Thanks for all the stuff, Foxconn, but we get our gadgets from Pirate Bay and MEGA now.
I really hate these kinds of articles. Foxconn mainly makes electronics like iPhones. There is no way to 3D print an iPhone. The glass can not be printed, The circuit boards can not be printed. The chips can not be printed. Lets get down to reality. 3D printing can make plastic objects and metal objects from a very limited range of material. Most objects we buy use other materials. Where they work they work very well but there are more things than can not be 3D printed than can. Many items that can be 3D printed are still much more economical to produce using conventional methods. For example a stainless steel mixing bowl can be 3D printed but it would take quite a while on a very expensive printer to make one and then would need to be polished. Using presses one could stamp out hundreds in the same time. Just because one can does not mean it is economical.
This whole "3D printing will change the world" meme is just stupid. Will some things change? Sure. Will a significant portion of manufacturing change? Not likely.
Show me a 3D printer that can print the following and maybe that can print a tire; 1. Different vulcanized rubbers for tread abd side wall. Currently there are no 3D printers that can print vulcanized rubber. 2. High tensile strength steel wire for the tire bead. Metal printing can be done but tempering is difficult especially when it is next to rubber. 3. Long Nylon fibers for the strengthening plies. A tire is actually a very complex object requiring many different materials most of which can not be 3D printed.
BUT, even centralized nat gas based electric generators will be more efficient than will this car or ANY ICE CAR.
Not necessarily if you include transmission costs and charging inefficiencies. One watt of electricity produced at a powerplant does not mean one watt of electricity delivered to the electric motor in the vehicle.
You ppl constantly scream
You seem to asume I am "far left". Sorry but that is not true.
I think we may be arguing semantics. From your original post it seams that you think CO2 emission from electricity generation are going to zero quite soon. That will not happen for decades. The other issue is can out electricity infrastructure handle a near doubling of energy use if we all start driving electric cars? When plugged in and electric car draws almost as much power as the average house.
It is also not a free market if there is a government imposed monopoly for car dealerships. It is difficult to compete if you can not sell the product. The republicans do not oppose giving tax breaks for investing in R&D and certain strategic sectors. I would call that an indirect handout. Would you not call the recent bailout of a few of the big vehicle manufactures preferential treatment? Some automakers got loans and some didn't.
Being someone who has depression and anxiety I have different medications for those disorders. That is why they are called antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications. There are a few that cross over but Ativan is an anti-anxiety medication and has nothing to do with depression.
They also work for anxiety
Some, manly SSRIs, do work on anxiety but many do not.
The point is that antidepressants bring back reality and does not make the world feel too comfortable.
The problem with depression is not the impending doom but the feeling of powerlessness to effect that doom. In a depressed person's mind not matter what they do they are doomed so why try. Someone paddling and bailing a leaky raft is not a good depression analogy. A better depression analogy would be a person sitting in a sinking raft doing nothing because they think that no matter what they do they will die.
What you describe is "situational depression" as you are being depressed by the actual real circumstances. Antidepressants are not usually prescribed in those situations.
Peter Molyneux has probably never taken antidepressants in his life or he would not say this. Antidepressants don't make the "world just feels too comfortable". They make the world feel survivable.
but the real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at all.
Republicans are more interested in established businesses and their business models. Tesla is trying to break the dealership business model and big GOP contributors do not like that.
Most vehicles have catalytic converters which have the same function as the "industrial-scale scrubbers". Vehicles also do not produce anywhere near the pollutants that coal plants do. Coal burns very dirty producing a lot of soot and ash. The mercury alone in coal is a big issue. While they are much better than they were the smoke stacks at coal plants are far from clean. Even Clean Coal is far from clean.
indeed might not emit any CO2.
Where does the CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels at the power plant go? Sure there are some technology working on CO2 sequestration but it is not yet used in a wide scale. It is a simple equation; burn hydrocarbons and create CO2.
You're either ignorant of this topic, or you are lying on purpose. Pick one.
There are more options. You are unaware or ignoring the actual emissions from fossil fueled plants. Your statement would be considered a false dilemma fallacy as you did not include all possible options.
Less is still not zero. As long as some electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels electric cars will always cause some CO2 and other pollution emissions.
add the energy used to create the engine, transmission and differentials in the IC drive train which an electric car doesn't have.
EVs also have engines (electric motors), transmissions (the roadster has 3 forward and one reverse gear and differential (one motor and more than one drive wheel) so those numbers are probably close with ICs and EVs. Add to that a few hundred pounds of highly refined lithium and you can see where the production costs of an EV might be higher.
The annual maintenance for EVsis lower until you take into account the replacement cost of the battery. That $1400/yr difference could be lost when you have to buy a $15,000 battery. I know battery costs are coming down but supply/demand may drive them up again.
, which might also be hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, or nuclear. Your point?
Which are equivalent to the emission contoles on most vehicles.
might also be hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, or nuclear.
Considering that 2/3 of US electricity production is coal and natural gas produced most if the electricity is probably not green.
Your point?
Thousands of people have health issues due to emissions from fossil fuel electricity plants. Just because the EV itself does not emit the pollution does not mean that the EV consuming the electricity does not cause pollution to be emitted.
The only issue with that is it would require a charging station everywhere a car would be sitting around. That much infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.
And inaccurate. You forget the emmision created to produce the electricity. EVs do not eliminate emission that just shift them to the production plants..
To be fair one would have to spend an hour with the emissions from a coal powered electricity plant. Electric cars do not eliminate emission they just shift it from the tail pipe to the generation stations.
The attention grabbing headline is “TXU offers free nighttime electricity”. But the fine print will reveal that they are doing this by increasing daytime rates to 50% higher than rates offered by many of their competitors.
Much of the "free" night time energy is being paid for by higher daytime charges.
The one thing that might have been missed is that the numbers are probably based on IC engine vehicles. The numbers may be very different for EVs as the construction of a battery/electric drive train is very different than an IC drive train. For example, t takes a lot more energy to build a ton of batteries than it takes to build a gas tank.
The figure came from articles like this. The issue is that the 6KWhr/gallon is energy loss and not energy use. Some of that loss is in heat and other waste. If you look at just electricity consumption it is closer to 89Whrs/gallon.
There is no grid on the planet that gets it's power exclusively from nuclear power. All grids are powered by a mix of technology therefore your power comes from a mix of technology.. Saying "I get all my power from " is patently false.
That there is a light showing when recording is fairly obviously a light for others to see
By the way it is not a light but a display of activity in the viewing prism. Such activity could be sluffed off as a text message. How is an observer to know if they are telling the truth. They also say that the light can be turned off by the recording app. If the light is not hard wired it is of no use.
why would there be a distracting light for the glass user only anyway?
Because Glass users have the capability of recording picture, video and/or sound any time Glass is on.
Also I don't see why it should be anyones business to know if the person wearing glass is currently using it or not
Because it could be used at any time to take a picture or record sound which would be unacceptable to me if I was near them.
separate light for recording,
This could be done easily with an led that is green when on and red when recording.
You don't seem to understand that many people do not want to be surreptitious photographed or recorded. Google Glass just makes it too easy and that makes people uneasy. There is a huge difference between taking out a camera or phone and recording and saying a couple of words to Glass. Do you think it insane that people do not want their lives recorded? Get enough Glasses out there and that is what you get.
the consideration of adding or changing the light to indicating the device is on becomes hugely an ethical question, not just commercial.
I agree. The ethical question is the balance between the freedom of Glass wearers to do what they want and the privacy of the people around the Glass wearers. As of now there is no guarantee that a Glass wearer is not recording. I see that as a problem.
Slumping is an issue when there are overhangs. It is not easy to find the exact temperature so the plastic fused but does not slump.
Layers usually fuse fine once your setup is good.
And how long does it take to get your setup good and how long does your setup stay good if the room temperature changes a bit? How often does the machine clog and ruin a print? How many bad prints does it take before you get a good one? Sorry but spending 2 hours and $5 in materials for something I can buy for $10 is just not my thing. It is a hobby and not practical.
I know a guy how consistently prints watertight cups
I also know a guy who can play the oboe like an angel. That does not mean the average person can do it. Also it depends on what you mean by consistently. Is a 20% failure rate consistent enough for you?
which is why everyone is switching towards PLA.
But PLA is a weaker material.
20k machines from 3D systems are getting the same quality as 2k hobby machines.
Show me some of this output from $2K machines that match $20K machines. Otherwise you are just spreading more hype.
Sorry but you post with unsupported grand statements just sounds like more hype.
The worst examples of hype are when there is an article about something printed on a $15k printer and people say "look you can print the same way using this $100 printer". The problem is that the $100 printer is nowhere near the precision or resolution of the $15K printer. (Hint Peachy is crap)
On another note melted extruded plastic is crap. The surface will always be rough and things will always slump a bit. The layers don't always fuse well. It is even difficult to make a watertight cup. The failure rate is high and the results are weak.
My advice is to save your money for a while as some very important patents have just expired and there could be some interesting things on the horizon.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for all the stuff, Foxconn, but we get our gadgets from Pirate Bay and MEGA now.
I really hate these kinds of articles. Foxconn mainly makes electronics like iPhones. There is no way to 3D print an iPhone. The glass can not be printed, The circuit boards can not be printed. The chips can not be printed. Lets get down to reality. 3D printing can make plastic objects and metal objects from a very limited range of material. Most objects we buy use other materials. Where they work they work very well but there are more things than can not be 3D printed than can. Many items that can be 3D printed are still much more economical to produce using conventional methods. For example a stainless steel mixing bowl can be 3D printed but it would take quite a while on a very expensive printer to make one and then would need to be polished. Using presses one could stamp out hundreds in the same time. Just because one can does not mean it is economical.
This whole "3D printing will change the world" meme is just stupid. Will some things change? Sure. Will a significant portion of manufacturing change? Not likely.
Show me a 3D printer that can print the following and maybe that can print a tire;
1. Different vulcanized rubbers for tread abd side wall. Currently there are no 3D printers that can print vulcanized rubber.
2. High tensile strength steel wire for the tire bead. Metal printing can be done but tempering is difficult especially when it is next to rubber.
3. Long Nylon fibers for the strengthening plies.
A tire is actually a very complex object requiring many different materials most of which can not be 3D printed.
BUT, even centralized nat gas based electric generators will be more efficient than will this car or ANY ICE CAR.
Not necessarily if you include transmission costs and charging inefficiencies. One watt of electricity produced at a powerplant does not mean one watt of electricity delivered to the electric motor in the vehicle.
You ppl constantly scream
You seem to asume I am "far left". Sorry but that is not true.
I think we may be arguing semantics. From your original post it seams that you think CO2 emission from electricity generation are going to zero quite soon. That will not happen for decades. The other issue is can out electricity infrastructure handle a near doubling of energy use if we all start driving electric cars? When plugged in and electric car draws almost as much power as the average house.
It is also not a free market if there is a government imposed monopoly for car dealerships. It is difficult to compete if you can not sell the product. The republicans do not oppose giving tax breaks for investing in R&D and certain strategic sectors. I would call that an indirect handout. Would you not call the recent bailout of a few of the big vehicle manufactures preferential treatment? Some automakers got loans and some didn't.
Being someone who has depression and anxiety I have different medications for those disorders. That is why they are called antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications. There are a few that cross over but Ativan is an anti-anxiety medication and has nothing to do with depression.
They also work for anxiety
Some, manly SSRIs, do work on anxiety but many do not.
The point is that antidepressants bring back reality and does not make the world feel too comfortable.
The problem with depression is not the impending doom but the feeling of powerlessness to effect that doom. In a depressed person's mind not matter what they do they are doomed so why try. Someone paddling and bailing a leaky raft is not a good depression analogy. A better depression analogy would be a person sitting in a sinking raft doing nothing because they think that no matter what they do they will die.
What you describe is "situational depression" as you are being depressed by the actual real circumstances. Antidepressants are not usually prescribed in those situations.
It's like taking antidepressants.
Peter Molyneux has probably never taken antidepressants in his life or he would not say this. Antidepressants don't make the "world just feels too comfortable". They make the world feel survivable.
but the real irony is that conservative politicians ever opposed Tesla at all.
Republicans are more interested in established businesses and their business models. Tesla is trying to break the dealership business model and big GOP contributors do not like that.
but the plant has industrial-scale scrubbers,
Most vehicles have catalytic converters which have the same function as the "industrial-scale scrubbers". Vehicles also do not produce anywhere near the pollutants that coal plants do. Coal burns very dirty producing a lot of soot and ash. The mercury alone in coal is a big issue. While they are much better than they were the smoke stacks at coal plants are far from clean. Even Clean Coal is far from clean.
indeed might not emit any CO2.
Where does the CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels at the power plant go? Sure there are some technology working on CO2 sequestration but it is not yet used in a wide scale. It is a simple equation; burn hydrocarbons and create CO2.
You're either ignorant of this topic, or you are lying on purpose. Pick one.
There are more options. You are unaware or ignoring the actual emissions from fossil fueled plants. Your statement would be considered a false dilemma fallacy as you did not include all possible options.
Less is still not zero. As long as some electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels electric cars will always cause some CO2 and other pollution emissions.
add the energy used to create the engine, transmission and differentials in the IC drive train which an electric car doesn't have.
EVs also have engines (electric motors), transmissions (the roadster has 3 forward and one reverse gear and differential (one motor and more than one drive wheel) so those numbers are probably close with ICs and EVs. Add to that a few hundred pounds of highly refined lithium and you can see where the production costs of an EV might be higher.
The annual maintenance for EVsis lower until you take into account the replacement cost of the battery. That $1400/yr difference could be lost when you have to buy a $15,000 battery. I know battery costs are coming down but supply/demand may drive them up again.
, which might also be hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, or nuclear. Your point?
Which are equivalent to the emission contoles on most vehicles.
might also be hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, or nuclear.
Considering that 2/3 of US electricity production is coal and natural gas produced most if the electricity is probably not green.
Your point?
Thousands of people have health issues due to emissions from fossil fuel electricity plants. Just because the EV itself does not emit the pollution does not mean that the EV consuming the electricity does not cause pollution to be emitted.
The only issue with that is it would require a charging station everywhere a car would be sitting around. That much infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.
Coal may be dying off by natural gas is rapidly taking it's place. While lower in emission it still emits CO2.
Simple... Effective.
And inaccurate. You forget the emmision created to produce the electricity. EVs do not eliminate emission that just shift them to the production plants..
To be fair one would have to spend an hour with the emissions from a coal powered electricity plant. Electric cars do not eliminate emission they just shift it from the tail pipe to the generation stations.
It might not be such a great deal;
The attention grabbing headline is “TXU offers free nighttime electricity”. But the fine print will reveal that they are doing this by increasing daytime rates to 50% higher than rates offered by many of their competitors.
Much of the "free" night time energy is being paid for by higher daytime charges.
The one thing that might have been missed is that the numbers are probably based on IC engine vehicles. The numbers may be very different for EVs as the construction of a battery/electric drive train is very different than an IC drive train. For example, t takes a lot more energy to build a ton of batteries than it takes to build a gas tank.
The figure came from articles like this. The issue is that the 6KWhr/gallon is energy loss and not energy use. Some of that loss is in heat and other waste. If you look at just electricity consumption it is closer to 89Whrs/gallon.
I get my power from Nuke plants.
There is no grid on the planet that gets it's power exclusively from nuclear power. All grids are powered by a mix of technology therefore your power comes from a mix of technology.. Saying "I get all my power from " is patently false.
That there is a light showing when recording is fairly obviously a light for others to see
By the way it is not a light but a display of activity in the viewing prism. Such activity could be sluffed off as a text message. How is an observer to know if they are telling the truth. They also say that the light can be turned off by the recording app. If the light is not hard wired it is of no use.
why would there be a distracting light for the glass user only anyway?
Because Glass users have the capability of recording picture, video and/or sound any time Glass is on.
Also I don't see why it should be anyones business to know if the person wearing glass is currently using it or not
Because it could be used at any time to take a picture or record sound which would be unacceptable to me if I was near them.
separate light for recording,
This could be done easily with an led that is green when on and red when recording.
You don't seem to understand that many people do not want to be surreptitious photographed or recorded. Google Glass just makes it too easy and that makes people uneasy. There is a huge difference between taking out a camera or phone and recording and saying a couple of words to Glass. Do you think it insane that people do not want their lives recorded? Get enough Glasses out there and that is what you get.
the consideration of adding or changing the light to indicating the device is on becomes hugely an ethical question, not just commercial.
I agree. The ethical question is the balance between the freedom of Glass wearers to do what they want and the privacy of the people around the Glass wearers. As of now there is no guarantee that a Glass wearer is not recording. I see that as a problem.
Slumping should not be an issue.
Slumping is an issue when there are overhangs. It is not easy to find the exact temperature so the plastic fused but does not slump.
Layers usually fuse fine once your setup is good.
And how long does it take to get your setup good and how long does your setup stay good if the room temperature changes a bit? How often does the machine clog and ruin a print? How many bad prints does it take before you get a good one? Sorry but spending 2 hours and $5 in materials for something I can buy for $10 is just not my thing. It is a hobby and not practical.
I know a guy how consistently prints watertight cups
I also know a guy who can play the oboe like an angel. That does not mean the average person can do it. Also it depends on what you mean by consistently. Is a 20% failure rate consistent enough for you?
which is why everyone is switching towards PLA.
But PLA is a weaker material.
20k machines from 3D systems are getting the same quality as 2k hobby machines.
Show me some of this output from $2K machines that match $20K machines. Otherwise you are just spreading more hype.
Sorry but you post with unsupported grand statements just sounds like more hype.
The worst examples of hype are when there is an article about something printed on a $15k printer and people say "look you can print the same way using this $100 printer". The problem is that the $100 printer is nowhere near the precision or resolution of the $15K printer. (Hint Peachy is crap)
On another note melted extruded plastic is crap. The surface will always be rough and things will always slump a bit. The layers don't always fuse well. It is even difficult to make a watertight cup. The failure rate is high and the results are weak.
My advice is to save your money for a while as some very important patents have just expired and there could be some interesting things on the horizon.