Just about everyone I know who owns a car refuses to walk or take the bus, even if that would actually be an easier/cheaper option.
I just recently checked bus prices, and I got to the destination several times faster driving, on $20 in gasoline, versus a $40 bus ticket.
Prices serve as a very good proxy for efficiency... Based on prices, I do not believe that buses are more efficient for short to medium trips in the US.
The Fiat 500 has also a very very efficient Diesel mult-jet version, which can do 76 MPG (in UK gallons or 63 MPG US gallons). Unfortunately you can't buy that in the US.
Since the gasoline Fiat 500 can get 40 US MPG Hwy under stricter standards, and since diesel has a 12% higher energy density per volume and costs more (here), that's really not a terribly impressive number...
And that, my friends, is why CAFE[1] standards are a stupid way of reducing emissions.
Except this isn't about CAFE at all, but a specific ZEV mandate in CARB standards for the 6 largest automakers.
These rules gave us the GM EV1, Nissan Leaf, the Toyota Prius, the Chevy Volt, and more. I'd say those vehicles are indications that the regulations are highly effective. You're free to disagree (once you get onto the correct subject), but I think the above list stands on its own.
While there are a number of other "compliance cars" that aren't as noteworthy, they're still helping support ZEV R&D, and amortization of the costs.
A web search for "compliance car" turns up numerous insightful write-ups:
This is the same mindset automakers had back in 1994, when the California (CARB) emissions standards were going to (eventually) require a tiny percentage of all cars sold had to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
Ford's Th!nk and Chrysler's EPIC were piles of crap ("compliance cars") produced just to minimally meet the regulations. GM thought they could one-up them, and produce an actually NICE ZEV that people would WANT, which would then allow them to sell MORE conventional vehicles, which is where the infamous EV1 came from. Toyota had a similar mindset as GM, but couldn't compete on ZEVs, and invented their Prius as an alternative to meet the standards.
The successful court challenges to the CARB rules set back ZEVs by two decades, and we're repeating history again, today. GM makes a nice ZEV (with some inspiration from Tesla and Toyota this time), while Ford and Chrysler sell crap ZEVs they have to give away, and Toyota doubles-down on their Prius with longer range and plug-in capabilities.
Nissan is the only surprise, being quite competitive this time around, while their previous Altra attempt, despite pioneering lithium-ion battery EVs, wasn't noteworthy at the time.
, I have to wonder if there will a way to pass your data off as a 'voice' call and avoid data caps and limits?
2G networks got about 20kbps data throughput. Sure, you could set-up a call and do some acoustic coupling for data modulation over a call, but that's the ballpark of the speed you'll be getting.
Consumers wouldn't WANT the low speeds and inconvenience of the ad-hoc process, and I'm pretty sure business customers (like alarm service providers) could get dedicated data service MUCH cheaper than an unlimited voice plan.
Stop with the FUD. Verizon doesn't double dip for MMS (picture messages use data, but they do not add to your data usage), even though such double dipping would likely go unnoticed, why would they do it for minutes?
Verizon does double-dip in some situations, and has TRIED to do it more, but once the DoJ put their foot on Verizon's neck and started investigating, Verizon changed their mind... Or rather, delayed the changes indefinitely, and eventually rolled them out only slowly to new customers and new devices for a mish-mash of reasoning.
Or is your argument that a) there might (big "might") be differences between regulatory structure and cost between Romania and the US that would make internet infrastructure in Romania cheaper to build,
There's no "might" about it. It IS much cheaper.
"I'm right about Romania and I don't know about the rest"?
I was talking about Romania, and I have no interest in humoring you, just because you want to change the subject, since YOU don't know a thing about Romania, and are neither able nor willing to debate the facts of the subject.
While I may know the reasons for other countries, there is no one single factor, as you want to set up and knock down as a straw man. Neither does your mind-numbingly stupid and argumentative style make me want to enter a rational and reasoned debate on the subject with you, of all people.
If you actually wanted to know the reasons, rather than flame and rant from ignorance of the topic, you're perfectly capable of doing some research on the subject, and gathering facts and figures, or finding resources from others who have done so before you.
That's probably the best-case scenario for the Star Wars spin-offs... They'll be superficial and cliched, but tolerable, paced fast enough, and with enough action to get people in the seats.
No one company will "have it all" so they won't be big enough to start making demands like Apple did.
Netflix just keeps growing... And what's more, they produce non-trivial amounts of original content. They're not as big as iTMS, but they are getting there in a hurry, and I see nothing the industry is doing that could possibly stop them.
Right now, their only demands are more content and lower prices for it... That could easily change.
Back when I was a kid the last millenium (80-90s), a billion as a lot of money.
$1 Billion USD in 1988, would be $2 Billion today (2014). Not an astronomical difference... Those poor, poor $500 millionaires would be billionaires now. Big damn whoop.
Now every damn internet start up is getting a billion each
No, only an extremely select few, and those are the ones you hear about in big stories like this one. Lots of successful startups get bought for far less, and most of it goes to pay off debts, leaving relatively modest profits for the investors.
Besides, there's a world of difference between INDIVIDUALS who have $1 Billion dollars in assets, and a BUSINESS having that amount... There were plenty of Billion-dollar corporations in the 1980s.
It's ridiculous to try to pretend that something nice a completely different NSA did 40 years ago has the slightest relevance to today's completely different environment and politics.
It's not relevant for judging the character of the NSA, of course, but it's HIGHLY relevant as a bit of context, when people are acting paranoid, and throwing around accusations with no evidence.
Every time i turn on discovery or history channel, its assholes building motorcycles
I never suggested cable. Quite the opposite, actually. All the shows I was referring to, air on PBS stations. Nova, Frontline, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead,
All the History Channel's good stuff was moved to H2, except for 7-9am EST, their former cable-in-the-classroom time-slot, no longer commercial-free, and mostly just showing Modern Marvels.
The Discovery Channel's content was scattered around across several channels, but mainly went to The Science Channel.
Neither is worth the cost of a cable/satellite subscription to view, when you can put up an OTA TV antenna for $20 to $200 and get dozens of broadcast networks with perfect picture quality.
most anyone with a reading level over 8th grade can absorb information faster by reading it than by listening to someone read to them from a script.
And that's relevant to RADIO versus newspapers, but has NO bearing on TV. TV has pictures and video... Things which are shown to you with no verbal description. And this is done while other audible information is being relayed to you. It is very easy for TV to provide information vastly faster than you could have read about it.
"Need" is a strong word. But in general, people who think TV is useless, are themselves guilty of using it poorly.
Do you know how many hours of science, documentaries, and news is available on broadcast TV channels in a give week? It's more hours than most people can watch... And do you know how much longer it would take to acquire the same information through textual or audio-only description? Certainly quite a bit more, even if it was available, which it isn't.
Sure, there are some shows I like. I can watch them online when I want to see them. I don't need TV for anything
That's a bit like saying you don't need a car, you only need a device that does all the things a car does, but isn't a car... Quite the rebel you are.
AMD was dominant while Intel was chasing dead ends (Netburst and Itanium). Once Intel woke up and started working on sane chip designs again AMD's goose was cooked.
Those were only dead-ends BECAUSE AMD was killing them. Intel would have been happy in a world where P4s sold, and Itanium was the only 64-bit upgrade path.
AMD got a bigger lead thanks to Intel's missteps and slow response, but that's about all you can say. AMD has been the innovator in the past, and has had similar surges in market share, when Intel was going down more expensive roads were enthusiasts didn't want to follow.
The old K6-2 was doing pretty well, offering an option for OEMs to continue to use old Pentium motherboards, while Intel was trying to push everyone to use expensive Pentium-IIs in a Slot-1 motherboard that everybody hated. AMD's 3DNow extensions did have Intel at a disadvantage for a while. Oddly enough, I don't think you can look back at the Intel PII and say it was a "dead end" despite its problems.
Throw in all the other CPU-orthogonal problems like Intel trying desperately to force Rambus memory on everyone. Or previous "dead-end" CPUs like the PentiumPro, which won't really die, and we've seen this dance dozens of times over.
I suppose you're right... If Intel NEVER makes ANY mistakes, then AMD won't see a significant bump in their sales. But if AMD can just get closer to competitive with Intel, while keeping prices lower, they could claw back the market share they've lost since the "Core" processors debuted.
I was sad when amd64 started getting called x64, since it stripped AMD of the credit they deserved.
AMD called it "x86-64" when they brought it out. They only rebranded it as AMD64 about the time they licensed it to Intel, and Intel started calling it i64 or some such. It was, still is, and always will be: x86-64
18 hour charging time is perfectly fine at your destination. In reality, it'll be shorter, since you'll rarely be completely empty, but never mind that. An 8+ hour day at work will give you 50% of a charge, and you're insane if you commute 375 miles to/from work... A stop overnight at a motel will give you even more.
In reality, all decent-sized businesses, including all those fast-food restaurants, have the power lines there for high-speed charging stations in their parking-lots. Those nearest to highways are likely to get charging stations first, making cross-country trips practical.
Point me to the job listings. They exist in only a tiny f fraction the number in tech hubs like California. Fortunately, California has plenty of dirt cheap land and housing, once you leave the greater urban areas.
Slashdot Mirror
I just recently checked bus prices, and I got to the destination several times faster driving, on $20 in gasoline, versus a $40 bus ticket.
Prices serve as a very good proxy for efficiency... Based on prices, I do not believe that buses are more efficient for short to medium trips in the US.
Since the gasoline Fiat 500 can get 40 US MPG Hwy under stricter standards, and since diesel has a 12% higher energy density per volume and costs more (here), that's really not a terribly impressive number...
Except this isn't about CAFE at all, but a specific ZEV mandate in CARB standards for the 6 largest automakers.
These rules gave us the GM EV1, Nissan Leaf, the Toyota Prius, the Chevy Volt, and more. I'd say those vehicles are indications that the regulations are highly effective. You're free to disagree (once you get onto the correct subject), but I think the above list stands on its own.
While there are a number of other "compliance cars" that aren't as noteworthy, they're still helping support ZEV R&D, and amortization of the costs.
A web search for "compliance car" turns up numerous insightful write-ups:
http://www.greencarreports.com...
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
This is the same mindset automakers had back in 1994, when the California (CARB) emissions standards were going to (eventually) require a tiny percentage of all cars sold had to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
Ford's Th!nk and Chrysler's EPIC were piles of crap ("compliance cars") produced just to minimally meet the regulations. GM thought they could one-up them, and produce an actually NICE ZEV that people would WANT, which would then allow them to sell MORE conventional vehicles, which is where the infamous EV1 came from. Toyota had a similar mindset as GM, but couldn't compete on ZEVs, and invented their Prius as an alternative to meet the standards.
The successful court challenges to the CARB rules set back ZEVs by two decades, and we're repeating history again, today. GM makes a nice ZEV (with some inspiration from Tesla and Toyota this time), while Ford and Chrysler sell crap ZEVs they have to give away, and Toyota doubles-down on their Prius with longer range and plug-in capabilities.
Nissan is the only surprise, being quite competitive this time around, while their previous Altra attempt, despite pioneering lithium-ion battery EVs, wasn't noteworthy at the time.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_ve...
2G networks got about 20kbps data throughput. Sure, you could set-up a call and do some acoustic coupling for data modulation over a call, but that's the ballpark of the speed you'll be getting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Consumers wouldn't WANT the low speeds and inconvenience of the ad-hoc process, and I'm pretty sure business customers (like alarm service providers) could get dedicated data service MUCH cheaper than an unlimited voice plan.
Verizon does double-dip in some situations, and has TRIED to do it more, but once the DoJ put their foot on Verizon's neck and started investigating, Verizon changed their mind... Or rather, delayed the changes indefinitely, and eventually rolled them out only slowly to new customers and new devices for a mish-mash of reasoning.
I don't take requests.
There's no "might" about it. It IS much cheaper.
I was talking about Romania, and I have no interest in humoring you, just because you want to change the subject, since YOU don't know a thing about Romania, and are neither able nor willing to debate the facts of the subject.
While I may know the reasons for other countries, there is no one single factor, as you want to set up and knock down as a straw man. Neither does your mind-numbingly stupid and argumentative style make me want to enter a rational and reasoned debate on the subject with you, of all people.
If you actually wanted to know the reasons, rather than flame and rant from ignorance of the topic, you're perfectly capable of doing some research on the subject, and gathering facts and figures, or finding resources from others who have done so before you.
The Avengers (2012)
That's probably the best-case scenario for the Star Wars spin-offs... They'll be superficial and cliched, but tolerable, paced fast enough, and with enough action to get people in the seats.
I haven't made one.
No. Only a complete and total idiot would take a statement about something in one country, and assume it must apply equally to other countries.
Netflix just keeps growing... And what's more, they produce non-trivial amounts of original content. They're not as big as iTMS, but they are getting there in a hurry, and I see nothing the industry is doing that could possibly stop them.
Right now, their only demands are more content and lower prices for it... That could easily change.
Who said anything about Sweden? This is about Romania.
$1 Billion USD in 1988, would be $2 Billion today (2014). Not an astronomical difference... Those poor, poor $500 millionaires would be billionaires now. Big damn whoop.
No, only an extremely select few, and those are the ones you hear about in big stories like this one. Lots of successful startups get bought for far less, and most of it goes to pay off debts, leaving relatively modest profits for the investors.
Besides, there's a world of difference between INDIVIDUALS who have $1 Billion dollars in assets, and a BUSINESS having that amount... There were plenty of Billion-dollar corporations in the 1980s.
It's not relevant for judging the character of the NSA, of course, but it's HIGHLY relevant as a bit of context, when people are acting paranoid, and throwing around accusations with no evidence.
And here I thought it was saying GPS has a "kill all humans" function.
Or perhaps, much like radioactive exposure, the act of tracking someone with GPS, kills THEM!
I never suggested cable. Quite the opposite, actually. All the shows I was referring to, air on PBS stations. Nova, Frontline, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead,
All the History Channel's good stuff was moved to H2, except for 7-9am EST, their former cable-in-the-classroom time-slot, no longer commercial-free, and mostly just showing Modern Marvels.
The Discovery Channel's content was scattered around across several channels, but mainly went to The Science Channel.
Neither is worth the cost of a cable/satellite subscription to view, when you can put up an OTA TV antenna for $20 to $200 and get dozens of broadcast networks with perfect picture quality.
And that's relevant to RADIO versus newspapers, but has NO bearing on TV. TV has pictures and video... Things which are shown to you with no verbal description. And this is done while other audible information is being relayed to you. It is very easy for TV to provide information vastly faster than you could have read about it.
"Need" is a strong word. But in general, people who think TV is useless, are themselves guilty of using it poorly.
Do you know how many hours of science, documentaries, and news is available on broadcast TV channels in a give week? It's more hours than most people can watch... And do you know how much longer it would take to acquire the same information through textual or audio-only description? Certainly quite a bit more, even if it was available, which it isn't.
That's a bit like saying you don't need a car, you only need a device that does all the things a car does, but isn't a car... Quite the rebel you are.
Factoring primes is popular, but not at all the ONLY method:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm sure your method of choosing a car is, no doubt, similarly insightful...
Reading a tech news site may not be for you...
Or at least, don't click through and read EVERY story, including the ones that infuriate you...
Those were only dead-ends BECAUSE AMD was killing them. Intel would have been happy in a world where P4s sold, and Itanium was the only 64-bit upgrade path.
AMD got a bigger lead thanks to Intel's missteps and slow response, but that's about all you can say. AMD has been the innovator in the past, and has had similar surges in market share, when Intel was going down more expensive roads were enthusiasts didn't want to follow.
The old K6-2 was doing pretty well, offering an option for OEMs to continue to use old Pentium motherboards, while Intel was trying to push everyone to use expensive Pentium-IIs in a Slot-1 motherboard that everybody hated. AMD's 3DNow extensions did have Intel at a disadvantage for a while. Oddly enough, I don't think you can look back at the Intel PII and say it was a "dead end" despite its problems.
Throw in all the other CPU-orthogonal problems like Intel trying desperately to force Rambus memory on everyone. Or previous "dead-end" CPUs like the PentiumPro, which won't really die, and we've seen this dance dozens of times over.
I suppose you're right... If Intel NEVER makes ANY mistakes, then AMD won't see a significant bump in their sales. But if AMD can just get closer to competitive with Intel, while keeping prices lower, they could claw back the market share they've lost since the "Core" processors debuted.
AMD called it "x86-64" when they brought it out. They only rebranded it as AMD64 about the time they licensed it to Intel, and Intel started calling it i64 or some such. It was, still is, and always will be: x86-64
18 hour charging time is perfectly fine at your destination. In reality, it'll be shorter, since you'll rarely be completely empty, but never mind that. An 8+ hour day at work will give you 50% of a charge, and you're insane if you commute 375 miles to/from work... A stop overnight at a motel will give you even more.
In reality, all decent-sized businesses, including all those fast-food restaurants, have the power lines there for high-speed charging stations in their parking-lots. Those nearest to highways are likely to get charging stations first, making cross-country trips practical.
Point me to the job listings. They exist in only a tiny f fraction the number in tech hubs like California. Fortunately, California has plenty of dirt cheap land and housing, once you leave the greater urban areas.