But to answer some of your other points, right now electric cars are everyday cars, not trip cars. They're excellent cars for a 2-car household. You COULD get away with an electric car being your only car, but you might have to rent a car or SUV to, say, go way out to the woods.
I've found that going on trips on my electric vehicle I had to rethink the normal rules of travel, and it's mostly because chargers in rural areas are still fairly spread out. The lessons I learned:
Never just assume a charger you go to will work. I ran into a few of them that didn't, and there was no indication in the smartphone apps that tracked them that this would be the case.
Always stop at the first station wherein a full charge will get you to your destination. In my trip, I should have stopped at an earlier station, which would have given me enough charge to make it to my final destination. Instead, I rolled into a further city on low battery with no backup plan if that place didn't work, and found out the chargers there were broken. If you have that backup plan, then a broken charger won't screw you over.
You can't treat charge stations like a gas station, where if a station is broken/shutdown/out of gas, there's another within a mile, or if you're generally low on gas, you can just stop wherever because gas stations are everywhere. Treat driving long distances in the electric car like driving through the desert -- top off where you can. Roadside assistance can only call a tow truck to tow you to the nearest charger. Things went wrong on my trip down to my destination, applying these lessons on the way back made things go smoothly. But you'll still spend a lot more time recharging than you would gassing up.
User comments for stations in the Plugshare app are invaluable. Unfortunately there were NO comments for the charger I ran into which was broken -- a red flag in itself.
If I wanted to believe the manufacture fuel figures I would get 950km from a tank. This particular vehicle it is more like 800km for full to empty. I don't think we have ever had a vehicle where real world fuel consumption matched what the manufacturer said which leaves me jaded and curious what people actually get
Well, my 1997 Toyota used to get about 480km on a full tank, and that was a 10-gallon / 37-liter tank. Most cars from the 2000s had higher-capacity tanks.
From some of the comments with the article what I am thinking is some electric vehicle owners are slow to say how long it takes to charge their car.
Because it depends on the type of charger. For my Nissan Leaf, I can use four common types of chargers: 1) An adapter that plugs into a wall outlet, standard 110V. It's great because if a place has electricity, you can charge. The downside is that this is a very slow charge. You get about 5 miles of range per hour of charging. So, decent for visiting a relative's house if you're staying overnight or for a day, but not a way to quickly charge a drained battery. 2) Level 2 charger - 3.3kW. These are all over the place, though of course, not as common as wall plugs. This tends to be the lowest commercially-available charge station. It's still pretty slow -- 11 miles per hour. 3) Level 2 charger - 6.6kW. A little less common. Identical to the previous one, but they can charge at 6.6kW as well, for 22 miles per hour. 4) Level 3 charger, the "DC Fast Charger." Much less common (the hardware is still pricey, and it requires a lot of electricity), these charge 75-100 miles in 30 minutes. I believe all or almost all Nissan dealerships have these and allow Nissan Leaf owners to charge for free. So if you're going through an area with a Nissan dealership, you have a charger available.
Tesla owners can take advantage of their "superchargers," level 4 chargers which seem to regen about 170 miles in 30 minutes.
It also depends on how much you need to charge, because a gas tank fills linearly over time, but a battery charges on a curve -- a 0% - 10% charge is much much faster than a 90% - 100% charge. That's why you'll often hear that the DC fast charger will charge a battery "up to 80% within 15 minutes." Why 80%? Because that last 20% is slower. The more charge a battery has, the slower it is to absorb more charge.
No, they really aren't... people just tell themselves that to feel better about the emotional purchase they have already decided to make...
I'm not sure if it's a primarily -emotional- decision. I think people can see what the consumption of fossil fuels does to the environment and come to a purely rational decision to buy one. The problem is the "early adopter" problem -- who has to be first. Not many people want to get in when the infrastructure won't support it, but those infrastructure improvements are unlikely to happen with the demand for them being low. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and generally that gets solved with local governments forcing the issue on infrastructure.
It's clearly the future, but the future may not be here yet. After trying to make my first long-distance trip in my EV and learning some painful lessons the hard way, the two things that need to happen for electric cars to be superior on most fronts: 300m or more battery capacity. Preferably more. And it still has to be chargeable from 0 - full in under half an hour. Preferably less. That means that even the Tesla superchargers and DC CHAdeMO fast chargers are still too slow. This requires an incredible amount of electrical infrastructure, but if we plan on eliminating fossil fuels in the future, the electrical grid will need to be much more powerful and efficient. The future.:-D
Never mind the fact that there is zero support for the charge that Bill Clinton is a rapist. Note: sexual harassment might be despicable, but it's not rape.
Tell that to OJ Simpson. He bought his way out of a murder wrap, still ended up in jail.
But not for the original trial. He went free. He went to jail after he'd lost most of his money, trying to rob someone at gunpoint who was selling memorabilia of him that Simpson claimed was stolen from him. That was something he couldn't buy his way out of.
Unless of course they decide to use a version or interpretation of the Bible that supports their desires EXACTLY the same way they are twisting the Islamic texts to do so.
Are they really? Seems to me that the ISIS folks are the only ones interested in following, in REALLY following the Quran, including the parts that make modern Muslims squeamish, like Leviticus makes modern Christians uncomfortable. Apologists for Islam in West like to say they're "twisting" without actually addressing ISIS's beliefs, which is a rigid adherence to the Quran, and that the Quran and Muhammad are absolutely infallible. After all, if they were infallible, they don't need to be "reinterpreted" for modern times. You don't say that, oh, punishments laid out by the Quran for various crimes are outdated today -- we're dealing with people who believe that society realized perfection with the original writing of the Quran, and that Muhammad was the perfect leader. If we disagree with anything Muhammad said or did, we are the wrong ones.
The people who made the trailer managed to showcase the worst parts of the film.
Don't forget, Trailers Always Lie.I've lost count of the number of trailers where the tone of the movie was radically different from what was presented in its official trailer. Pixar makes pretty good films, but the trailers are crafted (with extra sound effects and out-of-context statements) to get the 8-year-old boys to drag their families to the theater.
I get that by splitting the A/V stream, running 1080p to a projector on one screen, and a TV in another. The HDMI matrix is something you can get fairly cheaply at Monoprice.
I have more faith that the critics actually watched the movie, and that most of the people motivated enough to lobby and vote against it only saw a trailer.
"That movie is shit." "Did you see it?" "Fuck no!!"
So yeah, I tend to respect critic opinions more, because they actually watch the movies and they watch a lot of great movies and a lot of bad movies, so they can well place a mediocre one like this.
I haven't seen that from respected movie critics. What I HAVE seen is those critics saying "eh, it's ok. Not especially inspired, but not horrible either." Which is about how much worth the movie had.
It was ok. Not terrible, just ok. It needed to be funnier in the funny portions, and scarier in the scary portions, a combination that the original got just write. As it is, Ghostbusters(2016) is kindof bland.
A lot of things are a sin, aside from being born of course. Do people who go to confession start with I ate meat on a Friday, ate some shellfish and wore poly/cotton blends? If not then they haven't repented all their sins and off to hell it is. That's assuming Christianity is the one though. If Islam is right or any other religion that condemns non believers (pretty much all of them) then it doesn't really matter how much or what they confess.
I'm pretty sure "Mormon" was the correct religion. Everyone else like me is going to hell.
Admit it. You just want people you don't like to die, and you don't mind millions of bystanders dying too if that's what it takes.
This is how, since the dawn of time, human progress has been achieved. Through death. It is the essence of humanity. What we have seen over and over again is that time sweeps away or lessens older attitudes, and older prejudices. I don't think we'd have interracial marriage today if everyone alive today was born in the 1810s. I doubt I'd have been allowed to marry my husband if the older generations of yesteryear had anything to say about it. We've seen many an instance where a younger generation doesn't have the same hangups about issues as older generations do. If you're one of those people who believe "everything was better in the past," then keeping humanity frozen in time might work for you. But I like to think we've made wonderful progress, and I hope the next generation does as well.
Didn't work because original sin is still apparently a thing and you're pretty much going to hell regardless.
Only if you believe in unchangeable predestination, which is not a thing. You're responsible for your sin, and repentance can always wash sin away, original or not.
Frankly it's not my problem once I'm gone. You seem to think that my desire to be paid for my work is silly and that people can just come and take from me whenever they so well wish with or without paying me for it. It's not even my "right" to be paid for the work I've done. Well that logic sort of reflects back to you on this question. If I'm dead, what are you going to do? Sue me? Ha. As if I'll care when I'm dead.
Aaah, see, now maybe you see why the rest of us don't care about you while you're alive as well.
For me, the ethical issue is that sapping the strength of the young to extend the life of the old is not a good outcome. Even cutting out that first qualifier and leaving it at "extending the life of the old" is not a good idea either. People live too long. It sounds like a horrible thing to say, but the time spent between "age of retirement" and death has been growing, and it seems like growing it even further will be unsustainable -- Just ask China how they're doing now with a larger older generation and a smaller younger one. Everything from Social Security to retirement income to... well, just about everything is predicated on the notion that your working years will be longer, maybe much longer, than your retirement years. And all of this just to make the overpopulation issue even worse?
And old age sucks. Good lord, who wants to be alive at 95 anyway?
Hell, I'd like to be able to get into my account again. Even though I know my password, Yahoo won't let me in unless I follow a confirmation link sent to a deactivated e-mail account. Nice to see that they care enough about security to keep their users out and let hackers in.
Wouldn't this mean that hackers are just as locked out of your account as you are?
Hillary falls center right in her political leanings.
Probably the dumbest sentence I'll read all day.
Are you really that far right that you can't see it anymore? Hell, Bernie's comparative left-wing bent is pretty much the entire reason he got anywhere in the presidential race.
Slashdot Mirror
But to answer some of your other points, right now electric cars are everyday cars, not trip cars. They're excellent cars for a 2-car household. You COULD get away with an electric car being your only car, but you might have to rent a car or SUV to, say, go way out to the woods.
I've found that going on trips on my electric vehicle I had to rethink the normal rules of travel, and it's mostly because chargers in rural areas are still fairly spread out. The lessons I learned:
If I wanted to believe the manufacture fuel figures I would get 950km from a tank. This particular vehicle it is more like 800km for full to empty. I don't think we have ever had a vehicle where real world fuel consumption matched what the manufacturer said which leaves me jaded and curious what people actually get
Well, my 1997 Toyota used to get about 480km on a full tank, and that was a 10-gallon / 37-liter tank. Most cars from the 2000s had higher-capacity tanks.
From some of the comments with the article what I am thinking is some electric vehicle owners are slow to say how long it takes to charge their car.
Because it depends on the type of charger. For my Nissan Leaf, I can use four common types of chargers:
1) An adapter that plugs into a wall outlet, standard 110V. It's great because if a place has electricity, you can charge. The downside is that this is a very slow charge. You get about 5 miles of range per hour of charging. So, decent for visiting a relative's house if you're staying overnight or for a day, but not a way to quickly charge a drained battery.
2) Level 2 charger - 3.3kW. These are all over the place, though of course, not as common as wall plugs. This tends to be the lowest commercially-available charge station. It's still pretty slow -- 11 miles per hour.
3) Level 2 charger - 6.6kW. A little less common. Identical to the previous one, but they can charge at 6.6kW as well, for 22 miles per hour.
4) Level 3 charger, the "DC Fast Charger." Much less common (the hardware is still pricey, and it requires a lot of electricity), these charge 75-100 miles in 30 minutes. I believe all or almost all Nissan dealerships have these and allow Nissan Leaf owners to charge for free. So if you're going through an area with a Nissan dealership, you have a charger available.
Tesla owners can take advantage of their "superchargers," level 4 chargers which seem to regen about 170 miles in 30 minutes.
It also depends on how much you need to charge, because a gas tank fills linearly over time, but a battery charges on a curve -- a 0% - 10% charge is much much faster than a 90% - 100% charge. That's why you'll often hear that the DC fast charger will charge a battery "up to 80% within 15 minutes." Why 80%? Because that last 20% is slower. The more charge a battery has, the slower it is to absorb more charge.
No, they really aren't... people just tell themselves that to feel better about the emotional purchase they have already decided to make...
I'm not sure if it's a primarily -emotional- decision. I think people can see what the consumption of fossil fuels does to the environment and come to a purely rational decision to buy one. The problem is the "early adopter" problem -- who has to be first. Not many people want to get in when the infrastructure won't support it, but those infrastructure improvements are unlikely to happen with the demand for them being low. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, and generally that gets solved with local governments forcing the issue on infrastructure.
It's clearly the future, but the future may not be here yet. After trying to make my first long-distance trip in my EV and learning some painful lessons the hard way, the two things that need to happen for electric cars to be superior on most fronts: 300m or more battery capacity. Preferably more. And it still has to be chargeable from 0 - full in under half an hour. Preferably less. That means that even the Tesla superchargers and DC CHAdeMO fast chargers are still too slow. This requires an incredible amount of electrical infrastructure, but if we plan on eliminating fossil fuels in the future, the electrical grid will need to be much more powerful and efficient. The future. :-D
Never mind the fact that there is zero support for the charge that Bill Clinton is a rapist. Note: sexual harassment might be despicable, but it's not rape.
Yeah. Why does every stupid story about a woman getting beaten bring out the SJW brigade? I remember when "SJW" used to mean something.
I don't agree - the evidence is evidence no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way.
Evidence gained illegally must be disregarded, because that is the only real deterrent against illegally-obtained evidence.
Otherwise you could just present illegal footage at a trial, shrug helplessly, and say that an anonymous source sent it in.
Tell that to OJ Simpson. He bought his way out of a murder wrap, still ended up in jail.
But not for the original trial. He went free.
He went to jail after he'd lost most of his money, trying to rob someone at gunpoint who was selling memorabilia of him that Simpson claimed was stolen from him. That was something he couldn't buy his way out of.
Unless of course they decide to use a version or interpretation of the Bible that supports their desires EXACTLY the same way they are twisting the Islamic texts to do so.
Are they really? Seems to me that the ISIS folks are the only ones interested in following, in REALLY following the Quran, including the parts that make modern Muslims squeamish, like Leviticus makes modern Christians uncomfortable. Apologists for Islam in West like to say they're "twisting" without actually addressing ISIS's beliefs, which is a rigid adherence to the Quran, and that the Quran and Muhammad are absolutely infallible. After all, if they were infallible, they don't need to be "reinterpreted" for modern times. You don't say that, oh, punishments laid out by the Quran for various crimes are outdated today -- we're dealing with people who believe that society realized perfection with the original writing of the Quran, and that Muhammad was the perfect leader. If we disagree with anything Muhammad said or did, we are the wrong ones.
The United States was certainly not "bombing" people back then, but it was certainly capable of and culpable in genocide, from its earliest days.
The people who made the trailer managed to showcase the worst parts of the film.
Don't forget, Trailers Always Lie.I've lost count of the number of trailers where the tone of the movie was radically different from what was presented in its official trailer. Pixar makes pretty good films, but the trailers are crafted (with extra sound effects and out-of-context statements) to get the 8-year-old boys to drag their families to the theater.
I get that by splitting the A/V stream, running 1080p to a projector on one screen, and a TV in another. The HDMI matrix is something you can get fairly cheaply at Monoprice.
The best part of the movie is definitely Chris Hemsworth, which is the case for almost anything he's in.
I have more faith that the critics actually watched the movie, and that most of the people motivated enough to lobby and vote against it only saw a trailer.
"That movie is shit."
"Did you see it?"
"Fuck no!!"
So yeah, I tend to respect critic opinions more, because they actually watch the movies and they watch a lot of great movies and a lot of bad movies, so they can well place a mediocre one like this.
I haven't seen that from respected movie critics. What I HAVE seen is those critics saying "eh, it's ok. Not especially inspired, but not horrible either." Which is about how much worth the movie had.
It was ok. Not terrible, just ok.
It needed to be funnier in the funny portions, and scarier in the scary portions, a combination that the original got just write.
As it is, Ghostbusters(2016) is kindof bland.
It does seem like most of the anti-aging research is pointing towards life extension maintaining youth, not just avoiding death.
That at least would be a step in a better direction -- the only thing we've achieved so far is extending the miserable portion of life. :-(
A lot of things are a sin, aside from being born of course. Do people who go to confession start with I ate meat on a Friday, ate some shellfish and wore poly/cotton blends? If not then they haven't repented all their sins and off to hell it is. That's assuming Christianity is the one though. If Islam is right or any other religion that condemns non believers (pretty much all of them) then it doesn't really matter how much or what they confess.
I'm pretty sure "Mormon" was the correct religion. Everyone else like me is going to hell.
Admit it. You just want people you don't like to die, and you don't mind millions of bystanders dying too if that's what it takes.
This is how, since the dawn of time, human progress has been achieved. Through death. It is the essence of humanity. What we have seen over and over again is that time sweeps away or lessens older attitudes, and older prejudices. I don't think we'd have interracial marriage today if everyone alive today was born in the 1810s. I doubt I'd have been allowed to marry my husband if the older generations of yesteryear had anything to say about it. We've seen many an instance where a younger generation doesn't have the same hangups about issues as older generations do. If you're one of those people who believe "everything was better in the past," then keeping humanity frozen in time might work for you. But I like to think we've made wonderful progress, and I hope the next generation does as well.
You literally can't think of a better solution to dictatorship than condemning everyone you ever know and yourself to eternal oblivion of death?
Condemning? I don't think the people who want to "live forever" have really thought it through.
Bad trolling, unconvincing.
Didn't work because original sin is still apparently a thing and you're pretty much going to hell regardless.
Only if you believe in unchangeable predestination, which is not a thing. You're responsible for your sin, and repentance can always wash sin away, original or not.
Frankly it's not my problem once I'm gone. You seem to think that my desire to be paid for my work is silly and that people can just come and take from me whenever they so well wish with or without paying me for it. It's not even my "right" to be paid for the work I've done. Well that logic sort of reflects back to you on this question. If I'm dead, what are you going to do? Sue me? Ha. As if I'll care when I'm dead.
Aaah, see, now maybe you see why the rest of us don't care about you while you're alive as well.
Explain the ethical issue here
For me, the ethical issue is that sapping the strength of the young to extend the life of the old is not a good outcome. Even cutting out that first qualifier and leaving it at "extending the life of the old" is not a good idea either. People live too long. It sounds like a horrible thing to say, but the time spent between "age of retirement" and death has been growing, and it seems like growing it even further will be unsustainable -- Just ask China how they're doing now with a larger older generation and a smaller younger one. Everything from Social Security to retirement income to... well, just about everything is predicated on the notion that your working years will be longer, maybe much longer, than your retirement years. And all of this just to make the overpopulation issue even worse?
And old age sucks. Good lord, who wants to be alive at 95 anyway?
Hell, I'd like to be able to get into my account again. Even though I know my password, Yahoo won't let me in unless I follow a confirmation link sent to a deactivated e-mail account. Nice to see that they care enough about security to keep their users out and let hackers in.
Wouldn't this mean that hackers are just as locked out of your account as you are?
Hillary falls center right in her political leanings.
Probably the dumbest sentence I'll read all day.
Are you really that far right that you can't see it anymore?
Hell, Bernie's comparative left-wing bent is pretty much the entire reason he got anywhere in the presidential race.