"First off, I was trying to make a point that we should not be looking into 100% electric vehicles until both the technology and infrastructure exist!"
And everyone else is trying to make the point that the technology does exist (GM EV1 is one *small* example). And companies like GM are willing to install the equipment necessary for charging these cars (see http://www.gmev.com/charging/charging.htm). Again, as everyone else has stated, you can't have a gigantic infrastructure before you put a single electric car on the road. I haven't heard anyone claim that that the government should seize everyone's ICE cars and switch them with electric cars by nightfall. People are just stating that we should be pushing harder to create demand for electic cars and createing the infrastructure necessary to support them.
"I stand by my "5 times" statement on electric power that is generated by fossil fuel power plants for 100% electric vehicles."
You might be standing by it, but what are you standing on? Others have stated numerous facts and sources about the efficiencies of electric motor/power plants vs. conventional gasoline powered ICEs. Among them, power plants are 40-60% efficient, and electric motors are 95+% efficient while most ICEs are ~20% efficient. This all assumes that the power plants even produce emissions. What facts, figures or sources do you have to back up your 5x argument? It sounds like you just pulled it out of the air.
"Is so cost-effective and efficient, it can replace all localized (i.e. non-power plant) fossil fuel use."
No. No technology has to be the end-all be-all. If a technology is better/cheaper/more-efficient in any particular situation, there is no reason not to adopt that technology in the given situation. If EVs are only "cleaner" in CA where more electricity is produced through hydro dams (this isn't true, btw, but pretend it was), then adopting EVs in CA would reduce the total pollution that America produces. If the technology is only scalable to 2% of the population (it clearly isn't limited to this) then so be it. We are still better off.
"*IF* proper funding is re-implanted into the various research programs. It is too bad the world has been turned off of nuclear fusion, largely from the irresponsibility of various members of our science community (on both sides of the cold fusion argument -- never seen so many closed minds on both sides). While cold fusion may or may not be a reality -- in fact, I think it will not be, at least in my lifetime -- but I think traditional, high-temperature nuclear fusion *IS*!"
Again, what facts do you have to back this up? Lots of technology needs more funding (space program) but there isn't enough to go around. Do you have any idea the amount of money that was poured into cold fusion when it was first announced? It is one of the greatest embarassments in scientific history. This research is by no means easy, and by no means "just around the corner." Just like every power producing technology suggested, fusion (when invented) will have both benifits and drawbacks. I remember reading in Scientific American a few years ago that researchers in the 60s thought we would have fusion plants in 20 years. The reason we don't isn't just because there isn't enough money, it's because it is very difficult to do! How can you claim that electric vehicles are a pipedream and then say we should switch to fusion power?
One last point on the nuclear fuel issue is that we should not only be allocating money for fusion research, but also for research into how we will clean up the mess we have created with fission technology. Currently we still have not agreed on how to dispose of nuclear waste. As a result *all* nuclear plants have been using their "temporary" storage pools to hold several times the amount of waste they were designed for, for 15+ years (see http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_ waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html.) Please don't say that nuclear energy is safe until you have proposed an effective solution to this problem that everyone will agree on.
"Again, I'm just an engineer. That means I'm a scientist and a businessman. I'm not going to say things that are PC, just reality today. I hope for the best in the future but clinging to alternate realities or lying to yourself as you see fit are NOT 2 ways to get there!"
Since provable, accurate facts are so lacking in your arguement, I would have to disagree with this statement also. Your arguement is at times one of a hard-headed republican with a lack of foresight, and at others the work of a freshman-level engineer. Unless you produce some facts, *any* facts, people would be better off to ignore your FUD.
If a distro wants to chip into Red Hat's market, why they offer to support various programs? They could make an agreement to do install, etc. support for a program if the software company will put "Certified for ______ Distro" on the box. The distro would get free advertising and a better reputation for support while the software company has lower support costs.
The distro wouldn't do all of the support, of course, the software company would still be responsible for usability type questions.
If the software is so buggy that it is difficult to support, the distro just wouldn't support it. It doesn't matter because someone that cares about these type of certifications wouldn't be using a buggy program anyway. If the bugginess is distro specific, the distro would be responsible for providing a patch for the program.
Isn't this the point of the support model that all of the Linux IPO's are basing their projected revenue on???
You've got to be joking with your $125k arguement. If everyone used that thinking, no one would go to college (it takes an entire 4 years out of your career!) The people that graduate from this school will be valued much more than the $125k they might be losing. They are smart enough to know that in the long run $125k won't be important.
Who cares about the college not being accredited? If I was an employer looking at a resume, few items would impress/interest me as much. Graduation from this program shows that you are a self-starter, qualified, and intelligent. If you want verification of what the students are learning, simply look on the web. Or talk to any of the professors listed. The b.s. degree requirement ensure that these people got a rounded education elsewhere.
Plus, I'd imagine that many of these students will never seek employment, they are bright enough to start something on their own.
I haven't seen the details of the program yet, but 12-hours is not a lot if there isn't homework. I easily spent 12 hours a day on my education. Plus, that is 12 guided hours of education, not 4 hours guided/8 hours trying to figure it out on your own. If all colleges had the manpower, they would do the same thing.
This is a brilliant idea. The first CS degree that is at the speed of CS.
Slashdot Mirror
"First off, I was trying to make a point that we should not be looking into 100% electric vehicles until both the technology and infrastructure exist!"
_ waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html .) Please don't say that nuclear energy is safe until you have proposed an effective solution to this problem that everyone will agree on.
And everyone else is trying to make the point that the technology does exist (GM EV1 is one *small* example). And companies like GM are willing to install the equipment necessary for charging these cars (see http://www.gmev.com/charging/charging.htm). Again, as everyone else has stated, you can't have a gigantic infrastructure before you put a single electric car on the road. I haven't heard anyone claim that that the government should seize everyone's ICE cars and switch them with electric cars by nightfall. People are just stating that we should be pushing harder to create demand for electic cars and createing the infrastructure necessary to support them.
"I stand by my "5 times" statement on electric power that is generated by fossil fuel power plants for 100% electric vehicles."
You might be standing by it, but what are you standing on? Others have stated numerous facts and sources about the efficiencies of electric motor/power plants vs. conventional gasoline powered ICEs. Among them, power plants are 40-60% efficient, and electric motors are 95+% efficient while most ICEs are ~20% efficient. This all assumes that the power plants even produce emissions. What facts, figures or sources do you have to back up your 5x argument? It sounds like you just pulled it out of the air.
"Is so cost-effective and efficient, it can replace all localized (i.e. non-power plant) fossil fuel use."
No. No technology has to be the end-all be-all. If a technology is better/cheaper/more-efficient in any particular situation, there is no reason not to adopt that technology in the given situation. If EVs are only "cleaner" in CA where more electricity is produced through hydro dams (this isn't true, btw, but pretend it was), then adopting EVs in CA would reduce the total pollution that America produces. If the technology is only scalable to 2% of the population (it clearly isn't limited to this) then so be it. We are still better off.
"*IF* proper funding is re-implanted into the various research programs. It is too bad the world has been turned off of nuclear fusion, largely from the irresponsibility of various members of our science community (on both sides of the cold fusion argument -- never seen so many closed minds on both sides). While cold fusion may or may not be a reality -- in fact, I think it will not be, at least in my lifetime -- but I think traditional, high-temperature nuclear fusion *IS*!"
Again, what facts do you have to back this up? Lots of technology needs more funding (space program) but there isn't enough to go around. Do you have any idea the amount of money that was poured into cold fusion when it was first announced? It is one of the greatest embarassments in scientific history. This research is by no means easy, and by no means "just around the corner." Just like every power producing technology suggested, fusion (when invented) will have both benifits and drawbacks. I remember reading in Scientific American a few years ago that researchers in the 60s thought we would have fusion plants in 20 years. The reason we don't isn't just because there isn't enough money, it's because it is very difficult to do! How can you claim that electric vehicles are a pipedream and then say we should switch to fusion power?
One last point on the nuclear fuel issue is that we should not only be allocating money for fusion research, but also for research into how we will clean up the mess we have created with fission technology. Currently we still have not agreed on how to dispose of nuclear waste. As a result *all* nuclear plants have been using their "temporary" storage pools to hold several times the amount of waste they were designed for, for 15+ years (see http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear
"Again, I'm just an engineer. That means I'm a scientist and a businessman. I'm not going to say things that are PC, just reality today. I hope for the best in the future but clinging to alternate realities or lying to yourself as you see fit are NOT 2 ways to get there!"
Since provable, accurate facts are so lacking in your arguement, I would have to disagree with this statement also. Your arguement is at times one of a hard-headed republican with a lack of foresight, and at others the work of a freshman-level engineer. Unless you produce some facts, *any* facts, people would be better off to ignore your FUD.
If a distro wants to chip into Red Hat's market, why they offer to support various programs? They could make an agreement to do install, etc. support for a program if the software company will put "Certified for ______ Distro" on the box. The distro would get free advertising and a better reputation for support while the software company has lower support costs.
The distro wouldn't do all of the support, of course, the software company would still be responsible for usability type questions.
If the software is so buggy that it is difficult to support, the distro just wouldn't support it. It doesn't matter because someone that cares about these type of certifications wouldn't be using a buggy program anyway. If the bugginess is distro specific, the distro would be responsible for providing a patch for the program.
Isn't this the point of the support model that all of the Linux IPO's are basing their projected revenue on???
You've got to be joking with your $125k arguement. If everyone used that thinking, no one would go to college (it takes an entire 4 years out of your career!) The people that graduate from this school will be valued much more than the $125k they might be losing. They are smart enough to know that in the long run $125k won't be important.
Who cares about the college not being accredited? If I was an employer looking at a resume, few items would impress/interest me as much. Graduation from this program shows that you are a self-starter, qualified, and intelligent. If you want verification of what the students are learning, simply look on the web. Or talk to any of the professors listed. The b.s. degree requirement ensure that these people got a rounded education elsewhere.
Plus, I'd imagine that many of these students will never seek employment, they are bright enough to start something on their own.
I haven't seen the details of the program yet, but 12-hours is not a lot if there isn't homework. I easily spent 12 hours a day on my education. Plus, that is 12 guided hours of education, not 4 hours guided/8 hours trying to figure it out on your own. If all colleges had the manpower, they would do the same thing.
This is a brilliant idea. The first CS degree that is at the speed of CS.