I don't really care that much, and I'm sure most other people feel the same, about how energy efficient or not a particular source of fuel is. I care more about how much $ per mile, how far I can go, and how fast to refuel. I don't even know the first thing about inductive charging, but if means I can travel to work and back for a few dollars or cross country for a few hundred bucks, refuel in minutes not hours, then it sounds good. Oh, and if I'm stuck in a winter storm in Chicago for 12 hours in my car as many were last winter, will it keep me warm?
Ultimately, those concerns will be the deciding factors in whether EV's manage to surpass ICEV's any time in the foreseeable future.
They (EV's) lost that battle in the 1920's, and even though batteries have become orders of magnitude more efficient than those of yesteryear, I personally don't see the EV replacing the good-ol'-fashioned inefficient, heat producing internal combustion engine anytime soon.
Wikipedia cites an 86% efficiency for inductive charging.
Gasoline engine efficiency is typically between 25-30%; Diesel engines do a little better, at between 40-50% efficiency. That said, the 86% efficiency rate of EV's is still over 30% greater than that of the most efficient internal combustion vehicles... and that's not good enough?
This is only for the charging. The actual production of the electrical power has additional losses.
According to the government, "Electric motors convert 75% of the chemical energy from the batteries to power the wheels—internal combustion engines (ICEs) only convert 20% of the energy stored in gasoline."
IANA electrical engineer, but 86% fueling efficiency + 75% fuel-usage efficiency sounds like it should blow 50% fuel-usage efficiency away any day of the week.
Though, I expect an electrical engineer to be able to correct my admittedly pitiful math if I'm wrong...
'Cause we have guns! Oh, wait, so did they... OK, how about the Bill of... nevermind, that's already been subverted... well, there's always... uh... ... ...
Wikipedia cites an 86% efficiency for inductive charging.
Gasoline engine efficiency is typically between 25-30%; Diesel engines do a little better, at between 40-50% efficiency. That said, the 86% efficiency rate of EV's is still over 30% greater than that of the most efficient internal combustion vehicles... and that's not good enough?
Perhaps, if we're lucky, the oligarchy will collapse in on itself sooner than later, so we may begin the process of rebuilding what has been torn down.
No, not really. This has been happening for a few years now, it's only coming to a head now.
Google's defense of SOPA only made Google an even more perfect target for the hearings they held a while back.
Hilariously, an apparently large demographic seems to think I was referring to A) when I wrote B)...
Obviously an indication of the failure of schools to teach reading comprehension.
For the record, no, I never meant that the Constitution shouldn't be amended, that would just be stupid (which, consequently, sums up my opinion of those who think that's what I inferred).
The term "Living Constitution" is often used by subversives who want to change the meaning of what was originally written to fit their idea of how things should be; the best example is how the 2nd Amendment, specifically the term "well-regulated," is reinterpreted by those who seek to disarm the populace. You see, when that document was originally written, well-regulated was a term defined as "functioning properly;" a clock that kept perfect time would have fit the description. Today, the subversives want us to believe that the founders actually meant to use the modern definition of regulation (which, consequently, did not exist in the 1770's), i.e. suffocation by bureaucratic red tape.
So, while many of you were too busy getting offended and calling me a racist (which I find quite funny, thanks for the chuckle), you completely missed the point I was making. I'm sure your current and former educators are beaming with pride.
EULAs have become this living contract that only favors the company and totally, unconditionally screws the customer. Period. Sony is a case example of excessive abuse of EULAs because of their management and business shortcomings and have a total disconnect with their customers.
Yup, which is why A) I despise the concept of a "Living Constitution," and B) I feel those who support constant re-writing of what I once agreed to can go piss up a rope.
You have guns. They have professional killers with precision attack drones. The possibility of armed revolution just isn't realistic any more. It'd need overwhelming public support, and that isn't coming in the age of television.
"Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy." - Fahrenheit 451
As far as I know, that question was still open to at least some debate. It's hypothesized that there should be a solid core based on the mineral composition and some simulations, but I don't believe there's any direct evidence of it, at least until the mission (mentioned in the article) to measure its gravitational field with an orbiting probe reaches it.
Wouldn't that apply to Earth's core as well? I mean, as far as I'm aware no one has ever drilled all the way to the center of the planet, so what evidence (beyond hypothesis) is there that Earth's core is what we think it is?
Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily.
This.
What burns my ass is how phone makers continually work to "secure" the devices they make against not criminals, but the people who actually purchase and own said devices.
I'll reply to this one, as you seem to be the only individual to respond thus far who isn't intent on shooting the messenger.
Contrast this with the fact that I've been nearly run over several times while walking through crosswalks by people yakking on their phones, and have been almost rammed into on the freeway several times; almost all of those folks have been driving with phones.
I too have had many a close one with inattentive drivers, however I cannot attest all of their shortcomings to cell phone use; to the contrary, I've had far more near death experiences with people reading while driving than using a mobile. Not to say that driving while using a cell phone is not a distraction, but rather making the distinction that this is more an issue of driver competence than one that can be narrowed to a specific form of distraction. Even if cell phones are banned, you still have stereos, passengers, children, other drivers, personal attitudes, et. al. that will cause people to make stupid decisions behind the wheel, and unless you want the nanny state dictating your drive down to the smallest detail, then the NTSB's plot is the wrong way to go. IMO, a much better solution would be to increase the requirements for passing a licensing exam. The way it is now, we hand licenses to kill out like candy to children who have no respect for the immense amount of damage a 3,000 lb steel death machine can do, just because they managed to take a couple passes around the town square and parallel park with a moderate amount of success. That is the problem.
Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but I for one do not see the sense in punishing the gaggle for the sins of the goose, when a much more effective solution (better trained geese) exists.
Hmm, who to believe, a well vetted institute dedicated to real driving safety statistics, or a television program dedicated to sensational entertainment... ?
(by "forced permission" I mean they asked, do you want your OtherOS to continue to work, or do you want your BluRay player to continue to work on new titles?" You were forced to choose which feature they were going to disable)
Agreed; I would say any time the choices are "agree to these new, draconian terms, or we turn your $400 piece of hardware into a brick" would qualify as being agreed to under duress; perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was pretty sure any contractual agreement signed under duress was legally considered non-binding.
Appeal it, maybe the next judge will have a fucking brain.
Let's just ban stupid people from getting driver's licenses. No, seriously, hear me out on this:
In the 4-5 year span that I was driving as a stupid, arrogant, over confident teenager (who, for the record, did not possess a cell phone), I totaled a car pretty much every six months; once, I wrecked a cherry Buick I had bought a week prior because I was looking at the clock.
Conversely, I have had and used a cell phone for the past 10 years in my auto without incident (knock on wood), in both hands on and hands free configurations. Maybe it's because I've been behind the wheel of some sort of engine-driven vehicle since age 6; maybe it's because I focus more on driving than the conversation at hand (which the party on the other end typically dislikes, but hey, fuck 'em). Regardless, the fact remains that I had an order of magnatude more incidents when I was young and stupid than any time afterwards, and cell phones were not a factor in any of said incidents.
Thus, taking into account the aforementioned subjective observational data, I would contend that the issue is more one of operator competence than the equipment itself... which takes us back to my original point: Ban idiots from the road, and many of the problems associated will solve themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really care that much, and I'm sure most other people feel the same, about how energy efficient or not a particular source of fuel is. I care more about how much $ per mile, how far I can go, and how fast to refuel. I don't even know the first thing about inductive charging, but if means I can travel to work and back for a few dollars or cross country for a few hundred bucks, refuel in minutes not hours, then it sounds good. Oh, and if I'm stuck in a winter storm in Chicago for 12 hours in my car as many were last winter, will it keep me warm?
Ultimately, those concerns will be the deciding factors in whether EV's manage to surpass ICEV's any time in the foreseeable future.
They (EV's) lost that battle in the 1920's, and even though batteries have become orders of magnitude more efficient than those of yesteryear, I personally don't see the EV replacing the good-ol'-fashioned inefficient, heat producing internal combustion engine anytime soon.
I liked the look of Gnome 3, but missed the functionality of Gnome 2...
Cinna-Mint, anyone?
Wikipedia cites an 86% efficiency for inductive charging.
Gasoline engine efficiency is typically between 25-30%; Diesel engines do a little better, at between 40-50% efficiency. That said, the 86% efficiency rate of EV's is still over 30% greater than that of the most efficient internal combustion vehicles... and that's not good enough?
This is only for the charging. The actual production of the electrical power has additional losses.
According to the government, "Electric motors convert 75% of the chemical energy from the batteries to power the wheels—internal combustion engines (ICEs) only convert 20% of the energy stored in gasoline."
IANA electrical engineer, but 86% fueling efficiency + 75% fuel-usage efficiency sounds like it should blow 50% fuel-usage efficiency away any day of the week.
Though, I expect an electrical engineer to be able to correct my admittedly pitiful math if I'm wrong...
Why do you think things would be different here?
'Cause we have guns! Oh, wait, so did they... OK, how about the Bill of... nevermind, that's already been subverted... well, there's always... uh...
...
...
Shit.
Wikipedia cites an 86% efficiency for inductive charging.
Gasoline engine efficiency is typically between 25-30%; Diesel engines do a little better, at between 40-50% efficiency. That said, the 86% efficiency rate of EV's is still over 30% greater than that of the most efficient internal combustion vehicles... and that's not good enough?
Perhaps, if we're lucky, the oligarchy will collapse in on itself sooner than later, so we may begin the process of rebuilding what has been torn down.
No, not really. This has been happening for a few years now, it's only coming to a head now. Google's defense of SOPA only made Google an even more perfect target for the hearings they held a while back.
[adjusts tinfoil hat]
...
Why you gotta ruin my paranoid rambling, bro?
They are just doing everything they can to beat up Google. To tie it and restrict it and (if all else fails) destroy it. Facts be damned.
... and this couldn't possibly have anything to do with Google's denouncement of the Congressional idiocy known as SOPA, now could it?
Nothing to see here, civilian, move along before your presence forces us to bust out the OC spray...
Hilariously, an apparently large demographic seems to think I was referring to A) when I wrote B)...
Obviously an indication of the failure of schools to teach reading comprehension.
For the record, no, I never meant that the Constitution shouldn't be amended, that would just be stupid (which, consequently, sums up my opinion of those who think that's what I inferred).
The term "Living Constitution" is often used by subversives who want to change the meaning of what was originally written to fit their idea of how things should be; the best example is how the 2nd Amendment, specifically the term "well-regulated," is reinterpreted by those who seek to disarm the populace. You see, when that document was originally written, well-regulated was a term defined as "functioning properly;" a clock that kept perfect time would have fit the description. Today, the subversives want us to believe that the founders actually meant to use the modern definition of regulation (which, consequently, did not exist in the 1770's), i.e. suffocation by bureaucratic red tape.
So, while many of you were too busy getting offended and calling me a racist (which I find quite funny, thanks for the chuckle), you completely missed the point I was making. I'm sure your current and former educators are beaming with pride.
A) was off topic, yes, But B) was spot on.
He meant whole cloth reinterpretation, bypassing the constitution without amendment, which is the problem we have today.
Precisely what I meant, thanks for reading what I wrote instead of developing your own "modern interpretation."
EULAs have become this living contract that only favors the company and totally, unconditionally screws the customer. Period. Sony is a case example of excessive abuse of EULAs because of their management and business shortcomings and have a total disconnect with their customers.
Yup, which is why A) I despise the concept of a "Living Constitution," and B) I feel those who support constant re-writing of what I once agreed to can go piss up a rope.
the game's budget is estimated to be as high as $100 million
What in the world could they have possibly spent that on?
My guess: 2 Death Stars and franchise rights from Lucas.
By that logic carmakers should give you a car for free, and only charge you to service it.
Worst.
Car analogy.
EVER.
You have guns. They have professional killers with precision attack drones. The possibility of armed revolution just isn't realistic any more. It'd need overwhelming public support, and that isn't coming in the age of television.
"Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy." - Fahrenheit 451
As far as I know, that question was still open to at least some debate. It's hypothesized that there should be a solid core based on the mineral composition and some simulations, but I don't believe there's any direct evidence of it, at least until the mission (mentioned in the article) to measure its gravitational field with an orbiting probe reaches it.
Wouldn't that apply to Earth's core as well? I mean, as far as I'm aware no one has ever drilled all the way to the center of the planet, so what evidence (beyond hypothesis) is there that Earth's core is what we think it is?
Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily.
This.
What burns my ass is how phone makers continually work to "secure" the devices they make against not criminals, but the people who actually purchase and own said devices.
Engineers and scientists don't promise pink unicorns to everybody and are generally not very interested in money and power.
This is precisely why I fervently believe we should only elect people to office who don't want the job.
Contrast this with the fact that I've been nearly run over several times while walking through crosswalks by people yakking on their phones, and have been almost rammed into on the freeway several times; almost all of those folks have been driving with phones.
I too have had many a close one with inattentive drivers, however I cannot attest all of their shortcomings to cell phone use; to the contrary, I've had far more near death experiences with people reading while driving than using a mobile. Not to say that driving while using a cell phone is not a distraction, but rather making the distinction that this is more an issue of driver competence than one that can be narrowed to a specific form of distraction. Even if cell phones are banned, you still have stereos, passengers, children, other drivers, personal attitudes, et. al. that will cause people to make stupid decisions behind the wheel, and unless you want the nanny state dictating your drive down to the smallest detail, then the NTSB's plot is the wrong way to go. IMO, a much better solution would be to increase the requirements for passing a licensing exam. The way it is now, we hand licenses to kill out like candy to children who have no respect for the immense amount of damage a 3,000 lb steel death machine can do, just because they managed to take a couple passes around the town square and parallel park with a moderate amount of success. That is the problem.
Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but I for one do not see the sense in punishing the gaggle for the sins of the goose, when a much more effective solution (better trained geese) exists.
I'll concede, some motorcyclists can be idiots. Have you noticed how many idiots drive cars though?
This harkens back to my point on a previous thread that we should be focused on banning idiots from the road, not cell phones.
Talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as drunk driving: confirmed
And yet, a study done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that states with cellphone bans have seen no real decrease in accident rates.
Hmm, who to believe, a well vetted institute dedicated to real driving safety statistics, or a television program dedicated to sensational entertainment... ?
(by "forced permission" I mean they asked, do you want your OtherOS to continue to work, or do you want your BluRay player to continue to work on new titles?" You were forced to choose which feature they were going to disable)
Agreed; I would say any time the choices are "agree to these new, draconian terms, or we turn your $400 piece of hardware into a brick" would qualify as being agreed to under duress; perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was pretty sure any contractual agreement signed under duress was legally considered non-binding.
Appeal it, maybe the next judge will have a fucking brain.
Does it work against unmanned Predator drones?
If so, put me down for half a dozen.
As well as pretty much every COD player.
Flashbang = fire wildly in all directions.
Let's just ban stupid people from getting driver's licenses. No, seriously, hear me out on this:
In the 4-5 year span that I was driving as a stupid, arrogant, over confident teenager (who, for the record, did not possess a cell phone), I totaled a car pretty much every six months; once, I wrecked a cherry Buick I had bought a week prior because I was looking at the clock.
Conversely, I have had and used a cell phone for the past 10 years in my auto without incident (knock on wood), in both hands on and hands free configurations. Maybe it's because I've been behind the wheel of some sort of engine-driven vehicle since age 6; maybe it's because I focus more on driving than the conversation at hand (which the party on the other end typically dislikes, but hey, fuck 'em). Regardless, the fact remains that I had an order of magnatude more incidents when I was young and stupid than any time afterwards, and cell phones were not a factor in any of said incidents.
Thus, taking into account the aforementioned subjective observational data, I would contend that the issue is more one of operator competence than the equipment itself... which takes us back to my original point: Ban idiots from the road, and many of the problems associated will solve themselves.