You need to read the "Binary Code License Agreement" because that's where the terms are set. So YEA, you can distribute it, but if you distribute the "commercial features" (and my product does) you need a separate license. They charge for that license.
Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me.
Why not? It's not like we don't grow a lot of other things - food, lumber, medicine, etc...
Food, building materials and drugs from growing things is just a little bit different than growing fuel. Lumber grows on trees and we eat plants, these uses for growing plants is cost effective and necessary. But fuel? We have other sources of fuel yet you want to grow it?
Well ask yourself WHY? Why do you think we should grow fuel?
If your answer is that you want to protect the environment or reduce CO2 emissions, then it's not helping your cause, at all. It doesn't help and it costs a LOT of money. It's stupid to grow fuel if your concern is the environment.
Now if you are not using the environmentalists argument to justify growing fuel, we can talk. I've not yet heard a reasonable argument for this, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Great, but it still doesn't fix the EV's problem of limited range and long recharge times for me. I commute more than 100 miles a day and don't frequent places which are likely going to be configured with the infrastructure anytime soon.
So feel free to dream about how all this will be done someday. Call me when it is, but until then, I don't have much choice but to drive my fossil fueled Honda Accord...
I think you overestimate the utility of a bus that only goes 150 miles and then needs to sit to refuel for a couple of hours.
If you want to go electric powered, do what Boston does... Put up overhead power wires and run buses that can pinch hit by running on fossil fuels when they need to go outside the electrified areas, and leave the heavy battery packs off the bus.
So.... You are claiming that "EVENTUALLY" EVs will be viable.... Maybe so...
However, they are not viable for a lot of folks now. Anybody who commutes more than 100 miles in a day like me doesn't have a viable option in the Electric Vehicle market. There are a significant percentage of people who fall into this category. EV's will need to double their range to be viable for me and in large metropolitan areas it seems likely that a significant number of commuters will still have range issues. Feel free to call me when we can reliably get 200 miles out of a single 8 hour charge from the 115V 15A receptacle in my garage.
The infrastructure doesn't yet exist for EV's in most areas and development will be slow.. Infrastructure won't be built until EV's exist to use it and EV's won't be practical until the infrastructure is there. This is similar to the infrastructure we've build up around gasoline, where gas stations and the distribution infrastructure didn't exist until the automobile came into common use, and automobile use didn't really take off until the infrastructure existed. For EV's the distribution infrastructure exists, but the recharging stations are *still* not getting developed. Why? Because EV's take hours to fully charge in the best case when attached to high rate chargers, and can take more than half a day to recharge when using 115V 15A sources. Literally you spend nearly HALF of your travel time hooked up to a charger on long trips. So that "over the river and through the woods" trip to grandma's doesn't work out so well. Nobody really wants to make that 8 hour trip into 16 hours.
So you want to do things like quick change batteries and "in motion" charging to deal with this. Neither are solutions which work now and both solutions have even more infrastructure problems than just wiring up charging stations every 50 miles. Replacing batteries requires some kind of standard battery format used by enough vehicles to make this work. EV battery packs are pretty darned expensive things (in the tens of thousands of dollars at least) and unless there are enough of them out there to be assured of having a fully charged battery ready when some vehicle shows up for a swap, being able to quickly change packs doesn't help anybody. You will need one or two batteries on the shelf, and that's a boat load of inventory cost, the equipment to charge them sans the car plus the equipment necessary to do the swap. This is sounding pretty expensive for that back woods gas station operator trying to make a living off of selling overpriced gas to the few cars willing to jump off the road to fill up or use the bathroom.
So, it's going to be awhile for your dreams to happen. IMHO - I'm just guessing that something else will come along before then, but Call me when you think EV's are viable replacements for fossil fueled transportation.
Depends on how often we keep seeing this company in the news. Once you haven't seen them in the news for about a year, then let's talk. Obviously they are enjoying the PR bump in sales now..
Java is LICENSED by Oracle who doesn't give out the source code... Go is BSD licensed and has source code so you can build your own copy.
Check with Oracle about the terms they use if you want to distribute their Java Virtual Machine in a commercial product. I can assure you it involves you providing them with cash before they will let you even distribute Java, unmodified, as part of your product. I know this from experience. I'll warn you, Java from Oracle does NOT come cheap if you wish to distribute it. Sure they will let you and your customer download it for free, but they want their cut if you download and distribute Java to a customer.
With Go, there will be no such restriction. You can build and distribute Go to your hearts content w/o paying anybody even if you charge for it. You can embed Go in a project, modify it and sell it without having to give up your source code (as I read the license) as long as you leave the BSD license alone.
A battery powered BUS? Now that's just nuts. 150 miles in a day is all they can do? You better get more out of your bus fleet in a day than 150 miles per bus or you are wasting the resources. Looking at Chicago's bus routes, I can assure you 150 miles is just getting started for a bus, which is likely going to do two to three times that in 24 hours. You'd be better off using CNG powered vehicles which can be quickly fueled, or if you simply must go electric, use a bus/trolley system that uses overhead line for power when possible.
Personally I like the ideas behind parts of the transit system in Boston, specifically the connection from downtown to the airport. THAT is an idea that works really well if you ask me. For those of you who don't know, I'll try to explain how it works.
They have these busses which are both electric powered and diesel powered depending on where they are. For part of their route they run in tunnels which are for them alone, mostly around down town. For these parts of the system they are powered by overhead electric lines and they are emissions free. However because it was difficult and expensive to have the entire route electrified because they needed to share the road with the general public, there where parts of the route where the bus ran on diesel. There where other bus/trolley routes which where either all electric or split like this route, and of course a light rail passenger link.
Generally I don't support light rail systems for mass transit. They are expensive, inflexible and soak up cash. Bus based systems are much better, they are generally cheap, flexible and you can control your operating costs. And I like the approach in Boston, where they use multi-mode buses to extend their light rail's reach economically. It's flexible, low cost, easily expanded and it works fairly well.
Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me. All this ethanol we are making and burning in our gasoline powered cars is pretty stupid environmentally, as is growing oily crops just to burn as fuel. It's also very expensive.
Personally, and I know this isn't popular with the huge farming voting block, I don't think we should do this, any more than we should pay farmers not to grow specific crops like we have in the past.
I'm wondering why we are even considering this, it doesn't really help with anything...
All these clever ideas will never really allow us to do away with the two simple problems that an EV has, limited range followed by long recharge times. Once you got outside of the electrified roadway area, you have 100 miles before you stopped either charging or walking and nothing we do from a public infrastructure standpoint will fix that. EV's just don't yet work for a lot of folks, and putting all this time and money into crazy ideas for charging while driving isn't the answer.
To be honest, diesel is dirtier than gasoline no matter how you slice it. It's just really hard to keep diesel emissions down and we've not been pushing the technology to do so as hard as gasoline engines. European governments have pushed diesel use in the past though favorable treatment in tax codes, not necessarily trying to get more diesel cars, but more to permute diesel's use as a transportation fuel.
I think the article writer is engaged in some wishful thinking though and you are correct that the author is certainly biased. But I also see where it could be read as advocating for regulatory changes which seem long over due in Europe. It's an opinion piece, not a news report....
Haven't we had electrified railroads and electric busses that use overhead wires? Why do we insist on trying to re-invent stuff that already works?
(sarcasm)
Better yet, why don't you use the magnets to Push/Pull the vehicles down the road and just use regenitive breaking to charge the battery or something that doesn't require you to redesign everything almost from scratch?
Here's another idea... Build tracks with steel rails that you can drive your car onto. Charge the rails (or a third rail if you want) to both power the cars and charge the batteries. Self driving cars would be easy because you'd only need to bother with what's on the tracks in front of you so the automation is easier. Cost would be similar to light rail systems, without the stations or trains. In fact, the local rapid transit authority could provide on demand public vehicles which could use the same infrastructure to provide point to point transit within the covered area. You'd schedule and pay for the vehicle using something akin to UBER. All this requires is a public standard for rail widths and how to extract power from the system, plus some public protocols to handle communicating with the automation in the vehicles using the system and for some manufacturer to start selling cars that implement all this....
Ah, well that question doesn't have a clear answer from the information given.
Python is a scripting language, Go, not so much. I think Python would have a bit lower footprint in terms of disk space used and memory consumed so it might be a bit faster in a resource constrained environment where a C programmer might find themselves, but for most applications you'd write in Python I doubt there is much of a noticeable difference if you wrote it in Go.
Go is basically useful in the same kinds of use cases where Java might be, user interfaces on varying platforms. The question of which one might be better boils down to which one is easier to get working on your platform. I suspect that it will be much easier to build Python for most platforms than Go, but I've not built either myself.
OK.. Split hairs if you want, it's the same thing to me. They drew attention to themselves, got lots of media attention and turned that into customers. It all starts from the media coverage. If you are thinking that prospective customers are choosing them because of their business model, fine, I'm not arguing that. But how many will stay if they have to charge more to stay afloat? Better yet, Will they have to charge more? Right now, it's really hard to know but it's accurate to say they are currently benefiting from the FREE PR they have been getting.
Actually, If you think about how you might track a cruse missile using Radar, especially one that is designed to follow the terrain at low levels, having a radar system which is up high and stationary makes sense. You'd also be able to track ballistic munitions tracks like mortars and smaller missiles from this vantage point.
Of course, it does afford you the perfect vantage point to track pretty much all moment on the ground, which is something the military needs to be very careful about doing for constitutional reasons.
Go is obviously not for what you do. Neither is Java or C# for that matter..
I would put Go's useful problem space to be nearly exactly the same as Java and C#, with one notable difference, Go is not controlled by Oracle or Microsoft. I'm not sure how that matters, but it's something.
Their sales department has enjoyed going from 90 to 2,000 unsolicited contacts which is TOTALY due to the PR they are getting.
Okay, fine. So WHY would they get the unsolicited contacts?
Why did they get the 20 fold increase in contacts? From the PR generated by the international press coverage.... Or are you suggesting some other cause?
Slashdot Mirror
You need to read the "Binary Code License Agreement" because that's where the terms are set. So YEA, you can distribute it, but if you distribute the "commercial features" (and my product does) you need a separate license. They charge for that license.
Nothing is simple, especially where one is discussing environmental impact caused by transportation.
Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me.
Why not? It's not like we don't grow a lot of other things - food, lumber, medicine, etc...
Food, building materials and drugs from growing things is just a little bit different than growing fuel. Lumber grows on trees and we eat plants, these uses for growing plants is cost effective and necessary. But fuel? We have other sources of fuel yet you want to grow it?
Well ask yourself WHY? Why do you think we should grow fuel?
If your answer is that you want to protect the environment or reduce CO2 emissions, then it's not helping your cause, at all. It doesn't help and it costs a LOT of money. It's stupid to grow fuel if your concern is the environment.
Now if you are not using the environmentalists argument to justify growing fuel, we can talk. I've not yet heard a reasonable argument for this, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
Great, but it still doesn't fix the EV's problem of limited range and long recharge times for me. I commute more than 100 miles a day and don't frequent places which are likely going to be configured with the infrastructure anytime soon.
So feel free to dream about how all this will be done someday. Call me when it is, but until then, I don't have much choice but to drive my fossil fueled Honda Accord...
I think you overestimate the utility of a bus that only goes 150 miles and then needs to sit to refuel for a couple of hours.
If you want to go electric powered, do what Boston does... Put up overhead power wires and run buses that can pinch hit by running on fossil fuels when they need to go outside the electrified areas, and leave the heavy battery packs off the bus.
So.... You are claiming that "EVENTUALLY" EVs will be viable.... Maybe so...
However, they are not viable for a lot of folks now. Anybody who commutes more than 100 miles in a day like me doesn't have a viable option in the Electric Vehicle market. There are a significant percentage of people who fall into this category. EV's will need to double their range to be viable for me and in large metropolitan areas it seems likely that a significant number of commuters will still have range issues. Feel free to call me when we can reliably get 200 miles out of a single 8 hour charge from the 115V 15A receptacle in my garage.
The infrastructure doesn't yet exist for EV's in most areas and development will be slow.. Infrastructure won't be built until EV's exist to use it and EV's won't be practical until the infrastructure is there. This is similar to the infrastructure we've build up around gasoline, where gas stations and the distribution infrastructure didn't exist until the automobile came into common use, and automobile use didn't really take off until the infrastructure existed. For EV's the distribution infrastructure exists, but the recharging stations are *still* not getting developed. Why? Because EV's take hours to fully charge in the best case when attached to high rate chargers, and can take more than half a day to recharge when using 115V 15A sources. Literally you spend nearly HALF of your travel time hooked up to a charger on long trips. So that "over the river and through the woods" trip to grandma's doesn't work out so well. Nobody really wants to make that 8 hour trip into 16 hours.
So you want to do things like quick change batteries and "in motion" charging to deal with this. Neither are solutions which work now and both solutions have even more infrastructure problems than just wiring up charging stations every 50 miles. Replacing batteries requires some kind of standard battery format used by enough vehicles to make this work. EV battery packs are pretty darned expensive things (in the tens of thousands of dollars at least) and unless there are enough of them out there to be assured of having a fully charged battery ready when some vehicle shows up for a swap, being able to quickly change packs doesn't help anybody. You will need one or two batteries on the shelf, and that's a boat load of inventory cost, the equipment to charge them sans the car plus the equipment necessary to do the swap. This is sounding pretty expensive for that back woods gas station operator trying to make a living off of selling overpriced gas to the few cars willing to jump off the road to fill up or use the bathroom.
So, it's going to be awhile for your dreams to happen. IMHO - I'm just guessing that something else will come along before then, but Call me when you think EV's are viable replacements for fossil fueled transportation.
Depends on how often we keep seeing this company in the news. Once you haven't seen them in the news for about a year, then let's talk. Obviously they are enjoying the PR bump in sales now..
Pushing their proprietary formats, was the first thing.
So wouldn't that be BetaMax if it's the first proprietary format they pushed? The lost that one too... Sony = slow learners.
Was there anything before BetaMax with Sony's fingerprints on it?
made hackers love to hate them
I'm not a hacker, but I hate Sony too.
But do you LOVE the fact that you hate them? See? Bad people love to hate...
Java is LICENSED by Oracle who doesn't give out the source code... Go is BSD licensed and has source code so you can build your own copy.
Check with Oracle about the terms they use if you want to distribute their Java Virtual Machine in a commercial product. I can assure you it involves you providing them with cash before they will let you even distribute Java, unmodified, as part of your product. I know this from experience. I'll warn you, Java from Oracle does NOT come cheap if you wish to distribute it. Sure they will let you and your customer download it for free, but they want their cut if you download and distribute Java to a customer.
With Go, there will be no such restriction. You can build and distribute Go to your hearts content w/o paying anybody even if you charge for it. You can embed Go in a project, modify it and sell it without having to give up your source code (as I read the license) as long as you leave the BSD license alone.
A battery powered BUS? Now that's just nuts. 150 miles in a day is all they can do? You better get more out of your bus fleet in a day than 150 miles per bus or you are wasting the resources. Looking at Chicago's bus routes, I can assure you 150 miles is just getting started for a bus, which is likely going to do two to three times that in 24 hours. You'd be better off using CNG powered vehicles which can be quickly fueled, or if you simply must go electric, use a bus/trolley system that uses overhead line for power when possible.
Personally I like the ideas behind parts of the transit system in Boston, specifically the connection from downtown to the airport. THAT is an idea that works really well if you ask me. For those of you who don't know, I'll try to explain how it works.
They have these busses which are both electric powered and diesel powered depending on where they are. For part of their route they run in tunnels which are for them alone, mostly around down town. For these parts of the system they are powered by overhead electric lines and they are emissions free. However because it was difficult and expensive to have the entire route electrified because they needed to share the road with the general public, there where parts of the route where the bus ran on diesel. There where other bus/trolley routes which where either all electric or split like this route, and of course a light rail passenger link.
Generally I don't support light rail systems for mass transit. They are expensive, inflexible and soak up cash. Bus based systems are much better, they are generally cheap, flexible and you can control your operating costs. And I like the approach in Boston, where they use multi-mode buses to extend their light rail's reach economically. It's flexible, low cost, easily expanded and it works fairly well.
Actually it's the primary debate for me. It makes zero sense (and cents) to go out and actively *grow* motor fuels by farming plants to me. All this ethanol we are making and burning in our gasoline powered cars is pretty stupid environmentally, as is growing oily crops just to burn as fuel. It's also very expensive.
Personally, and I know this isn't popular with the huge farming voting block, I don't think we should do this, any more than we should pay farmers not to grow specific crops like we have in the past.
I'm wondering why we are even considering this, it doesn't really help with anything...
All these clever ideas will never really allow us to do away with the two simple problems that an EV has, limited range followed by long recharge times. Once you got outside of the electrified roadway area, you have 100 miles before you stopped either charging or walking and nothing we do from a public infrastructure standpoint will fix that. EV's just don't yet work for a lot of folks, and putting all this time and money into crazy ideas for charging while driving isn't the answer.
To be honest, diesel is dirtier than gasoline no matter how you slice it. It's just really hard to keep diesel emissions down and we've not been pushing the technology to do so as hard as gasoline engines. European governments have pushed diesel use in the past though favorable treatment in tax codes, not necessarily trying to get more diesel cars, but more to permute diesel's use as a transportation fuel.
I think the article writer is engaged in some wishful thinking though and you are correct that the author is certainly biased. But I also see where it could be read as advocating for regulatory changes which seem long over due in Europe. It's an opinion piece, not a news report....
Of course, emission TESTING standards might get improved in ways that can catch cheaters faster...
Haven't we had electrified railroads and electric busses that use overhead wires? Why do we insist on trying to re-invent stuff that already works?
(sarcasm)
Better yet, why don't you use the magnets to Push/Pull the vehicles down the road and just use regenitive breaking to charge the battery or something that doesn't require you to redesign everything almost from scratch?
Here's another idea... Build tracks with steel rails that you can drive your car onto. Charge the rails (or a third rail if you want) to both power the cars and charge the batteries. Self driving cars would be easy because you'd only need to bother with what's on the tracks in front of you so the automation is easier. Cost would be similar to light rail systems, without the stations or trains. In fact, the local rapid transit authority could provide on demand public vehicles which could use the same infrastructure to provide point to point transit within the covered area. You'd schedule and pay for the vehicle using something akin to UBER. All this requires is a public standard for rail widths and how to extract power from the system, plus some public protocols to handle communicating with the automation in the vehicles using the system and for some manufacturer to start selling cars that implement all this....
(/sarcasm)
Ah, well that question doesn't have a clear answer from the information given.
Python is a scripting language, Go, not so much. I think Python would have a bit lower footprint in terms of disk space used and memory consumed so it might be a bit faster in a resource constrained environment where a C programmer might find themselves, but for most applications you'd write in Python I doubt there is much of a noticeable difference if you wrote it in Go.
Go is basically useful in the same kinds of use cases where Java might be, user interfaces on varying platforms. The question of which one might be better boils down to which one is easier to get working on your platform. I suspect that it will be much easier to build Python for most platforms than Go, but I've not built either myself.
I was not going to say anything but that is the most asinine way of thinking. So where did you get your degree, from a cracker jack box?
No, it was the close cover before striking school of engineering...
And with that, we are done.... I might choose to read the rest of your rant, some day when I have time to waste, just not today.
OK.. Split hairs if you want, it's the same thing to me. They drew attention to themselves, got lots of media attention and turned that into customers. It all starts from the media coverage. If you are thinking that prospective customers are choosing them because of their business model, fine, I'm not arguing that. But how many will stay if they have to charge more to stay afloat? Better yet, Will they have to charge more? Right now, it's really hard to know but it's accurate to say they are currently benefiting from the FREE PR they have been getting.
Actually, If you think about how you might track a cruse missile using Radar, especially one that is designed to follow the terrain at low levels, having a radar system which is up high and stationary makes sense. You'd also be able to track ballistic munitions tracks like mortars and smaller missiles from this vantage point.
Of course, it does afford you the perfect vantage point to track pretty much all moment on the ground, which is something the military needs to be very careful about doing for constitutional reasons.
Mistakes were made....
Thank you Captain Obvious...
So the military is sending up a trial balloon?
I wonder what the reaction might be..
How does 'The Go Programming Language' compare to 'The C Programming Language'?
About as well as Java compares with "C" and in almost exactly the same ways.
Go is obviously not for what you do. Neither is Java or C# for that matter..
I would put Go's useful problem space to be nearly exactly the same as Java and C#, with one notable difference, Go is not controlled by Oracle or Microsoft. I'm not sure how that matters, but it's something.
Their sales department has enjoyed going from 90 to 2,000 unsolicited contacts which is TOTALY due to the PR they are getting.
Okay, fine. So WHY would they get the unsolicited contacts?
Why did they get the 20 fold increase in contacts? From the PR generated by the international press coverage.... Or are you suggesting some other cause?