I work on side projects in almost all my spare time because I don't have a programming job and I like programming. No job I have ever applied for has ever been interested in experience I gained on the side, they only want to know what I have done in a corporate setting.
Should make a bunch of new, hungry companies to compete with Cisco.
That's the way capitalism is supposed to work, yes. But in real life, a company only lets people go when they know the barrier to entry is too great for it to come back and hurt them much. In a real capitalist environment, Cisco would be done right now and forced to sell the pieces off to those who are interested in building a new company to pick it back up.
Somewhere in that 14,000 there is a person who wanted lots of kids and thought he had a good job with a leading tech company so they had lots of kids. So the next time some slashdotter asks 'if they have no money why did they have so many kids?', this is why. You can't plan and budget your life in this economy.
Picking a car that cannot tow is a big leap from picking a car that cannot take you out of the city you live in until 'someone' builds infrastructure.
When I go on vacation the gas is a cost but it doesn't average out to anywhere near $500 a week. I'm not willing to consider the fact that fuel costs me less from day to day as a positive because that is already outweighed by the fact that I have to work my life and modify my house around charging it and the premium that I paid for the vehicle. Maintenance costs are not that high for me considering my vehicles are aging, maybe around $500/year per vehicle and it spreads out over the massive amount of use that they get.
The interesting thing is, obviously the people who worked at Tesla China were comfortable calling it self-driving; so while Slashdotters were scoffing at people for thinking Autopilot was self driving, apparently this was the impression that Tesla China was under as well.
Actually I just scrolled down to post the same thing. The bot is only seeing the data that linkedin shows everyone anyway. This is definitely not a security issue, if it is even an issue.
The point is, I believe that is the real comment that Greenpeace is trying to make; that people who always buy the latest shiny shiny are destroying the planet-- as if we didn't already know that. And again, I understand that no one will buy it because that's how capitalism works and it's quite sad. People don't buy the things the planet needs them to.
To be fair, smartphone makers could put more emphasis on making the phones last longer as opposed to developing more models. But then that is a failing of capitalism in general, because the whole system encourages companies to sell more.
Does less than what? EVs cannot do long road trips therefore they do less.
You probably don't realize how much rentals cost on this side of the pond. A rental can easily add $500 a week to vacation costs over here. All I am objecting to is the proposition that it's not hard to 'work around' the limits of an EV when really it is for a lot of people.
So I've already paid a premium for an EV car that does less. Now people have to deal with a rental company and shell out to them for every road trip they want to go on. Quickly this makes it look better and better to have an ICE in the first place. We go on road trips many times a year and often the reason we don't fly is to NOT have to pay for a rental. Rentals will have to be a lot cheaper to ever be used for that.
The problem I would have with an EV is, although I have a house the garage only holds one vehicle. My wife is going to want her gasoline van in the garage. Anywhere I put a charger outside is just going to be ugly. Most garages are only 1-1/2 cars.
When the batteries wear out and people start trashing the cars because they have their eyes on the next shiny new one, I wonder what that will do to the environment.
I wonder if anyone has thought about the effect of EVs on the environment once the while car is useless because the battery is useless and people start throwing them out?
Not just urban.. I live in a house and the garage only takes one vehicle. Obviously the charger is going to go in the garage... but then what happens if I want to park the gas vehicle my wife drives in the garage??
I live in a place where we must plug in our cars if we want them to start a few hours later. Even here, it is woefully difficult to get parking lots to put electricity in. They will give you a trickle by turning them on for 15 minutes and then off for 30. There is no way there will be EV charging in lots. If there is then it will be ridiculously expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I work on side projects in almost all my spare time because I don't have a programming job and I like programming. No job I have ever applied for has ever been interested in experience I gained on the side, they only want to know what I have done in a corporate setting.
Should make a bunch of new, hungry companies to compete with Cisco.
That's the way capitalism is supposed to work, yes. But in real life, a company only lets people go when they know the barrier to entry is too great for it to come back and hurt them much. In a real capitalist environment, Cisco would be done right now and forced to sell the pieces off to those who are interested in building a new company to pick it back up.
Somewhere in that 14,000 there is a person who wanted lots of kids and thought he had a good job with a leading tech company so they had lots of kids. So the next time some slashdotter asks 'if they have no money why did they have so many kids?', this is why. You can't plan and budget your life in this economy.
That's why my password is 'a'.
Picking a car that cannot tow is a big leap from picking a car that cannot take you out of the city you live in until 'someone' builds infrastructure.
When I go on vacation the gas is a cost but it doesn't average out to anywhere near $500 a week. I'm not willing to consider the fact that fuel costs me less from day to day as a positive because that is already outweighed by the fact that I have to work my life and modify my house around charging it and the premium that I paid for the vehicle. Maintenance costs are not that high for me considering my vehicles are aging, maybe around $500/year per vehicle and it spreads out over the massive amount of use that they get.
The interesting thing is, obviously the people who worked at Tesla China were comfortable calling it self-driving; so while Slashdotters were scoffing at people for thinking Autopilot was self driving, apparently this was the impression that Tesla China was under as well.
So what is the new english translation? Drives while you stay fully alert and attentive by going through the motions of driving?
Actually I just scrolled down to post the same thing. The bot is only seeing the data that linkedin shows everyone anyway. This is definitely not a security issue, if it is even an issue.
I thought Autopilot didn't mean self-driving?!?
I like to get in a good discussion, but I would be daft if I thought everything I have ever written on the internet would change how people think.
The point is, I believe that is the real comment that Greenpeace is trying to make; that people who always buy the latest shiny shiny are destroying the planet-- as if we didn't already know that. And again, I understand that no one will buy it because that's how capitalism works and it's quite sad. People don't buy the things the planet needs them to.
To be fair, smartphone makers could put more emphasis on making the phones last longer as opposed to developing more models. But then that is a failing of capitalism in general, because the whole system encourages companies to sell more.
Does less than what? EVs cannot do long road trips therefore they do less. You probably don't realize how much rentals cost on this side of the pond. A rental can easily add $500 a week to vacation costs over here. All I am objecting to is the proposition that it's not hard to 'work around' the limits of an EV when really it is for a lot of people.
Cars are an integral part of people's lives. If a car is 10% less efficient for a person to use then their quality of life goes down.
So I've already paid a premium for an EV car that does less. Now people have to deal with a rental company and shell out to them for every road trip they want to go on. Quickly this makes it look better and better to have an ICE in the first place. We go on road trips many times a year and often the reason we don't fly is to NOT have to pay for a rental. Rentals will have to be a lot cheaper to ever be used for that.
The problem I would have with an EV is, although I have a house the garage only holds one vehicle. My wife is going to want her gasoline van in the garage. Anywhere I put a charger outside is just going to be ugly. Most garages are only 1-1/2 cars.
How far north into Canada will that be?
Will the volt hold 4 people, 4 suitcases, 4 laptop bags and a cooler?
While there are very few people that do that, there are a great many more people who WANT to be able to do that one day.
Most people touting EVs don't really understand how most people think.
From what I see of superchargers in Canada, most people here are the 10%.
When the batteries wear out and people start trashing the cars because they have their eyes on the next shiny new one, I wonder what that will do to the environment.
I wonder if anyone has thought about the effect of EVs on the environment once the while car is useless because the battery is useless and people start throwing them out?
Not just urban.. I live in a house and the garage only takes one vehicle. Obviously the charger is going to go in the garage... but then what happens if I want to park the gas vehicle my wife drives in the garage??
I live in a place where we must plug in our cars if we want them to start a few hours later. Even here, it is woefully difficult to get parking lots to put electricity in. They will give you a trickle by turning them on for 15 minutes and then off for 30. There is no way there will be EV charging in lots. If there is then it will be ridiculously expensive.