I can understand that. However, with the popularity of the Prius and other hybrids, not to mention the Tesla, they (auto manufacturers) have obviously gotten the whole dangerous battery thing figured out. What are the reasons today that stop Toyota or Honda or GM from making a true electric car. Honda is leasing the FCX in SoCal which is much less practical than an electric car. If a major auto-maker released an all electric, with a 200mi range and around a 3-5 hour charge time for less than say $30,000 I would be all over it, as would a non-trivial number of other people. All of this can be done without bleeding edge tech.
The comparison still stands though. You pay for bandwidth. You pay for water. If you aren't carefull with either you run the risk of paying for someone else to benefit. When you buy a router it is a trivial task to enable a simple wep key when you first set it up. You pretty much have to make a decision to allow anyone within range to connect. Cracking a key however, that I consider stealing.
The Tesla gets roughly 220 miles to a 3.5hour charge, and thats a sports car that will out accelerate a Lamborghini. When they build a Civic/Corolla/OtherCompact with an electric motor and batteries that can take me to work and back (50 miles) twice (so I can forget to plug it in one night and not be screwed) for a small premium over buying a gas or hybrid version I will be in line to reserve one. A 5 year or less break even point is reasonable in my opinion. I do not think I am alone in this opinion. I pay $0.035 kW/hr, how many kW do you think my charger would draw for those 3.5hrs. In any case it would certainly be much cheaper than $4.00 a gallon @ 25-35mpg for a small car.
If the EV1 wasn't a "conspiracy" like you say then what is your valid explanation for why GM did not allow those vehicles to be bought at the end of their leases and instead chose to crush them. I actually live in one of the states where the EV1 was offered and my anecdotal experiences tell me that the EV1 was not as ill-received as you say. Gas prices dropping below $1.00 a gallon here during that time frame probably didn't help but I would at least think that GM would have liked to have sold those cars rather than destroy them if they did not have some other incentive not to.
It's like your neighbors sprinkler getting your dirt front yard wet, and you decide to throw down some grass seed. Sure your neighbor is growing you a lawn with his water and it may cost him a little extra but it would be trivial for him not to. Nothings changed for him other than the fact that you decided to start benefiting form his actions.
Equating using some ones WiFi with breaking into their house and using their internet connected PC is silly. If you dont want to share, hit the "Setup Security" button that most new routers have.
Also, I keep hearing this "what if they pay per GB" nonsense. Other than cell phones, are there many pay per usage plans?
I was told, maybe someone can confirm, that China does not let foreign built factories reach completion if said company refuses to share their trade secrets as to how the product the factory produces is made. This was the reason given for China's knack at cloning products. A half-built factory in China is a considerable expense for a company to eat.
Did you miss something? The question I asked was, what is the software developers incentive to port an app to Linux that everyone is running in Wine? I will repeat myself. Wine and the like make it capable for everyone to switch to Linux AND keep the crappy "mission critical" apps. Wouldn't it be a better idea to create a native app with the desired functionality then port over the crappy app that is part of a large percentage of Windows bad name?
Joking aside Wine, Ndiswrapper, and the like are a step backwards for Linux in some respect. I use Linux, Windows, and OSX and honestly the majority of problems with Windows (2000-Vista) are caused by crappy drivers and even crappier applications. Whats the point of getting everyone to switch to Linux if we are still going to have to deal with all the crappy applications written in 1993.
I understand some hardware doesn't have drivers and some applications don't have Linux versions and people want to use their hardware and programs but where is the incentive for the producers of these products to support Linux if the open source community "makes it work" for them for free?
Dear software dev,
I am writing you to inform you that even though you only write Windows apps, I (somewhat) successfully managed to get it to run on my Linux operating system. Please start making a Linux version of this application post haste so you can not gain a customer (I have already hacked your app to run in linux) and increase your development costs. An added perk is the fact that you will be required to support the Linux version rather than just telling me to "run it in Windows" when I call. The extra staff you hire for your support center should help the unemployment rate.
Not to mention the fact that it makes headway in fixing the security issues that we have been complaining about forever and adds some worthwhile features. I don't understand the people that would get XP on a new PC rather than Vista. Like you said, all you need to do is disable the eye-candy and it is basically XP with security improvements with a few new features thrown in.
For the time being I haven't and won't buy anything but an intel board and proccessor. I used to run AMD's and still run a couple but they have not been without their problems. You can buy a Intel mobo with X3500, Gigabit nic, 7.1 sound and a Core2Duo 3.0ghz for $250 to $300 and everything will, like you said, just work. Now you might be able to build something comparable with AMD for a similar price but is anyone really arguing that the Core2Duo isn't better than AMD's offerings. I like having the graphics card, nic, and sound integrated on my office machine not to mention it saves me money. Should I really have to buy those things seperate just to make life easier for AMD. Are they incapable of producing AMD brand boards with their own AMD brand chipset and integrated graphics, nic and sound. I thought we were supposed to protect the consumer not the underdog corporation.
Oh, I would not be surprised if they weren't still receiving the same almost legendary levels of training if they truely did go from around 100 agents to 6000. all I am saying is that I still think someone armed and trained even to the level of your typical leo is the best defense against hijacking we have.
I'm sorry but a CNN article with no cited sources is not the best way to argue that Air Marshalls aren't effective. Their only "source" was "former Air Marshalls." I maintain my point that I would prefer the (somewhat) small chance that an Air Marshall is aboard my flight than rely on a system of web cams to stop a terrorist attack. The fact that the Air Marshall doesn't intrude on privacy and create more false positives than real positives only supports my point. How many times have you heard of an Air Marshall taking action in the last 5 years? I can only think of one. Flight 93 shows what even untrained people can do when they resist. If one of those passangers had a gun they may have been able to regain full control of the plane.
You can now bring small quantities of liquids on-board. The intial restriction was no liquids at all. This forced everyone to either check their bag or buy toothpaste, deodorant, etc at their destination. Hence, no one carried their luggage on board because it was now easier to check it and not need to buy anything when they landed. Now you can bring a full set of travel size liquids on board and everyone is back to cramming their full size suitcases in the overhead.
Actually I think.01% is a bit low..01% would be 250 flights worldwide. After 9/11 the Air Marshall program was expanded to around 6,000 full-time agents. Before 9/11 there were less than 100. They should use the money for these useless programs to increase this number further. I'm confident an Air Marshall can defend a plane much better than a web cam in every seat, they have the most rigourous marksmanship qual. of any federal agency, and if they do their job right the passangers don't know they are on-board.
In the US we don't have the liquid and gel restrictions any more. I wish we still did. Not because I thought we were any safer, but because everyone was checking their bags and the only things brought on as carry-on were purses and briefcases. Now we are back to a family of fours luggage for a week long vacation in the overhead taking up all the space.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand that. However, with the popularity of the Prius and other hybrids, not to mention the Tesla, they (auto manufacturers) have obviously gotten the whole dangerous battery thing figured out. What are the reasons today that stop Toyota or Honda or GM from making a true electric car. Honda is leasing the FCX in SoCal which is much less practical than an electric car. If a major auto-maker released an all electric, with a 200mi range and around a 3-5 hour charge time for less than say $30,000 I would be all over it, as would a non-trivial number of other people. All of this can be done without bleeding edge tech.
The comparison still stands though. You pay for bandwidth. You pay for water. If you aren't carefull with either you run the risk of paying for someone else to benefit. When you buy a router it is a trivial task to enable a simple wep key when you first set it up. You pretty much have to make a decision to allow anyone within range to connect. Cracking a key however, that I consider stealing.
The Tesla gets roughly 220 miles to a 3.5hour charge, and thats a sports car that will out accelerate a Lamborghini. When they build a Civic/Corolla/OtherCompact with an electric motor and batteries that can take me to work and back (50 miles) twice (so I can forget to plug it in one night and not be screwed) for a small premium over buying a gas or hybrid version I will be in line to reserve one. A 5 year or less break even point is reasonable in my opinion. I do not think I am alone in this opinion. I pay $0.035 kW/hr, how many kW do you think my charger would draw for those 3.5hrs. In any case it would certainly be much cheaper than $4.00 a gallon @ 25-35mpg for a small car.
If the EV1 wasn't a "conspiracy" like you say then what is your valid explanation for why GM did not allow those vehicles to be bought at the end of their leases and instead chose to crush them. I actually live in one of the states where the EV1 was offered and my anecdotal experiences tell me that the EV1 was not as ill-received as you say. Gas prices dropping below $1.00 a gallon here during that time frame probably didn't help but I would at least think that GM would have liked to have sold those cars rather than destroy them if they did not have some other incentive not to.
Well if you really want to beat it to death....
It's like your neighbors sprinkler getting your dirt front yard wet, and you decide to throw down some grass seed. Sure your neighbor is growing you a lawn with his water and it may cost him a little extra but it would be trivial for him not to. Nothings changed for him other than the fact that you decided to start benefiting form his actions.
Equating using some ones WiFi with breaking into their house and using their internet connected PC is silly. If you dont want to share, hit the "Setup Security" button that most new routers have.
Also, I keep hearing this "what if they pay per GB" nonsense. Other than cell phones, are there many pay per usage plans?
iClone
http://bunchofnerds.com/2007/03/apple/apple-iphone-clone-finally-surfaces-in-china/
I was told, maybe someone can confirm, that China does not let foreign built factories reach completion if said company refuses to share their trade secrets as to how the product the factory produces is made. This was the reason given for China's knack at cloning products. A half-built factory in China is a considerable expense for a company to eat.
Did you miss something? The question I asked was, what is the software developers incentive to port an app to Linux that everyone is running in Wine? I will repeat myself. Wine and the like make it capable for everyone to switch to Linux AND keep the crappy "mission critical" apps. Wouldn't it be a better idea to create a native app with the desired functionality then port over the crappy app that is part of a large percentage of Windows bad name?
Joking aside Wine, Ndiswrapper, and the like are a step backwards for Linux in some respect. I use Linux, Windows, and OSX and honestly the majority of problems with Windows (2000-Vista) are caused by crappy drivers and even crappier applications. Whats the point of getting everyone to switch to Linux if we are still going to have to deal with all the crappy applications written in 1993.
I understand some hardware doesn't have drivers and some applications don't have Linux versions and people want to use their hardware and programs but where is the incentive for the producers of these products to support Linux if the open source community "makes it work" for them for free?
Dear software dev,
I am writing you to inform you that even though you only write Windows apps, I (somewhat) successfully managed to get it to run on my Linux operating system. Please start making a Linux version of this application post haste so you can not gain a customer (I have already hacked your app to run in linux) and increase your development costs. An added perk is the fact that you will be required to support the Linux version rather than just telling me to "run it in Windows" when I call. The extra staff you hire for your support center should help the unemployment rate.
Thanks Again,
A Wine User
Not to mention the fact that it makes headway in fixing the security issues that we have been complaining about forever and adds some worthwhile features. I don't understand the people that would get XP on a new PC rather than Vista. Like you said, all you need to do is disable the eye-candy and it is basically XP with security improvements with a few new features thrown in.
It's also generally not a good idea to bring a calculator to a gun fight.
That's what you get for reading TFA.
As opposed to safe, non-flammable gasoline?
For the time being I haven't and won't buy anything but an intel board and proccessor. I used to run AMD's and still run a couple but they have not been without their problems. You can buy a Intel mobo with X3500, Gigabit nic, 7.1 sound and a Core2Duo 3.0ghz for $250 to $300 and everything will, like you said, just work. Now you might be able to build something comparable with AMD for a similar price but is anyone really arguing that the Core2Duo isn't better than AMD's offerings. I like having the graphics card, nic, and sound integrated on my office machine not to mention it saves me money. Should I really have to buy those things seperate just to make life easier for AMD. Are they incapable of producing AMD brand boards with their own AMD brand chipset and integrated graphics, nic and sound. I thought we were supposed to protect the consumer not the underdog corporation.
Yeah, you made some classics mistakes.
70" flat screen TV - $10,000
7.1 Surround sound system - $5,000
Theater style seating - $10,000
Making 5-10 of your closest friends chip in on a four dollar dvd rental....Priceless!
Is that more or less than a Brazilian?
In all fairness, they kept on rickrolling me.
Oh, I would not be surprised if they weren't still receiving the same almost legendary levels of training if they truely did go from around 100 agents to 6000. all I am saying is that I still think someone armed and trained even to the level of your typical leo is the best defense against hijacking we have.
Link http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html/
No it isn't. HP's are used by many militarys.
I'm sorry but a CNN article with no cited sources is not the best way to argue that Air Marshalls aren't effective. Their only "source" was "former Air Marshalls." I maintain my point that I would prefer the (somewhat) small chance that an Air Marshall is aboard my flight than rely on a system of web cams to stop a terrorist attack. The fact that the Air Marshall doesn't intrude on privacy and create more false positives than real positives only supports my point. How many times have you heard of an Air Marshall taking action in the last 5 years? I can only think of one. Flight 93 shows what even untrained people can do when they resist. If one of those passangers had a gun they may have been able to regain full control of the plane.
You can now bring small quantities of liquids on-board. The intial restriction was no liquids at all. This forced everyone to either check their bag or buy toothpaste, deodorant, etc at their destination. Hence, no one carried their luggage on board because it was now easier to check it and not need to buy anything when they landed. Now you can bring a full set of travel size liquids on board and everyone is back to cramming their full size suitcases in the overhead.
Actually I think .01% is a bit low. .01% would be 250 flights worldwide. After 9/11 the Air Marshall program was expanded to around 6,000 full-time agents. Before 9/11 there were less than 100. They should use the money for these useless programs to increase this number further. I'm confident an Air Marshall can defend a plane much better than a web cam in every seat, they have the most rigourous marksmanship qual. of any federal agency, and if they do their job right the passangers don't know they are on-board.
Raspberry!!
In the US we don't have the liquid and gel restrictions any more. I wish we still did. Not because I thought we were any safer, but because everyone was checking their bags and the only things brought on as carry-on were purses and briefcases. Now we are back to a family of fours luggage for a week long vacation in the overhead taking up all the space.