Indeed. It's funny how the very same people that a are usually telling us that EVs are a failure, and now telling us that they are so popular there's not enough infrastructure to cope.
Nobody Buy's EV's anymore They're too darn popular. Apologies to the late great Yogi Berra
I suggest the real problem is that writers need a topic to write about. Whether there's a problem or not, it makes a click-worthy article to describe one.
Are you so sure "most people" have houses? I'm pretty sure "most people" live in apartment complexes where you just shift the charger unavailability problem. Unless you think waking up at 2am every night to go out and see if chargers are finally free is a great way to live.
Are you postulating that EV's are a failure because some people live in apartments?
Most people in my neck of the woods live in houses, or apartment complexes with parking lots.
People who liv ein areas where they have to look for a charger at 2 a.m. are probably going to be looking for any parking spot. That's a big reason why not so many people in big cities like New York don't have acar at all.
And despite all teh silly reasons that slashdotters come up with, thi sis going to happen.
an Apartment complex can decide they are going to put in charging stations in their lot. I suspect it will happen at upscale places first, and they'll advertise it as part of being upscale.
So what's next? Complaining that people won't be able to go out in the evening because they are charging their car?
Absolutely. It is damn near impossible for an EV to go ten feet without needing charged. And nowhere, I tell you nowhere is there electric current. The goddamned Power companies hoard that stuiff and won' let anyone have any.
Whereas I can find gasoline every five feet, always thee, always inexpensive, and appproved by God.
Okay, now that I hve been as ridiculous as you, let's talk about5 this.
There is nothing standing in the way of electric charging ports in any parking lot that has electricity in it.
Topping off the car is nice and all, but most people have enough charge to get home.
But let's say they do need some charging.
Alaska already has electrical dispensers at meters and in lots. So no groundbreaking in that area.
And in parking lots these days, there are kiosks where you go to pay your fee, either via cash, or credit card. And they have apps for you to add more time if you need it. or even pay 100 percent via the app.
So now, we have electricity essentially there already in most cases, a distribution paradigm not a lot different than Alaska's battery/engine block heater system, a payment structure essentisally in place.
Seems to me that in the not too distant future, it's going to be a bigger pain in teh ass to get gasoline, than charging your EV.
The updates to telemetry do not suddenly cause Windows to start sending information back to Microsoft. Only when the user has explicitly accepted CEIP (Customer Experience Improvement Program) will these updates have any effect on a system.
All you have to do is believe that bit of pie in the sky.
A "free" resource becomes a scarce resource. Solution: charge $ per time unit for a parking space with a charger. Increase price till shortage disappears.
You need to charge to charge. No doubt of that. But you need to add more charge ports to maximize the money you can get from the charging charge.
>> Employees are calling and messaging each other, saying, 'I see you're fully charged, can you please move your car?'
Um...isn't this the way the world is supposed to work? Or is getting someone's attention and letting them know that it's time to move along now considered a microaggression?
You noticed that too. Until the demand issue is fixed, it seems like people are just working things out for themselves. After the number of charging ports rise, the problem will go away.
The entire story can Occam to some people hate EV's, and any negative spin - even ridiculous ones like this - will be applied and brayed out like the end of the world.
And everything is a microagression these days. Watch how pissed someone will be that I used "Occam" as a verb.
If you knew of the problem before you bought the car, and you still bought the car, then you're an idiot.
It's a simple supply and demand problem. It would be like running out of handicapped spaces, and you're pissed about the idiots who bought handicapped equipped vans.
When the fix is so simple, and can be monetized, and app driven as well, the amount of Slashsillieness applied is a bit funny.
Or another alternate headline: "Rich people fight over free lunches"
Or another alternative headline:
"Demand for Electric Vehicles Outpaces Recharge Ports."
This is kinda how this stuff works. Supply follows demand.
Only in Anti-Tesla Slashdot world would we get such a whacky spin like "EV's make people mean".
Something tells me that there will me more charging ports put in. The shocking truth.
Slashdot articles are generally taken from submissions. (Except for the Slashvertisements, of course, but they're still "submitted" from somewhere.) If you want more articles like this, someone will have to find them and submit them. Slashdot doesn't create these things out of thin air; a Slashdot article is basically a link with a blurb to an article somewhere on the interwebs that someone entered into the submission page.
Many many articles are submitted, and someone has to determine that they are worthy of posting on the website.
At present, we have at least one "editor" who likes all the hate and derision - and the clicky clicky it gets. Perhaps Women in STEM should get it's own category, like some other topics.
Precisely. There is no control group for what this person claims. When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results. They find a lot more potentially cancerous cells when they screen with sensitive tests that have not been used before.
So what you are saying is that no one thought to compare the death rates? If children are going undiagnosed, in your idea that the cancer rates are the same - then they'll just die - apparently with no one knowing why.
Seriously people, this is some of the stupidest reasoning ever. You figure the children from the control set would just mysteriously dissapear and no one knows about it?
Talk about confirmation bias! deny, then come up with ridiculous proclamations.
So is radiation effects on organisms going to become the new global warming/creationist/moon landing/aliens/chemtrails/water rainbows denialist touchstone?
In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?
So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?
Seriuoosly cancer does not work like that most of the time. As in the really rare cases of spontaneous remission.
If in a normal population, of say 100,000 children let's say 5 get thyroid cancer
If these children in Fukushima get 25 cases for everty 100,000 children, and that is survey bias, and there is no statistical difference, Your thesis is that either testing causes thyroid cancer, or that the 20 extra children in teh unexposed set miraculously got better.
Christ man - get you ass back to infowars - because that's the craziest shit I ever heard.
So let me get this straight. The mechanics of the car did not make pollution specs. So instead of the mechanical people having to fix it, software engineers decided that they would cheat and make it look like the mechanical engineers at VW were all on the up and up. Like the smartest person in school deciding they were going to cheat when they had no reason to cheat.
Look VW - if you are going to sit their and lie through your teeth, at least make it a credible lie.
The reason companies advertise is to generate name recognition and ultimately sales. And if advertisements did not increase sales or derivative income companies, both large and small, would not be spending billions of dollars a year placing ads. Google is an advertising firm not a technology firm. Their technology efforts are centered around increasing the number of users to feed advertisements to. Most of their attempts to generate revenue from other services or products do not even come close to the amount of money they generate by serving as a conduit for advertisements. There are already ways to block the majority of ads and unwanted content if that is your preference. However if Googles revenue starts declining don't be surprised when they start charging money for all of their current services which are currently offered for free to regular users. Every major browser and search engine also rely on advertising income to support their efforts.
Well, then they damn well better fix that eh?
I hate eating Pork bungs (The pig's asshole)
Now some advertiser really really wants me to eat pork bungs (the pig's asshole)
I don't give a flying fuck if an advertizer will die if I don't eat pork bungs.
I won't do it, I don't give a damn if every provider of Pig's assholes (present day web advertisements) starves to death and goes out of business, In fact, I would be very pleased to find out that happened.
They caused this problem, and it is not my responsibility to eat a pig's asshole just so they can make me eat more Pig's assholes.
Here's the result:
uncached load (first visit) with ads: 2.4MB data, 26s (!) until the display goes from white to some content
uncached load (first visit) without ads: 1.7MB data, 11s until the display goes from white to some content
cached load (second visit) with ads: 272KB data, 2s
cached load (second visit) without ads: 45KB data, 2s
A friend had a similar experience - He opened a webpage both ways, and to see a roughly 500 word page, without blocking he received 40 MBytes of all the other presents they give us.
This'll be great for individuals, but companies won't accept it.
Then again, they won't accept your solutions either.
The web has a serious problem. The web is broken.
The present day over-commercialization of the web, with tracking and intrusive ads, and making search engines approach worthlessness; and as ad-blockers and script blockers are breaking out of the province of nerds, and onto regular folks machines, is showing the "target's" growing rebellion.
And even though Joe Sixpack might not understand the tracking, he does understand that his webpages are taking a long time to load, and up pops an advertisement for something he already bought. So Joe's geeky friend "who know's this stuff", tells him about the adblocking and noscript add-ons, maybe even installs a hostfile. And Joe is happy. Tells all his friends, and its off to the races.
I know this because I'm the geeky friend, and I've been installing adblockers and noscript, persistent cookie killers and even a few hostsfiles on friend's computers. Happy people, who wern't so much anti-ad, but just wanted acceptable performance
Google's well aware of the brewing web revolution, and trying to figure out what to do about it. I already have.
Ya know, looking @ the bigger picture,,
There must be a reason why automakers dont incorporate this in their vehicles now..
Privacy issues? Whats next??
Could even be some liability issues. OnStar, GM's custom spying service that is on even when you don't pay for it, used to brag about how they could disable stolen vehicles, unlock your car for you, and analyze any problems while you are driving, among some other things.
Basically, they had control of your vehicle, and could listen in on you any time they wanted to.
Now just imagine if they disabled the wrong vehicle - which disengages the accelerator pedal, and while disabled, someone rams into you while you're parked on the side of the road, and suddenly you have a lawsuit that would make Marcus and Mack cum in their pants.
And what if their vaunted "We noticed you stopped really quickly - should we call 911 for you?" service fails and someone suffers bad problems because it failed.
I like the idea of moving diagnostics, but that wouldn't have to be intrusive, something you could power up and down. OnStar takes a bit of effort to kill it.
Slashdot Mirror
You are all cars. Cars say charge. CHARRRRRGE! CHARRRRRGE! Charge cars CHARRRGE! Charge say the cars. YOU CARS!!
Very mooooving, your post.
Come to think of it, its just millenials in general, let's keep nationality and race out of it.
It is a product of the millennial, who have been told their entire formative years that they are special little snowflakes, and no one is like them.
And they grew up to have wonder self esteem, that they are the single most important thing in the world.
NOw they have to0 come to grips with the real world, and they ain't tekin' it too well, you betchya.
Once upon a time, they'd would be called arrogant assholes.
Now they are just...... um.... ah hell.... Arrogant Assholes. People who think its a crime to disagree with them.
Indeed. It's funny how the very same people that a are usually telling us that EVs are a failure, and now telling us that they are so popular there's not enough infrastructure to cope.
Nobody Buy's EV's anymore They're too darn popular. Apologies to the late great Yogi Berra
I suggest the real problem is that writers need a topic to write about. Whether there's a problem or not, it makes a click-worthy article to describe one.
Well, there's always women in STEM. Or systemd.
When the fix is so simple, and can be monetized, and app driven as well, the amount of Slashsillieness applied is a bit funny.
Agreed. Wanna charge up? get out your credit card. Otherwise learn to plan your route accordingly.
Absolutely. I suspect the EV haters will have a problem with that though.
Are you so sure "most people" have houses? I'm pretty sure "most people" live in apartment complexes where you just shift the charger unavailability problem. Unless you think waking up at 2am every night to go out and see if chargers are finally free is a great way to live.
Are you postulating that EV's are a failure because some people live in apartments?
Most people in my neck of the woods live in houses, or apartment complexes with parking lots.
People who liv ein areas where they have to look for a charger at 2 a.m. are probably going to be looking for any parking spot. That's a big reason why not so many people in big cities like New York don't have acar at all.
And despite all teh silly reasons that slashdotters come up with, thi sis going to happen.
an Apartment complex can decide they are going to put in charging stations in their lot. I suspect it will happen at upscale places first, and they'll advertise it as part of being upscale.
So what's next? Complaining that people won't be able to go out in the evening because they are charging their car?
Whereas I can find gasoline every five feet, always thee, always inexpensive, and appproved by God.
Okay, now that I hve been as ridiculous as you, let's talk about5 this.
There is nothing standing in the way of electric charging ports in any parking lot that has electricity in it.
Topping off the car is nice and all, but most people have enough charge to get home.
But let's say they do need some charging.
Alaska already has electrical dispensers at meters and in lots. So no groundbreaking in that area.
And in parking lots these days, there are kiosks where you go to pay your fee, either via cash, or credit card. And they have apps for you to add more time if you need it. or even pay 100 percent via the app.
So now, we have electricity essentially there already in most cases, a distribution paradigm not a lot different than Alaska's battery/engine block heater system, a payment structure essentisally in place.
Seems to me that in the not too distant future, it's going to be a bigger pain in teh ass to get gasoline, than charging your EV.
The updates to telemetry do not suddenly cause Windows to start sending information back to Microsoft. Only when the user has explicitly accepted CEIP (Customer Experience Improvement Program) will these updates have any effect on a system.
All you have to do is believe that bit of pie in the sky.
Hey asshole, get someone to read this to you:
Holy crap, JustAnotherOldgGuy, I hope you see the perfect application of irony in your post.
Cutting the espresso by 90 percent might help.
...how hard would it be to transmit power to the cars through the roads?
Not very efficient at best, and I wouldn't be too surprised if ti would be an RFI problem.
When I was a kid, I used to wonder if big cars could be made like those little slot cars we used to play with.
I think the whole issue could be resolved by adding more charging ports.
A "free" resource becomes a scarce resource. Solution: charge $ per time unit for a parking space with a charger. Increase price till shortage disappears.
You need to charge to charge. No doubt of that. But you need to add more charge ports to maximize the money you can get from the charging charge.
>> Employees are calling and messaging each other, saying, 'I see you're fully charged, can you please move your car?'
Um...isn't this the way the world is supposed to work? Or is getting someone's attention and letting them know that it's time to move along now considered a microaggression?
You noticed that too. Until the demand issue is fixed, it seems like people are just working things out for themselves. After the number of charging ports rise, the problem will go away.
The entire story can Occam to some people hate EV's, and any negative spin - even ridiculous ones like this - will be applied and brayed out like the end of the world.
And everything is a microagression these days. Watch how pissed someone will be that I used "Occam" as a verb.
If you knew of the problem before you bought the car, and you still bought the car, then you're an idiot.
It's a simple supply and demand problem. It would be like running out of handicapped spaces, and you're pissed about the idiots who bought handicapped equipped vans.
When the fix is so simple, and can be monetized, and app driven as well, the amount of Slashsillieness applied is a bit funny.
Or another alternate headline: "Rich people fight over free lunches"
Or another alternative headline:
"Demand for Electric Vehicles Outpaces Recharge Ports." This is kinda how this stuff works. Supply follows demand.
Only in Anti-Tesla Slashdot world would we get such a whacky spin like "EV's make people mean". Something tells me that there will me more charging ports put in. The shocking truth.
Slashdot articles are generally taken from submissions. (Except for the Slashvertisements, of course, but they're still "submitted" from somewhere.) If you want more articles like this, someone will have to find them and submit them. Slashdot doesn't create these things out of thin air; a Slashdot article is basically a link with a blurb to an article somewhere on the interwebs that someone entered into the submission page.
Many many articles are submitted, and someone has to determine that they are worthy of posting on the website.
At present, we have at least one "editor" who likes all the hate and derision - and the clicky clicky it gets. Perhaps Women in STEM should get it's own category, like some other topics.
Dammit Slashdot! We need more of this sort of thing, and less of people being pissed off because something got a file extension of .bro.
Precisely. There is no control group for what this person claims. When control groups are considered, these kids actually exhibit the same results. They find a lot more potentially cancerous cells when they screen with sensitive tests that have not been used before.
So what you are saying is that no one thought to compare the death rates? If children are going undiagnosed, in your idea that the cancer rates are the same - then they'll just die - apparently with no one knowing why.
Seriously people, this is some of the stupidest reasoning ever. You figure the children from the control set would just mysteriously dissapear and no one knows about it?
Talk about confirmation bias! deny, then come up with ridiculous proclamations.
So is radiation effects on organisms going to become the new global warming/creationist/moon landing/aliens/chemtrails/water rainbows denialist touchstone?
Just so.
In the rest of the world, children do not routinely get several ultrasounds per year to check for thyroid cancer. Is it really suprising that we'd find much more of something we're looking Really Hard to Find?
So what you are saying is that if a child does not get tested for thyroid cancer, the child will cure themselves of it?
Seriuoosly cancer does not work like that most of the time. As in the really rare cases of spontaneous remission.
If in a normal population, of say 100,000 children let's say 5 get thyroid cancer
If these children in Fukushima get 25 cases for everty 100,000 children, and that is survey bias, and there is no statistical difference, Your thesis is that either testing causes thyroid cancer, or that the 20 extra children in teh unexposed set miraculously got better.
Christ man - get you ass back to infowars - because that's the craziest shit I ever heard.
Look VW - if you are going to sit their and lie through your teeth, at least make it a credible lie.
This lie? It makes no sense.
The reason companies advertise is to generate name recognition and ultimately sales. And if advertisements did not increase sales or derivative income companies, both large and small, would not be spending billions of dollars a year placing ads. Google is an advertising firm not a technology firm. Their technology efforts are centered around increasing the number of users to feed advertisements to. Most of their attempts to generate revenue from other services or products do not even come close to the amount of money they generate by serving as a conduit for advertisements. There are already ways to block the majority of ads and unwanted content if that is your preference. However if Googles revenue starts declining don't be surprised when they start charging money for all of their current services which are currently offered for free to regular users. Every major browser and search engine also rely on advertising income to support their efforts.
Well, then they damn well better fix that eh?
I hate eating Pork bungs (The pig's asshole)
Now some advertiser really really wants me to eat pork bungs (the pig's asshole) I don't give a flying fuck if an advertizer will die if I don't eat pork bungs.
I won't do it, I don't give a damn if every provider of Pig's assholes (present day web advertisements) starves to death and goes out of business, In fact, I would be very pleased to find out that happened.
They caused this problem, and it is not my responsibility to eat a pig's asshole just so they can make me eat more Pig's assholes.
intro to Robot Chicken
I suspect a much more causative relationship.
I don't think it makes you go psychotic, but I think if you are predisposed, it can trigger a break.
Here's the result: uncached load (first visit) with ads: 2.4MB data, 26s (!) until the display goes from white to some content uncached load (first visit) without ads: 1.7MB data, 11s until the display goes from white to some content cached load (second visit) with ads: 272KB data, 2s cached load (second visit) without ads: 45KB data, 2s
A friend had a similar experience - He opened a webpage both ways, and to see a roughly 500 word page, without blocking he received 40 MBytes of all the other presents they give us.
This'll be great for individuals, but companies won't accept it.
Then again, they won't accept your solutions either.
The web has a serious problem. The web is broken.
The present day over-commercialization of the web, with tracking and intrusive ads, and making search engines approach worthlessness; and as ad-blockers and script blockers are breaking out of the province of nerds, and onto regular folks machines, is showing the "target's" growing rebellion.
And even though Joe Sixpack might not understand the tracking, he does understand that his webpages are taking a long time to load, and up pops an advertisement for something he already bought. So Joe's geeky friend "who know's this stuff", tells him about the adblocking and noscript add-ons, maybe even installs a hostfile. And Joe is happy. Tells all his friends, and its off to the races.
I know this because I'm the geeky friend, and I've been installing adblockers and noscript, persistent cookie killers and even a few hostsfiles on friend's computers. Happy people, who wern't so much anti-ad, but just wanted acceptable performance
Google's well aware of the brewing web revolution, and trying to figure out what to do about it. I already have.
Didn't you know that the Moon landing was actually faked by filming on Mars. But when they finished they left one crew member behind .....
The sick part is that the people who don't believe we went to the moon will believe that.
Ya know, looking @ the bigger picture,, There must be a reason why automakers dont incorporate this in their vehicles now.. Privacy issues? Whats next??
Could even be some liability issues. OnStar, GM's custom spying service that is on even when you don't pay for it, used to brag about how they could disable stolen vehicles, unlock your car for you, and analyze any problems while you are driving, among some other things.
Basically, they had control of your vehicle, and could listen in on you any time they wanted to.
Now just imagine if they disabled the wrong vehicle - which disengages the accelerator pedal, and while disabled, someone rams into you while you're parked on the side of the road, and suddenly you have a lawsuit that would make Marcus and Mack cum in their pants.
And what if their vaunted "We noticed you stopped really quickly - should we call 911 for you?" service fails and someone suffers bad problems because it failed.
I like the idea of moving diagnostics, but that wouldn't have to be intrusive, something you could power up and down. OnStar takes a bit of effort to kill it.