A major car company finally clues in that gas reserves are dropping, and that traditional engines are harmful to the environment! wow.
It's not like they're the first, though I'm sure their PR staff is happy that some people seem to think so. DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, and Ford -- at least -- have all made investments in fuel cell technology. Ford Chairman William Clay Ford Jr. publicly said, "The fuel cell will end the 100-year reign of the internal combustion engine" almost a year and a half ago.
Fuel cell tech is great PR, and if they can get it working, such vehicles will (probably) be a hell of a lot easier (read: cheaper) to build, so their margins can be bigger. And they're probably already prepping to lobby for tax breaks for people buying fuel cell vehicles, so they can get a nice sales boom when the changeover starts.
Let's keep in mind that Power Companies own most of the patents/technologies related to Solar Cells. As soon as advances were made that looked like they may scale to become viable choices for consumers, the big corporations bought out most of the smaller companies that were making the advances.
I've certainly heard this, and it wouldn't surprise me, but I've never actually seen any hard -- or even soft -- facts. Do you have any references?
More likely than not, GM is hedging their bets. At worst, it turns out to be a great PR move. At best, they take the lead in Clean Automobile Technology.
They're gonna have to play catch-up with other auto companies who've been investing in fuel cell tech for years, like DaimlerChrysler and Toyota.
Microsoft wants them. Microsoft's shareholders want them. Microsoft is hoping that few other people will consider whether they actually want them or not.
That's the beauty of all "opt-out"-based policies, from the point of view of people who implement them. They give everybody a "choice" that they hope few people will be aware of.
Adbusters has been advocating the use of laws that already exist to revoke corporate charters. These laws are already in the books in Canada and in the US.
[nod] And -- no big surprise -- corporations and their politician lackeys have been quietly working to get rid of those laws. When the US created the "corporate person" (in it's most common present form), we created an entity who has no long-term goal, and whose only short-term goal is by definition to accumulate financial resources.
Despite the usual corporatist rhetoric, that goal does not always jive with the interests of humans affected by corporations -- be they by-stander, customer, employee, or even stockholder. And now corporations are trying break free of one of the few things that might even theoretically control them.
Do we really want to share the planet with unkillable clumsy giants?
I'm sorry, but that is just a bunch of bullcrap. ...
I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
In other words, this sort of thing offends you, and you feel very strongly that people should express themselves differently. Hmmm.
Re:Ford isn't stupid. They know what they're doing
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 2
Ford's legal department is already funded. This sort of thing is just part of how they try to justify their funding. Gotta look busy, whether or not what you're doing really makes any sense.
Maybe I missed something. I don't know how performing a pattern match on Term Papers in order to identify cheaters relates to the "community of trust".
Well, it wouldn't relate to a community of blind, unquestioning (and arguably in this case, naive) trust, but how it relates to a community of earned trust seems fairly obvious to me.
The only thing that they can do is spread FUD so that businesses may think twice about using Linux/BSD/emacs/What have you.
Gee, is that all?
That's rather a hell of a lot, actually. The history of ideas is littered with the corpses of better ideas killed by worse ideas that were marketed better.
Microsoft may be mediocre as far as technical innovation is concerned, but as far as manipulating the market is concerned, they are way, way the fuck out in front.
I have to confess -- I read the story a couple of times before concluding it was a joke. Not because I can't recognize satire, or notice the humor icon on the story, but because there's little here that's obviously unrealistic.
Oh? Hmm. I have a can't-miss investment opportunity for you. There's this thing called a bridge -- 'scuse me, I mean it's called an eBridge. I'm looking for a limited number of backers for a plan to build an eBridge across the East River, from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Cash only, in small bills, please.
It's already getting hard to tell the crazy people from the people who are just using cell phones with headsets. How much worse is it going to get with things like this?
It's hard to tell the difference between "crazy people" and people who are using cell phones with headsets because there isn't much difference.
People favoring "competition" over good service. The two do not necessarily go together.
Not necessarily, true. But that's usually the best way to place your bets.
Let the companies who have been working this long on the system continue to operate it, rather than restrict them so newcomers can get a chance.
Um. The AT&T that existed pre-split and the "Baby Bells" that existed after the split and what remains of them today are all very different things. Hirings, firings, retirements, re-orgs, restructures, purchases, sell-offs... any perceived continuity is mostly illusionary.
I wonder how much time until a corparation buys a state?
The corporations know better than to try to buy states from the US gov't -- they go to the individual state gov'ts for that. And it's usually more cost effective to rent states than it is to buy them. (Most of them are already taken, though.)
As far as the US gov't is concerned, there's not much left for them to sell or rent that anyone wants. (Well, ok, there's that national park in Alaska, but that's just a matter of finishing up the paperwork.)
Quote: "We want to let researchers from universities, private industry and other government institutions know that we now have this capability and that it is available for their use," said Dr. Barbara Wilson, chief technologist for JPL." Unquote
Nothing wrong with that imho
Nope, nothing wrong with that. But (a) chances are good that this PR release wasn't primarily directed at those researchers, (b) putting a reference to this on Slashdot seems silly, and (c) the Slashdot story title was really overblown.
Oh, yeah, and (d) it annoys me that the distinction between what's an article and what's a press release seems to be lost on most people. (Including many journalists, it seems.)
Essentially, this is a PR statement released by NASA/JPL bragging about the new toy they've got. They didn't design it, they didn't build it, they haven't done anything with it yet, and it's not the only one of its kind.
They just replaced a really old system, and decided they could get some PR value from that. [shrug]
The risks of explosion from fuel cell batteries is probably smaller than the risk that your Lithium-ion battery explodes.
I think there must be some sort of deep correlative link between being a Slashdotter and either (a) thinking that fuel cells are likely to explode and/or (b) exaggerating the explosive risk for "humor" value.
On the other hand, this may point out a potential PR issue for fuel cell makers. If even (supposedly) intelligent people like geeks make this kind of mistake, what will be the reaction of the general public?
Well, yes, but this wasn't just unsolicited spam. This email was targeted at people who had specifically asked not to be emailed. That seems particularly obnoxious to me. Not to mention dumb as a rock.
The story doesn't really tell you anything about it...
It's not really a story, it's a slightly re-written press release. Sad to see that the CBC seems to be following US corporate media in this kind of lameness.
Scientists are in general pretty good about not overhyping things.
Have you read a grant proposal lately? [grin] But, yeah, a lot of the time it's sloppy and/or over-pumped reporting.
On the other hand, there's scientists like Venter. Ugh. Granted, these days he's less a scientist than he is a corporate droid, but he's not unique, either.
I don't know if it's neo-luddite crap, over-simplification of the situation, or the author's reaction to to finding out that his prior understanding of the situation was over-simplified. Or possibly some combination of the three.
I do technical support for genetics researchers, and I can pretty confidently say that few if any of the oh-so-shocking revelations in the article are anything new.
Some -- probably most -- genetically-based diseases can't be traced to one simple gene. Old news. Some are based on multiple genes, and/or may be a combination of genetic factors and environmental ones. Old news. It will take more work and time -- much more, for many things -- to turn what knowledge we've gained so far into treatments and cures. Old news.
Science research is sometimes over-hyped by the people involved and/or by people trying to sell magazines. And sometimes the people who write articles for the public just don't understand the topic very well. Old news.
Bethell is either seriously lacking in clues, or is heavily spinning things to sell copies of American Spectator. Feh.
From the Slashdot FAQ: A lot of times, we don't use a particular story on a particular day, but at some later point, someone else submits it, and it ends up getting used. We have 4 to 6 guys working together to post things on Slashdot. What one of us finds stupid, the others might find interesting. Or it just might be the rest of the stuff that's going on that day. There are a variety of factors: the personality of the post, the quality of the submission, or even the quantity of stories already posted when your submission entered the queue.
Me, I'm rather glad that the submission reviewers aren't one big hive-mind.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like they're the first, though I'm sure their PR staff is happy that some people seem to think so. DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, and Ford -- at least -- have all made investments in fuel cell technology. Ford Chairman William Clay Ford Jr. publicly said, "The fuel cell will end the 100-year reign of the internal combustion engine" almost a year and a half ago.
Fuel cell tech is great PR, and if they can get it working, such vehicles will (probably) be a hell of a lot easier (read: cheaper) to build, so their margins can be bigger. And they're probably already prepping to lobby for tax breaks for people buying fuel cell vehicles, so they can get a nice sales boom when the changeover starts.
I've certainly heard this, and it wouldn't surprise me, but I've never actually seen any hard -- or even soft -- facts. Do you have any references?
More likely than not, GM is hedging their bets. At worst, it turns out to be a great PR move. At best, they take the lead in Clean Automobile Technology.
They're gonna have to play catch-up with other auto companies who've been investing in fuel cell tech for years, like DaimlerChrysler and Toyota.
Microsoft wants them. Microsoft's shareholders want them. Microsoft is hoping that few other people will consider whether they actually want them or not.
That's the beauty of all "opt-out"-based policies, from the point of view of people who implement them. They give everybody a "choice" that they hope few people will be aware of.
[nod] And -- no big surprise -- corporations and their politician lackeys have been quietly working to get rid of those laws. When the US created the "corporate person" (in it's most common present form), we created an entity who has no long-term goal, and whose only short-term goal is by definition to accumulate financial resources.
Despite the usual corporatist rhetoric, that goal does not always jive with the interests of humans affected by corporations -- be they by-stander, customer, employee, or even stockholder. And now corporations are trying break free of one of the few things that might even theoretically control them.
Do we really want to share the planet with unkillable clumsy giants?
People aren't "trying to control what he says", any more than he's trying to control what they say.
I'm so tired of living in the United States of the Offended. Build a fucking bridge and get over it.
In other words, this sort of thing offends you, and you feel very strongly that people should express themselves differently. Hmmm.
Ford's legal department is already funded. This sort of thing is just part of how they try to justify their funding. Gotta look busy, whether or not what you're doing really makes any sense.
Well, it wouldn't relate to a community of blind, unquestioning (and arguably in this case, naive) trust, but how it relates to a community of earned trust seems fairly obvious to me.
This has the information content of "it's easier to kill yourself by drinking too much water than most doctors thought".
Gee, is that all?
That's rather a hell of a lot, actually. The history of ideas is littered with the corpses of better ideas killed by worse ideas that were marketed better.
Microsoft may be mediocre as far as technical innovation is concerned, but as far as manipulating the market is concerned, they are way, way the fuck out in front.
Oh? Hmm. I have a can't-miss investment opportunity for you. There's this thing called a bridge -- 'scuse me, I mean it's called an eBridge. I'm looking for a limited number of backers for a plan to build an eBridge across the East River, from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Cash only, in small bills, please.
It's hard to tell the difference between "crazy people" and people who are using cell phones with headsets because there isn't much difference.
Not necessarily, true. But that's usually the best way to place your bets.
Let the companies who have been working this long on the system continue to operate it, rather than restrict them so newcomers can get a chance.
Um. The AT&T that existed pre-split and the "Baby Bells" that existed after the split and what remains of them today are all very different things. Hirings, firings, retirements, re-orgs, restructures, purchases, sell-offs ... any perceived continuity is mostly illusionary.
The corporations know better than to try to buy states from the US gov't -- they go to the individual state gov'ts for that. And it's usually more cost effective to rent states than it is to buy them. (Most of them are already taken, though.)
As far as the US gov't is concerned, there's not much left for them to sell or rent that anyone wants. (Well, ok, there's that national park in Alaska, but that's just a matter of finishing up the paperwork.)
I think you mean Hypercar.
Nothing wrong with that imho
Nope, nothing wrong with that. But (a) chances are good that this PR release wasn't primarily directed at those researchers, (b) putting a reference to this on Slashdot seems silly, and (c) the Slashdot story title was really overblown.
Oh, yeah, and (d) it annoys me that the distinction between what's an article and what's a press release seems to be lost on most people. (Including many journalists, it seems.)
They just replaced a really old system, and decided they could get some PR value from that. [shrug]
I knew a friend of Jonathon Swift. A friend of Jonathon Swift was a friend of mine. Streetlawyer, you're no friend of Jonathon Swift.
I think there must be some sort of deep correlative link between being a Slashdotter and either (a) thinking that fuel cells are likely to explode and/or (b) exaggerating the explosive risk for "humor" value.
On the other hand, this may point out a potential PR issue for fuel cell makers. If even (supposedly) intelligent people like geeks make this kind of mistake, what will be the reaction of the general public?
Well, yes, but this wasn't just unsolicited spam. This email was targeted at people who had specifically asked not to be emailed. That seems particularly obnoxious to me. Not to mention dumb as a rock.
It's not really a story, it's a slightly re-written press release. Sad to see that the CBC seems to be following US corporate media in this kind of lameness.
There's a link to the electrofuel web site, but it doesn't help much.
Have you read a grant proposal lately? [grin] But, yeah, a lot of the time it's sloppy and/or over-pumped reporting.
On the other hand, there's scientists like Venter. Ugh. Granted, these days he's less a scientist than he is a corporate droid, but he's not unique, either.
I do technical support for genetics researchers, and I can pretty confidently say that few if any of the oh-so-shocking revelations in the article are anything new.
Some -- probably most -- genetically-based diseases can't be traced to one simple gene. Old news. Some are based on multiple genes, and/or may be a combination of genetic factors and environmental ones. Old news. It will take more work and time -- much more, for many things -- to turn what knowledge we've gained so far into treatments and cures. Old news.
Science research is sometimes over-hyped by the people involved and/or by people trying to sell magazines. And sometimes the people who write articles for the public just don't understand the topic very well. Old news.
Bethell is either seriously lacking in clues, or is heavily spinning things to sell copies of American Spectator. Feh.
Huh? What good would that do? I mean, bugs obviously don't bother Bill Gates.
From the Slashdot FAQ: A lot of times, we don't use a particular story on a particular day, but at some later point, someone else submits it, and it ends up getting used. We have 4 to 6 guys working together to post things on Slashdot. What one of us finds stupid, the others might find interesting. Or it just might be the rest of the stuff that's going on that day. There are a variety of factors: the personality of the post, the quality of the submission, or even the quantity of stories already posted when your submission entered the queue.
Me, I'm rather glad that the submission reviewers aren't one big hive-mind.