You make a good point, and that works if I lease the truck. Since I don't lease, I buy, it doesn't appeal to me, but I see how a battery service as part of a car or truck lease would appeal to millions of customers, fair enough on that point.
I prefer to keep my trucks for 6-9 years, I buy them new and keep them in great condition, it is a pride of ownership thing.
My truck has a nearly 500 mile range on the highway, but I only need that range a few times a year. 90% of the time, 50 miles a day of range is plenty.
The problem is, I'm not going to buy a truck that doesn't have the long range as an option. I just won't, and there are millions of people who won't either.
GM has it right with the Volt. The price is still too high, but put the Volt tech into a Yukon, drop the price premium, and I'm a customer.
Rental cars and Zip cars sound like a nice idea, right up until you hit reality. Yes, most people don't actually need long range except a few times a year, but those times are when they want their nice luxury car or truck, not some cheap, beat up rental.
I drive a GMC Yukon XL Denali, a few times a year I take the family on long road trips. There is nothing I can rent that is the equal of my truck, nor would it be in as nice a condition.
What I am likely to do however, is replace my second truck with an electric, I don't need two gas vehicles. I also would be happy with a Volt type version of my Yukon, with a gas or Diesel engine for range extension and battery for primary power.
The battery swap idea is a dead end... I am not going to swap out my nice new $30k battery for some random unknown age battery from a stranger. Just not going to happen. The towable range extender is also stupid and not going to happen, the average driver sucks at driving without a trailer, with one, look out...
You are quite right, I was rather impressed by the behavior of the Egyptian Military over the past 2 years.
They (finally) stepped in and removed the old guy, allowed new elections, the new guy was just as bad as the old one and finally removed him, now they are trying to get new elections again.
I get no sense whatsoever that they want to actually run the country, perhaps they are wise enough to know that the qualities that make a good General make for a bad President. But they can still spot a bad President either way.
I wonder what it would take for the US Military to decide that enough was enough and remove both sides of the current political leadership, put them all in prison, and call for new national elections in 3/6 months?
The ultimate remedy ends with the military. If the three branches can't work it out, they are ultimately where the buck really stops.
If the military wants to force a change, they could. I don't think they want to here, just answering your question for what a possible remedy would be.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with those in power, those who stand to lose if solar becomes more widespread. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others, those with money and power make the rules, we don't live in an equal world.
We have plenty of technology to go to Mars tomorrow, doesn't mean we're going to.
That is what I meant by the "real world". The world is simply not going to spend a trillion dollars to put hydro dams all over the world in places they shouldn't be, just to use pumped water storage.
The world is not going to install that much solar power. It isn't technical, it is political, the forces that are at work have little to do with technology.
We disagree on what the hard problem is. You say we have hydro storage today, yes we do, at small scale. Not everything scales from small to big, and it won't do so across the planet. Further, a global power grid is just a fantasy, there are real world issues that would prevent it from happening. We live in a world that doesn't operate according to logic, we operate in an emotional world, future technology isn't going to change that point.
Simple, Microsoft is by far the largest and most well known target. XP is by far the most used example of an old OS. 10 years from now, XP likely will still have more users than Linux does today.
And frankly, does Linux really support the old kernals for so long? Is what was released in 2001 still getting active support and monthly patches?
The requirement to support a car for 10 years is enshrined in law. Are you suggesting you'd do the same for computers? If so, fair enough, but keep in mind that it will raise the price a bit for all electronics, someone has to pay the cost of it and that is always the end customer.
It is also worth considering that something called the NTSB exists for cars, no such agency exists for computers, so it is one thing to say "you must support your computers for 10 years", it is another to actually make HP put out patches for 10 years. Maybe they say, "yea, we found and fixed all the problems, anything left is minor".
But you're also your own problem. HP wants (or needs) you to buy a new server every 3 years. You already say that you run 3 VMs, but that your existing hardware can handle 7 more.
Now you're saying you don't want to buy from HP again, but you don't need to, your existing hardware is enough and probably will be for another 3 years. You aren't actually an HP customer anymore, it has now been too long and you won't buy in the near future either.
HP has done the math and figured that customers like you aren't worth having, unless you're willing to pay up. I expect Dell to follow suit soon, now that they are private, they can do this if Michael wants to.
While that all sounds nice, you're leaving off an option. What if, without the payments, HP simply does not fix anything for any hardware that is out of warranty?
If they say "we'll keep fixing and updating for 3 years, then forget it, on to the new stuff", then what?
Just consider that, before you throw out the baby with the bath water. Why exactly do they have to provide updates forever?
Frankly, Microsoft has done everyone a huge disservice by supporting XP for so long, people have gotten this idea that computers should be updated forever.
Yes, but cars are heavily regulated, computers are not... In addition, there is a time limit beyond which they no longer do recalls and the manufactures no longer have to pay for them.
After all, when is the last time you heard of a recall of a 1978 Chevy? There is a sunset period beyond which no one cares anymore. With the speed of computer development, that period is much shorter than cars.
When your server gets rooted by a hacker, every security professional worth his money will tell you to wipe it and do a complete reinstall. There is no way to clean up the system without that where you can be certain that there's not a backdoor left somewhere you didn't look.
Depending on the nature of the server, I'd be tempted to replace the hardware as well and shred the old stuff as well.
Formatting a hard drive doesn't really remove everything, even a "secure" erase isn't the same thing as simply buying a new one.
There is much truth to what you say... but you really can't compare America to Syria...
Our technology is far superior, they don't have drones, we do. We are also rapidly advancing towards the time of having some form of land robot warrior. The Terminator might be a bit far fetched, but something is coming and when it does, it will turn the tables...
If the 1% can buy an army of robots, there won't be much your average Joe can do with an assault rifle.
I'm as 2nd amendment as they come, but I'm under no illusion that an AR-15 is of any value against the US military, that is just silly. You'd have to turn the military against the government, which has happened countless times (much of the striking power of the Syrian Rebels comes from defecting Army units.
But when those Army units are drones, robots, etc... not as easy to turn...
The French Nobels didn't buy themselves a good enough police force and military to protect themselves from the rabble. Why do you think our law enforcement looks so much like a military these days? They are buying drones, armored personal carriers, and military weapons. It is exactly to prevent The Terror.
The problem with techies is that we think too much about the network, the AV, the machine - but less about the user and how they will use the machine in a way that we couldn't possibly predict. So the real ecomonic argument is not about GBP300 for a netbook, but the opportunity cost of the stress and hassle when your daughter loses all of her homework, photos etc because some cryptolocker malware wants 1bn Bitcoin (market rates will go down as well as up) in order to unlock the data.
This... People see the cost in front of them to keep current, but don't factor the cost of not keeping current.
It is a hidden cost, until you wake up one day smacked in the face with it.
Computer technology is not meant or designed to be purchased once and used forever. It can be, to a point, if it only has to do one or two things, never be updated, and never be connected to anything else.
If you want that machine online, it needs to be upgraded.
If it has access to the Internet, then it has access to malware.
If it is totally offline, then why the firewall/AV software? A completely offline machine needs neither, if it is air gapped and never has external media attached.
If it can browse the web, no amount of firewall/AV software can make up for an OS level exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer to keep my trucks for 6-9 years, I buy them new and keep them in great condition, it is a pride of ownership thing.
My truck has a nearly 500 mile range on the highway, but I only need that range a few times a year. 90% of the time, 50 miles a day of range is plenty.
The problem is, I'm not going to buy a truck that doesn't have the long range as an option. I just won't, and there are millions of people who won't either.
GM has it right with the Volt. The price is still too high, but put the Volt tech into a Yukon, drop the price premium, and I'm a customer.
I drive a GMC Yukon XL Denali, a few times a year I take the family on long road trips. There is nothing I can rent that is the equal of my truck, nor would it be in as nice a condition.
What I am likely to do however, is replace my second truck with an electric, I don't need two gas vehicles. I also would be happy with a Volt type version of my Yukon, with a gas or Diesel engine for range extension and battery for primary power.
Rentals, battery swaps, etc. are non starters.
Towable range extenders are not going to happen, the average person has a hard enough time just driving, add a trailer, you're asking for trouble.
The battery swap idea is a dead end... I am not going to swap out my nice new $30k battery for some random unknown age battery from a stranger. Just not going to happen. The towable range extender is also stupid and not going to happen, the average driver sucks at driving without a trailer, with one, look out...
They (finally) stepped in and removed the old guy, allowed new elections, the new guy was just as bad as the old one and finally removed him, now they are trying to get new elections again.
I get no sense whatsoever that they want to actually run the country, perhaps they are wise enough to know that the qualities that make a good General make for a bad President. But they can still spot a bad President either way.
I wonder what it would take for the US Military to decide that enough was enough and remove both sides of the current political leadership, put them all in prison, and call for new national elections in 3/6 months?
If the military wants to force a change, they could. I don't think they want to here, just answering your question for what a possible remedy would be.
It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with those in power, those who stand to lose if solar becomes more widespread. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others, those with money and power make the rules, we don't live in an equal world.
That is what I meant by the "real world". The world is simply not going to spend a trillion dollars to put hydro dams all over the world in places they shouldn't be, just to use pumped water storage.
The world is not going to install that much solar power. It isn't technical, it is political, the forces that are at work have little to do with technology.
We disagree on what the hard problem is. You say we have hydro storage today, yes we do, at small scale. Not everything scales from small to big, and it won't do so across the planet. Further, a global power grid is just a fantasy, there are real world issues that would prevent it from happening. We live in a world that doesn't operate according to logic, we operate in an emotional world, future technology isn't going to change that point.
Yes, but not at the time needed... Power generation and power use need to match, unless you have massive storage.
Remove all tax subsidies then redo the math. It isn't nearly as pretty.
Do you want paid patches at 5 years, or no patches at all? Assuming those are your only two options of course...
And frankly, does Linux really support the old kernals for so long? Is what was released in 2001 still getting active support and monthly patches?
It is also worth considering that something called the NTSB exists for cars, no such agency exists for computers, so it is one thing to say "you must support your computers for 10 years", it is another to actually make HP put out patches for 10 years. Maybe they say, "yea, we found and fixed all the problems, anything left is minor".
Now you're saying you don't want to buy from HP again, but you don't need to, your existing hardware is enough and probably will be for another 3 years. You aren't actually an HP customer anymore, it has now been too long and you won't buy in the near future either.
HP has done the math and figured that customers like you aren't worth having, unless you're willing to pay up. I expect Dell to follow suit soon, now that they are private, they can do this if Michael wants to.
If they say "we'll keep fixing and updating for 3 years, then forget it, on to the new stuff", then what?
Just consider that, before you throw out the baby with the bath water. Why exactly do they have to provide updates forever?
Frankly, Microsoft has done everyone a huge disservice by supporting XP for so long, people have gotten this idea that computers should be updated forever.
After all, when is the last time you heard of a recall of a 1978 Chevy? There is a sunset period beyond which no one cares anymore. With the speed of computer development, that period is much shorter than cars.
When your server gets rooted by a hacker, every security professional worth his money will tell you to wipe it and do a complete reinstall. There is no way to clean up the system without that where you can be certain that there's not a backdoor left somewhere you didn't look.
Depending on the nature of the server, I'd be tempted to replace the hardware as well and shred the old stuff as well.
Formatting a hard drive doesn't really remove everything, even a "secure" erase isn't the same thing as simply buying a new one.
Our technology is far superior, they don't have drones, we do. We are also rapidly advancing towards the time of having some form of land robot warrior. The Terminator might be a bit far fetched, but something is coming and when it does, it will turn the tables...
If the 1% can buy an army of robots, there won't be much your average Joe can do with an assault rifle.
I'm as 2nd amendment as they come, but I'm under no illusion that an AR-15 is of any value against the US military, that is just silly. You'd have to turn the military against the government, which has happened countless times (much of the striking power of the Syrian Rebels comes from defecting Army units.
But when those Army units are drones, robots, etc... not as easy to turn...
The French Nobels didn't buy themselves a good enough police force and military to protect themselves from the rabble. Why do you think our law enforcement looks so much like a military these days? They are buying drones, armored personal carriers, and military weapons. It is exactly to prevent The Terror.
http://www.amazon.com/HP-10-e010nr-10-1-Inch-Touchscreen-Sparkling/dp/B00FCK20SI/
The problem with techies is that we think too much about the network, the AV, the machine - but less about the user and how they will use the machine in a way that we couldn't possibly predict. So the real ecomonic argument is not about GBP300 for a netbook, but the opportunity cost of the stress and hassle when your daughter loses all of her homework, photos etc because some cryptolocker malware wants 1bn Bitcoin (market rates will go down as well as up) in order to unlock the data.
This... People see the cost in front of them to keep current, but don't factor the cost of not keeping current.
It is a hidden cost, until you wake up one day smacked in the face with it.
Computer technology is not meant or designed to be purchased once and used forever. It can be, to a point, if it only has to do one or two things, never be updated, and never be connected to anything else.
If you want that machine online, it needs to be upgraded.
If it is totally offline, then why the firewall/AV software? A completely offline machine needs neither, if it is air gapped and never has external media attached.
If it can browse the web, no amount of firewall/AV software can make up for an OS level exploit.
Why should I upgrade? What does Windows 7 or 8 give me in this case?
Security updates past April 2014.
The firewall and AV software are nice, and they help, but you should not have that netbook online after April of this year.
Frankly, for the cost of upgrading, given the age of that thing, buying a new one probably makes more sense.