I am actually selling a Wii on ebay. But it's not me scalping.
I received a free Wii when I bought a Netgear ReadyNAS. It just arrived last week after a 3 month delay. I really want an Xbox 360. So with the Wii's sold out, I decided to sell it and see if I can get enough $$$ to buy an Xbox 360.
Am I evil? No...but heck, I can always pick up a Wii for $250 in a few months. If I can get an Xbox 360 from my free Wii. More power to me... *lol*
Not sure if that is totally correct? At least with CDMA...
If I recall correctly, Verizon and Sprint (both CDMA tech) use different megahertz frequencies. So the phone also has to be capable of operating at both frequencies.
Because, the little artist seldom can get his works protected. At least not from the big companies.
It is so common for large companies to enter discussions to license technology of smaller companies. Examine the technology for a year. Drop out of talks and release a clone of the technology. (ie: Microsoft's optical mouse) Sure the little companies sue and usually win, but the result is often a meager pittance. I believe in the optical mouse case it was $1 million dollars. I am sure Microsoft was made far more off of the technology than that meager million. As it wasn't until the release of their optical mouse that they gained on Logitech.
So, IP rights seldom have much use for the little guy....sadly.
There are people who are unthinking, believe anything because that's the 'commonly accepted at the moment' trend of scientific dogma. Thank you for demonstrating such.
These are the same so-called "scientific rational individuals" that have pretty much repeatedly criticized and dismissed those scientists who put forth different thought because it was not the adhered to belief of the time. That is not science but dogma (ie: religion).
While I do not accept the panic stricken all vaccines are bad! Or repeatedly pointing out that vaccines have mercury which is an outdated fact. I do believe it is important to keep an open and skeptical mind of both sides.
"OK, so you have kids. Fine, good on you. But why does that make you put all reason overboard?"
a) Please demonstrate to me how I've put reason overboard as opposed to merely adhering to a religious dogma?
"But when if comes to (OMG think of the) children, your uncertainty is worth more?"
b) Um, yes...my uncertainty is much more important regarding children, especially my children than say um...chickens. And please demonstrate to me why that should not be the case?
It is the duty of a parent to be more concerned about their child's well-being. And there is nothing wrong with that.
"The world is not a sterile place, and kids get exposed to all kinds of antigens on a daily basis, so their immune systems will counter those different threads on a daily basis."
c) Yes, however, there is a significant difference between the common bacteria or virus that a body might encounter and one which is far more stronger (ie: nearly all the ones we create vaccines for).
"Why would a vaccination cocktail be any different? "
d) The same way pneumonia is far more serious when in conjunction with another illness (ie: tuberculosis, AIDS, etc).
"You are correct that not all is known about vaccinating young kids and the effects that has, but neither do we know everthing about adult immune responses."
e) True, however, in most adults their immune system is fully developed. Children (especially young children under the age of 2) are not fully developed. Therefore the risk is greater.
"Your fear is just fear of the unknown and is a very bad adviser."
f) No, my concern (and it's not fear), is based on what I do know. That includes the fact that we have often used chemicals, vaccines, manufacturing techniques, etc on the assumption of safety only to be proved wrong later. Therefore, the fact that the same individuals claim there is no danger does not equate to such.
Do I believe there is risk, yes, a very small risk. Is it worth not getting vaccines - I don't think so. Can certain actions potentially reduce that risk - possibly.
Should we blindly accept the safety of drugs, vaccines, etc because we're told they're safe and here's the scientific study to prove it? Really, if that was an absolute proof than what about the hundreds of drugs which have been pulled off the market even though such proof stated they were safe; until years later when they were pulled.
***
Is there a trend of people who refuse to think rationally and have no scientific understanding - yes!
Is there also a trend of people who are unthinking believe anything because that's the commonly accepted at the moment trend of scientific dogma - yes!
I am proud to be neither....I hope you will decide to be neither as well.
Not all concerns on vaccinations are invalid. We have to be careful not to fall prey to making "science & progress" a religion and deifying it.
1. Vaccines are a great thing and have saved millions of lives.
2. They have a great track record but not a perfect one. Overall they are well worth it for society.
3. Just because a study shows no signs of claimed issues does NOT mean such claims are invalid. Anyone having worked in a production environment is aware that some production batches are sub-par. QA is designed to catch most of these. But anyone that has bought a defective product knows it's never perfect. So a study merely shows that a good batch does not have harmful effects. It is very difficult for a "scientific study" to take into account the effects of those who have received vaccinations from sub-par batches of production.
4. Many claims of concern are circumspect, baseless and without merit. While others are more indeterminate. A few throughout history have after much criticism, denial, etc been shown to in fact pose risk.
5. Another valid concern is the tendency to apply too many vaccinations concurrently to a young child who's immune system is still in development. What affect does receiving three or even five or more vaccinations in a short period have on a very young child? Furthermore, the assumption all children will respond the same is not valid. And to some parents too great a risk. (ie: there has been evidence that some children have more difficulty metabolising certain agents than others - likewise, some may have more difficulty handling numerous strong immune responses simultaneously). Simply spreading out the vaccinations a bit might a wise thing to do.
But it can be far too easy to merely criticize such parents concerns on the basis of the dogmatic belief in science. Decrying them as heretics in what should be science and not a religion.
You're a lawyer, so I have an idea for you....you could make a killing.
"Battery Insurance" for hybrids and electric cars.
They pay you a small fee, as many people will not be fully confident that the batteries of their vehicle will last 5 yrs, 10yrs...
So they buy it "battery insurance" like an extended warranty. If the batteries die out, then you pay the replacement cost. However, since warranties will cover the first 3 yrs, maybe even 5 yrs...you should have at least 3-5 yrs to invest and build interest. Plus the possibility (or you might even consider, probability) that the batteries will last 10 yrs - in which case you'd have zero payout.
All of that becomes profit plus interest. That said, many people might shell out $250 bucks for that 'assurance' that they'll get at least 10 yrs out of their batteries.;)
My one caveat with the idea. If you do do it, please at least consider donating 50% of the net profits toward a good cause.
a) I've used a variety of lithium batteries, and while most might have been lithium cobalt oxide. The fact of the matter is that present LiIon batteries have shown themselves to be dangerous.
YES!!!! There is new technology being developed. (Lithiated metal phosphate, manganese oxide, iron phosphate, as well as nano-construction developments. There is also research into ultra-capacitors.
But the truth of the matter is that most of these new developments, are just that... "new". And and their risks are yet undetermined. And frankly, as much as I am for electric vehicles and getting rid of the I.C.E. - I support the taking an extra couple of years for safety's sake.
***
(b) Are you a lawyer? I AM. Liability laws differ by state. There were definitely legal alternatives that GM could have used to completely insulate themselves from ANY liability. GM chose not to because they lacked the vision to see that eventually all cars will be electric.
Should have figured, you felt like a lawyer. Anyways, this is America. There is nothing "definitive" within our legal system. That is one thing most Americans are fairly convinced of these days. BTW...thanks to your ilk.
***
FUD I'm spreading, "Who killed the electric car" is FUD. And it's the worst thing ever created for promoting electric cars and getting rid of the I.C.E.
And do I have a vendetta against that movie and all who sputter on about it....yes I do. And no, I am not some big auto troll.
I just dislike inaccurate documentaries that misportray events and realities and then cause people to demonize others based on that misinformation.
***
"it would be better if you did a little research about the electric vehicle industry. Go look at projectbetterplace.com. I have owned / built three electric cars and I can honestly say that the FUD you are spreading is completely unwarranted."
First off, I will check out projectbetterplace.com
Second, I've followed EV1 for nearly 15 yrs now since it was first prototyped as the "Impact".
Thirdly, the fact that you have owned/built three electric cars means very little to me. Why, there are people who've built themselves jets, and rockets, and more. The fact is, three does not equate to 30 million. And those are the risks a large automobile manufacturer must take into account.
***
"Correction: Electric Cars will make up a significant percentage of passenger cars on the roads in the years to come."
And you presume that I don't agree, or support that fact?
Electric drive trains is the future. Of that we're quite agreed. Hybrids are merely a transitory that derailed the electric car movement. (ie: Toyota & Honda got California to waive the zero emissions and count their hybrids in lieu, essentially nailing the coffin on electric cars for about a decade. They took the easy road and get all the credit for a quick fix. GM is demonized for the EV1, which was not viable economicaly. That said, had a zero emissions mandate remained, the EV1 would have been economically viable.)
"The problem today is that purchasing an electric car is rather expensive, but this will change when an electric vehicle finally enters mass production, competition begins and prices come down."
Agreed...
Furthermore, one of the main costs is the lack of infrastructure. And part of the solution for implementing electric cars is to implement more solar on a home basis. (ie: converting all roofing to solar cells). Once again currently limited by a lack of mass production.
My vision for the future...
Vehicles similar to the Chevy Volt concept. An electric drive train + aux. power source. Initially utilizing I.C.E. technology be it gasoline, bio/diesel, ethanol, later more advanced technology such as fuel cells (at least on larger vehicles such as trains, etc). And eventually years down the road a holy grail of sorts (ie: Mr. Fusion from back to the future).
Or mounted a GPS on the a few of the rocks along with a camera. Movement recorded by the GPS would trigger the camera. Relay a signal that the rock is moving...informing scientists to come out and watch the rock move.
Then, we'd finally have some new sound for the record labels to market. Instead of the same ol' same ol rock'n'roll, we'd be able to actually record a new style rock'n'slide baby!
a) If LithiumIon batteries are so safe, how come so many super-heat, even ignite and explode. There is no other battery I've ever worked with that I've had more close calls with the LiIon. And these are merely AA's and cell phone/PDA batteries. But case after case of them super-heating, cells rupturing.
b) Sure, there are people who were willing to sign waivers. However, in our courts waivers do not always supersede liability. And yes, people think it'd have been just that simple. But it's not...
I am not opposed to their use. I just don't think condemning GM and others for waiting a couple of years and advancing the battery technology, mainly to improve it's effectiveness and safety is right.
Lithium Ion batteries can get very hot and self-explode. This is far less common with most other commercially available batteries. However, few other types of batteries are as light weight and store as much energy at LIon.
I've already read of some experiments being done with regards to improving the technology. Some includes small cells each with thermal sensors to de-activate their use if they begin to overheat. Others include nanotech engineering the cells in a far more stable structure at the microscopic level.
To me, these are worthwhile investments. And I'd much rather wait till 2010 then find me and my family in flames...
They never sold them...because if they tried to sell them no one but a few Hollywood actors and millionaires would have bought one. [FACT]
Honda Insight was not a super-complex built by hand vehicle like the GM EV1 [FACT]
Honda Insight was far cheaper to build than GM's EV1 [FACT]
Honda Insight was far less expensive and was not economically viable [FACT]
"That said, given the expensive cars that some people will buy, I'm not going for the economically unviable argument there either. Tesla has, IIRC, sold out their entire first year's production run... at $100,000 a pop."
Thinking that a $100,000 car is economically viable for the common man equates to moronic thought.[FACT]
You're probably right regarding LiIon versus Hydrogen. But gasoline and diesel are known quantities. We know how they react, and we know how to put those fires out. And while in rare cases an accident might cause such fuels to ignite. The danger of Lithium Ion batteries is that they're more spontaneous in the combustion. And standard fire fighting equipment may not work as well on such chemical fires.
In all my years of driving cars, and working gasoline motors I've never had one go up in flames or even really come close. I've had several lithium ion batteries get super hot (where if I had not removed them they would likely have ignited) and a few swell up by 50% of their size. So that my cell phone battery cover would not fit anymore. So there is a real and present danger that requires necessary improvements in the technologies.
a) The math: $35-$75 saved is not a monthly figure; for most of us that's a weekly figure or at least an every other weekly figure. So if you normally fill up your car 1 to 4 times a month as most people in the U.S. do. Then it is a substantial discount.
b) Regarding the $200 month cost and savings of only 1/2 that. You're forgetting that you're also not spending money on electricity. However for the average person the electric bill is around $50-$100/month. So if you can save another $100 or more in gas via solar cells. Than you come much closer to the black on your investment.
c) We're not talking about making solar cells pay for themselves right off the bat, but rather, when doing cost versus savings analysis. Being able to replace your gasoline purchases with the solar cell investment makes them much more economical and greatly increases the weight of purchase.
d) Buying now is not a bad decision if you can meet your needs. If your current solar cells at their current efficiency meet your needs annually, then more efficiency isn't necessary. (Though it might provide you with a more attractive house.)
The vehicle is not vaporware,...the design is not vaporware.
The "safe", "efficient", and "effective" battery is what's vaporware. (And they and many other manufacturers are heavily investing in battery technology improvements.)
The trolls are the !@#$% idiots who watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and than damn GM without having a real clue. I keep hearing people criticize GM for not releasing a car with our present LiIon battery tech.
But the truth is, said technology in it's current form is not very safe. Especially if you are enclosed in the said technology rather than just wearing it.
Say GM were to sell 20,000 vehicles. Then a few cars have their LiIon batteries ignite and people die. Can you imagine the lawsuit? the recall? it'd kill GM...
Frankly, I'd rather they take a couple more years and improve the battery technology and put safeguards.
And if that makes me a troll. I'll take being a troll over being a moronic twit any day.
***
Oh yeah, to all those who claim the EV1 was viable. Please note that Honda's Insight which had only 1/2 the inconveniences of the EV1 and cost about a 1/4 of what the EV1 did to build was deemed a financial failure. (Even though it got the best mpg in the country.) The car was removed from the market because it was economically unviable.
TROLLS are far better than little stupid twits who watch movies made by stupid twits.
Allows you to drive up to 640 miles via it's generator. Since it is just a generator, they can optimize it's performance for charging. There is no need to have all the transmission aspects of a I.C.E. attached to a drive-train. This allows it to be very efficient.
Furthermore, having the means to charge your vehicle in the garage (with a net savings for $35-$75 a fill-up times x number of fill-ups per year) alters the value of solar cell roofing.
Those uber-expensive solar panels on your roof that cost you an extra $200/month for the next 10 yrs, all of a sudden are not quite as costly in your budget when they eliminate $100 or more in expenditures on gasoline.
These vehicles will likely spur major growth in solar cell production.
a) Media Streaming...when I open up iTunes I see all my audio files on my ReadyNAS show up in a shared listing in iTunes. But if I try to play one of the songs - nothing happens. What do I need to do for this?
b) Print server...as I understand it, it will only work with a limited number of printers or postscript mode. So I'm SOOL as I made the mistake of buying a Dell Color Laser that only works in Windows. (No post script mode.)
1) I thought it's faster to rebuild when spanning more drives.
2) I recall there also being an option, though it uses more space, to add additional redundancy. Alllowing data rebuilds even if two drives go down.
I guess I just like to do risky operations AFTER adding additional resource rather than before.
*shrug*
Total bummer on your data. I picked up a RNV+ a couple months ago. I also have a couple of external HDs. I want to back the NAS up to, just in case of these sorts of things.
I thought it might be a joke, so I tried reply as such. (hence the little wink)
Sorry if it came off too dry. (I like my humor like I like my wine.)
Anyways, I probably suffer from both RAS and CRS syndrome. Ironically, I left out 'syndrome' after writing CRS and when I should have in fact written "CRS syndrome" in that particular case (as it's 'Can't Remember Sh*t syndrome'). Alas, I probably suffer from a small bout of paranoia on top of all my other insanities.
Slashdot Mirror
I am actually selling a Wii on ebay. But it's not me scalping.
I received a free Wii when I bought a Netgear ReadyNAS. It just arrived last week after a 3 month delay. I really want an Xbox 360. So with the Wii's sold out, I decided to sell it and see if I can get enough $$$ to buy an Xbox 360.
Am I evil? No...but heck, I can always pick up a Wii for $250 in a few months. If I can get an Xbox 360 from my free Wii. More power to me... *lol*
Not sure if that is totally correct? At least with CDMA...
If I recall correctly, Verizon and Sprint (both CDMA tech) use different megahertz frequencies. So the phone also has to be capable of operating at both frequencies.
- Saj
Because, the little artist seldom can get his works protected. At least not from the big companies.
It is so common for large companies to enter discussions to license technology of smaller companies. Examine the technology for a year. Drop out of talks and release a clone of the technology. (ie: Microsoft's optical mouse) Sure the little companies sue and usually win, but the result is often a meager pittance. I believe in the optical mouse case it was $1 million dollars. I am sure Microsoft was made far more off of the technology than that meager million. As it wasn't until the release of their optical mouse that they gained on Logitech.
So, IP rights seldom have much use for the little guy....sadly.
There are people who are unthinking, believe anything because that's the 'commonly accepted at the moment' trend of scientific dogma. Thank you for demonstrating such.
These are the same so-called "scientific rational individuals" that have pretty much repeatedly criticized and dismissed those scientists who put forth different thought because it was not the adhered to belief of the time. That is not science but dogma (ie: religion).
While I do not accept the panic stricken all vaccines are bad! Or repeatedly pointing out that vaccines have mercury which is an outdated fact. I do believe it is important to keep an open and skeptical mind of both sides.
"OK, so you have kids. Fine, good on you. But why does that make you put all reason overboard?"
a) Please demonstrate to me how I've put reason overboard as opposed to merely adhering to a religious dogma?
"But when if comes to (OMG think of the) children, your uncertainty is worth more?"
b) Um, yes...my uncertainty is much more important regarding children, especially my children than say um...chickens. And please demonstrate to me why that should not be the case?
It is the duty of a parent to be more concerned about their child's well-being. And there is nothing wrong with that.
"The world is not a sterile place, and kids get exposed to all kinds of antigens on a daily basis, so their immune systems will counter those different threads on a daily basis."
c) Yes, however, there is a significant difference between the common bacteria or virus that a body might encounter and one which is far more stronger (ie: nearly all the ones we create vaccines for).
"Why would a vaccination cocktail be any different? "
d) The same way pneumonia is far more serious when in conjunction with another illness (ie: tuberculosis, AIDS, etc).
"You are correct that not all is known about vaccinating young kids and the effects that has, but neither do we know everthing about adult immune responses."
e) True, however, in most adults their immune system is fully developed. Children (especially young children under the age of 2) are not fully developed. Therefore the risk is greater.
"Your fear is just fear of the unknown and is a very bad adviser."
f) No, my concern (and it's not fear), is based on what I do know. That includes the fact that we have often used chemicals, vaccines, manufacturing techniques, etc on the assumption of safety only to be proved wrong later. Therefore, the fact that the same individuals claim there is no danger does not equate to such.
Do I believe there is risk, yes, a very small risk. Is it worth not getting vaccines - I don't think so. Can certain actions potentially reduce that risk - possibly.
Should we blindly accept the safety of drugs, vaccines, etc because we're told they're safe and here's the scientific study to prove it? Really, if that was an absolute proof than what about the hundreds of drugs which have been pulled off the market even though such proof stated they were safe; until years later when they were pulled.
***
Is there a trend of people who refuse to think rationally and have no scientific understanding - yes!
Is there also a trend of people who are unthinking believe anything because that's the commonly accepted at the moment trend of scientific dogma - yes!
I am proud to be neither....I hope you will decide to be neither as well.
Not all concerns on vaccinations are invalid. We have to be careful not to fall prey to making "science & progress" a religion and deifying it.
1. Vaccines are a great thing and have saved millions of lives.
2. They have a great track record but not a perfect one. Overall they are well worth it for society.
3. Just because a study shows no signs of claimed issues does NOT mean such claims are invalid. Anyone having worked in a production environment is aware that some production batches are sub-par. QA is designed to catch most of these. But anyone that has bought a defective product knows it's never perfect. So a study merely shows that a good batch does not have harmful effects. It is very difficult for a "scientific study" to take into account the effects of those who have received vaccinations from sub-par batches of production.
4. Many claims of concern are circumspect, baseless and without merit. While others are more indeterminate. A few throughout history have after much criticism, denial, etc been shown to in fact pose risk.
5. Another valid concern is the tendency to apply too many vaccinations concurrently to a young child who's immune system is still in development. What affect does receiving three or even five or more vaccinations in a short period have on a very young child? Furthermore, the assumption all children will respond the same is not valid. And to some parents too great a risk. (ie: there has been evidence that some children have more difficulty metabolising certain agents than others - likewise, some may have more difficulty handling numerous strong immune responses simultaneously). Simply spreading out the vaccinations a bit might a wise thing to do.
But it can be far too easy to merely criticize such parents concerns on the basis of the dogmatic belief in science. Decrying them as heretics in what should be science and not a religion.
He's pro-life, but doesn't believe the Constitution grants authority on this matter and believes it should be left up to the individual states.
BTW...
;)
You're a lawyer, so I have an idea for you....you could make a killing.
"Battery Insurance" for hybrids and electric cars.
They pay you a small fee, as many people will not be fully confident that the batteries of their vehicle will last 5 yrs, 10yrs...
So they buy it "battery insurance" like an extended warranty. If the batteries die out, then you pay the replacement cost. However, since warranties will cover the first 3 yrs, maybe even 5 yrs...you should have at least 3-5 yrs to invest and build interest. Plus the possibility (or you might even consider, probability) that the batteries will last 10 yrs - in which case you'd have zero payout.
All of that becomes profit plus interest. That said, many people might shell out $250 bucks for that 'assurance' that they'll get at least 10 yrs out of their batteries.
My one caveat with the idea. If you do do it, please at least consider donating 50% of the net profits toward a good cause.
Makes you wonder if the rocks would go faster with KY jelly or the latest most slippery lubicrant of love.
a) I've used a variety of lithium batteries, and while most might have been lithium cobalt oxide. The fact of the matter is that present LiIon batteries have shown themselves to be dangerous.
YES!!!! There is new technology being developed. (Lithiated metal phosphate, manganese oxide, iron phosphate, as well as nano-construction developments. There is also research into ultra-capacitors.
But the truth of the matter is that most of these new developments, are just that... "new". And and their risks are yet undetermined. And frankly, as much as I am for electric vehicles and getting rid of the I.C.E. - I support the taking an extra couple of years for safety's sake.
***
(b) Are you a lawyer? I AM. Liability laws differ by state. There were definitely legal alternatives that GM could have used to completely insulate themselves from ANY liability. GM chose not to because they lacked the vision to see that eventually all cars will be electric.
Should have figured, you felt like a lawyer. Anyways, this is America. There is nothing "definitive" within our legal system. That is one thing most Americans are fairly convinced of these days. BTW...thanks to your ilk.
***
FUD I'm spreading, "Who killed the electric car" is FUD. And it's the worst thing ever created for promoting electric cars and getting rid of the I.C.E.
And do I have a vendetta against that movie and all who sputter on about it....yes I do. And no, I am not some big auto troll.
I just dislike inaccurate documentaries that misportray events and realities and then cause people to demonize others based on that misinformation.
***
"it would be better if you did a little research about the electric vehicle industry. Go look at projectbetterplace.com. I have owned / built three electric cars and I can honestly say that the FUD you are spreading is completely unwarranted."
First off, I will check out projectbetterplace.com
Second, I've followed EV1 for nearly 15 yrs now since it was first prototyped as the "Impact".
Thirdly, the fact that you have owned/built three electric cars means very little to me. Why, there are people who've built themselves jets, and rockets, and more. The fact is, three does not equate to 30 million. And those are the risks a large automobile manufacturer must take into account.
***
"Correction: Electric Cars will make up a significant percentage of passenger cars on the roads in the years to come."
And you presume that I don't agree, or support that fact?
Electric drive trains is the future. Of that we're quite agreed. Hybrids are merely a transitory that derailed the electric car movement. (ie: Toyota & Honda got California to waive the zero emissions and count their hybrids in lieu, essentially nailing the coffin on electric cars for about a decade. They took the easy road and get all the credit for a quick fix. GM is demonized for the EV1, which was not viable economicaly. That said, had a zero emissions mandate remained, the EV1 would have been economically viable.)
"The problem today is that purchasing an electric car is rather expensive, but this will change when an electric vehicle finally enters mass production, competition begins and prices come down."
Agreed...
Furthermore, one of the main costs is the lack of infrastructure. And part of the solution for implementing electric cars is to implement more solar on a home basis. (ie: converting all roofing to solar cells). Once again currently limited by a lack of mass production.
My vision for the future...
Vehicles similar to the Chevy Volt concept. An electric drive train + aux. power source. Initially utilizing I.C.E. technology be it gasoline, bio/diesel, ethanol, later more advanced technology such as fuel cells (at least on larger vehicles such as trains, etc). And eventually years down the road a holy grail of sorts (ie: Mr. Fusion from back to the future).
In the meantime, we could move from gaso
Or mounted a GPS on the a few of the rocks along with a camera. Movement recorded by the GPS would trigger the camera. Relay a signal that the rock is moving...informing scientists to come out and watch the rock move.
Then, we'd finally have some new sound for the record labels to market. Instead of the same ol' same ol rock'n'roll, we'd be able to actually record a new style rock'n'slide baby!
To the SOB above...
a) If LithiumIon batteries are so safe, how come so many super-heat, even ignite and explode. There is no other battery I've ever worked with that I've had more close calls with the LiIon. And these are merely AA's and cell phone/PDA batteries. But case after case of them super-heating, cells rupturing.
b) Sure, there are people who were willing to sign waivers. However, in our courts waivers do not always supersede liability. And yes, people think it'd have been just that simple. But it's not...
Thank you...
I am not opposed to their use. I just don't think condemning GM and others for waiting a couple of years and advancing the battery technology, mainly to improve it's effectiveness and safety is right.
Lithium Ion batteries can get very hot and self-explode. This is far less common with most other commercially available batteries. However, few other types of batteries are as light weight and store as much energy at LIon.
I've already read of some experiments being done with regards to improving the technology. Some includes small cells each with thermal sensors to de-activate their use if they begin to overheat. Others include nanotech engineering the cells in a far more stable structure at the microscopic level.
To me, these are worthwhile investments. And I'd much rather wait till 2010 then find me and my family in flames...
They never sold them...because if they tried to sell them no one but a few Hollywood actors and millionaires would have bought one. [FACT]
Honda Insight was not a super-complex built by hand vehicle like the GM EV1 [FACT]
Honda Insight was far cheaper to build than GM's EV1 [FACT]
Honda Insight was far less expensive and was not economically viable [FACT]
"That said, given the expensive cars that some people will buy, I'm not going for the economically unviable argument there either. Tesla has, IIRC, sold out their entire first year's production run... at $100,000 a pop."
Thinking that a $100,000 car is economically viable for the common man equates to moronic thought.[FACT]
You're probably right regarding LiIon versus Hydrogen. But gasoline and diesel are known quantities. We know how they react, and we know how to put those fires out. And while in rare cases an accident might cause such fuels to ignite. The danger of Lithium Ion batteries is that they're more spontaneous in the combustion. And standard fire fighting equipment may not work as well on such chemical fires.
In all my years of driving cars, and working gasoline motors I've never had one go up in flames or even really come close. I've had several lithium ion batteries get super hot (where if I had not removed them they would likely have ignited) and a few swell up by 50% of their size. So that my cell phone battery cover would not fit anymore. So there is a real and present danger that requires necessary improvements in the technologies.
a) The math: $35-$75 saved is not a monthly figure; for most of us that's a weekly figure or at least an every other weekly figure. So if you normally fill up your car 1 to 4 times a month as most people in the U.S. do. Then it is a substantial discount.
b) Regarding the $200 month cost and savings of only 1/2 that. You're forgetting that you're also not spending money on electricity. However for the average person the electric bill is around $50-$100/month. So if you can save another $100 or more in gas via solar cells. Than you come much closer to the black on your investment.
c) We're not talking about making solar cells pay for themselves right off the bat, but rather, when doing cost versus savings analysis. Being able to replace your gasoline purchases with the solar cell investment makes them much more economical and greatly increases the weight of purchase.
d) Buying now is not a bad decision if you can meet your needs. If your current solar cells at their current efficiency meet your needs annually, then more efficiency isn't necessary. (Though it might provide you with a more attractive house.)
Not really....
The vehicle is not vaporware,...the design is not vaporware.
The "safe", "efficient", and "effective" battery is what's vaporware.
(And they and many other manufacturers are heavily investing in battery technology improvements.)
Troll...bah...
The trolls are the !@#$% idiots who watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and than damn GM without having a real clue. I keep hearing people criticize GM for not releasing a car with our present LiIon battery tech.
But the truth is, said technology in it's current form is not very safe. Especially if you are enclosed in the said technology rather than just wearing it.
Say GM were to sell 20,000 vehicles. Then a few cars have their LiIon batteries ignite and people die. Can you imagine the lawsuit? the recall? it'd kill GM...
Frankly, I'd rather they take a couple more years and improve the battery technology and put safeguards.
And if that makes me a troll. I'll take being a troll over being a moronic twit any day.
***
Oh yeah, to all those who claim the EV1 was viable. Please note that Honda's Insight which had only 1/2 the inconveniences of the EV1 and cost about a 1/4 of what the EV1 did to build was deemed a financial failure. (Even though it got the best mpg in the country.) The car was removed from the market because it was economically unviable.
TROLLS are far better than little stupid twits who watch movies made by stupid twits.
Allows you to drive up to 640 miles via it's generator. Since it is just a generator, they can optimize it's performance for charging. There is no need to have all the transmission aspects of a I.C.E. attached to a drive-train. This allows it to be very efficient.
Furthermore, having the means to charge your vehicle in the garage (with a net savings for $35-$75 a fill-up times x number of fill-ups per year) alters the value of solar cell roofing.
Those uber-expensive solar panels on your roof that cost you an extra $200/month for the next 10 yrs, all of a sudden are not quite as costly in your budget when they eliminate $100 or more in expenditures on gasoline.
These vehicles will likely spur major growth in solar cell production.
Were any of those people "inside" their laptops & iPods when they exploded?
Um....I think not!
Just a couple of questions...
a) Media Streaming...when I open up iTunes I see all my audio files on my ReadyNAS show up in a shared listing in iTunes. But if I try to play one of the songs - nothing happens. What do I need to do for this?
b) Print server...as I understand it, it will only work with a limited number of printers or postscript mode. So I'm SOOL as I made the mistake of buying a Dell Color Laser that only works in Windows. (No post script mode.)
Well, my reasoning stems from two aspects.
1) I thought it's faster to rebuild when spanning more drives.
2) I recall there also being an option, though it uses more space, to add additional redundancy. Alllowing data rebuilds even if two drives go down.
I guess I just like to do risky operations AFTER adding additional resource rather than before.
*shrug*
Total bummer on your data. I picked up a RNV+ a couple months ago. I also have a couple of external HDs. I want to back the NAS up to, just in case of these sorts of things.
I am somewhat confused. You had three disks. You wanted to upgrade to 750gb drives. So you removed one of the three and replaced it with a 750gb?
It's a 4-bay unit. I'd have simply put the first 750gb unit into the 4th bay first. And then start replacing the other drives.
I thought it might be a joke, so I tried reply as such. (hence the little wink)
;-)
Sorry if it came off too dry. (I like my humor like I like my wine.)
Anyways, I probably suffer from both RAS and CRS syndrome. Ironically, I left out 'syndrome' after writing CRS and when I should have in fact written "CRS syndrome" in that particular case (as it's 'Can't Remember Sh*t syndrome'). Alas, I probably suffer from a small bout of paranoia on top of all my other insanities.
All this is to say, I wasn't offended.
Nope, I actually suffer from CRS. I was endeavoring to recall how it was written on an old schematic I had from when I was 8 yrs old.
;)
Though it's clear from your post that you were suffering from RAS as you wrote "RAS syndrome".
Anyways, thanks for the insightful correction. I should have written Knight Industries 2000 (K.I.T.T.)
- Saj