda for the batteries and Lotus for their Elise design both of which basically weren't good enough for their requirements.

The Elise frame was a deliberate design decision - it allowed them to release a car without having to design a body, allowing them to concentrate on the drive train, battery packs, etc... Also, I thought it was the opposite way round on the batteries?

Step 1: motor, battery pack, controller, interior (Roadster)
Step 2: As step 1 but the frame too, spread of charging stations/support infrastructure (Model S)
Step 3? Build a battery factory...

Audi's really known for their pickup trucks, too?

Whodathunkit, apparently Audi are playing around with the idea of building a pickup:
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2011/08/audi-q7-pickup-truck-is-real-new-spy-photos.html

I think he meant cars in general, Audi has been making extensive use of aluminium in their cars for years, as have Rolls Royce, Aston Martin, Jaguar, ... Rover built an aluminium Landrover in 1948, and the American Motors Corporation did the same with their little M422 jeep back in the 50s. This is hardly news except perhaps because somebody has plucked up the courage to make a (**Grunt**) 'muscle' SUV out of Aluminium with the intention of selling it to the US public.

Manufacturers require 92 or better for certain high compression engines. This trend is increasing as manufacturers turn to more compression and forced induction to achieve CAFE fleet averages.

"Enterprise" grade drives are often faster, having better processors and more cache, and they don't do dumbass things like park heads every 8 seconds because the drive manufacturers have to listen to server and storage array manufacturers and meet their requirements to get certification for use in advanced storage systems.

You're an idiot. Please, stay away from any important systems. Just spend your time poasting on slashdot so you don't do any (more) damage.

While you are spot on for towing a boat or going on a hunting trip, there is still a pretty big market for sport trucks. Ford is getting back into the game to compete with the Dodge SRT-10 and Toyota Tacoma (Formerly X-Runner, now SR). It can be seen as a continuation of their SVT Lightning line of F-150's. While not in as big of numbers as the giant 4x4's that no one seems to use for anything other than daily driver (around here, anyway), I do see a lot of lowered, sport-tuned trucks. If the Model S is any indication of how a Tesla Truck would behave, they may have a pretty easy time catering to the sport truck crowd.

This was a pretty crazy crash. 100MPH through two concrete walls and into trees. Even then the drunk was able to get out and walk away.

Nice, Did they manage to overcome the $30,000 per battery problem? I mean to pay $30,000 for the 'fuel tank' that only lasts for about 300 fill ups is a bit worrying.

BTW, I don't have a Tesla and am unlikely to get one, at least for a few more generations, unless a used Roadster somehow becomes available REALLY cheap.

However, it was in the news a few days ago that the batteries are apparently lasting longer than was promised.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/07/tesla-roadster-batteries-stronger-than-expected-study.html

I'm not expecting a "major technological breakthrough" either; whether adoption is "anytime soon" is a matter of definition of "soon."

I figure 'soon' equates to 'when someone like my mom would buy one.' which means it has to be good for daily driving and the occasional 400-mile road trip to visit family across the state.

today's "daily commute only, no long road trips" range cars

Which cars are those? All the models I know of are capable of both (granted, due greatly in part to existing gasoline-based infrastructure). Anyway, a gasoline ForTwo can theoretically go from KC to STL on a single tank (71 MPG, 8.7 gal tank), whereas the electric model (84 mi on a full charge) would have to be charged at least 3 times one way, at 8 hours per charge.

will, in a decade or two, be up to the full range of gas vehicles.

"A decade or two" is a long friggin' time. Who knows what we'll come up with between now and then? (P.S. this is why I think futurists, AKA self-proclaimed oracles, are idiots).

Over the same time period, suitable infrastructure will get gradually rolled out into place.

Right... and in the 1960's, they were convinced that 20 years in the future we'd all have jetpacks and live on space colonies. Pure speculation, then and now.

By the way, do you have any reference about battery production --- for the types going into current and near future electric cars --- being "insanely polluting," comparable to the insane level of pollution released over the lifetime of a gasoline car? I've seen various FUD articles trying to "prove" points like that, but nothing that actually stands up to much scrutiny.

Funny, in my research I saw the opposite - various articles that tried to downplay the fact that hybrids and EVs pollute as much if not more than their gasoline or diesel counterparts. C'est la vie, eh, mon frere?

Anyway, here are some links:

http://www.auto123.com/en/news/hybrid-and-ev-production-pollutes-more-than-gas-cars-but?artid=132278

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/04/electric-cars-may-pollute-more-than-gas-models-study.html

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-electric-cars-are-more-polluting-than-gas-guzzlers-at-least-in-china/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

Cheers.

You may be interested in reading this little gem concerning the Volt: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/10/gm-admits-chevy-volts-gasoline-engine-can-power-the-wheels-so-is-it-still-special.html

Tubing would suck.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2009/03/under-the-skin-of-astons-one-77-supercar.html

http://www.speedhunters.com/2009/06/car_builder_gt_gt_pagani_factory_tour_pt_1/

These are showing up on several high end vehicles and even bycycles. If the CNC's become commercially viable it would be much cheaper to make monocoque chassis for a variety of vehicles.

I work in automotive engineering, and while Ford may not be suing Chevy, they have successfully sought injunctions on JAC (a car maker from China). This isn't just something that is specific to the tech industry; it's happening in automotive as well.

Looks are a big part of what sells a car, and for those who don't know, there are many Chinese car makers who are blatantly ripping off designs from established car companies. There are rip offs of BMWs, Toyotas, Fords and Rolls Royces (and many others). It's not just Ford vs JAC; injunctions on Chinese imports have been sought in other markets too.

The real argument (from Apple's point of view) is not about patent infringement but rather Samsung's blatant copying of the iPhone, and it's really hard to defend Samsung because it's obvious that their strategy has been to just "copy Apple".

"I'd rather 200 people file small claims suits than someone file a class action."

Here's an example which supports your contention!

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/03/honda-civic-hybrid-class-action-lawsuit-settled-tentatively.html

I'd happily pay another 10% or so to gain what people in many (most?) other OECD nations have--I'd be a fool not to, since it's a bargain.

I'm willing to bet that if you actually had that option, you wouldn't take it.

Let's presume that "I do alright but I'm far from rich" means you pull in about $85k/year. An additional 10% means you would pay just over $700/month more in taxes. That's before you take into account that the average gross salary in Denmark is almost $10,000/year lower than in the U.S., so another ~$500/month hit after taxes. That $1,200/month bump in take-home pay that you enjoy over the average Dane could buy you and your family a righteous medical insurance policy, and if you're a smart shopper you'll still have quite a bit left over to save for your kids' education.

That's just the financials. As far as transportation, the idea that the U.S. has an inferior transportation infrastructure is at best an apples-to-oranges fallacy, and at worst an outright myth. The only country in the world of comparable size that has a better-developed system of transportation (or one that even comes close) is China, and you'll note they have the tax revenue from 4 times as many people to pay for it. Western European countries are substantially more compact, in both absolute and per-capita terms (Denmark specifically has 4x the population density of the U.S.), and thus don't have nearly as much ground to cover or face comparable last-mile challenges. Moreover, the price they pay for what you perceive as a transportation utopia is arguably reduced mobility, a more limited choice of destinations due to highly restricted personal last-mile reach, and -- more importantly -- a paradigm where apartment living is the norm rather than the exception. (How many Danes do you think live in single-family homes?)

Back to the balance sheet: note that we haven't even gotten to sales tax yet. So...you're already paying about $1,200/month for the privilege of sharing walls with your neighbors and piling your family onto a crowded train to go away for the weekend instead of hopping in your minivan. Now - on top of that, you would pay >15% more in VAT than you do in the States. Not only that, but you would also pay breathtaking import tariffs to boot: nearly 50% on things like bicycles, and a mind-boggling 200% on cars, should you decide you want one. Oh, and once you've paid 3x for your car, you'd pay about $10 per gallon of gas to drive it.

I really don't think that 10% is as much of a "bargain" as your first impressions might lead you to believe.

With have a subsidised/protected automotive industry. All it does is artificially inflate prices. GM/Ford still come crying to the government for handouts every few years.

Don't forget impounding those evil "hoons" cars. Nothing is more important than ensuring that Australian roads are completely free of import vehicles and car enthusiasts. How else can you train the population to help the government prop up our car industry than to intimidate them into buying the junk that rolls off the assembly line here?

Well, that's blatantly wrong. Considering the pointless Holden vs Ford patriotism that goes on here there's no government intervention required to keep bogans buying locally produced cars (except for those produced by Asian owned manufacturers). I'm all for repeat or blatant idiots having their cars impounded. I had some moron drive into me to cut in front of me at a set of traffic lights, and then he raged and reversed into me before speeding off. That's the only collision I've ever been involved in.

Or making sure that nobody, absolutely nobody, takes their eyes off the speedometer for even half a second, lest they creep 0.0000001 km/h over the limit, thereby killing 10 starving disabled orphans instantly and advancing the impending doom of civilisation.

+1 troll there. I've been done for speeding a minor amount over the limit a couple of times. There's usually leeway in the form of not fining someone until they are a certain amount over the speed limit. It's adequate motivation to make me check my speed whenever I pass fixed speed cameras or see brand new cars suspiciously parked in unusual places.

The agency didn't secure the pages, so the government kicked up a stink about being "hacked".

Quote from your linked article: 'Campbell said he had been advised by the IT contractor building the website, Bang The Table, that "there were two days of IT attacks on the website firewall security that began on Thursday 18 February at 8.44 p.m. and continued until around midday on Friday 19 February".'

Sounds like a Cover Your Ass on behalf of the contractor and a politician. Nothing new there.

Alternatively, you could try giving your Veyron a salt water wash...

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2009/11/video-bugatti-veyron-pulled-from-saltwater-lagoon-after-crash.html