Swapping batteries is technically possible but that doesn't make it less dumb. EVs of the last few years can do an 80% quick charge in half an hour. The only way to make charging an EV take 12 hours would be to try to do a full charge on a high-capacity model from a 110v socket.
But what makes it dumb most of all is that it requires long-term planning and sacrifice to solve a very short-term problem. Batteries are already good enough for most uses, and as capacity goes up the swappable battery infrastructure makes less and less sense. In 20 years it will seem as silly as having an F1-like quick tire change setup on every car and a pit crew with pre-heated tires in every gas station.
About the power companies, isn't that supply and demand thing supposed to work? When the power cuts out the power companies aren't making money.
Swappable batteries for a full-size car are a dumb idea. Swapping your own batteries would be dumb enough due to the huge size and expense of the batteries and the fact that the range of a battery is generally enough, but then when you talk about swapping with Some Dude's batteries you open up problems of prior use and standardized sizes and future upgrade problems...swappable batteries on EVs only make sense in racing.
You also assume that power grids are going to be a barely-functional mess forever.
They're going to be re-selling used Apple stuff...Jobs would have hated that. To him it would be like re-releasing old artwork. Even having to support those old things after they were no longer the latest model probably looked like a necessary evil to him.
I picked up on some of that vibe near the beginning of the movie where you find out that governments are underfunding and ignoring the problem. If it was intentional, it was a good way to make a point without being preachy.
Oh but it's so much easier to just adapt to global warming! Think how much it would cost to pay slightly more for cleaner sources of electricity and pay a bit more up front for an electric car that then only costs pocket change to fuel! You might as well condemn all those people to death right now!
I'm not willing to legalize impaired driving. It's a dangerous and reckless act on its own, whether you get away with it or not. I think causing an accident while impaired is worse than causing an accident due to being a shitty driver or temporarily distracted by something (not intentionally done by the driver) because the impairment is an additional act of recklessness that increases the chances of an accident. It's like if someone decided to tie one arm behind their back before getting into the car.
I'd be willing to fall back to some kind of coordination test for cannabis since it's apparently impossible to measure impairment through any kind of chemical test.
Cannabis does not affect the sort of attention required for driving safely, only the type of attention needed for navigation. You might forget your exit, but you're not going to fail to notice stop lights.
Gonna need some scientific research on that. Stoned drivers do tend to be slow and uber-cautious (holding me up all the time), but on the other hand one did drive his truck into my sister's car once.
I've never tried driving while stoned because I feel too sluggish.
Only if the impairment is such that it causes you to actually drive recklessly. That almost never happens with Cannabis intoxication. If you're in full control of your vehicle, whether you are impaired or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you have full control of your vehicle.
If someone causes an accident while impaired to an extent that can be measured as being a dangerous amount (let's say the laws have reasonably defined which drugs cause dangerous impairment and what is a dangerous amount), how can you argue whether impairment played a role? You have to assume it did or you'd be letting off every dangerously drunk driver who causes an accident but wasn't caught by the cops beforehand.
LOLWUT? Please explain how you don't need to pay attention to safely pilot a vehicle.
Why should it matter? What matters is what actually happened during a crash, and who did it. If I pull into traffic without looking, it doesn't matter whether I'm drunk, stoned, or sober. I'm at fault.
Punish people for what they actually do, not what's in their bloodstream.
But driving while impaired is a reckless act in itself which should carry a punishment. Do you disagree?
I hope the Republicans can finally jump on this bandwagon now that the issue can be framed as "government waste" instead of "protection from terrorists".
Hahaha no, if it's protection from terrorists it can't be government waste!
It's typical intelligence agency / law enforcement thinking, the status quo makes my job not as easy as it could be so the rest of the world should change and sacrifice for us.
Well that particular post doesn't disagree with anything I've said. Maybe Judith Curry could put the same graph together for you, since you're willing to remove your tinfoil hat for her.
Do you think global warming has only been happening for 30 years? There's still a solid upward trend in temperatures in the longer term, regardless of what's happening with the pacific cycle:
It didn't start around the point of industrialization either. To suggest that it's responsible for most of the apparently man-made global warming that's been observed is as wrong to suggest that it will lead to an ice age now that it's causing cooling rather than warming.
Electric cars produce some heat from the engine, battery and power control systems. The only other source is the brakes which are already used less with regenerative braking. I'd expect any electric cars with liquid cooling for all those systems (I know at least the Tesla S and Roadster do) would have a heater similar to an ICE car.
Wow you misunderstood the hell out of that. The cycle is contributing to what denialists are calling "the pause" (no atmospheric warming for 15+ years). The warming's being absorbed by the ocean (bad) and this natural cycle in the ocean is also helping to counteract it right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you trust the CAs to not give keys to the NSA?
Swapping batteries is technically possible but that doesn't make it less dumb. EVs of the last few years can do an 80% quick charge in half an hour. The only way to make charging an EV take 12 hours would be to try to do a full charge on a high-capacity model from a 110v socket.
But what makes it dumb most of all is that it requires long-term planning and sacrifice to solve a very short-term problem. Batteries are already good enough for most uses, and as capacity goes up the swappable battery infrastructure makes less and less sense. In 20 years it will seem as silly as having an F1-like quick tire change setup on every car and a pit crew with pre-heated tires in every gas station.
About the power companies, isn't that supply and demand thing supposed to work? When the power cuts out the power companies aren't making money.
Swappable batteries for a full-size car are a dumb idea. Swapping your own batteries would be dumb enough due to the huge size and expense of the batteries and the fact that the range of a battery is generally enough, but then when you talk about swapping with Some Dude's batteries you open up problems of prior use and standardized sizes and future upgrade problems...swappable batteries on EVs only make sense in racing.
You also assume that power grids are going to be a barely-functional mess forever.
I sure hope so.
They're going to be re-selling used Apple stuff...Jobs would have hated that. To him it would be like re-releasing old artwork. Even having to support those old things after they were no longer the latest model probably looked like a necessary evil to him.
Maybe lash them all together with some smaller boats, forming some kind of large Raft...
I picked up on some of that vibe near the beginning of the movie where you find out that governments are underfunding and ignoring the problem. If it was intentional, it was a good way to make a point without being preachy.
Oh but it's so much easier to just adapt to global warming! Think how much it would cost to pay slightly more for cleaner sources of electricity and pay a bit more up front for an electric car that then only costs pocket change to fuel! You might as well condemn all those people to death right now!
D'oh, beaten.
You know they were all making over $33k?
So then would it be OK if I walked into your workplace blindfolded and started throwing knives around, as long as they happened not to hit anyone?
I'm not willing to legalize impaired driving. It's a dangerous and reckless act on its own, whether you get away with it or not. I think causing an accident while impaired is worse than causing an accident due to being a shitty driver or temporarily distracted by something (not intentionally done by the driver) because the impairment is an additional act of recklessness that increases the chances of an accident. It's like if someone decided to tie one arm behind their back before getting into the car.
I'd be willing to fall back to some kind of coordination test for cannabis since it's apparently impossible to measure impairment through any kind of chemical test.
Cannabis does not affect the sort of attention required for driving safely, only the type of attention needed for navigation. You might forget your exit, but you're not going to fail to notice stop lights.
Gonna need some scientific research on that. Stoned drivers do tend to be slow and uber-cautious (holding me up all the time), but on the other hand one did drive his truck into my sister's car once.
I've never tried driving while stoned because I feel too sluggish.
Only if the impairment is such that it causes you to actually drive recklessly. That almost never happens with Cannabis intoxication. If you're in full control of your vehicle, whether you are impaired or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you have full control of your vehicle.
If someone causes an accident while impaired to an extent that can be measured as being a dangerous amount (let's say the laws have reasonably defined which drugs cause dangerous impairment and what is a dangerous amount), how can you argue whether impairment played a role? You have to assume it did or you'd be letting off every dangerously drunk driver who causes an accident but wasn't caught by the cops beforehand.
Marijuana impairs attention.
Which to be honest, only affects navigation.
LOLWUT? Please explain how you don't need to pay attention to safely pilot a vehicle.
Why should it matter? What matters is what actually happened during a crash, and who did it. If I pull into traffic without looking, it doesn't matter whether I'm drunk, stoned, or sober. I'm at fault.
Punish people for what they actually do, not what's in their bloodstream.
But driving while impaired is a reckless act in itself which should carry a punishment. Do you disagree?
And they were saying things all over social networking that should have been picked up by the NSA's all-seeing eye.
Also the underwear bomber was thwarted only by his own incompetence at building bombs, after his own father warned the US about him.
I hope the Republicans can finally jump on this bandwagon now that the issue can be framed as "government waste" instead of "protection from terrorists".
Hahaha no, if it's protection from terrorists it can't be government waste!
It's typical intelligence agency / law enforcement thinking, the status quo makes my job not as easy as it could be so the rest of the world should change and sacrifice for us.
And those reasons are "stupid old rules that have taken too long to change."
If they don't want to call it "declassified" because technically it's not, then call it "leaked" and treat it the same as declassified.
John McCain? I'd say he's a neocon and prominent.
Well that particular post doesn't disagree with anything I've said. Maybe Judith Curry could put the same graph together for you, since you're willing to remove your tinfoil hat for her.
Do you think global warming has only been happening for 30 years? There's still a solid upward trend in temperatures in the longer term, regardless of what's happening with the pacific cycle:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/pdo_temp.gif
It didn't start around the point of industrialization either. To suggest that it's responsible for most of the apparently man-made global warming that's been observed is as wrong to suggest that it will lead to an ice age now that it's causing cooling rather than warming.
Been done, the answer is yes:
ftp://ftp.atmos.washington.edu/mantua/PDV/2002_Mantua_Hare_JO.pdf
Electric cars produce some heat from the engine, battery and power control systems. The only other source is the brakes which are already used less with regenerative braking. I'd expect any electric cars with liquid cooling for all those systems (I know at least the Tesla S and Roadster do) would have a heater similar to an ICE car.
More Tor exit nodes is better. The NSA surely has many honeypot nodes, we need to drown them out with more legitimate exit nodes.
Wow you misunderstood the hell out of that. The cycle is contributing to what denialists are calling "the pause" (no atmospheric warming for 15+ years). The warming's being absorbed by the ocean (bad) and this natural cycle in the ocean is also helping to counteract it right now.