Wired is good at infusing enthusiasm in everything they write.
The biggest issue I see is the several trillion dollars of legacy equipment (cars and stations) that make it really convenient to own a traditional vehicle; his proposal doesn't seem to lend itself to incremental change, and a full on replacement would require huge amounts of capital.
It seems fairly likely that Shell and Exxon would have cross sharing agreements.
If the batteries had a nice smooth lifetime behavior, you could just put down a deposit on the first battery and next time, use that battery as a deposit (or get a partial refund, depending on the difference in quality; the smooth behavior would ensure that you weren't the victim of a big surprise).
Depending on charge times and what peak demand looks like, there might need to be quite a bit of overcapacity (at a minimum, there needs to be 1 extra battery, but it seems likely that there would need to be a substantial percent of the number of vehicles, and in some areas, it might end up being cheaper to truck batteries in to handle spikes (rather than always having them on hand)).
A good part of the cost of setting up a charging station will be bringing in sufficient electrical supply. Once that is done, station owners won't turn away business just to save money on a fast charger (really, I would think that fast chargers will be more common for quite a while, they, at least superficially, seem to involve much less capital investment).
Either way, it is going to be a long time before either really adds much to overnight home charging (because there needs to be a station on each and every leg of a longer route).
Really? I would guess that the retail price of something reflects the maximum cost of dirty energy that could have gone into it (I mean, hopefully there isn't some wackjob burning money and energy; I guess government subsidies might do this, but probably not all that much below the wholesale price...), so it is certainly possible ($10,000 buys an awful lot of gasoline mileage), but it seems sort of difficult to pin down how to account for the mining of a material that can be recycled for many generations, and so forth.
Serialize the batteries (with strong RFID or something). Make the history of the battery publicly available.
It won't absolutely prevent fraud, but if you go to a reputable power station, they will be able to rent (or whatever you want to call it) you a battery that does what it says on the label. There could even be a battery quality charge (or rebate) included on the energy bill (depending on how much worse or better the replacement is).
I guess the point is that it doesn't have to be a random replacement.
Given that TIFF and PDF both support JPEG compression, it is probably a bit of an over simplification to refer to them as lossless formats (they both also support lossless encodings, but saving as TIFF or PDF doesn't guarantee that the output will be lossless).
Maybe. It could be the case that there are people willing to spend $25 on music but only able to find $10 of music that they like (and then it comes down to whether you want to consider the music industry separately or not; if you do, it is easy to conclude that the $15 is being added to the market).
Yeah, I'll be surprised if they market this in the U.S.
But look at your reply, the primary reason that they didn't just make Home vs. Pro a choice at install is that they thought people would pay more for Pro (and they would make more profit), and you did!
Given that you are aware of the alternatives and could probably make them work for you, are you going to avoid buying a Windows netbook because of this? If the answer is no, then Microsoft isn't worried about it.
As someone who uses lots of libre software on Windows (but mostly because it doesn't cost any money or offers some nice feature), the prospect of saving $80 isn't enough to make me want to relearn a bunch of stuff and use Linux, so it goes farther than availability.
If a Linux netbook offered decent functionality at $100 and the Windows version cost $150, I would still probably go with the Windows version (and there is quite a lot of speculation that Microsoft is charging OEMs quite a bit less than $50 to put Windows on a netbook). If I was buying the netbook to fill a very specific need (rather than as a computer to carry around more often), Linux would get more consideration. As it stands, I wouldn't benefit much from a netbook, so I don't own one.
I expect that there will be several OEMs who choose not to offer the more limited editions. If people really dislike the limits, those OEMs will benefit nicely.
To each their own and far be it for me to act like I know your situation better than you do.
However, I will assert that modern shoes are designed such that they do not need extensive breaking in. You can ignore this claim or investigate it (which might be as simple as getting your foot sized at a different store than you usually go to, or whatever, maybe you haven't had your foot sized in a decade).
This backs up what I am saying (towards the bottom, search for period):
You might try a slightly bigger shoe. When I went up a half size (at age 26 or something) new shoes became more comfortable for running than old shoes (and my feet stopped hurting). I only started running at 24 or 25, so it isn't like I trained in pain for a decade or anything.
I haven't read the article real closely (sorry), but depending on their methodology, that statement may simply mean that shoe cost had the largest value in their correlation matrix. It is also noteworthy that the people that statement is based on were competing in a 10 mile road race (I don't see any mention of how competitive the race is; if it is a competitive race, everyone running it runs 'a lot' compared to typical folk, even if it is an open race, 10 miles is a fairly thin pool compared to everyone that runs).
Still, I can think of lots of reasons that cheaper shoes might end up on runners with fewer injuries: more frequent replacement; a more pragmatic attitude (leading to 'safer' overall behavior); denser foam that wears out less quickly; and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Wired is good at infusing enthusiasm in everything they write.
The biggest issue I see is the several trillion dollars of legacy equipment (cars and stations) that make it really convenient to own a traditional vehicle; his proposal doesn't seem to lend itself to incremental change, and a full on replacement would require huge amounts of capital.
It seems fairly likely that Shell and Exxon would have cross sharing agreements.
If the batteries had a nice smooth lifetime behavior, you could just put down a deposit on the first battery and next time, use that battery as a deposit (or get a partial refund, depending on the difference in quality; the smooth behavior would ensure that you weren't the victim of a big surprise).
Depending on charge times and what peak demand looks like, there might need to be quite a bit of overcapacity (at a minimum, there needs to be 1 extra battery, but it seems likely that there would need to be a substantial percent of the number of vehicles, and in some areas, it might end up being cheaper to truck batteries in to handle spikes (rather than always having them on hand)).
A good part of the cost of setting up a charging station will be bringing in sufficient electrical supply. Once that is done, station owners won't turn away business just to save money on a fast charger (really, I would think that fast chargers will be more common for quite a while, they, at least superficially, seem to involve much less capital investment).
Either way, it is going to be a long time before either really adds much to overnight home charging (because there needs to be a station on each and every leg of a longer route).
Really? I would guess that the retail price of something reflects the maximum cost of dirty energy that could have gone into it (I mean, hopefully there isn't some wackjob burning money and energy; I guess government subsidies might do this, but probably not all that much below the wholesale price...), so it is certainly possible ($10,000 buys an awful lot of gasoline mileage), but it seems sort of difficult to pin down how to account for the mining of a material that can be recycled for many generations, and so forth.
Serialize the batteries (with strong RFID or something). Make the history of the battery publicly available.
It won't absolutely prevent fraud, but if you go to a reputable power station, they will be able to rent (or whatever you want to call it) you a battery that does what it says on the label. There could even be a battery quality charge (or rebate) included on the energy bill (depending on how much worse or better the replacement is).
I guess the point is that it doesn't have to be a random replacement.
But they do seem to make up new buzzwords every 6 months.
I'm not sure exactly who 'they' are, but buzzwords must be coming from somewhere.
A couple of weeks ago, that site took the entertaining step of being down for some reason other than Conficker.
If my bank failed to prevent a brute force attack, I would find their head of security and kick him in the nads.
Somewhere around 25 failed attempts (but probably far less than that), security really becomes more of a concern than convenience.
Given that TIFF and PDF both support JPEG compression, it is probably a bit of an over simplification to refer to them as lossless formats (they both also support lossless encodings, but saving as TIFF or PDF doesn't guarantee that the output will be lossless).
Maybe. It could be the case that there are people willing to spend $25 on music but only able to find $10 of music that they like (and then it comes down to whether you want to consider the music industry separately or not; if you do, it is easy to conclude that the $15 is being added to the market).
Get em each to give you $5 a year and you have a nice side job (though that is easily said, perhaps not so easily done).
You should get in touch with the folks who made the documentary film "Blade". The vampires seemed to have really nice OCR technology.
-40 from room temperature is entirely ambiguous.
Stupid context, it always seems to be there.
And then there is the whole "What if in the field...and the enemy turns on their extremely loud beacons" aspect of it.
Yeah, I'll be surprised if they market this in the U.S.
But look at your reply, the primary reason that they didn't just make Home vs. Pro a choice at install is that they thought people would pay more for Pro (and they would make more profit), and you did!
Given that you are aware of the alternatives and could probably make them work for you, are you going to avoid buying a Windows netbook because of this? If the answer is no, then Microsoft isn't worried about it.
They aren't aiming it at you. There is a good chance that you won't even encounter it in the market, and if you do, you will simply shop around it.
It still seems like a pointless move, but I guess they have better information than I do on how it will impact their profitability.
Or some intrepid soul will come up with a tray app that allows you to run other apps in the tray (these already exist).
As someone who uses lots of libre software on Windows (but mostly because it doesn't cost any money or offers some nice feature), the prospect of saving $80 isn't enough to make me want to relearn a bunch of stuff and use Linux, so it goes farther than availability.
If a Linux netbook offered decent functionality at $100 and the Windows version cost $150, I would still probably go with the Windows version (and there is quite a lot of speculation that Microsoft is charging OEMs quite a bit less than $50 to put Windows on a netbook). If I was buying the netbook to fill a very specific need (rather than as a computer to carry around more often), Linux would get more consideration. As it stands, I wouldn't benefit much from a netbook, so I don't own one.
I expect that there will be several OEMs who choose not to offer the more limited editions. If people really dislike the limits, those OEMs will benefit nicely.
Is there a good place to look at Nokia's plans for the platform (new hardware, etc.)?
http://maemo.org/news/ isn't it (to rule out the very obvious), and I haven't found anything else in a fair amount of looking around.
To each their own and far be it for me to act like I know your situation better than you do.
However, I will assert that modern shoes are designed such that they do not need extensive breaking in. You can ignore this claim or investigate it (which might be as simple as getting your foot sized at a different store than you usually go to, or whatever, maybe you haven't had your foot sized in a decade).
This backs up what I am saying (towards the bottom, search for period):
http://www.epodiatry.com/running-shoes.htm
Isn't that pretty much what I said?
You might try a slightly bigger shoe. When I went up a half size (at age 26 or something) new shoes became more comfortable for running than old shoes (and my feet stopped hurting). I only started running at 24 or 25, so it isn't like I trained in pain for a decade or anything.
I haven't read the article real closely (sorry), but depending on their methodology, that statement may simply mean that shoe cost had the largest value in their correlation matrix. It is also noteworthy that the people that statement is based on were competing in a 10 mile road race (I don't see any mention of how competitive the race is; if it is a competitive race, everyone running it runs 'a lot' compared to typical folk, even if it is an open race, 10 miles is a fairly thin pool compared to everyone that runs).
Still, I can think of lots of reasons that cheaper shoes might end up on runners with fewer injuries: more frequent replacement; a more pragmatic attitude (leading to 'safer' overall behavior); denser foam that wears out less quickly; and so on.